The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

[Jeterpool]

right

newcastle bowling club development - yay or nay?

i'm all for the site being developed but is stronach's idea the right one?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2753260-3x2-700x467.jpg

does newcastle really need another "function centre"? or does it just need a better designed one without a carpark tacked on to the side of it

no function centre really holds a candle to the wickham croatia club anyway imo

what should go in there and why?

Something there would be better than what's there at the moment

[plague]

If Christopher Pyne and Big Scotty Moz ever ran on a ticket id vote for them for the next 4.000 years.

dead set comedy show.

[plague]

What an interesting time for old Bill to champion the gay marriage cause.

[MFKS]

What an interesting time for old Bill to champion the gay marriage cause.
Anything to buy votes from the brainwashed masses

[q-money]

i'll marry you m4fks

[The Dunster]

Anything to buy votes from the brainwashed masses

Twice as tight and five degrees warmer apparently.

[snake]

Anything to buy votes from the brainwashed masses

brainwashed - says the bloke who teleconferences with his sky dad by wisphering into his hands

no, ****en really :rof:

[plague]

brainwashed - says the bloke who teleconferences with his sky dad by wisphering into his hands

no, ****en really :rof:

Oh man.
That was beautiful.

[The Dunster]

I had the misfortune of watching Ross Gittens on the ABC Breakfast program this morning.

Gittens knows as much about economics as Basil Fawlty does about customer service.

If he's the best the ABC can do the ABC should be shut down immediately.

[MFKS]

brainwashed - says the bloke who teleconferences with his sky dad by wisphering into his hands

no, ****en really :rof:

People supporting this who are religious really need to reread Leviticus 20:13 as they are in ****ing denial


As for the rest of you non believers your day will come.

Bring suntan lotion cause it will be hot :rof:

[q-money]

i'm gunna bum you m8

[plague]

As for the rest of you non believers your day will come.

Bring suntan lotion cause it will be hot :rof:

Nah, Mike Baird was at the northwest rail link tunnel today.
They have been digging underneath sydney for months, and if theres ever going to be evidence of Hell, its down there.

we all sweet.
http://transform.fairfaxregional.com.au/transform/v1/crop/frm/storypad-38qekeYnEsTEe5X3yUPrxRR/25b76171-62d7-49d6-8f08-e35baccbc507.jpg/r0_0_3526_2476_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

[MFKS]

Nah, Mike Baird was at the northwest rail link tunnel today.
They have been digging underneath sydney for months, and if theres ever going to be evidence of Hell, its down there.

we all sweet.
http://transform.fairfaxregional.com.au/transform/v1/crop/frm/storypad-38qekeYnEsTEe5X3yUPrxRR/25b76171-62d7-49d6-8f08-e35baccbc507.jpg/r0_0_3526_2476_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg


They have got the GPS coordinates wrong FFS

It is 70 or so kms north they don't need to be digging. Pretty easy to find. Has a big sign there with Gosford written on it

[Blackmac79]

People supporting this who are religious really need to reread Leviticus 20:13 as they are in ****ing denial


As for the rest of you non believers your day will come.

Bring suntan lotion cause it will be hot :rof:

I hope you don't mix your clothing fabrics, and check that fruit you buy came from trees greater than 4 years old.

On that note, don't trim your beard, or cut your hair at the sides.

Hope you never worked between sunset Friday and sunset Saturday, or sold land permenantly.

I look forward to getting a tan with you member.

[militiamon]

God hates figs.

[boz-monaut]

why did this god person make the gays then?

seems a bit odd to make them and then not allow them to bum each other or get married

doesn't seem to be anything against rape in the bible tough, or rooting goats - maybe that's whath christians are into

[MFKS]

why did this god person make the gays then?

seems a bit odd to make them and then not allow them to bum each other or get married

doesn't seem to be anything against rape in the bible tough, or rooting goats - maybe that's whath christians are into

Maybe you need to read it cause you have missed something

http://www.gotquestions.org/bestiality.html

Plenty also about rape but it seems to more look upon it as a mans right to violate his woman

[boz-monaut]

have that page bookmarked do we?

you god types able to do your missus up the shitter?

[MFKS]

have that page bookmarked do we?

you god types able to do your missus up the shitter?

Bookmarked??? No

A simple Google search provided the link.

Knew it was in there but not sure where and Google done the rest

[hawk]

seems a bit odd to make them and then not allow them to bum each other or get married

why the fk would anyone fight for for that archaic institution. do you know what happens when that occurs. take the bumming and run

[Bon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM

[parksey]

as if the member doesn't have a one way ticket to hell already booked

[q-money]

:rof:

[MFKS]

as if the member doesn't have a one way ticket to hell already booked

I may be many things but don't forget I have the get out of gaol free card of repenting my sins and accepting JC as my lord and saviour to avoid the never ending BBQ.

You non believers don't have that luxury :sup:

[Bon]

I may be many things but don't forget I have the get out of gaol free card of repenting my sins and accepting JG as my lord and saviour to avoid the never ending BBQ.

You non believers don't have that luxury :sup:

Fixed.. :thumbsup:

[la bazzle]

I hope you don't mix your clothing fabrics, and check that fruit you buy came from trees greater than 4 years old.

On that note, don't trim your beard, or cut your hair at the sides.

Hope you never worked between sunset Friday and sunset Saturday, or sold land permenantly.

I look forward to getting a tan with you member.

Curious to know if the honorable member follows these....or are they a bit outdated....

About time this thread got back to talking about lunatics

[plague]

I cant make polls but heres something:
Q: should the marriage equality issue be decided by
1. Pollies through legislation now:
2. A referendum or plebiscite
3. By pollies but after the next election so each member has a chance to state their stance on the issue before voters go to the polls next time
4. Slobs.


Thoughts?

im leaning towards 3.
reason: the issue of gay marriage is actually not up to the pollies individual stance. a member of parliament is there to enact the wishes of his/her constituency.
if the electorate overwhelmingly demands either a yes or no on the issue then the elected official should obey their wishes regardless of their personal stance.

[parksey]

i think a referendum would get it done with a lot less fuss

[plague]

i think a referendum would get it done with a lot less fuss

fair point. but i can also see the counterpoint in that the issue of marriage equality(whether we like to admit it or not) affects only a very small part of the population.
so for other issues of this 'size' are people going to expect the right of a referendum for them also?
what about going to war? retirement age? immigration?
it opens up a can of worms.

and again, I'm not saying your point it wrong, and tbf id be happy to do it that way as well.
i just thought the counter argument on this is fair.

[MFKS]

i think a referendum would get it done with a lot less fuss

Most referendums fail

Add in the bit that Abbott and co can doctor it in such a way to suit there agenda.

Just look at what Jack Boot Johhny done with the republic referendum.

Plenty were keen and still voted no as they didn't like the model of pollies electing the president (Obviously miss the point how we don't vote for the PM Governor General Now)

Add in the other aspect that people get the shits about having to vote will add a good no vote on principal.

Referendum would be the worst option for the move getting up

[q-money]

forgive my ignorance as i only studied legal studies to perv on chicks, but can't you only have a referendum in australia to change a specific part of the constitution?

marriage is defined in the marriage act 1961, not in the constitution, therefore it has to go through parliament, not to a referendum yeah?

[q-money]

also, i believe the referendum in ireland was voluntary, so easier to skew a campaign to where you want it to go

always harder to get something up/vote it down in a country where everyone is legally compelled to vote, i.e. straya

[plague]

forgive my ignorance as i only studied legal studies to perv on chicks, but can't you only have a referendum in australia to change a specific part of the constitution?

marriage is defined in the marriage act 1961, not in the constitution, therefore it has to go through parliament, not to a referendum yeah?

NEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSS

Yeah i think its technically a plebiscite. thats where a law is introduced by da people that doesn't need to alter the constitution.
a referendum is a vote of the peeps that changes constitutional law.

and i think even a plebiscite can not be binding in some instances.

(oh and smart chicks in glasses was always the best perv in school - well played).

[MFKS]

I do find the whole debate rather laughable.

The gay community and their actions go completely against the church and its beliefs in god.

The gay community then feel that they have some sort of divine right to be included in what is regarded as an important part of what is actually a practice deeply intertwined with religion.

Considering their sins go completely against the word of god the arrogance is astounding.

What is even sadder is the bit they wish to change is the marriage act. An act of parliament that was established to recognise a marriage between man and wife in common law which also took into account and accepted traditions tied back to the church and God by government act

Does seem rather bizarre that they want a piece of religions offerings but won't actually accept religions offerings fully.

Then again the whole thing is really just a leftist stunt to legitimise a practice that most involved are ashamed to be open about and also to their grander plan to eradicate religion all together

As for the first person that mentions equality. Spare me the bullshit. Of all the issues in this land involving equality this is the least deserving of any attention yet for some reason it gets the most attention

[boz-monaut]

what's the church got to do with any of this? this isn't about religious weddings, it's about legal marriages

this is about equal rights for equal relationships

why should my bond with my partner be considered legally any different from anyone elses?

[Premy]

I do find the whole debate rather laughable.

The gay community and their actions go completely against the church and its beliefs in god.

The gay community then feel that they have some sort of divine right to be included in what is regarded as an important part of what is actually a practice deeply intertwined with religion.

Considering their sins go completely against the word of god the arrogance is astounding.

What is even sadder is the bit they wish to change is the marriage act. An act of parliament that was established to recognise a marriage between man and wife in common law which also took into account and accepted traditions tied back to the church and God by government act

Does seem rather bizarre that they want a piece of religions offerings but won't actually accept religions offerings fully.

Then again the whole thing is really just a leftist stunt to legitimise a practice that most involved are ashamed to be open about and also to their grander plan to eradicate religion all together

As for the first person that mentions equality. Spare me the bullshit. Of all the issues in this land involving equality this is the least deserving of any attention yet for some reason it gets the most attention
Marriage was around long before Christianity, I'm married, I was
Christened but I don't believe in any type of religion.
Should I not have been allowed to be married, this is about equality come join us in the 21st century when you're done with the pedophile priest.

[q-money]

can blacks and chongers get married yet?

[MFKS]

Marriage was around long before Christianity, I'm married, I was
Christened but I don't believe in any type of religion.
Should I not have been allowed to be married, this is about equality come join us in the 21st century when you're done with the pedophile priest.

Marriage and Religion are closely intertwined. That is a fact.

Religion is closely intertwined with a belief in homosexuality going completely against the word of god. That is a fact.

Peoples religious views and traditions should be respected. That is a fact

The Gay community are choosing to piss on all of these with their belief they should be allowed to do as they please.

As for equality. They have a civil ceremony allowed already that allows them to be Adam and Steve. They now wish to drag a religious pinnacle through the gutter to satisfy their quest for alleged equality.

No respect whatsoever for the traditions and beliefs of others
.

