Maybe I'm off the mark here, but from a cursory glance of your attributes it seems like you fit, or when the time comes, eventually will fit into the niche of "nice guy". Even if you're not, it bears to keep the following in mind anyway:
You're using a very vague, sentimental definition of the word "magic". Not that I disagree with the sentiment you're expressing, but it begs the question of what "magic" really is. Are you referring to the "we only use 10% of our brains" notion? Because that's entirely false. As for me, I suppose you could consider me a skeptic in a general sense, as I think that if magic really exists and assuming humans have any control over it at all, then most of the people who claim to practice it are either frauds, exploiting the gullibility of others, or individuals that are deluding themselves; even so, my belief is subject to the data, I don't necessarily have anything against the existence of such things and when adequate evidence is presented I'll be more than willing to rectify my beliefs to suit the findings. I'll be the first to admit that we don't know everything about the way the universe works, so maybe there's room for things like "magic" to exist and we just haven't woken up to the fact that they're real; also, weird events we can't really explain happen sometimes, no point in denying that. However, the fact that we can't understand them at present doesn't mean we can't and never will. The best thing to do is just admit one's lack of knowledge about these things (i.e not jumping to conclusions) and try our best to understand them.
Get drunk, fuck bitches. Then get high and fuck more bitches. also yeah courage wolf always knows best
We should never prefer to remain ignorant and ignore facts simply because we like fantastical explanations better. While they are good for inspiration and entertainment, having the knowledge of how things probably really work is always more useful. Knowledge is power, the more knowledge we have of the world around us, the more we become capable of improving our lives as well our planet, so we should never give up trying to learn.
I don't think there's a "right" answer when it comes to abortion because the question in and of itself is a very complex and deeply subjective one; it'd be nice if there was always wrong and right, good guys and bad guys, but unfortunately for us the real world is rarely ever that simple. Saying that pro-choice people don't value life whatsoever as well as saying that pro-lifers are all hypocritical romanticists is to make rash, unfair generalizations that are hardly true by default. And in any case, it's not really the question of whether it's right or wrong so much as whether it should be legal that's the crux here, because after all, just because we frown upon something personally isn't necessarily a reason to ban it (and just for the record, I personally find the idea of abortion distasteful). Does someone who dislikes cheese personally suddenly have a right to go campaigning to outlaw it based on their entirely subjective, personal preferences? I don't think anyone who is pro-choice is of the opinion that people should be getting abortions left and right. They just want the option available. People live their lives the way they see fit; we won't always agree with it, but it's important to tolerate and even encourage differences because otherwise we just turn into bigots who are unable to live amongst themselves comfortably. We ban things that are proven to be detrimental to society. The question is whether abortion has enough adverse effects on society as a whole to just outlawing it. In addition to all of that I think there's are a few more points that merit addressing: 1. Technically speaking, a fetus is "alive" and "human" in the basest, biological sense of the words, so really, there's no point in arguing that. What the debate is really about is whether the fetus is a person and should be afforded rights. 2. I'm not really a fan of the "you made it, raise it" philosophy because in my mind it treats the child as a punishment to be imposed on its parents, and treats this punishment as the priority, it doesn't concern itself with the child's actual well-being, which is what's really important (and after all, punishment is important, but so are forgiveness and understanding). If the parents are forced to have a child and it ruins their life, do you think the child is going to get any love and attention from them? Ultimately, that's one thing you're not going to be able to force them to do: love the child. 3. Giving up a child for adoption still leaves two complications: a) Pregnancy isn't exactly a walk in the park. It's very trying on the woman, especially where labor's concerned. All this trouble for a child that isn't wanted at all and that she's not even going to raise. b) the adoption system has its fair share of flaws and complications. Kids often drift from foster home to foster home, not getting the love and attention they deserve, and lead less than stellar lives as a result. It's true that it's not impossible for a child to find happiness regardless of all those adversities, and I personally like the idea that we should be given a chance at life, but ultimately I have to concede that there are worse things than death. We should, then, focus on improving the adoption system first rather than banning abortion outright so that there won't be any need for one in the first place.
Actually I agree with this. Speaking from personal experience, clerks I've seen usually round up the amount of change anyway. Nobody gives a damn about pennies. The majority in America would also be against banning gay marriage and refusing to teach evolution in schools, or give it and creationism equal time (or so I would assume). Sometimes you have to go against the majority, make unpopular decisions, to do the right thing, because more often than not, the majority is dumb. That's why stuff like this isn't up to them. Separation of church and state is an ideal, at best. It's impossible to *completely* separate the two because religion is such a huge part in shaping an individual's perceptions even if they're not religious. But it's an ideal we should pursue anyway, because objectivity and impartiality are good things. An artist doesn't quit trying to improve in spite of the fact that he'll never be "perfect" at what he does. Church and state won't ever be near separation if we don't start making attempts to separate them. Not that I think removing the message would really be very effective, I'm going off on a tangent here so I'll stop. :x I'd just like to state that, again, I personally don't care much either way about whether the message stays or not, but yeah.
In all honesty? I don't personally care that much, I'm not really concerned about what's on my money when I go out to eat, I just want my burger, if you catch my drift. Given that the country doesn't have an official religion, it shouldn't really be there. However, I think we have more pressing matters to deal with right now. Frankly, I think we should instead work to build a world where things like these will be our biggest concerns.
