iglak

read the rest of my post... beef comes from cows that were specifically bred to die and be eaten. i'm fine with eating/disecting organisms like that. sure they died of an unnatural cause, but they were also born and lived unnaturally.

sorry to interrupt your conversation, but here is my 2 cents worth... yeah, i'd actually probably disect any organism (maybe even humans... if i was almost completely done with getting my medical surgeon's degree, and the dead body was donated to science...). IF AND ONLY IF it died of natural causes (possibly including euthanasia). with a demand for dead cats, people go around collecting and killing cats? now that is just SICK!!!!! i would never kill anything (except pesky bugs) unless i am an inch from death, and killing the being will save me (if it's a human, i'd have to weigh out the pluses and the minuses... then weigh them again... then ad extra weight to the minuses... then decide...). at the same time, i have to remember that most small lab animals are basically bread to die, and all meat products come from animals that are bread for the soul purpose of dying... P.S. i'm a junior in a public, California Highschool, and all i've disected was a pig heart.

my personal opinion, which is really kind of psuedoscience, since i have no evidence, i just observed with my eyes and formed a hypothesis... but i will say it anyway. as you know, all animals have DNA, and all organisms have RNA. if you didn't know that, it doesn't matter, because it has nothing to do with my theory/hypothesis of relative evolution (i just made that phrase up). as you know, animals evolve very slowly due to natural selection. my theory/hypothesis is that there is something else underlying that evolution. this something else is that the human brain (and other intelligent organism's brains) has the power to, subconsciously, alter what horomones go where inside the body. (i have some observable evidence for this, if you want it, just ask...) if i understand correctly, horomones play a huge part in physical appearance, and at least some part in organ abilities. thus, if humans can subconsciously alter horomone flow, then they can subconsciously alter their appearence and adapt to certain things (grow faster, or see a lower electromagnetic spectrum...). most of you would think that this would not pass down to the next generation, because no genetics were altered. in a sense you are right, but the result is that you are wrong. the parents have the will, want, and emotions, that are their subconscious, to adapt to whatever it was. because kids idolise their parents, and their surroundings, and other people, what the parents think is picked up my the kids through minute changes in thing they do. so, at a younger age they develope the want to adapt to that environment, and the want to do so quicker. this is passed down further, and with more intensity through more generations. relatively quickly (within a several of generations), the society could adapt hugely with what would look like an evolutionary change on the outside, but is really just the subconscious thought of the society as a whole. P.S. :feedback:

does james bond do his own stunts? if not, then i one-up him on that too.

often times, when a kid askes a question about science on a science forum, it is for a science report or a science project. i did not read the post, but it sounds like it was too dangerous for an average 14 year old's science project. and if i knew the answer, i probably would have given it, thinking it was for a report or something. then again, i might giving humans too much credit... i just glanced at it... and his profile and other posts. he did post about the anarchist cookbook, but that does not mean he is promoting terrorism. i have a lot of friends that love to play with and make rocket fuel and small, relatively harmless bombs and things like that. judjing by the glance at that thread, i see no reason to be paranoid. P.S. i noticed it was put back...

GAH!!!!! big words... my feeble... 16 year old... mind... can't... resist......... :toilet: WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 can't resist!... GAHHHHH!!!!!!!! :worship::worship::worship::worship::worship: all hail Dudde, god of hypnotism over the internet seriously though. can you, like, tell me what that meant... semi-seriously, i wonder how many people would be hypnotized by reading that (or listening to someone say it)

that is exactly where the misunderstanding is. i never said that there were only two sides, and that all members of any side always had the same views all the other members of that side had. i would never come close to saying that there are only two sides to something (though if you misunderstood me so badly, then i must have) all i said was that there are extreems, and that i didn't want anyone confusing me with the extremes thate aggressively assert god is not real. i thought you asked for a definition of what i was talking about, so i gave one, i never tried to imply that everyone either went on the right or the left. that's a good point, but it doesn't make much of a difference, my point remains the same (and such a tiny point it was). P.S. sorry to bring this back up, but if there are still misunderstandings about me, it is necessary P.P.S. i was not talking about agnostics, i was in fact talking about atheists. P.P.P.S. i just thought of another way of putting it too: i agree completely with what you just said, it was just a minor misunderstanding that made us think we were debating. P.P.P.P.S. i hope this is over now... :zzz:

by order of paragraph 1) and then lord came down from the heavens and blessed upon us what a mess lol 2) yeah, i guess i did, though i thought i was talking about the general consensus on what extreem hard and extreem soft meant. i wasn't really assuming reactions... nevermind, close enough. 3)wow, i did not know that gnostic was a word, cool. now that whole gnostic/theist thing makes more sense to me 4) yes, thank you 5)maybe, if there was such a big misunderstanding, then it must be partly my fault. in the hops of avoiding future misconceptions, do you know in what ways i was careless? P.S. and such a stupid thing it was to have misconceptions about, since 1: it was :offtopic:, and 2: it wasn't even close to my major point. in fact, it had almost nothing to do with my first post. :rant: anyway...:-(i'm sorry... whew , glad that's over

i found this on dictionary.com atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. so, i was somewhat wrong, but my point remains valid, and my definition of atheism remains unchanged. though i hope you guys can understand my meaning better now...

all i said was that atheism had been misunderstood before for people that positively and aggresively assert that god doesn't exist. i never assumed anything, and i certainly don't think you can assume how they will react to others. i pointed out that every religion, atheism included, has a "soft" and "hard" side, with many levels inbetween. and that atheism, along with other religions is often mistaken for the "hard" side. so what? i mentioned the characteristics of the extreems. is that wrong? P.S. i don't mean to sound aggressive if i do. and this is directed at everyone who misunderstood/misread me, not just you. P.P.S. i never said the "soft" athiests were probability based, and i actually never used the words "soft" and "hard" (until this post)

and another thing esp (extra-sensory perception) includes and is not limited to: telepathy clairvoyance clairaudiance precognition retrocognition mediumship and the one where you can see something that happened involving an object that you touch (i forgot what it was called.) but it does not include psychokinesis (the ability to alter, move, animate, and inanimate matter through thought alone) that is a category of itself and includes telekinesis (the ability to move matter with your mind) the definition of psychic is (without looking it up): having esp abilities P.S. i found this P.P.S. i have a very well thought out theory of what causes most esp, but that is not what this thread is about

on the subject of reproductive abilities. seriously, how many women would be attrected to a man with psychic abilities in a civilization where people would put that man in a crazy house if he did anything with his psychic abilities. probably more than i think, but still not a lot. and if people shun him, then he will be much less likely to want to try to find a mate. the more different he is, the more different he feels, the more different he acts. P.S. feel free to switch the words "man" and "woman" anywhere in the above post (and he/she, and him/her) P.P.S. i have no evidence for or against this, but what i get from all information relating to witchdoctors and the like is that they are practically condemned to a life of celibacy. people go to them for help, but i don't think anyone goes to them for marriage.

what about male-patterned baldness? linked to the Y chromosome... possibly

okay, that makes some sense. this time i came in and it said "There have been 3 threads and 3 posts since your last visit!" the 3 posts were hilighted (by the dark green circles and pages with squigly lines on them), and they showed up in the "view new posts" option. but that doesn't explain how last time it said "There have been 5 threads and 10 posts since your last visit!", and when i looked for them, and when i clicked "view new posts", i, and it, could only find 5 new posts (posts with pages of squigly lines next to them, symbolizing a new post) oh, i just realized. it can count more than one post in each thread. so when i clicked "view new posts", it found the 5 threads that had new posts okay i was wrong. i didn't realize that "There have been X threads and Y posts since your last visit!" actually meant that there have been Y posts in X threads since your last visit (not in any way associated with new threads) :uhh::uhh:...... :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: Iglak :stupid:

responding by paragraph: 1) am i doing that? i hope not. if so, then how am i doing that? 2) that's exactly what i was trying to say 3) they aren't two types of athiests? how are extreme, hardcore athiests, and open-minded athiests (the average athiest) not two different types of athiests? also, i was not talking about agnostics. at least i don't think i was. i thought agnostics believed that there is some godlike force, they just don't know what it is. am i wrong about that? are agnostics unsure whether there is a god(s) at all?

when i came into the website just now, it said there were 10 new posts and 5 new threads. i followed the symbols to your reply, and backed up to the forum home, underneath the where it says how many new posts and threads there are, there is an option that says "view new posts" i clicked on that, and it found 5 posts, none of which are new threads.