[boz-monaut]

and what if you don't believe in the whole concepts of sin or god?

you seem to use the word fact with no understanding of what it actually means

it's not a fact that anyone's religious beliefs should be respected - it's your opinion and it differs greatly from mine

marriage and religion are not intertwined - I've been to several weddings that had no mention of religion at all

seems a bit silly to let people who think such things demand that others obey their rules, particularly given the ones who do believe are in the minority

if you want to live in a country that is ruled by religion, move to the Islamic State

[MFKS]

and what if you don't believe in the whole concepts of sin or god?

you seem to use the word fact with no understanding of what it actually means

it's not a fact that anyone's religious beliefs should be respected - it's your opinion and it differs greatly from mine

marriage and religion are not intertwined - I've been to several weddings that had no mention of religion at all

seems a bit silly to let people who think such things demand that others obey their rules, particularly given the ones who do believe are in the minority

if you want to live in a country that is ruled by religion, move to the Islamic State

As for people moving to the Islamic State I wonder how our gay and lesbian people would actually go over there??
Maybe they should be a bit more appreciative of the tolerance they get here as we aren't the ones throwing them off high rise buildings and what not and are happier to let them be judged by a higher power for their sins as opposed to pissing on stuff that is important to us

As for your thing about marriage and religion not being intertwined complete bullwhip. Thousands of years of history of it say the two are. Marriage is all through the good book and wasn't something religion put dibs on 40years ago for a laugh

Yeah you may have been to non religious weddings but lets not escape the fact that they are just the result of an earlier attack on marriage/religion
Just because they happen doesn't make it right. They are less of an issue as the people involved are at least man and woman so doesn't go against the good book even if the pair are neglecting the religious connections to it

[boz-monaut]

that's exactly my point about Islamic State

all religions who tell others what to do because their particular bookie wook says to (or rather the way they chose to interpret what the goat ****ers who wrote their books said) are the same - the religion you were indoctrinated to should have no impact on other peoples lives

how would you like it if these Islamic State types told you who you could and couldn't marry? it is exactly the same thing

[MFKS]

that's exactly my point about Islamic State

all religions who tell others what to do because their particular bookie wook says to (or rather the way they chose to interpret what the goat ****ers who wrote their books said) are the same - the religion you were indoctrinated to should have no impact on other peoples lives

how would you like it if these Islamic State types told you who you could and couldn't marry? it is exactly the same thing

As for them I have a completely different view on them and their beliefs. I believe they are not far off the mark but their view is slightly off tangent from mine. They believe in a bloke who was around 600years after JC and have basically twisted my book from what it is to include him and his take on things.

Basically rewritten history to include him in it.

No one in my religion is telling anyone what to do.
We believe in the word of god. We also will protect it from being corrupted and twisted by non believers

You do what you like. We believe you will be judged accordingly by god for it.Your choice in the matter. Quite frankly I don't give a **** what you decide
The only ones fearful of being told they are spending an eternal life time in hell are the non believers anyway. I end up spending a life time in hell it will be because god judged me accordingly and not because I didn't believe

[boz-monaut]

No one in my religion is telling anyone what to do.

so you're saying you're for gay marriage then?

because that would be quite different from all the other nonce-sense that you've been spouting about how religion should tell people who can and can't marry

[boz-monaut]

baz will like this, it has dachshunds in it
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/5/29/1432878270468/df1c8726-a8b0-4aaa-83c3-87d7a833d6e6-1101x2040.jpeg

[MFKS]

so you're saying you're for gay marriage then?

because that would be quite different from all the other nonce-sense that you've been spouting about how religion should tell people who can and can't marry

No why would I be for gay marriage??

I ain't telling anyone who can and can't get married.

I am telling you marriage is a significant thing for religious people.
I am reminding you religion does not endorse homosexuality

I am reminding you not to ****ing corrupt my religion with bullshit that goes against the grain of what I believe and then chooses to feel they are entitled to do so.

Civil Unions exist. The government accepts them

Adam and Steve can knock themselves out with them for all I care. **** off and leave what is ours alone

[boz-monaut]

I ain't telling anyone who can and can't get married.

yes you are, that is exactly what you are doing

you are using your religion to tell people that they are not allowed to marry

marriage does not belong to religion, so leave your religious nonsense out of this argument on law and equality

[plague]

i personally think the 'marriage' debate and who owns it was lost many years ago when they introduced civil ceremonies.
if the definition of marriage was so important why did it seem to slip through when our society and especially civic leaders were wayyyyyyyyyyy more conservative and god fearing than they are now?

this is way more about being anti homosexual than the definition of the word.

[parksey]

I do find the whole debate rather laughable.

The gay community and their actions go completely against the church and its beliefs in god.

The gay community then feel that they have some sort of divine right to be included in what is regarded as an important part of what is actually a practice deeply intertwined with religion.

Considering their sins go completely against the word of god the arrogance is astounding.

What is even sadder is the bit they wish to change is the marriage act. An act of parliament that was established to recognise a marriage between man and wife in common law which also took into account and accepted traditions tied back to the church and God by government act

Does seem rather bizarre that they want a piece of religions offerings but won't actually accept religions offerings fully.

Then again the whole thing is really just a leftist stunt to legitimise a practice that most involved are ashamed to be open about and also to their grander plan to eradicate religion all together

As for the first person that mentions equality. Spare me the bullshit. Of all the issues in this land involving equality this is the least deserving of any attention yet for some reason it gets the most attention

what's laughable is that you are laying claim to the "fact" that marriage is only a religious practice, and furthermore a christian practice.

marriage has been a huge part of life for people of all cultures and beliefs since the dawn of civilisation.

and yeah, who needs equality hey? let's cut more funding for indigenous programs while we're at it!

[plague]

im also annoyed at how much hate Abbott gets over this, especially from the usual suspects.
i thought he has been quite dignified and open about his beliefs. if we agree with them or not then so what. the bloke has an honest assessment and has told the public what his view is.

contrast that to the last time the vote came in with Gillard and Rudd flying the flag and hugging it out with Penny Wong in the press but then when it went to a vote they cowered behind the house and voted no.

ill take an honest* bloke who i disagree with over a ****ing hypocrite any day of the week.
i also believe if the bill was held off a bit longer the Libs would allow a conscience vote. i can't see the Cabinet changing their mind in a week or so though.



*honest on this issue

[plague]

for the record the 2012 marriage equality bill was defeated 98-42 in the house of reps, and defeated 41-26 in the senate.
BOTH houses were controlled by the Labor party/greens.
to make this 'all Tony Abbotts fault' is misleading.

[parksey]

yeah tony abbott is obviously a fool but this shouldn't totally be put on him.

i must admit this move by labor reeks of a popularity stunt with it being hot on the heels of the irish vote. as plague said, the last labor government had their chance and shat themselves.

oh well, the important thing is it's on the table now and hopefully common sense prevails this time.

[boz-monaut]

who said it was about Tony Abbott?

[plague]

yep, other big mouths on the comrades who shat the bed last time Chris Bowen, Tony Burke, Wayne Swann are all now "yo, we down with the fags yo".

also remember that the moral crusader Bill Shorten himself once had a press conference at midday pledging full support for Gillard then had her knifed out of office by kickoff in the State of Origin that same night.

i have a lot of respect for Ed Husic though. he is a devout Muslim but has openly stated he will vote for marriage equality even though he knows it will cause a backlash in his family and local community based on his religion. he just believes that it is the right thing to do.

id vote Labor if Husic was in charge.

[plague]

who said it was about Tony Abbott?
everyone on the other side of the house.
'usual suspects' referred to the media darlings residing up on Mt Pious.

[boz-monaut]

as in folks taking political sides on this? or just using the argument as a stick to beat their enemies?

I haven't seen to much of that to be honest - though it does feel weird to be on the same side of an argument as Alan Jones and David Leyonhjelm

[plague]

as in folks taking political sides on this? or just using the argument as a stick to beat their enemies?

I haven't seen to much of that to be honest - though it does feel weird to be on the same side of an argument as Alan Jones and David Leyonhjelm

oh yeah absolutely its been a lot of playing politics. id have thought though that the way to gather support would be to focus on the libs who have embraced the yes vote rather than shame the ones who haven't. if people see the likes of Turnbull and Sinodinis etc standing up and saying they were supporting it you may have more chance of getting people off the fence.

when your Getups and your hipster panelist dudes centre the argument on Tony Abbott rather than the libs or 'conservative views' in general to me it comes across as petty.
especially when the finger of shame seemingly missed the likes of Gillard/Rudd etc when they said no.


but aside from that your point about Alan Jones was bang on. this has been the slowest walk out of the closet in history.


almost there Alan........almost there.

[Premy]

Member I would love to know your thoughts and your books depiction on Charles Darwins theory of Evolution?

[furns]

As if discussing politics wasn't bad enough, people had to go and introduce religion into the same discussion thread.

Considering renaming this Politics & Religion - Ideology Deathmatch within

[Blackmac79]

God created the world in 7 days, we are told so by a man who lived several thousand years after the fact, of course your most stringent of Christian's believe that the world is about 7-10,000 years old.

The more liberal of the fraternity are able to see that perhaps stories written by Moses were infact just that to tell a story that would keep children in line...

[Blackmac79]

As if discussing politics wasn't bad enough, people had to go and introduce religion into the same discussion thread.

Considering renaming this Politics & Religion - Ideology Deathmatch within

Politics and Religion are intertwined!

MFSK has told us so.

[lquiquer]

As if discussing politics wasn't bad enough, people had to go and introduce religion into the same discussion thread.

Considering renaming this Politics & Religion - Ideology Deathmatch within

Lucky they have not managed yet to incorporate the great BK V Birraz debat in it

[plague]

As if discussing politics wasn't bad enough, people had to go and introduce religion into the same discussion thread.

Considering renaming this Politics & Religion - Ideology Deathmatch within

nah. best thread.
scarily enough considering the topics it has always been respectful.
in other words the bizarro local thread.

[plague]

God created the world in 7 days, we are told so by a man who lived several thousand years after the fact, of course your most stringent of Christian's believe that the world is about 7-10,000 years old.

The more liberal of the fraternity are able to see that perhaps stories written by Moses were infact just that to tell a story that would keep children in line...


to be fair no one really knows anything. even the smartest boffins in the room are dealing with a whole heap of theory.

we are all being asked to believe the best guess.

although the dude up in the sky story had me for a while, id lay on the grass for ages looking skyward to see if i could spot Him.
never did spot him or Bespin.

[MFKS]

God created the world in 7 days, we are told so by a man who lived several thousand years after the fact, of course your most stringent of Christian's believe that the world is about 7-10,000 years old.

The more liberal of the fraternity are able to see that perhaps stories written by Moses were infact just that to tell a story that would keep children in line...

I assume you are referring to the son of god who was sent 2000 odd years ago???

Also there are stories in the good book that go back beyond 2000 years ago and JC.

Thing called the Old Testament

[MFKS]

what's laughable is that you are laying claim to the "fact" that marriage is only a religious practice, and furthermore a christian practice.

marriage has been a huge part of life for people of all cultures and beliefs since the dawn of civilisation.

and yeah, who needs equality hey? let's cut more funding for indigenous programs while we're at it!
Where have I said marriage is a Christian domain?? I speak of it as a religious domain.

You are just perceiving I am referring to Christians cause that is my background with religion.

Islam also has a just as much of a strong affinity with marriage as do many other religions.