A lot of this has already been said, but whatever. America's been hijacked by fundamentalism and bigotry for a long time. Christians love to go on and on about how the country was founded by christians, on christian principles, blissfully unaware that a great of the founding fathers were deists and would find America's current state of affairs repulsive; even assuming they were correct, the country was also founded on slavery, so what the hell is their point? We shouldn't keep things around simply because they're old. As many have already stated, the "under god" part of the pledge wasn't even there originally, and as it stands, should not have been added at all. I understand that people want a candidate that caters to their interests and views, and a religion is an important part of a person's background and mindset; that a truly secular government is impossible simply because of how much a religion dictates a culture, and therefore, the kind of person you are, even if you later adhere to none. Regardless, you simply shouldn't write off a candidate because their religious views don't match your own. People should consider the candidate as a whole rather than just write him off because he doesn't believe in their deity.
Don't forget about Job. God ruined his life, thrust him into poverty, killed his family, put him through terrible sickness...and for what? To one-up Satan? What the hell? Why should he need to prove anything to anyone? He's God. Him giving a new family and more riches doesn't justify what he put him through in the slightest. Family cannot be replaced if you loved the one you had.
This is true, but the clincher is that you probably won't, say, find a christian mother that can tell you she loves God more than her children with a straight face(unless she's insane/a fundamentalist/really does hate the child), even though the Bible states that you're supposed to love God as much as possible (and you don't, if you love your child more than him). It's only natural. People can tell you about how strong their faith is and how they couldn't picture their lives without God's presence until they're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, nobody has seen God. You can't touch him, feel him, or even be sure that he's really there. Pretty different from your family. Anyways, I'm not a believer either so the question isn't relevant to me either.
Spoiler hi
That's nothing but a myth. We use all of our brains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%_of_brain_myth http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
I'm agnostic. I believe that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove (or disprove) the existence of any deities. Every religion is equally valid as far as I'm concerned, because there is nothing saying that one is any more true than the other(and furthermore, nothing saying that one religion is absolutely right about everything and that all others are completely wrong); that said though, I don't agree that just because something cannot be proved or disproved makes it in any way plausible, because you can rationalize and explain away any belief you want regardless of how ridiculous one would find it (you can't prove that the Matrix doesn't exist, you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist, etc). The only reason we make an exception for gods and the like is because of bias and a cultural legacy. Many people of faith are quick to denounce scientific phenomenon such as evolution, common descent, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and generally(see: most of the time, not always) they don't have any idea what they actually mean and are unaware that they're not necessarily incompatible with their beliefs. If you're going to criticize and denounce something, you should at least try and make sure you know what you're talking about. If you want to learn about science, go read a scientific journal, don't go looking up creationist websites (obviously, it also works the other way around). ( By the way, the phenomenons of evolution and the Big Bang have already been proven, and much research is still being conducted into the field of abiogenesis, this much is not up for debate; if you don't believe me, and are under the impression that they are "just theories", you should probably read up on what the word "theory" means in a scientific context, i.e gravity and electromagnetism are theories, but I don't see anyone complaining about them and wanting to issue disclaimers that they are such in textbooks). Absolute truth is unobtainable for us, we have to assume that the world we experience and live in is real or else we'll never get on with our lives, which brings me to my next point: regardless of all that, it IS possible to have high degrees of certainty...just not through religious beliefs. I'm not going to deny that religion can do good for for people, but just because it gives you comfort, hope, and purpose, does not mean it is true. The truth is the truth, nobody ever said it had to be pretty. I also don't agree with the idea that believing in something is less risky than not believing. It assumes there are only two alternatives. The three biggest religions in the world all say that anyone who does not believe in their God specifically will not enter that religion's heaven, so regardless of you being a christian, muslim, jew, or whatever, you're taking a risk. Even then, there is not any ground upon which to base the concept that a God would value blind faith over anything else, because we have no idea what kind of being he even is, if he's even real. He might value objectivity, logic, and search for the truth instead. Regardless of what you believe, you are taking a risk. That said, you should believe in what you think is the truth, and not believe out of fear. The notion that any God would punish his creations eternally for finite crimes (regardless of how heinous), and even worse, for not believing in him, is also repugnant to me. The entire idea behind punishment is to teach that the action was wrong (and why) in hopes that the person will learn from it, and not repeat the action again. "Hell" completely destroys this principle by making the punishment infinite. You have no reason to learn anything from it, because you'll be there forever anyway, there is no chance for redemption or to apply what you might learn there. It's even worse if the person was good all around and never did anything too atrocious anyway, outside of just not believing in the deity, especially considering that there's no reason to believe in him over any other. Making people suffer for not returning your love is petty, cruel, and spiteful, and a God who is willing to do that does not deserve my respect or adoration. One more thing: We have a word for that, I think: close-mindedness :/. Personally I'm more than willing to change my beliefs (or at least, play around with the possibility I'm wrong) if I see evidence or a good argument.
The world isn't going to end in 2012. And if it does, it won't be because the Mayans "predicted" it. I've heard even that is a misconception, but I don't remember the exact details.
The question is are you a bad enough dude to take her place
Thank god my PS2 is modded.
Glad I'm not alone in thinking that.
if you suddenly became head admin/supreme overlord of khv what would you do
Life hasn't really reached a point where I'd rather be dead than otherwise. I'm not particularly ambitious, I have no grandiose dreams of radically changing the world or anything; I just like living.
eragon was a horrible horrible film and most of these changes sound ehhhhhh
