Hey Alex, had to delete my previous entry so you could see this one. I'm not so good at the moment so I have not been online in a while.

How have things been with you? Life's been rather unpleasant on my side and I'd rather leave it at that. The world's been getting more and more "unstable" and I'm contemplating the possibilities of a post apocalyptic world and whether I should join the rebels, communists or fascists.

Sulibres.

Hey alexjohnc3, remember me?

Maybe not. Well, I just wanted to say hi...

Quote by alexjohnc3Just in case you didn't see my message, I wanted to know if you could send me a link to an article that you think does a good job at explaining why homosexuality is immoral.

I don't think you mind me not replying to your other post as you said, "I replied to you because you asked for it here ... I don't have any other particular reason." I don't think the discussion was going anywhere and since you don't seem to have much of an interest in me replying, I'm not going to bother, unless you actually want me to.

Good timing, for I was just working on an article that explains it, I'll post it on the Group Guestbook. Comments on my guestbook are welcome as usual.

Quote by alexjohnc3Hi royaldarkness. I saw some of your comments on the forum thought you might want to join the MT-Atheists group. Although you consider yourself a Buddhist, you don't have to identify with atheism to be a member.

Hey there thanks for inviting me
I'd love to join, but it's just that I won't be very active in MT

merged: 10-09-2007 ~ 02:10pm

Quote by alexjohnc3
You can join, even if you're not very active. Feel free to if you want, otherwise feel free not to. :P

BTW, I really like your profile page. It looks very good. ^^

So sorry for the late reply!
I decided to join the group after all, once again thanks for inviting me ^^

And thanks for the compliment, credit goes to my friend enchantressinthedark

Heyo I noticed that you added me to your friend list ^_^ I'm happy you did, adding you back ASAP :3

merged: 09-09-2007 ~ 03:50am

Quote by alexjohnc3

Quote by melymayHeyo I noticed that you added me to your friend list ^_^ I'm happy you did, adding you back ASAP :3

Thanks! ^_^
Also, I really liked your banner for the MT-Environmentalists group. I'd definitely vote for it, but yothsothgoth's is really good too (and a bit more relevant) so I can't decide.

Good to know that you like it I'm completely fine with whoever you choose. Whether it's my banner or one of yothsothgoth's, just pick the one that you think is best for the group ^_^

Quote by alexjohnc3

Quote by ether92Edit: you should say your crap at once instead of editing all that shit
and learn how to type english right

Isn't that kind of hypocritical?

Dunno...
what is hypocritical?

reply part 1/3

Quote by alexjohnc3Our posts are kind of long and so I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep replying to each other while talking about like eight different topics. Is there any one thing you want to talk about specifically? I'll post what I had replied to so far, just so you don't think you wasted your time replying to me only for me to ask we try to shorten the discussion:

I replied to you because you asked for it here:

Quote by alexjohnc3
Edit: If or when you respond, can we can we continue this in each other's guestbook? I don't want to stop other members of this group from posting here by accident.

I don't have any other particular reason.

Quote by alexjohnc3
I wasn't talking about natural selection, but I'll try my best to address that based on my very limited knowledge of evolution later.
My point was that just because many cultures share similar values, such as honor and integrity, does not imply there is an absolute morality and thus a God who acts as the "law maker." Humans, being very similar creatures, are bound to have similar views on morality. If a civilization is to survive, it needs many people who are have a predisposition towards altruism. There are many people who see nothing wrong with stealing, lying, killing, etc., but if a society has too many of those people and they become too powerful, the society will crumble.

...

"As for what you said about natural selection, those groups full of animals that self-sacrifice are going to be the ones to survive as opposed to groups full of self-serving animals who act in ways that are not beneficial for the group and instead hinder the groups' survival as a whole. The self-serving animals, I would imagine, would be much less likely to even form groups in the first place and those animals who live in groups are much more likely to survive than those who do not as they can protect each other."

Self-serving individuals can actually form groups. The only difference is that they abandon them when they no longer benefit from it. (they are self-serving afterall. similar to betrayal)Take for example a herd of wild Cows. When a lion chases them, now what happens to the self-sacrificial Cow which stays behind to protect a calf while to other (self serving) cows run for their lives? He likely gets eaten.