Thing is that you seem to forget the Muslims just like Christians still believe in god. We may disagree in the ways it should be observed and practiced etc but we still believe in god.


As for your point about not needing equality.

Rather interesting you bring up our indigenous brothers in this land. That to me is a much more glaring anomaly of inequality that Anglo Australia needs to address than whether two homosexuals can be married.

I do notice the silence from the leftists dogs out there who moan equality all the time. A serious issue that they should be forcing social change on is ignored s it is in the two hard basket. A petty issue like gay marriage is championed from the rooftops as a serious issue this country needs addressing ASAP just so a few gay people can have some legal legitimacy to their sinning.

Big Picture Stuff that from the leftists

[snake]

I assume you are referring to the son of god who was sent 2000 odd years ago???

Also there are stories in the good book that go back beyond 2000 years ago and JC.

Thing called the Old Testament

exactly. by piecing together the birthdates of king davids lineage back to adam, ussher was aboe to prove that the world was created 6000 odd years ago on a wednesday or some shit

[snake]

Marriage and Religion are closely intertwined. That is a fact.

Religion is closely intertwined with a belief in homosexuality going completely against the word of god. That is a fact.

Peoples religious views and traditions should be respected. That is a fact

The Gay community are choosing to piss on all of these with their belief they should be allowed to do as they please.

As for equality. They have a civil ceremony allowed already that allows them to be Adam and Steve. They now wish to drag a religious pinnacle through the gutter to satisfy their quest for alleged equality.

No respect whatsoever for the traditions and beliefs of others
.
oi parkesy - have you got some gif of rafa benitez 'facts' interview when he lost the plot, because that's what i'm picking up here :rof:

[snake]

As for them I have a completely different view on them and their beliefs. I believe they are not far off the mark but their view is slightly off tangent from mine. They believe in a bloke who was around 600years after JC and have basically twisted my book from what it is to include him and his take on things.

Basically rewritten history to include him in it.

No one in my religion is telling anyone what to do.
We believe in the word of god. We also will protect it from being corrupted and twisted by non believers

You do what you like. We believe you will be judged accordingly by god for it.Your choice in the matter. Quite frankly I don't give a **** what you decide
The only ones fearful of being told they are spending an eternal life time in hell are the non believers anyway. I end up spending a life time in hell it will be because god judged me accordingly and not because I didn't believe

do you know why they call religious people 'god-fearing'? hint: the non-believers don't fear :)

[furns]

If anyone goes too over the top regarding religion, I am going to start posting Jim Jeffries clips

This ain't the Bible belt, and you ain't Fred effing Nile.

[boz-monaut]

one of the main reasons I support gay marriage is the pure comedic value of one day meeting some bloke and having him introduce me to his wife, Barry

[Premy]

Member I'm still awaiting your thoughts on Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution.

[MFKS]

Member I'm still awaiting your thoughts on Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution.

Have no thoughts on it.

It's a nice theory that has no credence for me.

[boz-monaut]

and what about climate change

I reckon I know the answer to this one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/?postshare=5211432921678546

[snake]

Have no thoughts on it.

It's a nice theory that has no credence for me.

why not?

maybe you should think about it over your next bowl of weetbix or piece of toast.

if only you knew the battle being waged to get these things onto your plate securely

[MFKS]

and what about climate change

I reckon I know the answer to this one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/?postshare=5211432921678546

Climate change is a ridiculous argument planted in to the argument by the elite to actually stop the actual change to more efficient methods of industry.

Whilst they are to be busy arguing back and forth over whether climate change is real big business continues to NOT pick up their act and embrace new technologies to stop polluting the planet.

Basically it is a side track mechanism that stops the real issue being addressed

[boz-monaut]

how about the moon landing?

and 9/11? do you believe jet fuel can melt steel beams?

[Premy]

Have no thoughts on it.

It's a nice theory that has no credence for me.
So I guess you believe that we all come from a long line of incest with no sign of an umbilical cord?

What came first the Chicken or the Egg?

[plague]

how about the moon landing?

and 9/11? do you believe jet fuel can melt steel beams?

Member thinks that Tower 7 fell down because it was tired.

[boz-monaut]

how about vaccinations too? I heard that they cause the austisms?

[WolfMan]

Religion is a choice. Homosexuality is not. /argument

[q-money]

10/10 thread would read again

[plague]

10/10 thread would read again

and we haven't even started on the comrades upping the Newy residents rates by almost 50% over the next few years.

Imagine if it was that 'greedy property developer' ex mayor of ours they would be setting fire to whatever they could get their hands on.

But noooooooo it seems like the 'werkers party' is doing the right and noble thing.

[boz-monaut]

what about this brilliant idea to strip people that the prime minister has the ability to strip Australians of citizenship on suspicion of terrorist offences?

[hawk]

what about this brilliant idea to strip people that the prime minister has the ability to strip Australians of citizenship on suspicion of terrorist offences?

best news ever, until someone logs into your pc and hooks up with extremists

[hawk]

Religion is a choice. Homosexuality is not. /argument

actually you can choose it. its hip'n'all for some

[plague]

what about this brilliant idea to strip people that the prime minister has the ability to strip Australians of citizenship on suspicion of terrorist offences?

I just sent the PM a phone book of every suburb south of Swansea and told him they were all terrorists.
Even if he only kicks like 4% of them out then we can still call that a victory.

[snake]

stop derailing this. i want the kind member to outline his objections to evolution

[boz-monaut]

I'm sure it will be just as compelling as hundreds of years of reasoned scientific argument and billions of years of fossil records

[plague]

I'm sure it will be just as compelling as hundreds of years of reasoned scientific argument and billions of years of fossil records

Well there was that statue that had the bleeding eyes and that cloth that had the face print of a dude with a beard.

WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT???????

[MFKS]

Religion is a choice. Homosexuality is not. /argument

So homosexuality is not a choice??

The only people who have no choice are those being raped in prison.

Everyone else made their choice to suck cock munch rug or whatever

[snake]

so homosexual animals other than human beings also made this choice, then?

[plague]

so homosexual animals other than human beings also made this choice, then?

What about animals in prisons?
Geez this is getting confusing.

[plague]

actually you can choose it. its hip'n'all for some

I heard it was all the fluoride in the tap water that turns people gay.

[furns]

Well there was that statue that had the bleeding eyes and that cloth that had the face print of a dude with a beard.

WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT???????

Let's not forget faces in toast. Because, you know - God and all that.

[Rocknerd]

So at what age did you choose the ladies? Was it a numbers game or just a decision to follow after the folks?

Was there a moment you though? You know what Davo is looking pretty fit, maybe he'd like a rub and a tug?

[plague]

Let's not forget faces in toast. Because, you know - God and all that.

Jesus toast is a definite thing though.
If I found Jesus toast I'd eat it straight up in the hope it would give me mega powers.

[croy]

had a browse of the thread and it seems like none of yas touched on weed decriminalisation/legalisation/commercialisation and the ramifications of it.

aside from the whole 'drugs are evil' viewpoint and the possible health detriments associated with it, i'm kinda confused as to why there's been so little conversation regarding the topic. i understand that in a political sense you can't benefit from taking a stand on this issue (if abbott brings it up, he shits all over the viewpoint of a decent part of his demographic, and you can't really get a significant piece of legislation through like same sex marriage or weed decriminalisation through if you're on the oppo side) but there's been minimal mainstream discussion about an issue that a lot of first world countries are having at present. what do we all think?

[hawk]

had a browse of the thread and it seems like none of yas touched on weed decriminalisation/legalisation/commercialisation and the ramifications of it.

aside from the whole 'drugs are evil' viewpoint and the possible health detriments associated with it, i'm kinda confused as to why there's been so little conversation regarding the topic. i understand that in a political sense you can't benefit from taking a stand on this issue (if abbott brings it up, he shits all over the viewpoint of a decent part of his demographic, and you can't really get a significant piece of legislation through like same sex marriage or weed decriminalisation through if you're on the oppo side) but there's been minimal mainstream discussion about an issue that a lot of first world countries are having at present. what do we all think?

probably wont get many against it. helps sick kids, lowers domestic violence, lowers stress...peace man

[plague]

yeah, although never much of a smoker of the stuff I fail to see how it is any less impactful on ones health than your bungers and grog anyway.

pollies don't seem to mind raking in the excise on those bad boys, why not another new revenue stream.

[MFKS]

had a browse of the thread and it seems like none of yas touched on weed decriminalisation/legalisation/commercialisation and the ramifications of it.

aside from the whole 'drugs are evil' viewpoint and the possible health detriments associated with it, i'm kinda confused as to why there's been so little conversation regarding the topic. i understand that in a political sense you can't benefit from taking a stand on this issue (if abbott brings it up, he shits all over the viewpoint of a decent part of his demographic, and you can't really get a significant piece of legislation through like same sex marriage or weed decriminalisation through if you're on the oppo side) but there's been minimal mainstream discussion about an issue that a lot of first world countries are having at present. what do we all think?

Probably because we as a country are wasting time fighting all these other "BIG" issues like marriage equality.

Having adam and steve man and wife is more important than letting someone smoke dope legally

[boz-monaut]

there's other drugs I'd legalise before pot

one issue I do have with it is just how much stronger your modern weed is compared to back when it became popular

lots of baby boomers or early gen x folks like to talk legalisation when they haven't smoked in decades and don't understand how utterly, tit-rippingly potent current shit is - I reckon they may change attitudes if they punched a few cones today

[snake]

still nothing from mkfs. plastic christian :oops:

[MFKS]

still nothing from mkfs. plastic christian :oops:

You unable to see my post 40 mins before this one???:wtf:

[croy]

there's other drugs I'd legalise before pot

one issue I do have with it is just how much stronger your modern weed is compared to back when it became popular

lots of baby boomers or early gen x folks like to talk legalisation when they haven't smoked in decades and don't understand how utterly, tit-rippingly potent current shit is - I reckon they may change attitudes if they punched a few cones today

aye. hydro grown shit is ridiculous, as well as the even more potent still things like shatter. it's by no means going to kill you but it's not as minor as it once was.

[la bazzle]

still nothing from mkfs. plastic christian :oops:

Too busy cherry picking which rules to follow

1098

#plasticjesus

[la bazzle]

baz will like this, it has dachshunds in it


Parksey would marry my dogs in a heart beat.

[tha_hauss]

If you guys want serious answers to religious questions, then ask them in the religion thread and I will endeavour to answer them. The religious numptiness used to ridicule MFKS here is pretty amateur for intelligent people who see the value in understanding scientific systems.

[q-money]

religion

scientific systems
therein lies the problem

i'm stayin' out of it

[tha_hauss]

therein lies the problem

i'm stayin' out of it

No that's not a problem for me at all. Who do you think first proposed the Big Bang Theory?

[WolfMan]

No that's not a problem for me at all. Who do you think first proposed the Big Bang Theory?

If I knew the answer to that, there'd be no more suffering that infernal TV programme.

