heyrabbit

mine is the windows 98 default green. oh yeah (and yes I still use win98)

the hide and seek bit was one of the best scenes of the movie, and one of the best comedy bits I've seen in a movie in a long time. You think it's not serious enough? it's about ALIEN ROBOTS who disguise themselves as cars. The producers did a near perfect job of not being too serious(which would make the movie lame) as well as not being too slapstick. Half of the movie could have been lame political drama(oval office scenes) or dialogue. The characterization lied in Shia and the humans and that's where it should have been. And was all a good excuse to show off transforming robots, perfect. Trust me, the movie would have been goofy and cartoony if they had any extensive dialogue between the autobots. despite that, they still managed to give character to bumble bee through the radio etc.

atheism is extremely easy, but it's still the most reasonable answer. it's also not a cop out because how can being alive be a cop out? what would I be copping out to? is it a cop out to be an atheist in regards to vampires? the mythology/rumor phenomenon is very real and very fascinating. we've all played broken telephone, etc. all it takes for a story to become completely distorted is for one person to say one thing to one other person. Multiply that by billions of people and well, you get the idea.

two good scottish names

geography of thought - I forget the author it examines the cognitive differences between the east and west and the possible reasons for it. for example... individualism arose out of greece because of its hilly topography. it's more conducive to isolated groups. etc, fascinatinbg

This might be the best action movie I've ever seen. I can't think of anything with a greater display of cinematography. better than 300 they pulled no punches with the animation. it was ridiculously extensive. unlike most action movies, they went all out with the characters displaying 8 decepticons and 5 autobots. this was refreshing - a change from the normal 1 good guy, 1 bad guy format of all the other live action movies based on series from the 80's (batman, spiderman, etc) This movie makes the spiderman trilogy look like crap. optimus's voice was done by the same guy who did it in the original cartoon. So the movie had the feel of the original. they added a lot of 80's quirks.

Fraser. after the river

haha. well it was written before you were born. you might not know it, but the people controlling the quality of your life have read it.

there must have been billions of jesus's who've existed . the reason why I can say that there's a greater chance of santa existing is because it's not impossible to fly around the world delivering presents. It is impossible to be the Christian(generally accepted) god. god can't be omniscient as well as omnipotent. If the christian god doesn't exist then Jesus the messiah didn't either. but to answer this quote... I'll respond with a Matrix quote ;) As a matter of fact I haven't celebrated christmas or easter in years, although I do love the holidays and their traditions. you know as well as i do that modern day christmas has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity apart from whoever chooses to celebrate it in that way. Christmas is more of a pagan holiday. there are more pagan traditions in christmas than actual christian traditions. of course it's easy to claim that god doesn't exist. That's because one doesn't need to claim negatives in science. is it easy for you to claim that you don't weigh 400 lbs? is it easy for you to claim that you don't know the name of every city in Egypt? so you don't deny that santa exists because there's no proof? the agnostic position holds no weight because there's no more reason to believe that a god might exist than there is reason to believe that Transformers might exist, or ghosts might exist, fairies might exist, goblins might exist etc, or any other number of infinite possible fictional realities. a fictional negative is a completely invalid argument. Nobody ever went to jail on the basis that there might be evidence of murder etc. the fact there is no evidence is not a trivial problem. I'm not being rigid in asking for evidence because evidence is what makes you believe absolutely ANYTHING, not just seemingly important questions. and you demand evidence in every other area of life.beliefs come in varying degrees of certainty. evidence is what makes you believe in something; good evidence is how "know" something is true. you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc. so it's a problem that there's more evidence of dirt on my shoe than of god. saying there might be a god is a cop out to reason, but what am I copping out to? Why is it a cop out to say there's no santa because there's no proof, but it's not a cop out to say there's no god?

there's no evidence of a higher power, or of jesus for that matter. what I meant to say is that the christian god doesn't exist, but you can throw jesus in there as well. you know, the trinity and all that. I don't nit-pick about that it sounds silly,I know, to compare jesus with santa, but in reality it's exactly the same thing. they're both mythological characters. it's just that one is from hte 19th century, or whatever, and jesus is from the 1st century. and actually, you could say that there's a greater chance of santa existing because he is not logically false whereas christ is. it's not impossible to fly over the world, although it is impossible to be chrsit

because religion is just a more extensive set of ideas about the state of the world. whether or not there's one idea, or many ideas, it's the same. being vague about a belief does'nt increase it's validity I mean no offense, but I think to say that a higher power created evolution is just moving the cop-out back 6 billion years. god created evolution and THEN things began to evolve.

just because someone's religoius, that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. Everyone in Isaac newton's day was at the very least culturally religious. So that doesn't mean anything. although I can pin point religion as a common denominator of trouble. Every bad person is an atheist. but that's also nothing special because every single person in the world is an atheist we don't know everything, of course, but that's not a point in religions favor. philosophically I can't say a god I've never heard of doesn't exist, but I can say that jesus doesn't exist, and allah doesn't exist, and thor, and poseidon

I don't buy the whole "daniel was once sick but is now revitalized" thing. I've seen him in a few recent interviews and he looks sicker now than he did before neon. tv reveals a lot. he looked happy during frogstomp, sick during neon, . I don't know with that being said, they don't know how to make bad music.

