The problem with believing "Just In Case" is because the Christian deity will know if your believing just to be safe. And what if it's the Buddhist deity? Or a Wiccan deity? Or a Shinto Deity? What if you believed in the Jesus "Just In Case" and it turned out that Jesus was a lie and Kami is pissed at you?
The way I figure it is, I'm a good person. If whatever deity is upset that I didn't worship him, ignoring the good things I've done, then he doesn't deserve to be worshiped. If he is glad that I was a good person, then it didn't matter. And if he didn't exist, I was a good person and my memory and honor will still be there.
Where is it confirmed that the Ten Commandments from Moses only apply to Israelites? Sure it is believed that it was given to Moses by God for the sake of how to guide his people (the Israelites) but it does not confirm that this only applied to said people when this principle applied worldwide amongst the course of 2K years.
Oh no no no. You misunderstand what I say. I don't mean the Ten Commandments are only for Isrealites. (I don't think they are for anything, but that's beside the point. Haha.) The Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments for Murder was ratsakh. If I am not mistaken, it has two definitions, one is illegal murder (ie not putting someone to death ala the court system) and killing an Israelite. However, when it was originally translated to English, they used murder to replace ratsakh.
Linkx, I totally understand your point of view but the fact that the Quran has science in it is something well known. Im not trying to argue, im sharing knowledge. The fact that i'm not managing to give you good examples does not mean that i am wrong.
Well, I'll try to explain where you are wrong with your quotes again. I'm no Carl Sagan or Steven Hawkins, but I'll give it the ol' college try.
-There is a part in the Quran that god talks about the moon, the sun and the planets he describes them as so: "Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion". When did man discover that planets have orbits?
Actually it's not the Earth's motion, but rather the motion of gravity from the well created by the sun that causes the Earth to orbit the Sun. No sun, no well. No well, no Earth orbit. (There were two ways I could read that, hopefully I read that the way you wanted it to be read.)
-"I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it". The expansion of the universe was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is supported by the calculations of astrophysics. The regular movement of the galactic light towards the red section of the spectrum is explained by the distancing of one galaxy from another. Thus, the size of the universe appears to be progressively increasing.
I give you this, but what happens if there is more gravity then matter, and the Universe begins to come back upon itself in what is known in the Scientific Community as the Big Crunch? I hardly think they are going to change the Quran...
(Edit: And I hardly think that taking a 50/50 chance of the Universe either growing or shrinking is a scientific knowledge.)
-"Have We not made the earth an expanse and the mountains stakes / Pegs". the Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground. So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word "peg", since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Actually, about 99% of the mountains of Earth are created by one plate sliding above another. Rockies. Appalachian. Andies. Alps. Etc. I wouldn't calla an entire tectonic plate a "peg". (Granted, there are mountains like the Hawaiian Islands, but we have to compare the frequency of those kinds of mountains with the other kinds of mountains.) (I am not the most knowledgeable about tectonic plates so if somebody else could add in some information, I'd be grateful. )
-Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth. They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran: "And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you..." Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s.
Mountains are the proof of anything but stabilization... How do you think the Rockies were made, hugs and kisses? o.O A big ass plate hits another big ass plate, either one goes down or one goes up, and earthquakes rock the place.
-Some interesting info about our brain:
"No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the "naseyah" (front of the head), a lying, sinful "naseyah"!. Today we know that the prefrontal part of our brain is responsible for planning, motivating, and initiating good and sinful behavior and is responsible for the telling of lies and the speaking of truth. Scientists have only discovered these functions of the prefrontal area in the last sixty years...
With all due respect, this sounds like, from the context, another issue with translation. Similar to the way Murder in the Ten Commandments doesn't mean generic murder but rather murder of an Israelie. I can't comment on this one as much as I'd like, because I don't have all the information. :/ Sorry!
Indeed. And if I may expand on Irrational's post, with Science, tommorrow we could learn that things fall at 8.9 m/s instead of 9.8 m/s, or that light speed is really 399 million m/s instead of 299 million m/s, or that we evolved from dogs, or that we didn't evolve at all, and if there is scientific evidence, then it's what it was. With religion, you always get 72 virgins after death, and Adam and Eve always existed, no matter what new finds we make or new discoveries we find.