[q-money]

yes yes, lemaitre did, and he was a priest

he also firmly believed in the separation of the lab and the church, and wanted his scientific theories to be judged exclusively on their physical merit, keeping metaphysical implications completely separate

[tha_hauss]

yes yes, lemaitre did, and he was a priest

he also firmly believed in the separation of the lab and the church, and wanted his scientific theories to be judged exclusively on their physical merit, keeping metaphysical implications completely separate

I simply see all these digs at MFKS on here over the last few pages about evolution as if his belief or not in evolution proves something about him or religion, or the assumption that a Christian cannot also be a scientist, or that religion and science are incompatible. Which is bollocks. The many, many Christians who are also scientists can validate that, throughout history in fact. The fact that Lemaitre wanted to keep his studies purely in the scientific realm is a logical position, because that is where it belongs (and it prevents the possibility of house arrest) :)

[snake]

hauss - the reason we pick on mkfs is because he uses religious arguments to take an irrational position on gay marriage (hence politics thread).

i take particular interest where he says he doesn't accept evolution, because developing the theory of our origin and our relationships with the living world is one of humanities crowning achievements. and it's not just a nice theory - it's also incredibly useful. its framework and predictions is actually worth a lot of money to the economy, and we owe in part, the quality of our life to it. beyond that, it's also at the point that it's plain fact. only the ignorant can deny that.

as for your comments or religious scientists. i've met a few, but not many. every example has the same beginning - they were raised into it. they say they think there's no contradiction, but in reality, they're only cheating themselves imo. how can they live their professional life by evidenced-based principles, and turn it off on a sunday morning to hear zombie stories? i can't respect that.

will add more later - i'm off for dinner

[tha_hauss]

as for your comments or religious scientists. i've met a few, but not many. every example has the same beginning - they were raised into it. they say they think there's no contradiction, but in reality, they're only cheating themselves imo. how can they live their professional life by evidenced-based principles, and turn it off on a sunday morning to hear zombie stories? i can't respect that.

will add more later - i'm off for dinner

Pretty small sample size to reach the conclusion you have.

Just how does this scientific method work anyhow? Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only way to discover truth? If you can do that, I'm sold.

And for the record, to call my religion "zombie stories" is really ****ing insulting, but I guess you already knew that. Those people who say that this politics discussion over gay marriage has been good natured are fooling themselves.

[plague]

Those people who say that this politics discussion over gay marriage has been good natured are fooling themselves.

To be fair our track record compared to our biggest competitor on this issue (ISIS) is pretty good.

Sadly religion and politics are intertwined that's why the marriage equality issue has sparked these tangents.

Anyway care to chuck your opinion in on gay marriage while you're ere?

[boz-monaut]

Just how does this scientific method work anyhow? Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only way to discover truth? If you can do that, I'm sold.
it's quite simple

you observe, come up with a theory, then test

if the observations you test don't match the theory, you are wrong and you need to re-think

simple

so to answer your question - the scientific method isn't saying it's the only way, but by using the scientific method itself to analyse itself, if it wasn't the best way you would replace it with whatever way you can come up with that's better

there is quite a bit of philosophical discussion on the scientific method, in particular on it's shortcomings - so far no one has come up with anything better but the important part here is that people, including snake and myself, have an open mind to it

[militiamon]

lol, now we're talking about the scientific method?

The scientific method is based on "best practice" logic and rationality. As boz alluded to, it's not a perfect system, and depending on whose version of it you go by it could all be wrong, but **** me if it isn't the best we've got to go by.

As for christian scientists, yes it's nothing new. I know lots of scientists who believe in kooky shit, like homeopathy, chiropratic medicine, chinese medicine etc. and it doesn't make any of that any less stupid.

[plague]

I know lots of scientists who believe in kooky shit, like homeopathy, chiropratic medicine, chinese medicine etc. and it doesn't make any of that any less stupid.

My kids doctor thinks the Jets are good.
total whack job.

taking my kid to a new doctor.

[MFKS]

hauss - the reason we pick on mkfs is because he uses religious arguments to take an irrational position on gay marriage (hence politics thread).

i take particular interest where he says he doesn't accept evolution, because developing the theory of our origin and our relationships with the living world is one of humanities crowning achievements. and it's not just a nice theory - it's also incredibly useful. its framework and predictions is actually worth a lot of money to the economy, and we owe in part, the quality of our life to it. beyond that, it's also at the point that it's plain fact. only the ignorant can deny that.

as for your comments or religious scientists. i've met a few, but not many. every example has the same beginning - they were raised into it. they say they think there's no contradiction, but in reality, they're only cheating themselves imo. how can they live their professional life by evidenced-based principles, and turn it off on a sunday morning to hear zombie stories? i can't respect that.

will add more later - i'm off for dinner

Firstly my position is not irrational.

It is my opinion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.

I don't agree with your opinion but that doesn't make it irrational. You feel the way you do for whatever reasons you do. That's fine your welcome to do so


As for my thoughts on Evolution I believe in the good book. Evolution and the good book clash in their views.
I go with what I have chosen to accept and embrace.

You on the other go with the Evolution belief at the expense of the good book.
You go with what you have chosen to accept and embrace.

One thing that does concern me though is your claim that it is FACT.
It was once FACT that the world was flat. Look how that panned out

It is believed to be correct by some would be a better way of putting it.

[snake]

Pretty small sample size to reach the conclusion you have.

Just how does this scientific method work anyhow? Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only way to discover truth? If you can do that, I'm sold.


boz has covered this. it's a system of continual questioning and testing. weeding out hypotheses that don't work, and challenging those that (for now) do.

if that's not enough for you, have a think about how we are having this discussion. what system made it possible? actually, try and think about any part of your life that hasn't been improved by the scientific method. my initial suspicion is that perhaps other than a sense of wellbeing from your belief in a deity, you won't come up with one. if you think you do, think a little deeper. i'd be interested to hear if you think there's any exemptions.



And for the record, to call my religion "zombie stories" is really ****ing insulting, but I guess you already knew that. Those people who say that this politics discussion over gay marriage has been good natured are fooling themselves.

it's only insulting because you've been told it's sacrosanct. but why? why should one set of ideas (hypothesis) be exempt from any form of scrutiny? because they don't hold up to any serious scrutiny?

breaking the jesus resurrection myth doen into its modern day equivolent was meant to highlight its ridiculousness.

you're catholic, right? i could mention a few things i find insulting about that group...

[snake]

Firstly my position is not irrational.

It is my opinion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.

I don't agree with your opinion but that doesn't make it irrational. You feel the way you do for whatever reasons you do. That's fine your welcome to do so


As for my thoughts on Evolution I believe in the good book. Evolution and the good book clash in their views.
I go with what I have chosen to accept and embrace.

You on the other go with the Evolution belief at the expense of the good book.
You go with what you have chosen to accept and embrace.

One thing that does concern me though is your claim that it is FACT.
It was once FACT that the world was flat. Look how that panned out

It is believed to be correct by some would be a better way of putting it.

it's not irrational because i disagree with it. it's irrational because it starts from irrational preumptions and is poorly argued.

at least i can give you credit for your approach to evolution. if your bible books are correct, evolution can't be. they are contradictory. someone ought to tell the pope.

a flat earth hypothesis was built on the strenght of evidence of personal experience. it certainly looks flat! however, it was shown by an egyption dude measuring the lenght of shadows of sticks in two different places at the same time that the earth was spherical (**** off pedants!).

interestingly though, that news didn't make it through in time to make it to the human authors of the bible:


Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

we know there is nowhere on earth visible from all other parts. that seems to contradict quite a bit of the above, dontchya think?

the evidence supporting evolution is a teency weency bit stronger than that supporting flat earth theory was. any theory that would supersede it has to expkain all that evidence, evidence which supports that all life on earth is related, descended from ancestors who are no longer here. none of which supports a personal, intelligent creation.

[Jetmaster]

One thing that does concern me though is your claim that it is FACT.
It was once FACT that the world was flat. Look how that panned out

It is believed to be correct by some would be a better way of putting it.

"There's only a bit of skin between the muckhole and the f***hole and if you slip, you're in the shit and thats a fact".

[militiamon]

interestingly though, that news didn't make it through in time to make it to the human authors of the bible:

:rof: :oops:

[MFKS]

Just out of curiosity Snake as a person who puts his faith in scientific means and so called logic etc as you do what exactly are your take on various conspiracy theories.

Lets just start with the main ones in popular culture like JFK Assassination, 9-11, Sandy Hook, Moon Landing, Roswell etc

Are you a believer or a non believer??

Which ones and why???

[q-money]

ffs this thread keeps delivering

[plague]

Just out of curiosity Snake as a person who puts his faith in scientific means and so called logic etc as you do what exactly are your take on various conspiracy theories.

Lets just start with the main ones in popular culture like JFK Assassination, 9-11, Sandy Hook, Moon Landing, Roswell etc

Are you a believer or a non believer??

Which ones and why???

There is no way in hell (or the atheists version of it) that Snake is gonna get to hog all these questions.
Get out your tin hats fellas, ITS CONSPIRACY TIME!!!!!!

[plague]

In short:
1. JFK, Oswald def shot him. I don't believe the second gunman theory but Oswald was working on behalf of someone.
Jack Ruby was a Patriot.
2. 9/11, def just a bunch of pissed off Muslims.
3. Sandy Hook. Is there a conspiracy with this...........OH the goofy "kid in the photo a week later" thing? NO, this was a crazy person with a gun, and a sad indictment on the "more guns less crime" culture which i hope never infests our country. Besides, all kids, like Asians, look the same don't they?
4. Moon Landing. OH man, are you really going there? 100% legit.
5, Roswell. the Aliens and shit? whoa, this is great. No little green men here. Just a military plane or some tech they didn't want found.

Now, sadly all of these epic ones were before my time so (like God) I've had to rely on my interpretation of the info available.
the overwhelming thing for me is that eventually someone, somewhere, somehow would have legit dished the dirt on this stuff if there were any real conspiracies going on. Heck, even old 'deep throat' from Watergate couldn't keep his mouth shut till the end.

This is a fantastic tangent Member, can't wait to see where it all goes.

[MFKS]

In short:
1. JFK, Oswald def shot him. I don't believe the second gunman theory but Oswald was working on behalf of someone.
Jack Ruby was a Patriot.
2. 9/11, def just a bunch of pissed off Muslims.
3. Sandy Hook. Is there a conspiracy with this...........OH the goofy "kid in the photo a week later" thing? NO, this was a crazy person with a gun, and a sad indictment on the "more guns less crime" culture which i hope never infests our country. Besides, all kids, like Asians, look the same don't they?
4. Moon Landing. OH man, are you really going there? 100% legit.
5, Roswell. the Aliens and shit? whoa, this is great. No little green men here. Just a military plane or some tech they didn't want found.

Now, sadly all of these epic ones were before my time so (like God) I've had to rely on my interpretation of the info available.
the overwhelming thing for me is that eventually someone, somewhere, somehow would have legit dished the dirt on this stuff if there were any real conspiracies going on. Heck, even old 'deep throat' from Watergate couldn't keep his mouth shut till the end.

This is a fantastic tangent Member, can't wait to see where it all goes.

To say some **** hasn't tried to open their mouth to spill the beans is not necessarily a fair statement.