Evolution requires 3 things:

1. Inheritable mutation
2. Selection
3. Reproduction

And if the self sacrificial people do not live to reproduce, then natural selection has worked against them, not for them. Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" doesn't have 'selfish' in its title for nothing.

It is expected that the moral law (or altruism) tends to preserve civilisation, since God has the best interests of his creation at heart. C S Lewis never did say he proved that the moral law proves God's existance. (although he did give reason like why he it probably isn't an instinct and so on) However he did believe that God is the most reasonable explanation for its existance.

Quote by alexjohnc3
Note, however, that many civilizations have drastically different views on morality, which C.S. Lewis completely ignores in the first chapter (though he may have attempted to address it later on). Nowadays, many people have strong egalitarian views on ethnicity, sex, nationality, belief, etc. That isn't exactly a natural tendency of humans, who have a much stronger tendency to be intolerant of whatever qualities others have that they don't have or have a variation of (e.g., Protestants and Catholics fighting in Northern Ireland). These drastically different views on morality, such as human sacrifice and slavery, suggests relative morality, not absolute. Even if all views on morality were similar, it could mean those views on morality are what is needed for a society to exist.

I'll rather you be more specific, but I will say that cilivilizations largely have the same idea of morailty. Why do I say so? Let take human sacrifice for example. (since you used it) The societies that did have human sacrifices didn't do so because they thought that it was good in itself, but because they thought that pleasing a god was a good thing. Let's also take slavery. The slave dealers did not tolerate slavery because they thought it was a good thing. They tolerated it only because they benefited from it.

It's quite obvious to me that there's more to the "Protestants and Catholics fighting in Northern Ireland" than mere variation of moral values you mention. Imo it's a rather myopic and shallow view of the war you have.

Quote by alexjohnc3
Um... okay. What does "dying spiritually" mean exactly?

In Christianity spiritual death occurs via seperation from God. Man after Adam could no longer communicate with God directly. In many Christian circles it is said that the most painful thing for Jesus during the crucifixtion was not physical but spiritual.

"And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" - Matthew 27:46

Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't see what's wrong with using the word "illogical." Punishing someone when there is no gain in doing so for either party is illogical and only leads to unnecessary hatred and suffering. The only justification for "an eye for an eye" is as a deterrent to crime in the first place. If someone knows they're going to be beaten up if they beat someone else up, they're unlikely to do it. If people were genuinely empathetic beings, that would be unnecessary and they would be able to relate to each other easily, preventing them from causing each other to suffer. This not being the case, punishments are the easiest deterrents to crime a society can use and has thus become a core part of many societies, even if people, such as yourself, don't realize why punishment is useful.

On the proper use of logic: http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2006/12/observing_god.php (2nd paragraph)

Techincally, speaking, I've said nothing illogical about God, just that you disagree with me and somehow like to use the word "illogical" on people whom you disagree with. I think you've actually answered for yourself as to what punishment is good for. Perhaps you can expain to me what you mean by genuinely empathetic. (you mean all our empathy is fake?) Does it include empathy for the pain of rocks, trees, and flying squirrels? Technically speaking, you don't feel any different whether a million people are killed in the room next to you or a rock was detonated at the same location so long as you don't know of it. (maybe you should consider my linking everyone's pain sensors to each other and mind reading for all suggestion) Anyway some people do gripe about being too sensitive: http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsoul/personalgrowth/articlelhj.aspx?cp-documentid=5292179

Quote by Persocom01
Not really my point. My point was that the evidence for God's existence could be obvious, but we would not be able to understand the evidence because God, being out creator, could prevent us from doing so. We could create an artificially intelligent robot that, when it saw a television, it would not believe televisions exist as it would be unable to comprehend the evidence, even though it is right in front of it since its creators do not will it. The same could be the case for God. God could not want us to see the evidence supporting his existence, even if its right in front of us. Not something like the complexity of the world, but something more obvious like the example I gave with the television. That could be why we aren't able to understand God's reasoning, as God has purposefully limited our ability to reason in order to prevent us from coming to the conclusion that it exists through reasoning.

What point about the evidence for God's existance is not understandable? God did will that everyone know of him:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them." - Romans 1:18-19

In fact, God pretty much says that you, and everyone else, already knows him (which is consistent with scientific findings) and Atheists and people who claim not to know God are suppressing the truth.

I haven't posted this on MT-Atheists before, (although I planned to do so at one point) but besides the design, there is also what is known as the Trancendental argument for God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God To better comprehend it, try the following experiment - Going onto a stage in front of a live audience of 1000 people, and shouting through the microphone the following:

1. "Thank God of my reason and intelligence!"
2. "Thank the fortuitous arragement of molecules in my brain for my reason and intelligence!"

After which tell me which one made you feel more like a fool. Since, we write so very long replies, I'll spilt the other part from this one until we are satisfied with discussing this.

Quote by alexjohnc3so i herd u liek loli... o_o

Thanks for uploading Haruran! ^_^

Edit: I just noticed your post. No thanks for being a jerk to me for no reason at all.

You are welcome

Edit: you should say your crap at once instead of editing all that shit
and learn how to type english right

Quote by alexjohnc3Have you been reading Pharyngula or something? You've posted two articles that I originally read about there. o.o
Though it could just be a coincidence.

Actually I don't remember where I got them exactly, but now that you mention a site and I looked there... it looks familiar. ^^ Its probably that place exactly or some place that had a link from it. I click on links to links to links and end up not remembering what I was looking for to begin with.

merged: 08-22-2007 ~ 01:38pm

Quote by alexjohnc3

Quote by yothsothgothOh, I just saw this: Scientists will soon create life. I wonder what kind of repercussions could come from this... good and bad... though which will prevail?

You've seriously got to be reading Pharyngula. =P
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wait_until_the_creationists_tr.php

I am now. Very good site btw. ^^

Quote: Anyone interested should vote for atheism--even if you aren't an atheist--here: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
Don't ask why. Just do it. =D

Wow, check it out... when I voted, Atheists were at 71%. woah...

Quote by alexjohnc3
I can't explain in detail, since I'm neither a biologist nor have I read too much on how humans make decisions involving morality. My point was, however, that he doesn't consider that the commonality of human morals throughout different cultures can also be explained by the fact that we're all human beings and thus have many similar traits that would allow for cultures with similar, but not the same, morals and views to develop.

CS Lewis does explain why he thinks that morality is not a trait that arises from physical factors. Take honor and integrity for example. The most beneficial choice for the person offered 20 thousand for his car but has promised to sell it for 10 thousand, is of course to sell it for 20 thousand. However the moral law rebels against that idea. Similarly when a person is drowning, and you're not the best of swimmers, the most beneficial choice would be to let him drown. Yet the moral law tells you to risk your life (at no gain whatsoever) to save the person. Risking death is hardly a trait that natural selection is likely to select for. In fact, the moral law more often makes the opposite true - it makes a person's death more likely, his material resources smaller than it could have been, (because he doesn't cheat) or even lowers his chances for landing a mate. (because he doesn't lie about himself or go all out to propagate)

Quote by alexjohnc3
I think I remember reading God said to Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Instead of dying as their punishment, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

They did die. Both physically, and being seperated from God, spiritually. (although I'm more inclined to think that God refered to the latter) God didn't say when they would die either, nor did he say "I will kill you". (considering humans naturally die spiritually after being seperated from God)

Quote by alexjohnc3
I'm not saying that keeping promises is illogical, but that the action God promised in itself was illogical. If I promised someone I would kill someone for them, it would be illogical to carry out that promise and doing so wouldn't reflect my honor nor my integrity, as is the case here.

Again I think you're misusing the word illogical. What you probably mean is that it's unreasonable to you. I'll overlook that, considering it's just a language error. If you talk about mathematics/logic, God's law states:

1 life = 1 life
1 tooth = 1 tooth
1 eye = 1 eye
Now it fits the laws of mathematics perfectly. Letting someone off scott free is hardly logical to me.

If you promised that you'll kill someone for somebody, and not do it, then you have done evil by breaking your promise. I'm not saying that you should have gone ahead and killed the person, for breaking your promise is the lesser of the two evils. However, what God has promised is justice, and justice is good. He did not promise to do evil, but to do good. Now before we lose sight of it altogether, let's go back to the issue of Jesus' death. Jesus died to satisfy the justice of God. And God did not do evil by forcing him to die. Jesus died willingly as it is written:

"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I might take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment from My Father." - John 10:17-18

Quote by alexjohnc3
To give another example, we could create an artificially intelligent robot, but program it to believe we don't exist. Even though it is an intelligent life form, it will ignore how obvious it is that we created it, even if it can see us. The same could be true for humans. Even if God's existence is obvious, we could have been created to ignore the most obvious facts that prove his existence.

