Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ouch

  • Rank
    Weee, what a predicament!
  • Birthday 03/09/1985

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    Yeah like i'm going to tell...
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
  1. Introduce Yourself

    I'm going to REintroduce myself too. Maybe some folks are old enough to remember me, i used to hang around Insanely Mac a couple of years ago but went into retirement (according to my group) but thought i would pop back to see how things were doing as I have a bit more time on my hands. The site has changed a bit - looks awesome though! Any of the old crew still around? Rgds Ouch
  2. Ouch

    A thread about me? How quaint.....
  3. Although shouldn't it be The Devil Worshipper's Condemn the Children Foundation?
  4. "Shouldn't we lie down, or put a paper bag over our heads or something?" "If you like." "Well, will that help?" "No, not really." Coming from the UK where the head of state is also the "defender of the faith" for the church of england it's quite an alien concept for me to separate state from religion. Even though the british monarch is officially christian I don't think that really affects anyone in their day to day lives, muslim atheist or otherwise - people are still entitled to believe whatever they want so part of me can't see the problem. Nobody is forced to swear on a bible in court etc so what's the issue? - China is an officially aetheist country but i would have no problem living there as a Christian, so why should it be an issue the other way around. Even if the UK did separate state from church (or become an officially muslim state for that matter) i probably still wouldn't care because it really doesn't affect me. Is the situation in the US different from this in some way? Do people have to swear on bibles in court?
  5. - we got 20 pages in without the handbags coming out... It's an interesting concept that a state should be without any official religious stance. Historically countries were united by a religious belief (or conquered by one) - if we are to move into a era of complete separation of state from religion then how does a state define itself? On what basis does the british/american government represent a people, who are otherwise completely diverse, as a single entity?
  6. Legalising things that Christians believe are wrong goes further than simple tolerance of other beliefs - but actively legitimises something which Christians consider to be dangerous to a person's relationship with God. For that reason Christians seek laws against these things from the standpoint of wanting to protect people from themselves. You may think that is arrogant and interferes with your own beliefs, but my example was to show that we already intervene in someone's personal beliefs in the case of mental illness and you don't consider that wrong because like most people you agree that someone shouldn't be permitted to kill themselves because "the voices" tell them to. I was trying to illustrate that even atheists can't believe in a completely live and let live (or die) society as you were suggesting - there has to be some limit to the exercising of personal beliefs where the majority recognise the harm they pose to the individual. Of course whether christian beliefs should be the base line here is what we are debating. (I was not inferring atheists are mentally ill - apologies if you thought so) You may argue that morals rather than religious belief are sufficient to determine when it is right for legislation to be intorduced for the protection of the individuals but since morals are determined largely by religious belief - a pluralist religious society leads to a pluralist moral society, in which there is no definite right and wrong and we are left right back at the start with the same problem.
  7. Well to some extent you may be right, but take for example someone with severe mental health problems who is a danger to themselves (although probably not to anyone else) - is it wrong for the state to confine them to an institution against there will in order to protect them? In that regard the state is clearly influencing the personal behaviour of an individual. So if the majority of the state views something as dangerous to a person is it wrong for them to intervine with a law to prevent it happening?
  8. Hmm thats an interesting theory but if there weren't any thought/ethics police as you put it then society wouldn't function, regardless of whether God exists. Heres my argument: For a people to live in harmony there has to be, and there are, certain moral boundaries that society as a whole says cannot be crossed - yet it seems more and more that those are being undermined in the drive towards relativism, the new global religion. Now consider the origin of that unified sense of morality - as most people have the same inbuilt awareness of right vs wrong it must have a common source. Where does that come from? Being a person of faith i say it is given to us by the same God who created us. If you don't subscribe to creationism then either you believe it's genetic/biological or you think it was some kind of emergent property of the development of civilisation - in which case the religious principles thought to be so harmful to harmonious living, must be based on the same morality that we developed naturally to enable civilisation to function. (hence the similar moral themes between global religions). By this argument religion becomes natures method of preventing a society from destroying itself by imposing limits on what a person may or may not do. Now here's the crux of the matter - If we start picking and choosing which of those "religious" principles no longer apply to modern society then surely we are in danger of undermining society itself. Therefore you need the thought/ethics police to demonstrate a sense of morality that does not change - whether you believe in God or not. I close with this: most people seems to believe that the liberalisation of society is a healthy thing, but not all progress is a good thing. One can move forward without necessarily going in the right direction.
  9. You just described the entire internet!
  10. OK so since religion requires faith, and faith defies proof then we could obviously argue in circles from now until the end of the world and make absolutely no progress. I guess a more important question is whether we think it is possible for all these different faiths to live in harmony in the future? From a christian perspective the prophecy is that the world will simply become more and more chaotic until Christ returns. Of course the aetheists among us probably see that last statement as the cause of the problem itself. Is religion to blame for the worlds problems - i really doubt it, if people couldn't kill each other in the name of God, i'm sure they'd find some other excuse.
  11. Actually knowledge can be defined as the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject - theory isn't fact. So knowledge does not necessarily have to be born of fact. Quantum mechanics is an area of scientific theory in which people can be considered knowledgeable.
  12. There is very little that can be considered social about "social networking". IMHO the draw of these sites is not the possibility of "keeping in touch with lost friends" (if they really were your friends you would keep in touch regardless of whether places such as myspace existed, and you'd do it in person - that is sociable). Sitting on your own in your room perusing what are essentially classified listings for people who appeal to you is about as anti-social as one can get. No, it's about voyeurism. It plays right into the dumbed down reality TV culture that is so pervasive in modern society. People like myspace because it enables them to watch the acquantencies that would otherwise have passed them by - and do so without them neccessarily being aware. Not only that but one can then examine their own circle of "friends". The ability to post photos/videos is just an extension of this - half the myspace community are probably grown men letching over girls they wish they had the guts to ask out in high school - if you've seen One Hour Photo then you can understand the idea here. In the end myspace is just another symptom, on the web, of the growing big brother generation who would rather waste their time gawking at the banal exploits of a group of morons, than risk over exercising their intellect on something that just might be worth a damn
  13. She's black and she's a woman - i wouldn't worry about it. Osama Bin Laden has a better chance of becoming president.
  14. I would have thought the answer to that was obvious - December the 25th is when most people get their holidays!