People involved in the JFK thing for a start died mysteriously. Not just the obvious ones like Shaw Ferrie Oswald Ruby but plenty of minor people who had some association to it all
Coincidence or silenced??

Opens up many doubts

[plague]

To say some **** hasn't tried to open their mouth to spill the beans is not necessarily a fair statement.

People involved in the JFK thing for a start died mysteriously. Not just the obvious ones like Shaw Ferrie Oswald Ruby but plenty of minor people who had some association to it all
Coincidence or silenced??

Opens up many doubts

Well Oswald died at the hands of a Patriot and Ruby died of cancer in jail didn't he?

Regardless of that the alter at which many truthers pray at (the Oliver Stone movie) has been itself the topic of much conjecture.
I just can't see how theres this secret society of govt super agents that go around knocking people off with absolutely no cracks in their mission.


too many Marvel movies has stained a generation.
besides the dodgy crap that the US govt did actually get up to in the olden days (iran contra, bay of pigs etc) were exposed straight away.
i just dont think BIG GOVT is capable of this level of shenannigans.

[MFKS]

Well Oswald died at the hands of a Patriot and Ruby died of cancer in jail didn't he?

Regardless of that the alter at which many truthers pray at (the Oliver Stone movie) has been itself the topic of much conjecture.
I just can't see how theres this secret society of govt super agents that go around knocking people off with absolutely no cracks in their mission.


too many Marvel movies has stained a generation.
besides the dodgy crap that the US govt did actually get up to in the olden days (iran contra, bay of pigs etc) were exposed straight away.
i just dont think BIG GOVT is capable of this level of shenannigans.

**** bringing the movie into it.That's just sensationalised parts of the story

Have read plenty of other books on the subject at hand. Whatever the official story is that is palmed off if Bullshit.
Not saying Oswald wasn't involved quite frankly have NFI

But there is no way he fired that gun with the precision they claim and there is no way the series of events transpired that the US government have palmed off is the truth

[plague]

So you think it's a U.S govt conspiracy?

[plague]

Cause I've got no problems if a different govt was involved in the idea of it. But then that kind of kills everyone's 9/11 theories.

[furns]

Updated thread title to warn sensible people to just sit back and watch the fun

:popcorn:

[MFKS]

So you think it's a U.S govt conspiracy?

Whatever happened surrounding the assassination of JFK is definitely not what bullshit story they are palming off.

Not saying the US government were defo 100% involved in the bit before he died. May well have been
What went on after it though. Yes

There is no way their story of what transpired on 22-11-63 in Dallas is legit and they have manufactured a version of the truth that bears little resemblance to reality

[WolfMan]

Updated thread title to warn sensible people to just sit back and watch the fun

:popcorn:

I like this post. I like my job. Let's go FIFA! Let's go FIFA!

[plague]

The whole truther argument falls flat with me because in order to go to war etc they never really need the presidents thumbs up anyway.
And as if pollies ever really care what Joe Schmo thinks anyway.

Knocking off your Prez/bringing down a bunch of buildings seems a wee bit of overkill.

[MFKS]

The whole truther argument falls flat with me because in order to go to war etc they never really need the presidents thumbs up anyway.
And as if pollies ever really care what Joe Schmo thinks anyway.

Knocking off your Prez/bringing down a bunch of buildings seems a wee bit of overkill.

They actually only need Congress to agree.

That also being said the President has influence and if he is against something the plebs in the government tend to tow the line and it doesn't get the support

Kennedy was cutting back US involvement in Vietnam and withdrawing troops.

His death occurred and 4 days later LBJ signed a reversal of this policy and started sending more troops
(considering 2 of those 4 days were a weekend seems a pretty impressive and quick turnaround)



As for knocking off a president and bringing down a bunch of buildings being overkill.

Politicians who constantly lie to the people every other day of the week are now telling the truth???
Secret Operatives who rig elections assassinate foreign leaders and manipulate the world we live in wouldn't take out a president and knock a couple of buildings over???

Small price to pay to justify the end if you ask me

[boz-monaut]

http://i.imgur.com/H7CP3Ug.gif

[snake]

wat

[MFKS]

wat


Just out of curiosity Snake as a person who puts his faith in scientific means and so called logic etc as you do what exactly are your take on various conspiracy theories.

Lets just start with the main ones in popular culture like JFK Assassination, 9-11, Sandy Hook, Moon Landing, Roswell etc

Are you a believer or a non believer??

Which ones and why???

Was my question to you.




Ignore Plague interjecting and me throwing a couple of bones to keep him entertained :rof: in the meantime.

It is sidetracking to what we are discussing here and this is your beliefs in science and logic being right.

Floors yours.

[plague]

Ignore Plague interjecting and me throwing a couple of bones to keep him entertained :rof: in the meantime.

It is sidetracking to what we are discussing here and this is your beliefs in science and logic being right.

Floors yours.

Hehehe The good member trying to convince us he has the ability to filter his thoughts.
You sir, are a tap. You are either on, or off.
And right now it is peak flow Member.


But cool cool, let's get back to the dude up in the sky.

[MFKS]

Hehehe The good member trying to convince us he has the ability to filter his thoughts.
You sir, are a tap. You are either on, or off.
And right now it is peak flow Member.


But cool cool, let's get back to the dude up in the sky.

Dude up in the sky isn't the issue. The focus is Snakes thoughts on the decisiveness of science and logic.

His thoughts on these conspiracy theories have a bearing on the consistency of his beliefs.

I am intrigued to hear from him so I can get a better understanding of this science and logic stuff and how it fits in

[snake]

i haven't a clue where you're headed with this, but here goes.

as a general rule, these conspiracy hypotheses (they shouldn't downgrade the word theory, which is lamentably downgraded when used in everyday use; "i have a theory as to why...") involve humans and events, and rely on eyewitness testimony. (perhaps the moonlanding is separate here, but it is just batshit crazy.) despite what eveyday experience may tell you, controlled studies have shown eyewitness testimony can be horribly unreliable. but, we innately trust it above all else. why? it may have to do with our evolution. up until only very recently, it [i]was[/] the most reliable for of evidence. now we have photographs and cctv footage, which aren't biased by suggestion or fogged by recall. so, can we get to the bottom of these issues? probably. it depends on the evidence.

but please don't confuse this to say that proper scientifiec theories are also clouded. not all evidences are created equal. the theory of evolution has millions of pieces of evidence from multiple lines of enquiry that point to an internally consistent picture that states that all life on earth are decended from a common ancestor.

you and I are both cousins with a corn cob. that is fact.

so, how do we know that human scientists "testimony" is reliable? how do we know that they're not distoring the data? therin lies the beauty of the scientific method. someone else will go and check. if they see something fishy - potentially an honest mistake or something more sinister - people will ask questions. if the data is wrong, it will be shown to be.

i'll paraphrase a recent example i'm vaguely familiar with. the absolute specifics may be jumbled, but the basic story will be correct. i'll provide a link to the controversy somyou can check for yourself.

a japanese group recently claimed to be able to get stem cells to become "active" in adults with a simple mild acid treatment. this is valuable to be able to grow replacement organs which the body won't reject.musually, only fetuses contain stemcells with this activity, used in body development. this was a potentially landmark discovery, which would change the world of medicine. so, they published thier paper in a scientific journal called Nature. for a scientist, that is a pretty big thing. everyone reads the related papers in this journal, because what is accepted here is usually a big discovery.

how did it - or any paper - get to be published? after it was submitted, some anonymous experts in the field independently scrutinised the draft manuscript for probably a few days in total each over a month or two. this is peer review. their job is to try to spot flaws in the manuscript. was the analysis done right? does the conclusions logically follow from the results? are the claims noteworthy? they then will usually respond with questions to be answered, and a bit back and forth happens between the authors and referees (still anonymous, via the editor) with corrections or rebuttals, until the editor agrees to accept for publication (or reject). this is the first layer of scrutiny. it's not perfect, it can be improved, but it is current best practice.

so, the paper is released online and an army of under-valued slaves known as PhD candidates and post-docs eagerly read the paper and get really excited. this is a really exciting discovery that can change the world. with the apprival of their professor (the boss- provided they can locate them), they eagerly run out into the lab to repeat the experiments. in this particular case, they were met with frustrations, as they were unable to obtain the same results. so, they try and try again. they may have email correspondence with the lead author of the work, to ask for guidance. they may speak to their friends in other laboratories. can they get it to work? in this case, they couldn't.nare they all doing something not quite right??

what happens next is usually the professors will argue with eachother at an international coference in some beautiful city somewhere. it's not as fun as it sounds. some accusations will be made behind the lead authors back. such is human nature. eventually, after repeatedly failing to reproduce the results, the voices of discontent will become louder. a group of concermed scientists will contact the editor of the journal and highlight their concerns. i'm less familiar with the processes here, but i'd imagine the editor will seek the opinion of the authors for clarification, as well as additional expert opinion. eventually, if it is unable to be resolved, the paper is retracted. gone. finito. the editor will publish a note saying that the experiments are unreliable, and maybe some reasons.

this process id the second layer of error checking. an error which made it through the gates of 2-3 reviewers plus an editor is then able to be scrutinised by all the researchers in the field.

the example here is probably an extreme case, but highlights the self-correcting process that is continually going on. in this example, it was found that one of the slaves had made up data. she lost her job, was basically unemployable because the whole system is built on trust, and i'm pretty sure she regrettably took her own life.


these kind of big ideas - like evolution - are continually undergoing this second type of review. the fact that it still holds up and is only gettingbstronger suggests that it's pretty darn close to the truth.

and it's not just grey men in white coats all agreeing with each-other at conferences in honolulu. scientists are every bit as petty and ****y as everyday people.mthey'd live to make themselves a superstar by overturning a theory. it would be a battle, but if you built the evidence to overthrow it, you'd go down in history.

[snake]

linky - http://www.nature.com/news/papers-on-stress-induced-stem-cells-are-retracted-1.15501

[MFKS]

Nice read.

**** knows how it has any bearing on what we are talking about.

I have no idea exactly where your going but you still didn't answer the question directly I asked unless your use of the term Conspiracy hypotheses is some code indicating you don't believe any of them.

I won't be presumptuous to speculate or assume all I will do is just ask you to clarify your belief on each of them individually in a form which is pretty clear so I can from your answer determine if you are Yay or Nay on the Conspiracy Theories I brought up.

To me you should have a pretty straight forward response to all of them.

I have assessed which way I think you will stand on each issue and was curious to know whether my logic actually applies and they match up to the realities of your beliefs

[plague]

Looks like Member is positioning Snake for the fatal blow.
This is better than Kasparov v Deep Blue.

[MFKS]

Looks like Member is positioning Snake for the fatal blow.
This is better than Kasparov v Deep Blue.

No fatal blow.

Just wishing to comprehend how his belief in science and logic transcends these issues and see where it sits.

[plague]

Oi Member maybe you should put this as one of your submitted questions at the Jets fan forum.

Who knows they might have an answer you're looking for.

