LITTLE freddy

Logic is a man-made term used to describe study of the "principles" of "reasoning." Logic attempts to make sense of the world using more man-made models (science). We don't really "know" anything.

Using "logic" to give meaning to the world is no different than using the bible to do the same.

In essence, "logic" is nothing more than human imagination. You can't even see it. So I'm curious as to why atheists put so much faith in it.

Some of my neighbors complain. They always come over uninvited when I'm cutting the grass and try to get me to do it in the morning or afternoon. Yet, I don't want to do it in the afternoon! There are no ordinances or neighborhood rules. If this makes me happy, why is it anyone's business? They do things I don't like, such as make noise and cut the grass while I sleep in the day.

I understand most people sleep at night, but I like to sleep during the day and jam to my tunes, cut the grass, and live my life during the night. I wake around 9pm, eat my breakfast, and get to doing my yard work. People are going to just have to accept that because it is my right!

Why do people have to force their lifestyle on others?

Likewise, is political correctness evil?

If you're not curious, then you probably are brainwashed.

If you are curious, look here:

He started dating her when he was 50. Although she was only 14 or 15, their love defies the age barrier.

Nothing should stand in the way of two people loving each other, not even the law. Up until 1929, which is relatively recent, girls and boys could marry at 12 and 14 years of age. I say we go back to that.

Now that we've finally accepted gay marriage, I bet lots of 14 year old boys would love to marry their man. We should not stop them.

Anyway, I'm so excited about this. Finally progress!

What are your thoughts?

Especially since most people don't begin to mature until around 40 or so.

Say, around 10 years?

Despite its ups and downs, it appears to have grown since its inception and shows no signs of crumbling.

What do you think?

First, I apologize for the length. I am brand new to investing, but have money to invest that I can afford to lose, am learning, researching, and so on. I have a question about a potential approach, which entails buying and flipping stocks short-term (days, weeks, months) for a medium size profit.

Based on the trends in healthy sectors, it appears that you could “ride the bouncing ball,” so to speak. In other words, the strategy would involve investing in about 10 strong stocks that have been shown to grow even at a strong to decent rate over 20-30-year periods (Intel, Apple, Google, etc). Again, I would research very well to select my 10 stocks. The objective here is to minimize risk should the market crumble, in which case I would simply hold onto the stock until it climbed back up.

In the meantime, I would purchase stocks priced around $20-$50 per share, give or take, using $10-$25K (around 20K) for each stock. The short term objective within these stocks would be to ride the trend waves, buying low and selling upon reaching a $2-$5 increase per share. I would set goals for gains and losses so that both gains and losses would be moderate. I have 200K to invest. If I woke up and one tanked, I would keep it there for years, get advice on what to do, and/or just deal with this situation (which I find rare unless something extreme happens).

It would be similar to day trading, but I wouldn't sell for a loss unless something bad happened. Again, I'd be content to hold for years to secure my profit/minimize loss. Granted, I may lose out on other investments by leaving my money in a particular stock if it drops like it did in 2009. Yet, I would continue to invest like this with the other 20K increments, and every time I earn another 20K, I would do the same with it so that each 20K investment. Over time, it would build up and my small/moderate profits would build up as well. Does this make sense?

Please don’t provide far-fetched scenarios of what could happen. I’m completely aware that the stock market involves risk. However, based on purchasing “imaginary shares” over the past month to learn about stocks, I would have averaged about $2000 each week after fees. To me, this sounds too good to be true and I must be missing something.

The transcendental argument for the existence of God is the argument which attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview and that God’s transcendent character is the source of logic and morals. The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything because, in the atheistic world, you cannot justify or account for universal laws.

Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The atheist might respond “Well, I can use the laws of logic and I am an atheist.” But this argument is illogical. Logical reasoning requires the existence of a transcendent and immaterial God, not a profession of belief in Him. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview his reasoning cannot rationally be accounted for.

If the laws of logic are merely man-made contentions, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic. In that case, the laws of logic would not be universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if the laws of logic were conventional, because the two parties could simply adopt different laws of logic. Each would be correct according to his own arbitrary standard.

If the atheist argues that the laws of logic are simply the product of electrochemical impulses in the brain, then the laws of logic cannot be regarded as universal. What happens inside your brain cannot be regarded as a law for it does not necessarily correspond to what happens in another person’s brain. In other words, we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers.

One common response is “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All are agreed that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future—from the materialistic point of view—is circular. Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to simply justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.

To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm.

Some of these diseases are the result of other living organisms.

Evolution, and especially the concept of "survival of the fittest," seems so full of contradictions and speculation that I personally would need more faith to believe in it than God.

Unlike us, they are in far more in danger of the latter.

Why did two genders form at all?

Why couldn't star dust have led to evolving into only one gender that can reproduce.asexually?

Why male and female, and with the unique characteristics that each possesses?

