Search Results

Just a note: Cremation can actually be your ashes placed in an urn with all of the appropriate memoriam written on the surface.

I suppose what bothers me most about a cemetary is that some people insist on having grandiose crypts all to one person (there are about ten in the cemetary near my home, where were the crypt to be converted into living space it would be enough room to be a presidential hotel suite).

For some reason I think having your name and last words written somewhere vs having a casket with your body along with it seems rather excessive for memory's sake.

Out of semi-tangent curiosity, what about people in comas (many many years, not just a couple of months)?

And for future responses, please elaborate on your point rather then leave them short-lined and amibiguous. How EXACTLY does this relate to Christianity and how do "ghosts" relate to Heaven/Hell. All you have said is believers go to heaven and non go to hell (I have not studied the Bible, but I believe there was a difference between "denying/rejecting" God and "being ignorant").

A statement this vague can be interpreted as practically nothing/anything in the debate. If you are going to use Christianity as your source of information, then use quotes, para-phrasing and/or your supporting conclusive details.

Opinion is one thing (the other participating debators have all pointed out that it was all their opinion and left nice, concise contributions accordingly), but what you are doing is trying to use a specific source too broadly. Please remedy this for future debates if you want your points and views to be taken for more then what you have said.

To Cin:
Your point on ghosts is thoughtful and I would actually side with yours for the most part- That ghosts are isn't limited to only "supernatual" but can extend to psychological planes as well.

General Statement:
Personally my opinion on ghosts is that people put "emotion" into objects and such, and even after they're gone you can sort of feel the lingering "feelings" put into them. Almost like how when you look at a picture drawn by an artist, sometimes you can feel how much effort and emotion was put into a single piece as opposed to something just "slapped together". (Think home-made cookies vs the ones mass-produced by machines for a better idea of my point.)

It isn't so much of "there's a ghost in my house" but more like, "I think I can find some common ground with this". Call it psychological empathizing if you will, but that is what I think more of as "ghosts"- its a two-way street not a one-sided situation.

The best way of saying my view on this whole thing is that different people can see different ghosts. Its all a matter of how they are able to interpret it. (Such as when you ask someone to show what anger looks like, you can get a hundred different examples...)

Since you are still on this train of thought, rather then respond, I shall redirect you to a more Topic-appropriate location Ghost Debate Thread.

Thank you for your time.

"IT WASN'T MY FAULT THAT IT LOOKED TASTY!" A black and blond blur shrieked as it ran past him. Axel rolled his eyes at the typical sight, Demyx had a habit of doing incredibly provoking things to the elders.

ORIGINAL CONTEXT

RESPONSE:

Ok, listen up iPraise, COOL OFF. If you can't see the sarcasm in my line, then please, SEE IT NOW. I wasn't even arguing against Squishy, I was agreeing with him in a mutually understood way. (You an even SEE the smilie emoticons!)

But no, you took the liberty of interpreting it with your overactive standpoint; I respect that you have different views, but you can not, I repeat, can not distort my words to start up another UNRELATED DEBATE. That is utterly insulting to the concept of debate.

Now what I'm about to say will most likely come off as an insult, but it is NOT. I assure you, this is an assessment from what I have seen so far from your contributions to this debate.

iPraise, you are like so many of the people who are so deeply rooted to your own side that you are BLINDED by your conviction to really SEE anything else. You are not conducting yourself in a manner fit for debate, you are acting as if you are one playing the part of the converter (you can do that in your free time, but the arena of debate is NOT where your 'two-lined sermons' are supposed to take place). You are using solely opinionated WORDS in that you are not even bothering to examine the other side's evidence whatseoever. The fact you are not even seeing the very CONTEXT of what some of the lines are said in is PROOF of this. You are taking every single line very much as what you THINK they sound like, regardless of the CONNOTATIONS.

Anyway, iPraise and all the other people trying to counterargue/agree with iPraise's ridiculously off-topic arguement of "ghosts don't exist". Please return to your REAL topic of debate, "EVOLUTION vs RELIGION" or move your "Ghosts existence, YAY vs NAY" to another thread if you haven't done so already!

(PS iPraise, if you are going to discuss the Ghost topic in another thread, don't forget to mention the Holy Ghost/Spirit, I heard he/it was important, but I could be wrong in that the Holy Triad is only the Holy Father and the Holy Son.)

That sounds like a load of bull to me too. -Did they have the ghost of Mary or Joseph to verify via satellite? 8O

Hmm yes, I think this debate is pretty much covered (well the coherent sides of it anyway)....

It was enjoyable to have a philisophical discussion with you. *virtual hand shake* :]

Nevermind, figured it out.

Reply to off-topic: lol, well it IS an old story. But still, it doesn't deserve the sort of mutilation it got,

But yeah, the damn school system should stop making us analyze and waste an entire unit on it. Freaking dead writers.

Inquiry: If I wanted to contribute a "Compents of a Story" guide, what should I do? I'd like to see if I could get some of the master/godly writers here to help out, but I don't think I'm anywhere near worthy enough to ask them directly for that. (That's why I'm taking the coward's way out making this indirect plee for help here in the Workshop!)

Somewhat irrelevant to the debate: Depends on what faction of faith. Personally I believe that there was an origin, aka a "creator" who was indeed guiding, but mortal and not omnipotent. You're perfectly within your rights to hold your beliefs just as I am. We can try to share our views, but we shouldn't force them on others.

To answer the tangent: There are almost always two sides to that sort of usage of science (or really any other sort of knowledge or subject to be opinionated on). I have yet to have seen the "proven not to be Jesus Christ" one, so I can't comment on that. However the "Adam and Eve" one, I recall that they are conducting genetic studies where they are looking for the mitochodratic code common in all people (they are collecting various samples from as many people to find this genetic link).

Response to the gravity-esque example: Well up until they find that possbility that turns the tables irrevocably, it will probably at best, remain at 99% "correct" for the time being.

No debate is ever, truly, completely won. There will always be some person or group out there that exists otherwise. Unfortunately the "truth" of this debate (evolution vs religion) is one that is silent to its own debators and can only be hopefully touched on in the near future.

As for the last line, you might want to rephrase the 100% factual evidence of just "scientists"; it is 100% factual that you need oxygen to live ("dumb fact" but this is a 'just cause' example).

Anyway....from the looks of things, I think this debate is once more winding down to the typical draw that this debate always seems to simmer down to. "No gains no losses, temporary truce/recess until the next debate."

(I have no idea if it was directed at me so...)

Sometimes on an arguement as "grand scale" as this, some generalizations must be made (if it was done on a case-by-case on such an informal debate such as this, we would be here until we all had agreeably died at some point). It's wonderful that some people can take science and religion as equals and find some sort of balance between the two, but there are far fewer examples in comparision to those who take a 'side'. Unfortunately, most of the debates covered by these two sides are done by the most....I suppose passionate would be the right word, to speak their minds. So it gives others the impression that yes, they are at war.

However, not to be taking any shots at any scientist's (who also have religion) credibility, but if their belief obsures their ablity to look at the situation objectively, then they are negecting the reasoning aspect of science. This really shouldn't need to be pointed out, but when that happens there obviously is a problem.

The main conflict from my perspective is that some people don't like the idea of God being any less then 'he' is perceived now. And as they say, when you see you're about to 'lose' something, you tend to hold onto it even tighter.

I will be sure to keep all of your advice in mind then. My sincerest apologies if you interpreted my text as being closed minded when I was speaking my point of view.

In regards to the "word of God" is used by scientists, that was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant to get across was, if it is not scientifically done, does this automatically mean it was an act of God?

As for the possibilities, yes many things are completely possible in many ways...but keep in mind that "possibility" can be eliminated when there is enough solid proof. (Crude Example: Are you going to drop an egg off a building to see if it will survive? There is a possibility that it will crack or that it will remain unharmed, but one possibility is more likely to happen. etc.) There obviously isn't enough pro-evolution evidence if it cannot convince people- but the important part is, will you accept it when it is put forth? In terms of being proven, evolution is a theory closer to being proven objectively then the theory of creationism.

It should also be noted that anytime that any religiously recorded event is supposed to be proven, scientific methods are used. (ie: they are conducting genetic research to supposedly find "Adam" and "Eve", yet when this same genetic method is applied to other searches, it is disregarded) I find it slightly ironic and a bit hypocritical, but that's probably a tangent....