[parksey]

not really sure what the member is driving at with the whole conspiracy theory/hypothesis thing but i'm interested to see where it goes

[tha_hauss]

Updated thread title to warn sensible people to just sit back and watch the fun

:popcorn:

No, my offer to answer serious questions was a genuine one. I said I would answer them in the Religion thread. I've certainly got no interest in talking to someone who feels its okay to insult me before we get started on more serious topics. I personally don't know why MFKS does it when he's got Mathew 7:6 to guide him.

That's something you might like to consider about God. If science can't even predict how I am going to act and what I am going to say, how do you think you would even be able to test how God chooses to interact with His creation. There is no problem with science at all, all methods of truth discovery are not contradictory whether science, philosophy, history, theology and subjective human experience. Most apparent contradictions are able to be resolved by looking at things in their context. There is so much data out there but people choose to blinker themselves because most of it is subjective. There is even testable evidence but it is rejected because it can't be reproduced, as if you could reproduce what God has done. There is historical evidence but people just pick and choose which history is real based on their beliefs. But if you rely on only one method as the only way to find truth, with its inherent limitations, you aren't going to get the full picture. Boz says that scientists use "philosophical discussion" to look at the scientific method, which is a good start.

[MFKS]

Hauss

I don't take that much offence to Snakes digs.

I have my beliefs in god and they are much stronger than anything he will ever say to break them.

I have copped enough over the years about priests and paedophilia from uneducated fools who think it is an insult to us.

Dumb ****s just don't get that we are more offended by it than anyone and are not condoning the churches handling of the matter at all.


I am also not in the slightest bit offended by people who choose to believe differently.

I though am intrigued to understand how he believes what he does. He does have a degree of self righteousness about it and am curious to understand his position more to see whether there is something to it or just hot air and bullshit bravado

[tha_hauss]

I don't take that much offence to his digs.

I have my beliefs in god and they are much stronger than anything he will ever say to break them.

I am also not in the slightest bit offended by people who choose to believe differently. I have copped enough over the years about priests and paedophilia from uneducated fools who think it is an insult to us.

Dumb ****s just don't get that we are more offended by it than anyone and are not condoning the churches handling of the matter at all.


I though am intrigued to understand how he believes what he does. He does have a degree of self righteousness about it and am curious to understand his position more to see whether there is something to it or just hot air and bullshit bravado

I just think its more of a waste of your time than anything. Whether you are offended or not, what's the point in discussing something important with someone who doesn't care if he insults you? There is no respect there, and if there isn't respect, the discussion is pointless. It's not two respectful humans discussing something with each other but two people shouting their own opinions at each other. That's why I made a genuine offer to have a discussion. I would hope that 10 years of serving the Jets community would be a foundation for a bit of respect.

[Premy]

So how bout this legalization of gay marriage hey :lol::tongue:
Equal rights and all.

[Premy]

Dear Member, do you believe in unicorns?

[snake]

No, my offer to answer serious questions was a genuine one. I said I would answer them in the Religion thread. I've certainly got no interest in talking to someone who feels its okay to insult me before we get started on more serious topics. I personally don't know why MFKS does it when he's got Mathew 7:6 to guide him

ok serious questions.

1. when and how were you introduced to you current religion?
2. is there any part of the scriptures you find concerning, or that you personally disagree with?
3. are you concerned that the books were written some time after jesus' death, and there being any possibility of transcription errors or embellishment?
4. have you read the scriptures which didn't become conon? if so, what are your thoughts?
5. have you tried or ivestigated any non-abrahamic religions, which have their own genesis stories?

thanks for your time.

[snake]

Nice read.

**** knows how it has any bearing on what we are talking about.

I have no idea exactly where your going but you still didn't answer the question directly I asked unless your use of the term Conspiracy hypotheses is some code indicating you don't believe any of them.

I won't be presumptuous to speculate or assume all I will do is just ask you to clarify your belief on each of them individually in a form which is pretty clear so I can from your answer determine if you are Yay or Nay on the Conspiracy Theories I brought up.

To me you should have a pretty straight forward response to all of them.

I have assessed which way I think you will stand on each issue and was curious to know whether my logic actually applies and they match up to the realities of your beliefs

the answers are there, implicitly. the strength of evidence of any of them is weak relatively speaking, because they're based on eyewitness testimony and police interrogation, which aren't that great.

i haven't personally investigated any of them as there's no value in it for me. so at this point, in lieu of strong evidence to the contrary, i'm happy to accept the default position. however, if there was strong evidence that were to arise casting doubt on one of the stories, i would have to reconsider this position.

obviously, the above is about the mmurders/ 9-11 stories, not the moon landing, which very obviously happened several times.

[MFKS]

ok serious questions.

1. when and how were you introduced to you current religion?
2. is there any part of the scriptures you find concerning, or that you personally disagree with?
3. are you concerned that the books were written some time after jesus' death, and there being any possibility of transcription errors or embellishment?
4. have you read the scriptures which didn't become conon? if so, what are your thoughts?
5. have you tried or ivestigated any non-abrahamic religions, which have their own genesis stories?

thanks for your time.

1 Have had religion all my life more or less. Exact date not certain but definitely as a child and have always had it by my recollection.
Lost interest in it as I got older didn't stop believing just lost a bit of interest and then I came back to it because I chose to

2 Parts of the scriptures I feel are concerning or disagree with??
Remembering I don't choose the contents of the scriptures I have to with my beliefs embrace them. It isn't really for me to actually pick and choose which parts of the Good Book I should.
The book isn't really there for me to go I like that so will go with it but would rather do this that way etc

3 To include the story of Jesus they would have of course have to be written after his death.
I agree the time after can see tales of embellishment errors etc. with the Chinese Whispers principle.
The issue with it being written by man also sees the potential for error as man is flawed
Does it concern me. NO NOT AT ALL.

It may not be perfect that doesn't matter. The principle and reason for it is right

4 The word Conon is ****ing your sentence up as I have no idea what it means I will pass on the question until I understand what exactly you are asking

5 Trying other religions No. I though am interested in learning about other religions. I am going to Thailand soon and will be hoping to get a greater understanding of Buddhism whilst there

Thanks

[snake]

That's something you might like to consider about God. If science can't even predict how I am going to act and what I am going to say, how do you think you would even be able to test how God chooses to interact with His creation. There is no problem with science at all, all methods of truth discovery are not contradictory whether science, philosophy, history, theology and subjective human experience. Most apparent contradictions are able to be resolved by looking at things in their context. There is so much data out there but people choose to blinker themselves because most of it is subjective. There is even testable evidence but it is rejected because it can't be reproduced, as if you could reproduce what God has done. There is historical evidence but people just pick and choose which history is real based on their beliefs. But if you rely on only one method as the only way to find truth, with its inherent limitations, you aren't going to get the full picture. Boz says that scientists use "philosophical discussion" to look at the scientific method, which is a good start.

that's a wishy-washy position with no value, as far as i'm concerned. testable science can and often is contradictory with theology and subjective human experience. that's kind of the point of statistiical tests - to remove subjective human inferences from data analysis.

and we are all amateur statisticians, trying to infer causal relationships that may benefit us. for instance, noticing that plants grow well after the coldest part of the year and it starts warming up is a good inference, and allows for planting of seeds for growing food. on the other hand, noticing that it rained heavily after having a dancing celebration with your tribe by the campfire, is probably a poor statistical inference, although you are unlikely to be severely punished for making that mistake. however, if some brown mushrooms are edible and delicious, but some are poisonous and deadly, there can be severe punishments for poor statistical inference.

we therefore deloped objective mathematical tools to filter our subjective and limited personal experiences. you owe your life to these tools, too. we all do.

[snake]

member: sorry, i made a typo. i meant canon.

i answered your questions at 10.45.

[snake]

1 Have had religion all my life more or less. Exact date not certain but definitely as a child and have always had it by my recollection.
Lost interest in it as I got older didn't stop believing just lost a bit of interest and then I came back to it because I chose to

2 Parts of the scriptures I feel are concerning or disagree with??
Remembering I don't choose the contents of the scriptures I have to with my beliefs embrace them. It isn't really for me to actually pick and choose which parts of the Good Book I should.
The book isn't really there for me to go I like that so will go with it but would rather do this that way etc

3 To include the story of Jesus they would have of course have to be written after his death.
I agree the time after can see tales of embellishment errors etc. with the Chinese Whispers principle.
The issue with it being written by man also sees the potential for error as man is flawed
Does it concern me. NO NOT AT ALL.

It may not be perfect that doesn't matter. The principle and reason for it is right

4 The word Conon is ****ing your sentence up as I have no idea what it means I will pass on the question until I understand what exactly you are asking

5 Trying other religions No. I though am interested in learning about other religions. I am going to Thailand soon and will be hoping to get a greater understanding of Buddhism whilst there

Thanks

1. so you just independently rocked up at a church as soon as you were aware, or did someone introduce you to it?

2. so if parts are contradictory, that's ok? if they're clearly wrong, based on new discoveries? none of this is concerning?

3. did it have to be written so long after his death, like a century? if he was a wonder, wouldn't that have been recognised earlier and people recording his life during his life? what about the missing years? what did jesus do from like 13 to 30 or whatever it was? it was already known that he was a miracle as mary was a virgin and the kings knew and brought gifts, so shouldn't his life be better documented?

4. scriptures not accepted as official canon.

5. thanks. what about other sects of christianity, like the church of jesus christ and the latter-day saints?

[snake]

So how bout this legalization of gay marriage hey :lol::tongue:
Equal rights and all.

would love to go to a gay marriage. reckon it would be a hoot and a holler. sick reception, guaranteed.

[snake]

I just think its more of a waste of your time than anything....

by definition, isn't it a bigger waste of my time, given he said he is closed to alternative explanations? compare that to myself, where my acceptance to a particular theory may be changed by new contradictory evidence. e.g, if god appeared in the sky saturday, i'd be singing hyms in church on sunday.

[snake]

I just think its more of a waste of your time than anything....

by definition, isn't it a bigger waste of my time, given he said he is closed to alternative explanations? compare that to myself, where my acceptance to a particular theory may be changed by new contradictory evidence. e.g, if god appeared in the sky saturday, i'd be singing hyms in church on sunday.

[MFKS]

the answers are there, implicitly. the strength of evidence of any of them is weak relatively speaking, because they're based on eyewitness testimony and police interrogation, which aren't that great.

i haven't personally investigated any of them as there's no value in it for me. so at this point, in lieu of strong evidence to the contrary, i'm happy to accept the default position. however, if there was strong evidence that were to arise casting doubt on one of the stories, i would have to reconsider this position.

obviously, the above is about the mmurders/ 9-11 stories, not the moon landing, which very obviously happened several times.

Well **** Me.

5 Believer in the Official Stories

That's not how I would have had you pegged.

If science is absolutely correct and logic is also good any doubts put on the story should see you in the Believer in the Not Believing Camp I would have thought.

I do though find it absolutely amusing that when the opinion of religion comes up you are absolutely definitively adamant in your faith of science and logic being correct.
Yet these examples particularly the JFK and 9-11 ones see you turn your back on science and logic as being definitively correct and by taking the position you have you obviously believe in something that both science and logic actually contradicts


Thought to be perfectly fair I couldn't ever see you accepting the Moon Landing as a Hoax as it if one of sciences alleged greatest feats and if it was deemed a fraud you would have a few issues

On another note though Snake seeing as you don't believe in Roswell being legit but as a some what strong believer in science evolution and logic and all that what are your thoughts on the possibility of alien life form??


Basically do you believe in little green man and flying saucers even if these little green man and flying saucers don't quite live up to the Hollywood comic stereotype with their image.

Most people would say you would have to be a little crazy to believe in them but surely you would have to believe in them being possible and probability wise being most likely???

[Premy]

Bigger things going on here Member.
Important question, do you believe in unicorns?

[plague]

Yet these examples particularly the JFK and 9-11 ones see you turn your back on science and logic as being definitively correct and by taking the position you have you obviously believe in something that both science and logic actually contradicts



Wait, are you saying there is scientific proof of a JFK and 9/11 conspiracy?

[MFKS]

Bigger things going on here Member.
Important question, do you believe in unicorns?

Don't know why you keep asking me this.

Should really be asking Snake as he believes in Evolution
According to him it should only be a matter of time as the horse evolves with a horn on its head.
Either that or Snakes scientist mates could speed it up a bit with some genetic engineering with rhinos and horses

Being that there are references to unicorns in the bible maybe the unicorn has already been and gone

[furns]

would love to go to a gay marriage. reckon it would be a hoot and a holler. sick reception, guaranteed.

At the very least - the dancing would be streets above anything at a hetero wedding

[hawk]

I just think its more of a waste of your time than anything. Whether you are offended or not, what's the point in discussing something important with someone who doesn't care if he insults you? There is no respect there, and if there isn't respect, the discussion is pointless. It's not two respectful humans discussing something with each other but two people shouting their own opinions at each other. That's why I made a genuine offer to have a discussion. I would hope that 10 years of serving the Jets community would be a foundation for a bit of respect.

well said.

Sorry, time helping the Jets community receives no reward or respect. New knobs with big voices come in and are quick to throw out culture and reasoning. good luck.

[Premy]

Don't know why you keep asking me this.

Should really be asking Snake as he believes in Evolution
According to him it should only be a matter of time as the horse evolves with a horn on its head.
Either that or Snakes scientist mates could speed it up a bit with some genetic engineering with rhinos and horses

Being that there are references to unicorns in the bible maybe the unicorn has already been and gone

So is that a yes or no?

[The Dunster]

If the moon landings were fake the Russians would have let everyone know about it. The fact that the Russians accepted defeat in the race to the moon is proof enough for me.

[MFKS]

Snake as per this question 4 about reading scriptures not becoming canon

I take it we are referring to verses that are now not found in the bible anymore yet were once in it a thousand years ago etc???

[MFKS]

So is that a yes or no?

If they are referred to in the bible and I believe in the good book the answer should be pretty straight forward shouldn't it???

[Premy]

If they are referred to in the bible and I believe in the good book the answer should be pretty straight forward shouldn't it???One would think that it would be straight forward, tell me without getting to personal have you taken the vows of marriage yourself? If not one would hope that you're still a virgin.

[MFKS]

One would think that it would be straight forward, tell me without getting to personal have you taken the vows of marriage yourself? If not one would hope that you're still a virgin.

No not that silly and I do have to constantly be absolved of sin

[Premy]

No not that silly and I do have to constantly be absolved of sin:tongue: So you can pick and choose which part of the good book to believe in and practice in, oh I think I'm getting the hang of this.

Sure as hell hope we don't have to believe and practice in this bit of the "good" book

15:12-13
whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

[Premy]

I'm apologies if you feel disrespected by this statement Hauss but I find it rather ironic that you are defending Christianity yet you get upset by someone forcing an opinion onto another.

[tha_hauss]

ok serious questions.

1. when and how were you introduced to you current religion?
2. is there any part of the scriptures you find concerning, or that you personally disagree with?
3. are you concerned that the books were written some time after jesus' death, and there being any possibility of transcription errors or embellishment?
4. have you read the scriptures which didn't become conon? if so, what are your thoughts?
5. have you tried or ivestigated any non-abrahamic religions, which have their own genesis stories?

thanks for your time.


I'm happy to answer these questions, but just a quick question. It seems that all these questions are designed to direct you toward a conclusion that you have already reached. Is that how scientists approach a topic? I thought that designing an experiment so that it was biased toward the result you want is a big no no. You've almost written my answers for me.

[MFKS]

:tongue: So you can pick and choose which part of the good book to believe in and practice in, oh I think I'm getting the hang of this.

Sure as hell hope we don't have to believe and practice in this bit of the "good" book

15:12-13
whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

No picking and choosing which parts.

Try and live a life free from sin embracing god as your lord and saviour

Confess your sins and seek forgiveness

[plague]

No picking and choosing which parts.

Try and live a life free from sin embracing god as your lord and saviour

Confess your sins and seek forgiveness


yeah I'm sticking up for my man Member here. you can't go picking apart every minute detail of the books.
everyone on here has broken the laws of the society we choose to live in from time to time.
besides, as he said, if you do the wrong thing just ask for forgiveness. simple.

and Hauss, don't take this stuff too personally. i think everyone is more than respectable towards your beliefs. it doesn't mean that people don't find the ideas of your beliefs absurd.
in the same way you have probably had your say on players, coaches and ceo's of this club being just as unbelievable. but those same players managers and ceos probably truly believed they belonged here.


i think there is a difference between saying religion is stupid, versus saying you are stupid for believing it.

[Premy]

No picking and choosing which parts.

Try and live a life free from sin embracing god as your lord and saviour

Confess your sins and seek forgiveness
So by that logic I should be put to death?

[MFKS]

So by that logic I should be put to death?

Ask Snake he deals in Science and logic

[snake]

I'm happy to answer these questions, but just a quick question. It seems that all these questions are designed to direct you toward a conclusion that you have already reached. Is that how scientists approach a topic? I thought that designing an experiment so that it was biased toward the result you want is a big no no. You've almost written my answers for me.

not quite. i'm just cutting straight to the point to save time.

if the bible is reliable, then the abrahamic god exists, cares abour us, will judge us etc. if ghe bible is unreliable, then all that may still be true, but it can't be used as supporting evidence. however, the hypothesis for a god usually comes the axiom of the bible being reliable. ergo, proper scientific enquiry is to test the veracity of the bible. hence the motivation behind a few of the questions :)

the other questions are to raise your consciousness about how truly arbitrary your religion is. i'm probably correct in thinking you're christian because you were raised in a christian family. most apples don't fall far from the tree. if we were both indian, we would be having the same coversation about hinduism...

[snake]

yeah I'm sticking up for my man Member here. you can't go picking apart every minute detail of the books.
everyone on here has broken the laws of the society we choose to live in from time to time.
besides, as he said, if you do the wrong thing just ask for forgiveness. simple.


you've missed the point here. it's not that mkfs doesn't perfectly follow the rules in the bible all of the time, it's that the bible is self-contradictory, or in some cases, patently absurd in terms of moral guidance or historical value.

[boz-monaut]

je suis snake

[boz-monaut]

terrorists tend to be religious narcissists

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/narcissism-terrorism-violence-monis-breivik-lubitz-jihadi-john

"Delusions of grandeur, a fear of failure and a need for admiration"

remind you of anyone on this forum?

[plague]

you've missed the point here. it's not that mkfs doesn't perfectly follow the rules in the bible all of the time, it's that the bible is self-contradictory, or in some cases, patently absurd in terms of moral guidance or historical value.


no no, it was in response to the accusation from someone else that if you don't adhere to all the rules in the bible then you can't be a proper christian.
i know plenty who take bits and pieces from it to shape their journey in life. not sure if thats makes them a plastic christian or not but i don't think us non beliebers should take that angle in the argument (not that you were, it was someone else).

[MFKS]

Anyway Snake back to my little green men question and your beliefs in their existence.

[Premy]

no no, it was in response to the accusation from someone else that if you don't adhere to all the rules in the bible then you can't be a proper christian.
i know plenty who take bits and pieces from it to shape their journey in life. not sure if thats makes them a plastic christian or not but i don't think us non beliebers should take that angle in the argument (not that you were, it was someone else).
It was me.
I find it hard to believe someone that only believes in half a story. If they only believe in the part of something that suits them then I believe when they are to portray something then they will only portray what suits them, hardly the full scope on something. How's the expression you can't have your cake and eat it.

The Church is built on foundations of hearsay and depictions of people who only portray part of the good book. Ministers, Fathers what ever name they want to go by are happy to preach stories from a book but are quick to tell us not to take all those stories literal, surely one can forgive me for not knowing what stories to take literal and what stories to not.

[militiamon]

I'm still trying to work out what insulted hauss so much in the first place. As far as I can tell it was when snake said that he believes in zombie stories. So that's too insulting now? sheesh

For all I care you could say that I suck Darwin's cawk, no need to get precious about it.

Saying that we aren't allowed to ridicule or make fun of beliefs which quite clearly require a large leap of faith sets a dangerous precedent for society.

[Premy]

Ask Snake he deals in Science and logic
I'm interested to know what someone who believes in the "good" books thoughts are on that extract.

[snake]

Anyway Snake back to my little green men question and your beliefs in their existence.

a dude a while back named drake derived an equation to estimate this using the product of a set of probabilities. number of stars x fraction with planets x fraction of planets with conditions conducive to life x. ... etc. otoh, i don't know if moons were included here, which would expand the probabilities slightly.

we currently have good estimates for some of these parameters, but not for others. the universe us a big place, and the number if extrasolar planets discovered is accelerating with improved measurements. the number if.earth-like planets is increasing also. this stuff is hot science right nao.

once upon a time, there was a theory called vital force theory, which stated that organic molecules can only come from organic sources. thwn one day, this dude whose name escapes me, prepared urea (a chemical in your piss) from inorganic chemicals. vital force theory, and one if gods roles, died shortly after.

it was.thought that these molecules - particulay those in RNA require a solvent like water to form. RNA is particularly interesring because it copies itself! kinda like life does....

anyway, it turns out you don't need liquid water.to form many of these molecules - they exist in comets - and so are ubiquitous to tbe solar system. since i don't happen to think our solar system is all that special, they're probably common to the universe. a big place.

so, are.there little green men?

visiting us -probably not, although i do watch ancient aliens for a giggle.

elsewhere in the universe? i'd be stunned if there wasn't. although the data isn't in yet. (it only takes.one drake probability to be zero, for the whole thing to be zero...) would love for it to be solved in my lifetime, but it's probably asking too much.

[plague]

It was me.
I find it hard to believe someone that only believes in half a story. If they only believe in the part of something that suits them then I believe when they are to portray something then they will only portray what suits them, hardly the full scope on something. How's the expression you can't have your cake and eat it.

The Church is built on foundations of hearsay and depictions of people who only portray part of the good book. Ministers, Fathers what ever name they want to go by are happy to preach stories from a book but are quick to tell us not to take all those stories literal, surely one can forgive me for not knowing what stories to take literal and what stories to not.


you make a fair point, but from reading Members posts and my own experience there are a lot of people who use the books as a guide to form their own theory on life. id be shocked if the there are more of those in the world than your extremist "all or nothing" type of lads.

i think everyone agrees that extremists are the ****ing worst.

