Marinus

Cannibalism isn't universally wrong. I can think of situations were eating the dead wouldn't be unethical, (ever seen the flick "Alive"?) also in some cultures people were eaten with the best of intentions. When granny died you ate her so she would live on inside you. And there's of course organ transplantation. Using the meat of one person to sustain another person. Organ transplantation isn't cannibalism, it's actually far more extreme. Rape is generally but not universally considered as "wrong" but the definition as to what rape is varies wildly. Example: not that long ago raping your own wife wasn't considered rape, and a raped prostitute was a oxymoron.

I think the Golden Rule is almost universal. "Threat others like you want to be treated" Others can mean anything from all of humanity, to a small group of people you belong to.

Intelligent Design/Creationism is religion, not science and it's stupid to begin with. To decide if the universe is designed intelligently you need to know why it was created. If it was created for humanity to live in or to support life, like creationists like to think the universe is the most epic fail ever.

Faith is by it's definition believing in something without evidence, and I don't do that. I don't *believe* something came from nothing during the Big Bang. Actually there's a lot of agnosticism concerning my views on what happened in the very beginning. Do I think it's possible? With my basic knowledge of it, I think it might be possible for something to come from nothing. On the other hand, since time began as the same moment something began, in a way there was never nothing for something to come from, and in a way there was always something. Or to be short: I don't really know if something ever came from nothing. I don't think that could be called "faith" with the best will of the world. Mathematically it's easy to prove: 0 = -1+1. I think quarks pop into existence from nothing in opposite pairs all the time. Problem is that they aren't very stable. So nothing split in anti-matter and matter (and probably in X anti-X too, whatever X may be), and for some reason anti-matter seized to exist so matter became stable. Well, in short: my knowledge of the beginning isn't all that, and while I've some ideas about it based on the things I do understand in the end I just don't know. This is a valid position btw, and really doesn't prove God.

The burden of proof lies with the one who claims. Religious folk claimed there is a God, so they should provide the proof. Since the religious folk don't provide evidence for God, the atheists can reject their God-hypothesis without evidence. They/we win. I don't completely reject the possibility of a creator, however If such an creator exist I can't understand its nature nor its motives. So I think it's rather... uhm... bold to say anything about the hypothetical creator. Even calling it "creator" is bold. and why did he create the universe? maybe it's an artwork on the wall of it's 23 dimensional house, maybe it's a game or maybe it's just a xxhdhuiweohovaol for its fpakpjqoaofn.

No, you're not. I can claim the universe was created because an eternal pan-dimensional turtle farted, and this would be as valid as your God-hypothesis. The universe might not have a cause. If the universe is the effect, the cause of the universe should precede the effect, but since time itself originated at the same moment as the universe did, in an event we often refer to as the Big Bang, there is no "before the Big Bang" and thus no time for a cause to precede the universe. So everything that had a beginning must have a cause, but the universe began at the beginning of time. I'm in no way an expert in the field, and just thinking about it makes my head hurt, but this might be the exception on the normal rules of causality. If there is no time before an effect, there is no time for a cause to exist. Making something up (God) isn't supporting a claim. You have to prove that God exists, you have to prove that he has no beginning and only then you have a valid argument.

Unfortunately, the only thing that prevents unwanted pregnancies (and thus the demand for abortions) are purity balls, and those are very, very odd and disturbing.

Ironically if the universe is a crime, and God is the perp then according to your analogy God is (as good as) dead. Other then that I may point out that the only good way to solve a crime, is to approach the crime in a scientific way. Not in a religious or philosophical way, and right now science hasn't provided us with a suspect in the Case of the Mysterious Universe, let alone a suspect called God.

First I know the basics of the Big Bang Theory, but I'll be the first to admit my brain performs a x/0 if I think to hard about it but: To say God is the cause of the universe only relocates the problem, because God should have a cause too. Besides that, there's no proof for the existence God, so the cause, if there is one, could be anything. Saying Goddidit isn't bad science, it's anti-science. "I don't know (yet)" on the other hand is a valid answer.

I would, but it's probably illegal here to teach first aid/CPR without following the proper courses. It also isn't common to teach FA/CPR on a (in my case still rather hypothetical) DZ, I think. I've had a very decent FA/CPR course (and then some more) but that alone doesn't qualify you to teach it yourself. And of course, I'm commie enough to expect my government to pay for it, because after all, I pay shit-loads of money to them, So I might as well expect something in return....

But they need those certifications anyway, right, for their regular (paid) jobs, I mean? Or do they need those certifications specifically for the volunteering?

Good one, I don't think there is much difference, however, I think free FA/CPR courses would be a very good thing.

We live in a universe in which God doesn't seem to exist. An atheist only makes draws the logical conclusion that God seems to be totally and completely absent because he doesn't exist. According to how you define your atheism, you might need a microscopic bit of faith to make it work (most probably not, btw, but I'm not completely sure about that) . But atheism that's defined like: "I've no reason whatsoever to assume that God exists", requires no faith at all. I'm no atheist, btw, but I come close enough to feel related to them

Well, if you anger the gays, you might as well expect to get butt hurt afterwards

How convenient... but you might have a point

I don't particularly enjoy gutter journalism, However, I enjoy it when a bigot gets his feewings hurt by the very people he so openly despises and insults. For once, someone gets exactly what he deserves, and I really like that. And judging from the effort he made to make the insult made to him disappear it really bugs him.

Ok, I misread your post, my bad.

What part of "humour is hard to pull off in a foreign language" don't you understand, I start with blaming my own short-comings as far as the English language is concerned. And your lack of humour is rather obvious.

Except, of course, that this wasn't politics. In short Santorum's blatant homophobia caused a homosexual non-politician to coin the term Sanctorum to describe "the mixture of lubricant and feces that is an occasional byproduct of anal intercourse". This use of the term was so succesfull that searching for sanctorum ranks the new "definition" of the word/name before the politician. And since S. compared homosexuality with inserting one's penis into a child, teen or animal, and thus indirectly compared gays with child-rapists, the bigot had it coming. If you piss all over a minority, people of that minority are entitled to piss all over you.

Actually, it was more of a humorous attempt to point out that making a distinction between left-wing science and right-wing science is moronic. Unfortunately humour is kinda hard to pull of in a foreign language. Well, and your apparent lack of humour probably doesn't help either.

Your examples show people donating their time, not people paying to donate their time. Or I must be missing something.....

On your side of the pond, maybe... I volunteer too, but not for organizations that think I should pay them to work for them without a salary. I think I'm part of the 99% that agrees with me.

Still something seems to be very wrong about making volunteers pay for the contribution they make to society.

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/never-speak-2011-again-new-years-ecard-someecards.png

Ouch! As usual full blown alcoholism seems to be my best option for the first day of the year, so time for my traditional New Years Day brunch. *raises mug of Irish Coffee* It's 20:12 o'clock somewhere. Cheers!