You don't have to be a geologist, biologist or any other scientific profession to notice that even though "religion" encourages "good behavior" it always promises the same exchange of things, "salvation" for siding with some convient invisible entity. In fact, most religious texts are actually just anthologies of stories with morals. Our childhood stories also have morals in them and sometimes the twist of something that isn't based in reality, but we don't go preaching the word of Little Red Riding Hood, no, religious people talk about how Jonah got out of the whale.

As for the "scientist says it is proven", are you trying to say that scientists who use genetics to alter crops are actually just using the word of God? Are you saying that FARMERS (or even people who like to grow things for fun) who use this same method of selective breeding, are all in on this genetic conspiracy? How about when you study physics and use the formulas that a "scientist" discovered to find out that indeed, the rocket did land where it was supposed to in accordance to what you already proved on paper? Or is that just a bunch of lucky conincidences?

I doubt anyone has undeniably "heard the voice of God" either. Also how do you "experience God"? Are you told by someone else or do you refer to a "religious text" to know.

example: Virtuous people are not automatically people who have been touched by God. People who recover from illness are not automatically "touched by God." Truly evil people still recover from illness, and some of the same abomidable people use the basis of religion to justify their sick causes. The most disturbing part of all this? There are hoardes of people who believe them.

The tricky thing about zealous faith is that those who put their faith in things (the really strongly opinionate ones, aka the loudest ones) claim some of the most outlandish things and downright crazy things. This isn't to say that every single religious person is crazy or that its not ok to believe in something.

The reason that makes science more believable in that is it not a conspiracy theory is that people from all walks of life can OBTAIN the SAME QUANTIFED answer through their RESEARCH. Now people who loyally follow a belief system, the more they believe in a certain entitiy, the most analogous they become to each other in terms of idealogies.

And although I cannot speak for ALL of the posts here, it is not an "insult" in a debate if the fact is true. Also, this is a debate, people don't just shake hands and make good friends without tearing into each other's throats first.

Not to sound sarcastic, but how did they prove this, did they find where God is situated while looking at various nebuli?

Please give a specific example that is not just an "I think" sentence.

*I'm probably being rhetorical*

Evolution is indeed a theory, but it has been proven to be true in many aspects. The fact that genetics and gradual change from genetic combinations have been proven true, that pretty much seals up evolution as a sound concept.

As for the religion half, the whole concept of it is actually pretty messed up to begin with. But to stay on topic, religion's evidence against evolution is poor at best. Many times the people who try to defend religion say "but the BIBLE says so", yes and the bible also was written by PEOPLE. Now here's a lovely loophole many biblethumpers leave out, can't people LIE and CREATE FABRICATIONS? Just because the bible is old doesn't make it completely honest. I wouldn't be surprised if the bible was just a fictional to tempt people with the idea of hope. And if any of you naysayers say, "Oh but it mentions this place/person/event" Well gee, I think the people back then could also BORROW ideas/names/locations.

*is still astounded at missing something like this*
I don't know if anyone has suggested this yet, but are there any pet-games? (like a chocobo raising thing...)
I'd suggest having a pet (I don't know what) called Modmin(?) where you feed it something called "incorrect/spam posts" (extra items) to make it stronger. After you feed it enough "bad posts", it turns into a means of faster transportion or something.
Eheheh...I'll try to think of some better ideas and suggestions if you're still looking for them for some reason.

Finally someone who points out the perspective... Only one is supposed to be taller and that's the grey person in that back.

I'm probably just going to scrap this damn thing, redo it and post up the new (and hopefully better) sketch in its place.

Anyway, thank for the candid critique. :]

You're right, that vase is messed up. o_o I don't think I'll bother with the trees though, trees are usually titlted anyway.

Oh wow, I never knew it could have such a dramatic impact. I'm flattered that it can be considered canon! :]
(As for the comparisions, I've got a skewed thought process at times heheh...)

Anyway, welcome to KH-Vids and I hope you enjoy yourself!

Anything a little more specific? Or do you just mean the the entire picture seems tilted?