Where is the evidence that proves life revolves around survival?

How you can understand an inkling os science and not believe there must be a God, is the craziest thing I can think of. One of them, anyway.

Yet, I also understand the atheist point of view in terms of looking at the world and seeing no "evidence."

To me, the question is like two people living in a giant sand castle, with one of them asking the other, "Prove that sand exists?"

Why do you think he chooses to open the eyes of some and not others?

For what survival purpose did we separate from apes and form this adaptation, along with losing out fur, speaking, and with much larger brains?

It seems that all "survival mechanisms" in the animal kingdom do nothing more than keep each other in balance,

But hey, at least we have an amazing planet with amazing creatures, to provide for us, amuse us, and serve us in countless ways. Gotta love random chance! I do!

Is intelligence some sort of survival mechanism? If so, why do millions of creatures exist with nowhere near our capacity to reason and create? Haven't those animals been evolving, adapting from countless extinct species over millions of years?

Along these lines, is there some underlying premise by which animals (life) is evolving toward, such as the "ultimate survival mechanism," so that life can no longer be destroyed?

If so, why does each animal seem to have it's own survival mechanism? Even more, why do none of them protect a life-form from extinction, as history and the present reveal?

Finally, why have we developed the capacity to wipe out every lifeform on this planet if we wanted to, and why do we seem to come close to doing this to ourselves so often?

When going from monkeys to humans, did we make coats and then lose all of our fur? Is there any scientific evidence to shed some light on this?

Also, why can men still grow mustaches and beards, but not women? Did evolution care more for our faces then women's?

What purpose does armpit hair serve, in terms of survival/evolution? This part of our body has always been the warmest.

And why do we still have pubic hair, especially for women? Weren't those parts usually covered first, so that we should have lost hair there before out bodies?

What about eyebrows? Do they really serve such a purpose that they have to be so thick?

Just curious to hear your hairy thoughts.

I need to be on the computer for roughly 5 hours per day and there is no way around it. I'm mainly into graphics design and writing, and need to use a mouse and keyboard constantly.

I've developed tendonitis in the shoulder and elbow of my right arm (the arm that control's the mouse). Lately, I've switched up and began using my left arm. Now my elbow is hurting and the same symptoms are beginning to occur.

I've read about keeping the elbows by the sides, etc. I'm still not comfortable.

Also, I'm in great shape, exercise the rotator cuff muscles, safely.

I need advice as to how I can remedy this situation: a special chair, an alternative to a mouse, the ideal position(s) of the body, and any ideas that any of you may have.

Several men died this week in Iran, although very few people can name one of them. The media doesn't really cover it. However, there is another major story making headlines.

You can view the link to this story on Yahoo News: Recently a flight attendant flipped out and went on a tirade, commiting felonies on an airplane. He is being regarded as a hero by countless many. He was gay.

Gawker's Maureen O'Connor labeled him a "hero" for "doing that which everyone who has traveled by airplane dreams." She added, "Unfortunately, his heroism may result in criminal mischief and trespassing charges."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100810/bs_y...

What do you think about this?

Even on this forum you will see atheists, thumb1ng down and making a far better effort to show people what they believe is the truth than Christians do!

I see half Christian responses and half atheist responses. Yet, the Christian responses have 5 thum5 down and the atheist responses virtually all thumb5 up. Are the atheists more passionate about their views than Christians?

If you are a Christian troll with good intentions (say, by asking thought provoking questions), then be sure to thumb5 UP the good Christians responses so that we spread the Word!

Likewise, if you create f4ke accounts, at least go back and select a Best Answer so that people see a virtuous response when they view the question!

If you're truly trying to show people the truth and want to make your point, then take 2 seconds to edify good Christian responses! Thumb5 up...Thumb5 down to atheist comments, particularly h4te response5!

Even on this forum you will see atheists, thumbing down and making a far better effort to show people what they believe is the truth than Christians do!

I see half Christian responses and half atheist responses. Yet, the Christian responses have 5 thumbs down and the atheist responses virtually all thumbs up. Are the atheists more passionate about their views than Christians?

If you are a Christian troll with good intentions (say, by asking thought provoking questions), then be sure to thumbs UP the good Christians responses so that we spread the Word!

Likewise, if you create fake accounts, at least go back and select a Best Answer so that people see a virtuous response when they view the question!

If you're truly trying to show people the truth and want to make your point, then take 2 seconds to edify good Christian responses! Thumbs UP...Thumbs DOWN to atheist responses, particularly h4te responses!

Most Catholics become angry whenever I ask this, which really upsets me since I really want to understand why they call priests "father" and the pope "holy father." I also don't understand honoring Mary as a sort of deity, but that can wait. Please help me understand calling men "father."

I would have a guilty conscience if I called them "father" because of this verse.

Matthew 23:9-12 -

9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[a] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted