Until the driving bit, I would have thought it had something to do with a dominant side. Otherwise, we would not go in circles, but weave all over the place. But then again, the car did predominantly go clockwise so maybe there is still something about a dominant side. I think overcorrecting may also play a part.

This is one of the craziest things I've ever seen! I was wondering why they would die from going in circles and apparently they keep going until they die of exhaustion.

>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^Nlt42886:
Second, everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian.

I guess you're on the boat with selective exclusion. I suppose those people won't have a place in your "heaven" either.
You are a member of a cult and should be treated as such. You have been brainwashed.


You do a lot of "guessing" and "supposing" but everything you just said is all your opinion. You say Christians are exclusive but everyone is exclusive. Everyone has a view that excludes all other views. Your view excludes my view. Even if you say you accept all views that itself is a view that excludes all views. I don't speak my opinion, I let scripture speak for itself. If you are going to say something you have to have some basis for why you are saying it. But if I were to ask you "says who" would you be able to say what you said is based on anything more than your opinion. If I claim to be a Christian and we are talking about Christian things, the bible is the only authority I have, not my opinions. Not what I think not what you or anyone else thinks but what scripture says. Otherwise we could go in circles all day debating our opinions. Scripture backs me up on what I said about everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian. I am debating on whether or not certain people are Christians not whether or not Christianity is true. If you are going to hold a debate on what a Christian is, you must not go on opinions, you must first assume the bible is true since the argument isn't on what religion is true but it is on what does a true Christian look like on the basis of what the book they hold as the ultimate authority says a true Christian is. See the video posted was about Christians not about why their religion is wrong or which one is right. It starts with the assumption that a Christian DOES exist. He simply states in his video what HE sees a Christian as but that does not mean that is what a Christian is. If you are going to define a Christian you do not go by the way some people who claim to be Christians act. You must go by the biblical definition of a Christian and see if they line up with what the bible says. The bible tells people who profess to be Christians to test themselves to see if they really are all the time. How would you be able to do that if there were not some distinguishing marks of a true Christian? Here is what scripture says regarding false professors.



Matthew 7:21-23

21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Let's go full circle. They were merely doing their jobs when they took the Jews from the train to the showers.

I could cite examples of torture working so don't tell me that it doesn't.



"Does torture work?" is the wrong question to ask!

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/21/torture_algiers/index.html

Regardless, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!!!

We don't argue that people shouldn't kill because it costs money to investigate murders. That's not the point. Murder is morally wrong and so is torture. That's why we shouldn't do it. We shouldn't get lost in arguing about whether or not torture works. If we do that, we'll get stuck going in circles.

That being said, I'll ask the question one more time so that we can get past it: Does torture work? Of course it does. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate. Is it always an effective method for extracting 100% accurate information? Nobody has argued that it is.

The Bush White House said that "enhanced interrogation" played a critical role in gaining the intelligence needed to stop "many plots".

I say, "So what?" Torture is wrong.

I'd drive it around if that was frolicking, content kittens underneath. Like 5 kittens with a plate attached above them for me to stand on.
"yea! we're going left!!! Yea!! we're going in circles!!! YEEAAhhh! We're kittens happily carrying this human to woooorrrkkk!!"

otherwise, wheels seemed to have been working out just fine.

>> ^r10k:

She asked you a simple question.

^Oh, he's an Ayn Rand fan. Well that explains a lot, now, doesn't it.

Objectivists (who are about as far from objectivity as you can get) are a kooky and delusional lot. It's a pseudo-philosophy that promotes the virtues of being selfish. According to Rand, if we are all selfish and only look out for ourselves, we will all be architects and railroad tycoons.

Hopefully imsteller is still a college student, and will grow out of this phase in a year or two. Truth be told, I spent an entire summer thinking I was Howard Rourke, but I eventually realized that living a life of selfishness and indifference is just sad and that objectivism was beyond stupid. If he's over 30 and still buys into this crap, then I'm afraid he's intellectually doomed.

Anyway, the point is, that this 'philosophy' is actually more of a cult, and you know how cult members will dig in their heals when challenged. So, argue with him all you like, but you'll only be going in circles.

its a sad cycle that will never end; just keep going in circles. the US attacks insurgents civilians get hurt. thus making more insurgents and keeping the US from leaving.. but at the same time if they never went there then this would not be a problem... im sorry but i think i side with the insurgents more then with the US and its allies.

Pilot: "Is it just me, or are we going in circles?"
Co-pilot: "God dammit, you're right. I remember that same cow floating in mid-air."

not everyone has a natural desire to believe in the Easter Bunny. God is different. Universal. Across cultures, even if they never met. You're just poking fun at genuine religious belief and feeling, by using a ridiculous comparison that doesn't actually compare.

I'm not poking fun at you. I believe that both the Easter Bunny and God are imaginary. You shouldn't accuse someone of being insulting for simply stating their beliefs.

Also, theology is not universal; it varies radically from culture to culture as anyone who has studied comparative religion will tell you.

and also we FEEL the supernatural.. but some people aren't listening and don't count it as evidence.

Just because you feel it, doesn't mean that it's real. Are you open to the possibility that God is just a feeling - a figment of your imagination?

Why do people NOT want to believe the supernatural?

Belief is an either/or proposition. People who have given this some thought either DO or DO NOT believe in God. Want is irrelevant.

"Because they were taught in school in a certain restrictive way that cut off their imagination."

I make my living on my imagination. I'm not sure how public schools are in Eastern Europe, but in America, teachers are not allowed to push Atheism or Theism on kids. We give our students the freedom to make their own decisions on such matters.

"They turn their back on god and then say "i can't see god! so he doesn't exist!"

Again, this would not be allowed in American Public schools. If teachers say that in your country, then they are wrong to do so.

what animosity? I just don't think science will ever "prove" atheism, that's studpid, and i don't think the scientific method is compatible with investigation of the spirit, i think science will progress until it discovers God.

Science won't ever 'prove' anything, because science deals in hypothesis' and theories, which are always up for debate. Science can't prove or disprove God, it can only give you probability.

and you call it "intangible assumptions" whereas i call it "things i feel in my heart and in my gut, which is generally much more reliable than my head or wikipedia"

I'm going to let Steven Colbert cover this one.

"The gut. That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."


no. you just hear "anti science" in my writing somehow, you are pushing the polarisation on me, not me on you.

You are getting to the heart of one of the biggest double standards in the theological dialog. When a Theist says 'I believe in God', It is accepted as their point of view without without argument. When an Atheist says "I don't believe in God", Atheists take it as an attack and an insult. Do you see the problem with what you are doing here?

Science isn't currently capable of contradicting my beliefs, and i believe it never will be.

Science says that God is extremely improbable. Scientific theory says that simple beings evolve into more complex beings and never the other way around. Are you OK with this?

euphemism scheuphemism. makes very little difference to me. you just use the word euphemism in an attempt to degrade the idea. God is Love. God is a euphemism for Love. What's the difference? It's all abstract.

Again, you are offended by my beliefs. I'm not attempting to do anything other than tell you my opinion, so please don't accuse me of insulting you.


FWIW i quit going to (anglican) church when i was about 8, because church is a waste of time. I remember we had to draw round our hands and write "Thankyou God for giving me hands". I thought this was absurd, because that implies that god is some kind of asshole who denies some people hands for no reason and i am supposed to be grateful he didn't deny me MY hands? Horrible.

I'm with ya here.

In summary, i think you are allergic to the concept of god, because you have been exposed to so much god related bullshit.

I've studied (and continue to study) religion very thoroughly and not come to any of these conclusions in haste or out of prejudice. I see the value of religion, but my 'gut' tells me God doesn't exist. I don't judge all religious people by the ignorant actions of Bush or bin Laden, or the ignorant words of Dobson or Fahrakahn, in fact I have some dear friends who are religious.


In summary, I think you were taught..

I think you were taught as well.

But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Science and God together in your brain (and heart) helps you understand the world a lot better than science alone.

Atheists don't believe in God, that means there is neither baby nor bathwater to throw out. You can't throw something out that you don't possess.


Maybe science will catch up, but if science can explain love, then you will say it "disproved" god and i will say it "discovered" god.

I'm sure you could easily find a detailed explanation of the physical and psychological aspects of love if you are interested in it. I'm not sure what your point is, as there is no debate (that I know of) on the explanation of love.

Also, once again, I'm not interested in disproving God or proving you wrong. I'm OK with whatever you believe or want to believe. I'm not trying to convert you.

hope that makes some kind of sense.

I get where you are coming from, but it looks like our discussion is just going in circles. Thanks for the good discussion.

Peace.

Good luck!
And if you make it through the Lake Temple, let me know 'cause that's where I'm currently stuck (where IS that ##$%*#!! key...?!)

In reply to your comment:
“Haha! Its so funny you responded to that Yeah, I seem to be able to handle the game well except for those riders. My husband got me out of the last situation w/ those guys in the field

Maybe I'll take them on tonight, thanks for the tip

In reply to your comment:
“Believe me, I feel your pain...ignore the riders, and just target the bird-thing that drops the firebombs that spook the horse. One or two hits and it's done for. It'll re-appear closer to town, so do the same thing. Hope that helps.

In reply to your comment:
“Love it! I'm so stuck in Twilight P. Burning wagon/ambulance thing keeps going in circles. I finally gave up after swearing at it for 30 min.”””

Haha! Its so funny you responded to that Yeah, I seem to be able to handle the game well except for those riders. My husband got me out of the last situation w/ those guys in the field

Maybe I'll take them on tonight, thanks for the tip

In reply to your comment:
“Believe me, I feel your pain...ignore the riders, and just target the bird-thing that drops the firebombs that spook the horse. One or two hits and it's done for. It'll re-appear closer to town, so do the same thing. Hope that helps.

In reply to your comment:
“Love it! I'm so stuck in Twilight P. Burning wagon/ambulance thing keeps going in circles. I finally gave up after swearing at it for 30 min.””

Believe me, I feel your pain...ignore the riders, and just target the bird-thing that drops the firebombs that spook the horse. One or two hits and it's done for. It'll re-appear closer to town, so do the same thing. Hope that helps.

In reply to your comment:
“Love it! I'm so stuck in Twilight P. Burning wagon/ambulance thing keeps going in circles. I finally gave up after swearing at it for 30 min.”

Love it! I'm so stuck in Twilight P. Burning wagon/ambulance thing keeps going in circles. I finally gave up after swearing at it for 30 min.