why aren't new threads highlighted? then you come into this site, it lists the number of new threads, and the number of new posts. there is no way of knowing what and where the new threads are other than looking in every section (unless there is some option i don't know about). so i guess my suggestion is to highlight a new thread like you would a new post.

ugh... not believing in god: willing to listen to other beliefs able to understand other beliefs willing to provide evidence for and against god(s) (if there was any) believing that there is no god: not willing to listen to beliefs of a god(s) unable to understand why many people believe in god(s) try to convert theists into athiests will only provide evidence against god, including psuedoscience evidence will not listen to evidence for god, no matter what. still confused? P.S. i don't no what non-semantic means, and i don't know what you man by functional reason P.P.S. if you want a dictionary reason: not believing = the absence of beliefs believing = having beliefs

that wasn't really nuclear energy, that was a nuclear reaction. i don't know exactly how it works, but in nuclear powerplants, nuclear rods are put into water, which quickly turns the water to steam, and that steam is used to turn a turbine. so basically, nuclear energy is a big steam engine that uses what YT2095 said, only a lot slower slower so that it doesn't explode.

you misunderstood me. you are correct in what you said, but what i said does not contridict that. i said true athiests don't believe in god, and i am sure we can all agree on that. the religious athiests are different they believe that there is no god (in other words, it is their belief that there is no god). if you still don't get the difference, it is that one has beliefs and the other doesn't.

ahh... hmm... i think i misread you more than you misread me MishMish. well... you're right, we seem to have been doing fine so far without knowing if we have a purpose or not. and we don't know, but you are probably right that other animals don't try to find the meaning of life. if we don't contemplate it, then we are fine, there is always hope that there is a meaning, but it doesn't really matter if there is. my point is that if we find our purpose, and it is the opposite of what we wanted, what would people do? it's not that having no purpose would make us tools, it's that finding out that our purpose is being tools would make us depressed. this has very little to do with your question: i also have an unsaid point (it was unsaid because i didn't really discover it until now, and it is hard to put into words). I don't want people to misunderstand my meaning and think that they can't control their lives. my meaning isn't that we can't control our lives, it is that how we control our lives is based on infinite chemical reactions, but we still control our lives. so, thinking that we don't have free will is taking my post out of context, and could result in depression... i think i said this right.... P.S. it is hard for me to understand your posts, i mean the way they are worded just doesn't work with my brain. are you having the same, or a similar problem with my posts? just curious.

i watched that, that was cool. except the iron sphere generator/shooter wasn't working nearly fast enough, so they made a iron sphere bomb that would spread the iron shpears perfectly inside the crop circle they made, and finished within a few seconds of the time limit. P.S. i would have posted about this stuff earlier, but i am new here

they do!!!!! crop circles don't only appear in crops, they appear in: snow, sand, other fields, forests (don't think it's the entire trees, maybe just the topsoil or something), and any field-like things you can think of. it's just that people are making about 99% of the crop circles these days (if not 99, then at least 50), and almost all of them have no idea that crop circles can appear elsewhere. non-man-made crop circles don't have fancy patterns. they are just 1-3 circles in the ground, usually 1, if more then rarely touching eachother. at least, that's what all of the sand/snow/ice/forest/plains circles look like at least, this is what i gathered from the only crop circle show that ever mentioned this... on a quick search on the internet, i found a site that says this: "Crop circles appear not only in fields of wheat, barley, corn and other arable crops, but also in fields of potatoes, sugar cane, grass, heather, sunflowers, rice, thistles, snow, ice and sand.", but unfortunatally the site was down...

1) what i meant was not, "i will live and die for the god(s), and i will live and die to better others." unless i am misunderstanding you, it looks like you think this is what i meant. what i meant was, "wait, if someone or something else is controlling my life, whats the point in living. if i can't do anything about who i will become, and if i am basically just a tool for whoever or whatever is controlling me, then why should i keep living, what's the point?" 2) i completely agree, except that i just partially explained it. for daily purposes there is no reason why we should think that we don't have free will. this is exactly what i have been saying.

1)yes, well my unsaid point was that if people think they can't control their lives, then most of them would become depressed, and a few would comit suicide. and my view on free will isn't that we can't control our lives. it is that we have free will, but it is based on endless chemical reactions. 2)i don't know of any athiests that do that either, but it was a point against athiests a little while back, and is still commonly a misunderstanding about the average athiest. just like the common misunderstanding that the average christian disregards most science when trying to prove a point.