Humans innately believe in God, as far as I know. I heard that studies on children who were never taught that God is the creator found that these children still answered "God" when asked who created the universe. This article goes so far as to say:

"What can be made of atheists, then? If the evolutionary view of religion is true, they have to work hard at being atheists, to resist slipping into intrinsic habits of mind that make it easier to believe than not to believe." - Evolution and Religion http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=11&ei=5090&en=43cfb46824423cea&ex=1330664400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Atheism, as far as I know, is scientifically an unatural religion (belief system) that isn't innate in human beings, but rationalised in some way later.

Quote by alexjohnc3
In the end, the problem with assuming that we're like that robot who cannot comprehend its creator or understand it's reasoning is that we may not actually have a creator or our creator may not be God. Using the same logic, we could say 2 + 2 actually equals 5 because we could have been created to believe that 2 + 2 equals 4. Such claims are worthless because we can only rely on our own reasoning, even if that means we won't be able to find truth. Based on what we do know and what we have observed, our reasoning is the best tool for finding truth and judging reality. If God purposely limited our ability to reason, we can't do anything about that. I actually have a tendency to half believe we do have a creator, but the idea that the Christian god is our creator seems obviously wrong to me.

If I created a robot that was dumber than me, I wouldn't say that I've "purposely limited" its ability to reason. And I think "cannot comprehend" is different from "cannot fully comprehend". (which is my position) I did not say we cannot understand ANYTHING that God does. I just said we can't understand EVERYTHING. (which would be the case if my hypothesis is true) Yes I do think that reason and common sense is the best tool to judge reality with.

Quote by alexjohnc3
One of the reasons I reject the view that there is an entity that created us at all is that it's only based on human ignorance. If we don't know how rain falls, we assume it's was the work of a supernatural entity. If we see a volcano explode, we assume the same thing. Finally, if we observe the complexity of the world, we'll once again assume the same thing. In the first two cases, we know that isn't the case, but many people have believed that to be the case for thousands of years. In the last case, it's much harder to study than the first two, but, based on what we do know about the Universe currently, the scientific explanations seem to make this yet another case of human bias resulting from our ignorance causing us to become convinced of a false belief once again.

I think that's where you're wrong. I did not assume that it was the work of intelligence, (what you call a supernatural deity) but rather deduced it from the current laws of science along with reason. I know a clock ticks without the intervention of an intelligence, but I do know that it was created by one. (I think you overgeneralized about the rain and volcanoes) I reject Atheism because it's based on ignorance. Just because we don't know how it could have been the work of intelligence, you assume that it was not. Of course it's impossible to prove which way it is for sure currently, but based on what we do know about the universe at present, the most obvious and reasonable explanation would be that it was the work of an intelligence.

Quote by alexjohnc3
Just think about how reasonable it would be to assume that God caused a volcano to erupt, when you don't know any other way it could have happened. If scientists discovered how volcanoes actually erupted and a group of people had held a tradition of trying to appease God. Regardless of the scientific explanation, they would continue to hold their belief because it was a tradition and, if belief was widespread enough, this new scientific idea would be fought against in favor of the traditional views.

Just how reasonable would it be to assume that a computer made itself, or a watch self assembled, just because you don't know the designer. Of course, unless God personally reveals himself to each and every one of us, many would continue to hold on to their own beliefs. There have been plenty of Godless men in the past, (despite a lack of the theory of evolution - I don't see how other sciences have an impact on the belief in God - unless you're refering to the belief in imaginary Atlas, Zues or Thor) as it is written:

"saying to a tree, You are my father; and to a stone, You gave me birth. For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face; but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise and save us!" - Jeremiah 2:27

The underlined verses describe the people in denial of God. You are right, however, if you meant that most people believed in God on way or another. (it's still true today, actually, despite evolution) This could be due to the fact that no human society has ever survived more than 3 generations without a religious foundation (I think Atheists are naturally selected against, for a variety of reasons, from lower levels of co-operation and reproductive success to mental fortitude) :