Science is based on studying the physical world around us and coming up with conclusions based on that physical world. The alternative is...well...
Wel if you want to be literal about it, there is no natural science I recall in any holy books (correct me if I'm wrong) but there's is philosophical science.
I mean any science. Hell, the fact that the Earth is round would be a nice thing to put in the Bible, but it specifically says the Earth is flat.
Please, if there is any scientific evidence of any field (Aside from theological "science") then please share it.
The word ‘star’ (najm) in the Qur’an is accompanied by the adjective thaaqib which indicates that it burns and consumes itself as it pierces through the shadows of the night. It was much later discovered that stars are bodies producing their own light like the sun and have limited life (Are consumed).
Stars are not burning. They are large bodies of gas that create photons via fusion. Fire is the only thing that could be compared to them by bronze age desert people. (If any middle easterners read this, I apologize for insulting your ancestors.)
You also have the fact that flies are covered in bacteria and other such things, along with the fact that they play in feces, which is not good. I for one would disagree with the Quran's "scientific" fact that flies are good, on the basis that flies are not good to eat. As for the Moon, that's not science that it requires science to get to the moon, it's common sense that it requires science to get to the moon.
There is a new aproach in today's world that combines the aspects of spirtuality with science. I like to believe in this and have hope that someday there will be no more seperation between the two. Because after all, the holy books are some kind of history books with alot of scientific material in them. Especially the Quran that is.
Please don't take this the wrong way as I am trying to say this in a kind fashion (Which as many people know, is difficult for me ) but...what science is in the holy books? I don't remember reading that the universe is 14 billion years old, or that e=mc^2, or that light travels at 299,792,458 m/s... If I am mistaken and these facts are in the Bible and Quran and Torah and Bagavad Gita or other such holy books then please enlighten me, as I don't like not knowing stuff.
I realised that the people on the "science party" is surely on high school or something. Some people think stuff like "Newton's physics = perfect. Newton's physics = science. Science = perfect". Seriously, science is much larger set then newton's physics or any other secondary school stuff you're basing on.
If I am not mistaken, Newtonian Physics (Like F=ma) was found incorrect by Einstein. o.O
Note: I'm an atheist. But i'm not because of science or this pathetic militance of Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens. I don't know if Dawkins is a competent scientist cause i'm not a biologist and can't judge, but i know his a terrible phylosophy-scientist (and all discusion of science vs. non-science knowlegd is mediated by the phylosophy of science discipline wich i'm familiar with).
Actually, it is people like Dawkins and the FFRF that are making it so that Atheists don't have to hide "stay in the closet" so to speak. They are not always the most tactile people, but they do a job that many, if not most, are unwilling to do. And it makes me glad that there are more of them today then there used to be.
I would like to hear your reasons as to why evolution progressively makes less sense. I only have a high school education on the theory of evolution and what I've been taught so far seems quite plausible, considering that evolution on small scales can be observed everywhere.
Please don't. We spent days trying to explain to her that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, and she couldn't wrap her mind around it. I don't think any of us want another round. >.<
Science and religion are separate fields. They do not exclude each other, and they may sometimes be in conflict but that doesn't really mean anything. Religion has a different purpose other than science. Religion specifically deals with questions science a) can't answer in your lifetime can't answer at all. I don't care that 400 years from now we'll discover that we CAN travel in time if I'll die by then. Religion and philosophy is all I have access to in MY LIFETIME.
But why? Why do you follow something if you could put your mind, which I know very well is sharp, to a better use, to pushing the bounds of modern science, to help progress the Human Species forward to the next frontier, whether it be medicine, physics, biology, or other such thing. It makes no sense to simply say "It won't happen in my life, so why help?" It seems, to me at least, like a waste of a great mind.
Thousands of years ago we had Aristotle and Socrates and Epicurus, who are much smarter than most of this "educated (atheist)" forum put together.
And they Aristotle, Socrates, and Epicurus all thought that A ) The world was flat and B ) the Sun went around the Earth.
