Fernando

Zero evidence about god right? So you rather believe that everything came from nothing....poof things fly away, here and there and magically get arranged in a particular spot? Earth is put in the right place, the sun is not too big or too small. The moon is not too big or too small, for that matter not too far or too close. Then from nothing life came about and helped us formed morale guideline..... You do realize how that sounds? And why it baffles me is that someone who believes in this can sit there and tell me what's "right" and "wrong". If you where made by accident, then your nothing. Your life means nothing. No, no that's just not right at all, If anything these are evidence of an highly intelligent designer, just like a watch is made by a designer. That designer made you very complex, made this complex universe into being. Intelligent design. Cause if this all happened from nothing, then I wonder if in a few billion years my IWatch will slowly evolved into a Emma Watson look a like...

But what is bad?How you come to a conclusion that something is bad? "Good" and "Bad" are morale decisions that have been injected by a designer. The hard wire into our brain I discussed that before but I will put it again. Here's the the article I got it from, the "hard-wired:Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save This article of Discover magazine poses the question, ‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article from Joshua Greene has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions. As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, ‘A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.’Is Greene right? As the magazine asks, ‘Are right and wrong wired into our brains?’ The inquiry is a false one. Rather than questioning whether or not evolution has hardwired morality into our brains, the researcher should be questioning how the evolutionary hypothesis can claim anything is right or wrong at all like I just asked you. For an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical ‘soup.’ The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just one’s own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself, who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be. Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses people’s questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, ‘People sometimes say to me, “If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?”’Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. ‘Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil,’ he says. ‘You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level.’Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society. Example: Goering actually said at the Nuremburg trials that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own laws, and were on trial only because they lost. Rebutting this, Prosecutor Jackson invoked a universal law. But this only has meaning if there is a Creator/Lawgiver! Biblical Christians have a much more satisfying and rational point of view. In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law. God, the moral lawgiver, also revealed His moral standards more perfectly and directly following creation, by way of the Ten Commandments revealed to the children of Israel and subsequently in the New Testament through Jesus Christ.

Like this:Goering actually said at the Nuremburg trials that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own laws, and were on trial only because they lost. Rebutting this, Prosecutor Jackson invoked a universal law. But this only has meaning if there is a Creator/Lawgiver! Or some other famous evolutionists put it: Were just here to pass on our selfish genes, Survival of the fittest or Life is ultimately all without meaning or purpose Believing that man is nothing more than a cosmic fluke.... They realise that this means that ultimately morality is just something that was put together in the human mind, a product of evolution which has no more real authority over our behaviour than any other activity of the human mind. Its got no more compulsion (you ought to do this) than anything else thrown up by our brain cells such as immorality! One person thinks that we should not hurt our neighbour; the cannibal though thinks that its OK to eat him. And both of those ideas are nothing more than the result of chemicals fizzing around in our heads. Neither has any real authority, they are ultimately just personal preferences. Frederich Nietzsche, the famous atheist who said, God is dead, saw that this was where the logic led. He wrote that our moral judgments and evaluations are only images and fantasies based on a physiological process unknown to us. Richard Dawkins says: Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer. Defining good and bad in terms of welfare and suffering sounds reasonable pretty close to the Christian commandment to love our neighbour. Hurting them is bad, helping them is good. The problems do not come with the second half of Dawkins first sentence, but the first. 'Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad...' In fact, theres no reason to read anything that comes after that point. Whether we choose to define good and bad in terms of helping society or in terms of crushing it with an iron fist makes no difference from here. If good and bad are merely what atheists, humanists or anyone else chooses to define them as, then good and bad are merely a product of the human brain. They have no binding moral authority over us, any more than any other mere construction of the human brain has. They might make us happy, but happiness is not the same as righteousness, even a serial killer might feel that he gains happiness from his crimes... They exist only within our cerebral chemistry, and nowhere outside of it. Like opinions on the best England football XI, or on the finest vintage of South African wine, morality is no more than one of the moveable and ever-moving feasts of human thought. With no external or transcendent source of values, Richard Dawkins opinion on what is good or bad has no more authority over me or objective basis that should guide me than my preference for classical music over grunge. Both have precisely the same foundation, the ever evolving activities of the human brain. Its just a matter of however I happen to like or want things to be! Indeed, Dawkins has himself recognized that ultimately evolution leads to a moral vacuum in which [peoples] best impulses have no basis in nature. He scoffs at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals, claiming that it is as irrational as Basil Fawlty beating his car... To be real, morality must be a matter of authority: you ought or ought not to do this or that. Its very essence depends upon transcendence. That is, something that is bigger than you, and tells you what to do. It cannot be something that is just a part of you or humanity in general: it must be outside of humanity, something over and above us. Dawkins morality is not morality at all, but personal preference. He prefers to not cause suffering; rapists prefer to maximize their own gratification. In atheism, theres no ultimate authority we can appeal to in order to determine whose thoughts are better. Both are just human brain activity, without any ultimate reference point by which to evaluate them. In the end Atheists need to face up to logic: ultimately either nothing is immoral (because there is no God, and thus no such thing as morality) or atheism is itself immoral. There are no coherent alternatives.