1. belief in false things is delusion. that's just what the word means. I can say that I know that every false god is false because there's absolutely no evidence. science works by proving positives not by disproving negatives. the only requirement for "knowing" that god doesn't is exist is that you are born. nobody is agnostic about the existence of vampires or fairies. nobody is ever required to explain how they "know" that leprechauns don't exist. we know they don't exist because it's mythology and there's no evidence , just like god. 2. my problem with faith is that it's the antithesis of reason. and if reason is the highest virtue then that makes faith the greatest evil you can't really dissociate faith about god from religion because they're the same thing. religious faith has not only condoned but specifically demanded homophobia,rape,slavery, murder etc. if you want to talk about faith in general then I'd ask you what's wrong about being ignorant? what's wrong with knowing something without having good reasons for knowing it? the more credulous and ignorant a person is , the more likely they're going to hurt themselves or someone else. and so it's not surprising that when you look at instances in history where people have the same sort of religious-like adulation, without believing in a god, you get stuff like the k.k.k, Hitler,etc. when you have an extreme faith in aliens and you try to become a doctor, you're laughed out of the room. and that's important. it's just as important for religious people to be marginalized from positions of importance in society but there's a double standard that allows for extreme faith in false gods. 3. if religion could survive conversation it wouldn't be completely taboo to speak about in public. religion's survival actually depends on people's ability to simultaneously submit to it and ignore it because as soon as you start to talk about it, it doesn't make any sense. it takes 2 seconds for most people to recognize a logical fallacy in religion. that's why religious people "don't want to talk about it". also meg, religion has caused just about every major war in recent civilization. that hurt a few people

anyone who frequents politics and debate knows my opinion on this. I'll summarize my position anyway -faith is a real delusoin. every god is false -religion is the worst philosophy you'll ever find -faith was/is an ancient survival tool for primitive man. it was once necessary, although it has become a bane of the civilized world. it encourages, murder, homophobia, rape, slavery, etc. -people are genetically and socially predisposed to faith. so faith is not necessarily a great indicator of lack of intelligence, although it is a sign of delusion, indoctrination, and naivety also, the reason why people don't want to talk about religion is because religion can't survive conversation.

hahah, that's why I love you beth.

obviously I'm going to object to your statement that... I don't think you actual mean that because all good scientists are philosophers and all good philosophers are scientists. however, not every philosopher is,say, a biologist or a chemist or whatever. good philosophers are scientists, but epistemological scientists.They study abstract principles, not physical. Einstein the scientist didn't form the theory of relativity, it was Einstein the philosopher.

we the living - ayn rand

what lauren? that's a shame man. what are they telling you? tell your teacher to read a book ask your teacher if he/she thinks it's impossible to know that fairies don't exist the only requirement for not knowing something is that you not know it. If you ever see your teacher again, ask how he manages to not drive his car. seriously, I want to hear the answer

exactly. always readin between the lines eh

they called the wrong people. bill murray and dan akroyd would TCB

a neighbour caught me stealing a car. strange

thanks, I'm you're not offended

an individual's morals is all that matters to the individual. whose morals are you following if not your own? when people say "it matters" it is usually an ambiguous statement. it matters for what reasons, to what degree and according to whom? whether or not your morals are rational depends on how much they agree with reality i.e. how objective they are. Another person's morals "matters" to me insofar as they endanger or improve my life. YES, it is. we have many unique characteristics but our mind is our defining characteristic. What differentiates us from other species is our conceptual capacity( our ability to integrate abstract ideas). we didn't acquire the ability to create skyscrapers because we lost a tail or because we walk upright. If you gave rats the conceptual capacity and knowledge of a human, they could create skyscrapers. No, because everyone else IS confusing evil with virtue. What do you mean by absolutist? Sure, you can differentiate between the severity of actions, but that's different. a virtue is a virtue. You can't hold two separate understandings of a virtue. i.e. reason isn't only virtuous when you're REALLY reasonable. What's evil about kind of killing someone?! If you have a false sense of virtues, it literally means that you don't know what's good -- for yourself and for everyone. generalizations are useful if you want to "kind of" know something. they're useful only to the degree to which they are general. 10% isn't a generalization; it's a precise measurement. you can say that 90% of a set-list sucks, but that's just your subjective opinion. it's useless scientifically.