It's not that they were smarter then we, or that we are smarter then they, we have simply built upon their knowledge, with knowledge of our own. If you think they were smarter, you are mistaken. If you think we are smarter, you are, again, mistaken. They and we are alike. (When I say we, I don't men you and I, I mean men and women greater then us. Hawkins and Sagan and Kaku and other great minds.)
Edit: Hey AnathemicOne, is that new Avatar Alexstrasza? Or another generic elf/dragon?
Not really, Christianity has the potential to change, the pillars of said change are already set, the Vatican accepting scientific pursuit readily, modern issues challenging old Christian ideals, even the followers themselves, around 60-70% of the Christian followers believe in a God yes, but not truly the Christian God.
So, if they don't believe in the Bible, or believe in the Christian deity...what makes them Christian?...
My hypothesis: If they do not believe in the Bible or believe in the Christian deity, they are no longer Christians.
Did I ever suggest forgive, no. Granted I don't really blame the current Catholic organization for atrocities commit around half a century ago, but note that I said learn from past mistakes. We learned from the Crusades that imperial conquest for the sake of religion = bad. We learned from the Holocaust that we must never remain isolationist in a world fileld with turmoil.
Exactly. We learned. They didn't. They continue to do stupid stunt after stupid stunt, and people continue to defend them for no reason.
Pay attention to explanation I gave in the same post, explaining the 'taboo' I speak of.
Again, I say this. There is no taboo of Science. You may imagine there is, and alot of religious folks do think there is some taboo of Science, but there isn't.
And if you continue to think there is, then please, give me evidence. (And make sure it's actual evidence.)
And it's a good argument you're posing. "Since humans were all dumb back then, the prophets went easy on them and turned the facts into nice little fairy tales that they could swallow". Humans were very dumb indeed, with their bows and arrows, iron and steel armors; infrastructure, agriculture, the math they knew that reached to an early college education today. Very dumb indeed.
Look, if you could tone down the sarcasm a bit that would be wonderful. It's condescending sarcastic attitudes like this that make me want to close this thread. If you are going to discuss this, discuss it, don't bash the beliefs of others. Be mature please.
I don't agree with Umpa often, but on this, I do. Religion, let your guns fly, but don't be mean to the people, know what I mean? The people don't deserve it. :/
(Side note, you two have the same number characters in your name. (Sorry, I know that's off topic. Just noticed it. Haha. ) )
Religion should not be protected, should be freely discriminated against, and is not on the same plane as gender or race. Most major religions discriminate against gender, religion, and sometimes nationality. That whole idea loops on itself.
I agree with that. The rest, not so much. But that part I agree on. :thumbsup:
Again, any religion, like anything in this world, is subject to change, including Christianity.
Sure the Christian faith isn't perfect (reason why I don't choose myself to be part of it), but neither is science, nor anything really. I believe that even the Christian faith can evolve and be more adequate as society progresses and if two and two can come together, well then we'll be at more pleasant and progressive times rather the current uncertain and chaotic one we are living today, no?
Alright, the Bible is the inherent word of Yahweh. Therefore, it would be a crime against Yahweh to change the Bible. Therefore, it cannot change.
Been sticking to the topic, the lengthy post about the definitions is to counter Link's stance on my improper word usage, but note on the same post (particularly at the beginning) I've quoted an actual (and recent, not even a month's time) source on how Christianity not only welcomes but encourages scientific pursuit.
And I pointed out that if you say one thing and do another, then that kinda destroys your credibility. And that's what happened with the Vatican. *Shrug.* Believe them if you want, but don't ask the Africans who got aids because of them to trust them - again.
One of the first occurrences when science managed to refute the bible and Christianity with it with logical evidence was with Galileo and the idea of the Heliocentric model. Well I'm sure you know how that turned out, and you say religion hasn't hindered science, but is supporting it instead?
Yes, this particular faith has done many wrongs in the past and I don't blame people for having stigma against them (when they don't transcend being more than a century's time), but one must learn from the past not dwell on it.