Wait a second, doesn't evolution teaches that free will doesn't exist? Then why should someone be held responsible? And look here's a scientific research from an evolutionists: postdoctoral researcher, Joshua Greene, who has been studying the biochemical reactions within peoples brains when they are faced with moral decisions. As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history. ......... I ask is he right? Well as I been debating with you that for an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical soup. The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just ones own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as right or wrong in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself. Now Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses peoples questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, People sometimes say to me, If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good? Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. Once you understand someones behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, its very hard to look at them as evil, he says. You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesnt exist on a neuronal level. Hmmm make of that what you will.

You can view it that way but you can also view it another way. Hitler was an evolutionists and he believed some races evolved better, hence the superior races. Not to mention who gave you the knowledge of what's good and bad? There's no scientific data nor it can proven in a controlled state of environment that you can create morales into an animal,let it a lone extract it from water. What you define good and evil can be totally different to what another evolved being would classify into it. There's no reason to modify your behavior to fit into normal society.

All this coming from a rock? I mean that's how everything started for evolutionists? Rock evolved into something and that something evolved into conscience, and then it evolved into moral standards? Wow that's something. Yet still something bothers me, and that something is why do good at all if you come from nothing and go to nothing? Whatever you do in this live amounts to nothing because your nothing. No reward or punishment when you go to the grave. Now if there's a creator then there's some serious repercussions for all of this.

Good stuff. Now something to challenge your brain. If a person are atheist and believes in evolution what's to say any of this is wrong? Morale behavior are rules and guidelines made by a creator. You who don't believe in God and believe that you came to nothing and will go back to nothing then what gives you the moral ground? I'm Christian and believe all this is wrong, but I find it ironic that an evolutionists and an atheist will see what's wrong in God eyes in theirs.

That should change a bit next season with the way the top seed is determined. But also I think the fact that we get to avoid the teams from the same league in the next round reduces the odds of getting a new opponent. Should just make it free for all after the group stage.

So your saying that back in 1985 they killed innocent people? I don't remember reading about that.

I just need to say that this is very misleading. From 1985 to now a lot of things has happened. A good guy can turn bad, like a bad guy can turn good. If they was once a peaceful organization, but went rogue what are you supposed to do?

I think it was different a decade ago and it was demanded that we win, win and win. The standards has been reduced a tad bit.... Just a tad. And because of FFP we can't no longer splash like crazy. We did good this season with transfer, but how many years you expect the same results? Every year we sell a youth for over 20 millions? It's gonna come a time that what we have to spend and what's available ain't as good as what we have. Biggest example is Salah. What was the purpose of spending 10 millions to get him when his slot can go to a guy from the Academy? If mourinho is really staying here for a decade then by next season we should see something moving in this direction. *noticed that I'm a pessimists when it comes to youth but at least I can acknowledge that thanks to FFP we might just have to use the kids in the coming seasons.

Hmmm an away shirt? That's interesting. I will say some away shirts do look awesome but I can't never hold them in weight to home shirts because of the colors and away status.

I kinda agree with lionsden on this one. Too early for this. I did liked the Everton game and schurrle goal against Burnley but they are not decisive games that brings the excitement and joy up a notch. Like Ba late equalizer against psg last season and mourinho running to the by line...Funny that I did the same running all around my house. ?

Well since the Samsung logo is about done and dusted with Chelsea I was wondering which kit the fans thought was the best? My favorite is the kit we used after the CL victory season. I liked it because of the gold glittering look it had. http://www.offthepost.info/wp-content/uploads/Chelsea-FC-Home-Kit-2012-13.jpg

Last time David Luiz had an amazing game and PSG bought him. Will they want one of our players again after this match? Of course we won't sell Hazard, Costa, Fabregas, Matic and Courtois. I think anyone else could be sold.

And let's not forget this face as well:

Well I really think next season is when mourinho should play one or two younger players. As most people alluded to, this season is a bit tough and it's all about winning the league. After we win that and have the champions mentality then mourinho might try more with younger players. So we shall see.

Well a good read about Chelsea and City academy from G. Neville http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/11289726/Premier-League-academies-must-be-more-than-just-obscene-cosmetic-surgery.html

What? I don't see what you guys talking about.

I think enough is enough. Mourinho needs to have a word with the squad and tell them to stop diving. Is blatantly cheating and we don't want no one to do it to us. So we need to start first by putting our house in order.

That's good because I get bored when team roll over for us...

It's called sheepo. They just read the twisted headlines and don't read the actual quotes that a person spoked.

If he really wanted City, why didn't he just sign with them in the first place? That way he wouldn't have obligation to NYCFC when the new season starts. How many years he sign with NYCFC? 4? It will be a travesty if he serves 0 of those at the club. For now there's nothing going on, and pre-season ain't nothing. It's better for NYCFC that Lampard is at City. So that when the season starts Lampard will go to the club in the best shape.

But he didn't sign a contract with City. He's with MLS. I think he will be a liar if he doesn't serve a single day with the MLS team. But they are not playing right now, so it's all good.