"I started looking at history, and I wondered why no society ever survived more than three generations without a religious foundation as its raison d'etre," - Evolution and Religion http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=43cfb46824423cea&ex=1330664400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Quote by Persocom01
Um, but the other passage you posted specifically says "you shall give life for life, eye for eye..." not God. From every source I've ever seen, Jesus was advocating a pretty advanced view for his time, that revenge for the sake of revenge is worthless and that forgiveness is more important than revenge. There's also a good saying, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it:

"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." - Matthew 5:17-18

What Jesus said was of course true. That we should not take revenge. But that is not because vengence is bad. (for vengence and justice are two sides of the same coin) It's just because there really isn't a point considering God will judge everyone anyway, whether in life (through the court of law) or in death. The passage from the old testament states the law, but it doesn't not do so in reference to how an individual should behave.

Quote by alexjohnc3
Yeah and the Christian god sentencing people to eternal damnation for not worshiping him isn't frivolous?
And God made Mary pregnant, which is sort of like adultery. =P

I think it make sense for God to destroy a rebellious creation.

"And now also, the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." - Matthew 3:10

God sent Jesus in the most holy way possible, born of a virgin and without sex. It's nothing like the adultery of the greek gods like Gaea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_%28mythology%29 (slept with her son no less)

Quote by alexjohnc3
You don't accept the fact that a larger number of Christians believe in God as kind and forgiving, rather than vengeful than back when believing that was beneficial to society? That's basically all I said there, but I also added that it would explain why that belief was was so popular than and has now weakened, even though the texts haven't changed much, if at all. That's one weakness of written religions, they can't evolve with society's changing needs anymore as religions kept alive through oral traditions can.

I'll like to see your proof of that assertion. You might as well ask the "large majority of Christians" if they believe in the book of Revelation. (where unbelievers are judged and pretty much annihilated) And what makes you think I don't see God as kind and forgiving? There is no need for the truth to "evolve". If a rose were a rose 100 years ago it would still be a rose today. (or does it evolve into a sunflower?) What do you want? Jesus to be born in a hotel and John the prophet to be a rock star? Society's needs have stayed the same really with regards to God.

I don't recall God wanting to be "popular". If you read the chapter in John MacArthur's Hard to Believe entitled "Truth in a Privy Pot" (a pot used to collect shit) you'll have a sense on just how God wanted to convey his message - no frills, with just the bare essentials and his power. Just look as his choice of birthplace and disciples. (tax collector, a rebel, fishermen...) Plus what better way to be popular than tell others they must be willing to die for him?

"And Nathanael said to him, Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and see." - John 1:46

Quote by alexjohnc3
Evolution isn't an "atheist thing". It's a matter of science and atheists mostly accept it for two reasons. The first reason it that they don't have a scripture to tell them something else, so they don't have to reconcile their beliefs with it. The second reason is it provides an explanation for something we had originally attributed to a supernatural entity. Just as an atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation for how rain falls, an atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation of the evolution of life on Earth. In both cases because they don't have a belief in God to prevent them from forming beliefs based on new knowledge rather than their own ignorance. There are other reasons of course, such as the fact that Creationists have driven some of the atheists in our little community to take some sort of weird, almost religious pride in evolution. It's kind of weird, seriously. o_o
I can understand liking evolution for its explanatory powers, but that's not why some people like it so much. It's because they're driven to be the opposite of their "opponents," so they lose sight of the fact that evolution could be wrong; and they don't accept it on its merits, but because it's what the Creationists tell them they believe and that what they believe is against God.

I don't think evolution is really a matter of science, for as far as I know the evidence for it is as a rope of sand. The real reason I think it's accepted is really the second you have mentioned (I've told you before too if I recall right) - that it does without God. Not because it is feasible, but because It takes God out. I don't think that most Atheists really accept evolution because of it's own merits, (some just because they're anti-christian, see also ex-christian.net, while many others appear to have a rather shallow understanding of evolution) but instead because it fits snugly into their own world view, and is parroted by the media and some scientists. A quote attributed to GK Chesterton (I believe it's been altered although it retains the original meaning) goes: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."

Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't really see how that article shows flies have freewill. It seemed to neglect the fact that there are both internal and external factors that contribute to a fly's actions, not just external ones. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wanted to go to sleep a few hours ago and it's about 1:00 a.m., so I might not be thinking straight, especially since I didn't sleep much yesterday either. ^^;

The study suggests that free-will it exists, as the researchers removed external factors in the experiment. (as well as they knew how) I don't know what internal factors you think might have an impact but hey, it's evidence, not conclusive proof.

"These strategies in flies appear to arise spontaneously and do not result from outside cues." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/?GT1=9951

Quote by alexjohnc3
Oh, I see what you mean now. What I was saying was that if humans were more intelligent and thus better able to understand that others feel same things they feel, there wouldn't be things like torture. Even if humans couldn't perfectly associate with each other, just enough for us to be at the same level as those humans who have exemplary abilities to feel empathy for others would be nice.

That really the same as empathy and isn't intelligence is it not? I think even dog can sense people's feelings. And I think we know perfectly well that a person being tortured is suffering, but has it occured to you that torture exists because some people WANT to inflict pain on another person.

Quote by alexjohnc3
I recall reading about people who have been born without the ability to feel empathy. I don't remember where, but then again, I don't remember where I've read most of the things I've read. If you want to, feel free to look for yourself, but I'm not having much luck finding any examples right now.

I think there are people born blind or people born without the sense of pain too, but it's really an exception rather than the norm, caused by the continual degeneration of the world, so I don't see how it helps your point. If I were arguing that people aren't given good enough eyes I wouldn't point to a blind person.

Quote by alexjohnc3
That human empathy is so easily defeated by training does say a lot about how weak it is.

I don't see why you seem to have the need to blame everything and anything except the person whom you think lacks empathy. I also wonder what training you are refering to. (I was refering to a lack of training in my post, so I wonder what training you're refering to here?)

Quote by alexjohnc3
I don't believe a lack of empathy is the root cause of suffering, I believe that a lack of empathy is a reason why humans are often willing to inflict suffering on each other for their own benefit.

I think it's just a symptom of sin, just as flies and a bad smell don't cause garbage, but are rather a symptom of it.

Quote by alexjohnc3
(Sorry for all the random line breaks above...)
I finished Ouran recently and when I finish an anime or while I'm in the middle of it, I tend to think it's the best thing I've ever seen. For example, I loved Pita Ten when I was watching it. Now, I don't really like it much at all. I still love Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu because the anime was more unique and interesting than most, I've been reading the light novels every now and then online (if you're interested, they can be found here: http://www.baka-tsuki.net/project/index.php?title=Suzumiya_Haruhi ), and the ending didn't make me feel like it was missing something, unlike Ouran's ending and most other animes, which feel like they end way too abruptly.
Random picture for you: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/alexjohnc3/anime/haruhi/haruhiString.png

Pani Poni Dash isn't a bad anime either, although I feel sorry for the rabbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pani_Poni_Dash

Quote by alexjohnc3Here's a comic from my favorite webcomic, XKCD: http://xkcd.com/258/
It feels like I've posted this here before. o.o

Another xkcd fan. ^^ Wonderful. I even have clip of his on my page here on MT. I love that comic.

merged: 08-13-2007 ~ 11:50am

Quote by alexjohnc3

Quote by yothsothgothAnother xkcd fan. ^^ Wonderful. I even have clip of his on my page here on MT. I love that comic.

I love xkcd, even though sometimes I don't have any idea what they're talking about.
Random comic for you: http://xkcd.com/178/

Do you know of any other good webcomics? The only good one I know of is xkcd...

Some days I feel like this: http://xkcd.com/169/ ...and the velociraptor ones with math makes me laugh too.

I also used to like http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=970825 . The link takes you to the first one.

http://hellsing.comicgenesis.com/d/20030608.html . This link is for a Hellsing anime/fangroup comic. Its kinda cute if you've seen the series.

www.newgrounds.com If you haven't been here, its a wonderland... if you ignore the ads, its an awesome site. They have many different comics and just videos.
My recommendations: Xombie Series - This one is the second movie though (you might have to go to James Farr's site to get the first movie) and Brackenwood Series This Series is pretty good... I liked the "Prowlies at the River" the best so far...

http://www.angryalien.com/ is a good flash movie site. Not really a comic, just amusing 30-second movie parody site (with bunnies) for bordom late at night.

I hope you enjoy these... they were the ones that came to mind right now. I'll let you know if I think of any others later. Have a wonderful night.