And exactly how old does an action have to be to be forgiven? The millions killed in the Crusades long enough? The million killed in the Inquisition long enough? Allying with the Nazi's who killed millions in the Holocaust long enough? The millions killed by aids in Africa long enough? Are these all forgivable, because they didn't happen today? How do you forgive an organization that commits these acts, or allies with others that commit these acts. Forgive me, but I cannot forgive such dark and evil organization, and I don't know how you can. Call me discriminatory if you want, call me discriminatory all day if you want, but I have morals I must stand by. I wish I could say the same of the Vatican.
And I do see the taboo of religion, and the "taboo" of science-
Stop. Stop right there. What "taboo" is there in Science? If your talking about how it's "wrong" to talk shit about Science, then perhaps you should back up scientific proof for your claims. Or is it also "taboo" to use scientific proof as well?
And yes, I added quotation marks around the "taboo" referencing Science, as there is no taboo.
I'm studying for a Math and Physics major, and throughout my life I've learnt to understand and appreciate the intellectual power that humans possess. To say that no one would've understood what a billion is or to understand evolution is a mockery for all of mankind, since our intellectual capacity today has hardly changed since then. It's only a lack of education or a low IQ that would cause people to not understand such trivial things.
And it's a good argument you're posing. "Since humans were all dumb back then, the prophets went easy on them and turned the facts into nice little fairy tales that they could swallow". Humans were very dumb indeed, with their bows and arrows, iron and steel armors; infrastructure, agriculture, the math they knew that reached to an early college education today. Very dumb indeed.
Mind you, they were the ones that created the number zero, the aqueducts, the chain and scale armors, the C-section, quick-dry cement, the calendar, indoor heating, socks, umbrellas, candles, magnifying glasses, etc., but yea, with all these inventions, they would not be able to swallow the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 12 billion years old, or that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
Okay here you go, take note that nowhere in that address is there a bash of scientific pursuit.
It's one thing to speak nice, it's another to spin tales to Africans about how Condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS. That's an attack not only on Science, but on Humanity. Defend them if you want, but I know that, morally, I couldn't.
As for discrimination, call me whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts.
As for religion halting scientific pursuit, well I'll bring Christianity into this. It is true that this religion and its followers have done grievances in the past, but that's over. If you pay attention to current events the Vatican is actually in league with scientific pursuit, allowing to have an open mind with them.
Alright, give some proof. What has the Vatican done to push forward science and knowledge? If I remember correctly, It was the Catholics who were the most upset about the Large Hadron Collider, and about CERN in general. Granted, it was the Vatican that stated the Earth was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and in fact the entire world revolves around the Earth, which science later disproved. So, if you have something the Vatican has done to help Science instead of Hindering it, please, I want to know.
Yes it is true that some people follow Christianity fanatically, but like all religions it is subject to change and evolution, the problem we are facing is the transition to change (look at the response we had for health-care in America) and not only that but anti-religious folk attack Christianity for past wrongs, which is like someone attacking modern Britain for unreasonable taxes on the original 13 colonies.
Well, I do agree. If Christian X and Christian Y did not perpetrate the crimes of Christian Z, then Christian X and Christian Y should not be held accountable. However, if it is in the holy book, the religion should be held accountable.(Not saying the people, but the religion.) Thus, if you take beating disobedient children, promoting slavery, stoning those of other faiths as well as those who are homosexual, then yes, it should be held accountable for those beliefs. Just because current day Christians don't follow the Bible (Which is a good thing) doesn't mean the Bible is not bad.
It doesn't matter what I THINK because you clearly already KNOW the truth. Which is quite remarkable.
It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing the truth. It's about putting a bandage over the gaps in the knowledge and pretending like it's the truth. You can believe whatever you want, but don't stop science because of a belief in ghosts.
One last thing, to nobody imparticular, I want to say that I am glad that there are people that actually understand what the word Discriminate means. When people use it wrong, like it was used in this thread, it isn't just an insult to me, but also an insult to people who actually work hard every day to be a discriminating douche bag.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The way I figure it is, I'm a good person. If whatever deity is upset that I didn't worship him, ignoring the good things I've done, then he doesn't deserve to be worshiped. If he is glad that I was a good person, then it didn't matter. And if he didn't exist, I was a good person and my memory and honor will still be there.
(See, I can admit I am wrong.
I'll see if I can't find it after work today. Just remind me.
Oh no no no. You misunderstand what I say. I don't mean the Ten Commandments are only for Isrealites. (I don't think they are for anything, but that's beside the point. Haha.) The Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments for Murder was ratsakh. If I am not mistaken, it has two definitions, one is illegal murder (ie not putting someone to death ala the court system) and killing an Israelite. However, when it was originally translated to English, they used murder to replace ratsakh.
And I hope I spelled that right...
Well, I'll try to explain where you are wrong with your quotes again. I'm no Carl Sagan or Steven Hawkins, but I'll give it the ol' college try.
You can also describe swiming as a "flying" underwater. Doesn't make it scientifically accurate though.
Actually it's not the Earth's motion, but rather the motion of gravity from the well created by the sun that causes the Earth to orbit the Sun. No sun, no well. No well, no Earth orbit. (There were two ways I could read that, hopefully I read that the way you wanted it to be read.)
I give you this, but what happens if there is more gravity then matter, and the Universe begins to come back upon itself in what is known in the Scientific Community as the Big Crunch? I hardly think they are going to change the Quran...
(Edit: And I hardly think that taking a 50/50 chance of the Universe either growing or shrinking is a scientific knowledge.)
Actually, about 99% of the mountains of Earth are created by one plate sliding above another. Rockies. Appalachian. Andies. Alps. Etc. I wouldn't calla an entire tectonic plate a "peg". (Granted, there are mountains like the Hawaiian Islands, but we have to compare the frequency of those kinds of mountains with the other kinds of mountains.) (I am not the most knowledgeable about tectonic plates so if somebody else could add in some information, I'd be grateful.
Mountains are the proof of anything but stabilization... How do you think the Rockies were made, hugs and kisses? o.O A big ass plate hits another big ass plate, either one goes down or one goes up, and earthquakes rock the place.
With all due respect, this sounds like, from the context, another issue with translation. Similar to the way Murder in the Ten Commandments doesn't mean generic murder but rather murder of an Israelie. I can't comment on this one as much as I'd like, because I don't have all the information. :/ Sorry!
Science is based on studying the physical world around us and coming up with conclusions based on that physical world. The alternative is...well...
I enjoy talking about science and religion. Both are interesting.
I mean any science. Hell, the fact that the Earth is round would be a nice thing to put in the Bible, but it specifically says the Earth is flat.
Please, if there is any scientific evidence of any field (Aside from theological "science") then please share it.
Stars are not burning. They are large bodies of gas that create photons via fusion. Fire is the only thing that could be compared to them by bronze age desert people. (If any middle easterners read this, I apologize for insulting your ancestors.)
<3
I still don't see any science in the holy books.
Please don't take this the wrong way as I am trying to say this in a kind fashion (Which as many people know, is difficult for me
If I am not mistaken, Newtonian Physics (Like F=ma) was found incorrect by Einstein. o.O
Actually, it is people like Dawkins and the FFRF that are making it so that Atheists don't have to hide "stay in the closet" so to speak. They are not always the most tactile people, but they do a job that many, if not most, are unwilling to do. And it makes me glad that there are more of them today then there used to be.
Please don't. We spent days trying to explain to her that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, and she couldn't wrap her mind around it. I don't think any of us want another round. >.<
But why? Why do you follow something if you could put your mind, which I know very well is sharp, to a better use, to pushing the bounds of modern science, to help progress the Human Species forward to the next frontier, whether it be medicine, physics, biology, or other such thing. It makes no sense to simply say "It won't happen in my life, so why help?" It seems, to me at least, like a waste of a great mind.
And they Aristotle, Socrates, and Epicurus all thought that A ) The world was flat and B ) the Sun went around the Earth.
It's not that they were smarter then we, or that we are smarter then they, we have simply built upon their knowledge, with knowledge of our own. If you think they were smarter, you are mistaken. If you think we are smarter, you are, again, mistaken. They and we are alike. (When I say we, I don't men you and I, I mean men and women greater then us. Hawkins and Sagan and Kaku and other great minds.)
Edit: Hey AnathemicOne, is that new Avatar Alexstrasza? Or another generic elf/dragon?
So, if they don't believe in the Bible, or believe in the Christian deity...what makes them Christian?...
My hypothesis: If they do not believe in the Bible or believe in the Christian deity, they are no longer Christians.
Exactly. We learned. They didn't. They continue to do stupid stunt after stupid stunt, and people continue to defend them for no reason.
Again, I say this. There is no taboo of Science. You may imagine there is, and alot of religious folks do think there is some taboo of Science, but there isn't.
And if you continue to think there is, then please, give me evidence. (And make sure it's actual evidence.)
I don't agree with Umpa often, but on this, I do. Religion, let your guns fly, but don't be mean to the people, know what I mean? The people don't deserve it. :/
(Side note, you two have the same number characters in your name. (Sorry, I know that's off topic. Just noticed it. Haha. ) )
I agree with that. The rest, not so much. But that part I agree on. :thumbsup:
Edited because of coding error.
Alright, the Bible is the inherent word of Yahweh. Therefore, it would be a crime against Yahweh to change the Bible. Therefore, it cannot change.
And I pointed out that if you say one thing and do another, then that kinda destroys your credibility. And that's what happened with the Vatican. *Shrug.* Believe them if you want, but don't ask the Africans who got aids because of them to trust them - again.
QFT
And exactly how old does an action have to be to be forgiven? The millions killed in the Crusades long enough? The million killed in the Inquisition long enough? Allying with the Nazi's who killed millions in the Holocaust long enough? The millions killed by aids in Africa long enough? Are these all forgivable, because they didn't happen today? How do you forgive an organization that commits these acts, or allies with others that commit these acts. Forgive me, but I cannot forgive such dark and evil organization, and I don't know how you can. Call me discriminatory if you want, call me discriminatory all day if you want, but I have morals I must stand by. I wish I could say the same of the Vatican.
Stop. Stop right there. What "taboo" is there in Science? If your talking about how it's "wrong" to talk shit about Science, then perhaps you should back up scientific proof for your claims. Or is it also "taboo" to use scientific proof as well?
And yes, I added quotation marks around the "taboo" referencing Science, as there is no taboo.
Mind you, they were the ones that created the number zero, the aqueducts, the chain and scale armors, the C-section, quick-dry cement, the calendar, indoor heating, socks, umbrellas, candles, magnifying glasses, etc., but yea, with all these inventions, they would not be able to swallow the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 12 billion years old, or that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
It's one thing to speak nice, it's another to spin tales to Africans about how Condoms increase the chance of getting AIDS. That's an attack not only on Science, but on Humanity. Defend them if you want, but I know that, morally, I couldn't.
As for discrimination, call me whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Alright, give some proof. What has the Vatican done to push forward science and knowledge? If I remember correctly, It was the Catholics who were the most upset about the Large Hadron Collider, and about CERN in general. Granted, it was the Vatican that stated the Earth was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and in fact the entire world revolves around the Earth, which science later disproved. So, if you have something the Vatican has done to help Science instead of Hindering it, please, I want to know.
Well, I do agree. If Christian X and Christian Y did not perpetrate the crimes of Christian Z, then Christian X and Christian Y should not be held accountable. However, if it is in the holy book, the religion should be held accountable.(Not saying the people, but the religion.) Thus, if you take beating disobedient children, promoting slavery, stoning those of other faiths as well as those who are homosexual, then yes, it should be held accountable for those beliefs. Just because current day Christians don't follow the Bible (Which is a good thing) doesn't mean the Bible is not bad.
It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing the truth. It's about putting a bandage over the gaps in the knowledge and pretending like it's the truth. You can believe whatever you want, but don't stop science because of a belief in ghosts.
One last thing, to nobody imparticular, I want to say that I am glad that there are people that actually understand what the word Discriminate means. When people use it wrong, like it was used in this thread, it isn't just an insult to me, but also an insult to people who actually work hard every day to be a discriminating douche bag.