[plague]

oi Member, so what are your thoughts on the likes of the Westboro baptist church?
cool with it, not cool?
interested to hear a religious mans perspective as id assume all non believers would think they are the worst humans on the planet.

[plague]

elsewhere in the universe? i'd be stunned if there wasn't. although the data isn't in yet. (it only takes.one drake probability to be zero, for the whole thing to be zero...) would love for it to be solved in my lifetime, but it's probably asking too much.

so Snake, (or others) have you ever come across anything you would legit think is proof of life out there?
blows my mind to think one day its going to be discovered.

[hawk]

terrorists tend to be religious narcissists

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/narcissism-terrorism-violence-monis-breivik-lubitz-jihadi-john

"Delusions of grandeur, a fear of failure and a need for admiration"

remind you of anyone on this forum?

Memberforahmed

[hawk]

Saying that we aren't allowed to ridicule or make fun of beliefs which quite clearly require a large leap of faith sets a dangerous precedent for society.

but when we do some get angry, some dont care and others find someone who disagrees and kill.

[militiamon]

once upon a time, there was a theory called vital force theory, which stated that organic molecules can only come from organic sources. thwn one day, this dude whose name escapes me, prepared urea (a chemical in your piss) from inorganic chemicals. vital force theory, and one if gods roles, died shortly after.

Organic chemists :wanker: :bs: :yap:

[furns]

Do other forms of life exist in this universe - almost certainly.
Are those other forms of life interested in having contact with us - almost certainly not.
It's hilarious to me that people think humans are the superior and only form of life in the cosmos. Why would any beings smart enough to develop means for travelling massive distances through space want to hang out with a race intent on blowing each other up over trivial differences and watching cat videos on the internet?

[MFKS]

a dude a while back named drake derived an equation to estimate this using the product of a set of probabilities. number of stars x fraction with planets x fraction of planets with conditions conducive to life x. ... etc. otoh, i don't know if moons were included here, which would expand the probabilities slightly.

we currently have good estimates for some of these parameters, but not for others. the universe us a big place, and the number if extrasolar planets discovered is accelerating with improved measurements. the number if.earth-like planets is increasing also. this stuff is hot science right nao.

once upon a time, there was a theory called vital force theory, which stated that organic molecules can only come from organic sources. thwn one day, this dude whose name escapes me, prepared urea (a chemical in your piss) from inorganic chemicals. vital force theory, and one if gods roles, died shortly after.

it was.thought that these molecules - particulay those in RNA require a solvent like water to form. RNA is particularly interesring because it copies itself! kinda like life does....

anyway, it turns out you don't need liquid water.to form many of these molecules - they exist in comets - and so are ubiquitous to tbe solar system. since i don't happen to think our solar system is all that special, they're probably common to the universe. a big place.

so, are.there little green men?

visiting us -probably not, although i do watch ancient aliens for a giggle.

elsewhere in the universe? i'd be stunned if there wasn't. although the data isn't in yet. (it only takes.one drake probability to be zero, for the whole thing to be zero...) would love for it to be solved in my lifetime, but it's probably asking too much.

So you believe in the possibility of little green men.

Ok

I will leave the insults of you being loopy crazy etc alone but lets at least take note that your position on this subject would leave some severe doubts on your level of sanity in the modern world.


Now as far as your science goes Why has Science not been able to prove the existence of these little green men??

I am taking the answer to this is that science is not complete yet?? Ie Science has not discovered its limit and is still a long way from achieving it


Would this be a fair narrative to explain the situation as to why Little Green Men are not confirmed as legit just yet

[MFKS]

oi Member, so what are your thoughts on the likes of the Westboro baptist church?
cool with it, not cool?
interested to hear a religious mans perspective as id assume all non believers would think they are the worst humans on the planet.

Worst humans on the planet probably not. Christian Extremists more like it. Christian version of the Islamic extremists the media loves scaring the world about


I definitely don't agree with the way they operate.

They do though take parts of the good book on board with their abortion homosexuality stances but a lot of what they do is going against the bit about god judging each man for his sins and it not being really their place to do so.

I feel it does definitely contravene this.


They also have pretty strong and damning views on other religions/churches that I don't agree with.



They do believe in god and are doing what they believe is right in delivering gods message.


Not my cup of tea but not my place to condemn them for it.

God will be their judge

[MFKS]

It was me.
I find it hard to believe someone that only believes in half a story. If they only believe in the part of something that suits them then I believe when they are to portray something then they will only portray what suits them, hardly the full scope on something. How's the expression you can't have your cake and eat it.

The Church is built on foundations of hearsay and depictions of people who only portray part of the good book. Ministers, Fathers what ever name they want to go by are happy to preach stories from a book but are quick to tell us not to take all those stories literal, surely one can forgive me for not knowing what stories to take literal and what stories to not.

You are quoting a part of the bible though that has no bearing on me as an individual.

The Good Book is quite clear on its stance that killing is a no no.


That passage in Chronicles is not giving me the green light to go kill any non believers.

It is referencing a group of people getting together and making a pact with god to go forth and kill any non believers


Try reading the thing in its entirety

[Bon]

Sweet Jebus..
What a catch-up read this thread has been.. 5 stars..


then the Ibrahimavic god exists, cares about us, will judge us etc. if ghe bible is unreliable,

Quick question though, was I the only one thinking of Zlatan while reading this part?

[parksey]

So you believe in the possibility of little green men.

Ok

I will leave the insults of you being loopy crazy etc alone but lets at least take note that your position on this subject would leave some severe doubts on your level of sanity in the modern world.


Now as far as your science goes Why has Science not been able to prove the existence of these little green men??

I am taking the answer to this is that science is not complete yet?? Ie Science has not discovered its limit and is still a long way from achieving it


Would this be a fair narrative to explain the situation as to why Little Green Men are not confirmed as legit just yet

sorry to say, but this is a genuinely bad argument member

[parksey]

also if you don't think westboro baptist church is ****ed up you're straight up crazy

[MFKS]

sorry to say, but this is a genuinely bad argument member

Argument???

We are just clarifying his position on things

[Premy]

You are quoting a part of the bible though that has no bearing on me as an individual.

The Good Book is quite clear on its stance that killing is a no no.


That passage in Chronicles is not giving me the green light to go kill any non believers.

It is referencing a group of people getting together and making a pact with god to go forth and kill any non believers


Try reading the thing in its entirety
That's exactly what I was saying you only use parts of a story that are beneficial to you, I would be pretty just to think that it's not just the bible were you use this method. Hence why I find it difficult to trust people who only use parts of a story that are beneficial to them.

[parksey]

Argument???

We are just clarifying his position on things

no you were using his stance on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life to make a point on how some people might think his beliefs are weird, just as he believes your religious views are.

[MFKS]

no you were using his stance on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life to make a point on how some people might think his beliefs are weird, just as he believes your religious views are.

I am??

Gee Whiz your good.

Maybe I haven't finished yet:thumbsup:

[MFKS]

That's exactly what I was saying you only use parts of a story that are beneficial to you, I would be pretty just to think that it's not just the bible were you use this method. Hence why I find it difficult to trust people who only use parts of a story that are beneficial to them.

My non acceptance of the bit about killing non believers has nothing to do with picking and choosing which parts I choose to believe.

More so a case of your only putting half of the story in there.


If your point had any relevance you will find a passage where the bible is interpreted as a message for people who believe to kill non believers. Go find it for me

[The Dunster]

also if you don't think westboro baptist church is ****ed up you're straight up crazy

Without using science to make your point Parksey you might as well be travelling down the religous road yourself.

Simple. WBC essentially beleive in a clockwork universe whereby all events are determined as per Laplaces example in his Philosophical Essay on probabillities:

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

Big problem for WBC here is that not only is such a situation intractable at the classical level it is indeed impossible at the Quantum level because Plancks Constant is a non zero number.

For over eighty years people have been trying to prove Quantum Mechanics is wrong and so far absolutely nothing has scratched let alone destroyed its foundations.

Hence WBC are reasoning from a set of assumptions [axioms] which are known to be false.

GAME OVER WBC.

[parksey]

I am??

Gee Whiz your good.

Maybe I haven't finished yet:thumbsup:

that's how it came across at least

why else would you even bring conspiracy theories up if not to defend yourself?

not that i really think you need to defend your beliefs

[Premy]

If they are referred to in the bible and I believe in the good book the answer should be pretty straight forward shouldn't it???


No picking and choosing which parts.


My non acceptance of the bit about killing non believers has nothing to do with picking and choosing which parts I choose to believe.

Acceptance: the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.

Please explain to me how your non acceptance wasn't your choice?

[MFKS]

Acceptance: the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered.

Please explain to me how your non acceptance wasn't your choice?

Probably because the passage you have brought up does not imply nor literally present that I as a believer in god are to kill non believers.

You have taken the act of something someone done in the bible and implied that I have to do it.

By your assumptions of a believer doing everything in the bible I should head to beach and part the seas, Spend my week at SD's walking on water and turning his pool to wine, should have taken a Slingshot to Middleby Muppet and Tinkler and should hang myself when I betray someone.

[Premy]

Probably because the passage you have brought up does not imply nor literally present that I as a believer in god are to kill non believers.

You have taken the act of something someone done in the bible and implied that I have to do it.

By your assumptions of a believer doing everything in the bible I should head to beach and part the seas, Spend my week at SD's walking on water and turning his pool to wine, should have taken a Slingshot to Middleby Muppet and Tinkler and should hang myself when I betray someone.
I never implied you have to do it I only asked if you believe I should be put to death.

[The Dunster]

I should head to beach and part the seas, Spend my week at SD's walking on water and turning his pool to wine, should have taken a Slingshot to Middleby Muppet and Tinkler and should hang myself when I betray someone.

Most impressed how the Member has brought the Pool and Tinkler / Middleby out threads into the mix as well.

Genuine - Five star post.

[snake]

I am taking the answer to this is that science is not complete yet?? Ie Science has not discovered its limit and is still a long way from achieving it


Would this be a fair narrative to explain the situation as to why Little Green Men are not confirmed as legit just yet

m8, if you could show me one scientist who is willing to say that science is complete, i'll show you a scientist who isn't getting funded anytime soon :rof: :rof:

of course it's not complete, you silly sausage.

[snake]

so Snake, (or others) have you ever come across anything you would legit think is proof of life out there?
blows my mind to think one day its going to be discovered.

if i came across anything like this, i would legit be more famous than joey johns and super hubert combined.

and jamieson would be frothing over me, not the other way around.

[snake]

no you were using his stance on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life to make a point on how some people might think his beliefs are weird, just as he believes your religious views are.

pretty much. but he's so insular he doesn't actually realise that my opinions are actually pretty mainstream.

i mean, we are dealing with pretty large numbers.

100 billion stars in our average sized galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

(10^11)*(10^11) = 10^22 suns out there. and the member thinks it's not a good enough excuse to not have checked them all yet :rof:

bloody bludgers :rof:


question for member just to show he understands how big the above number is:

if the average male produces 85 million spermatozoa per day (8.5 x 10^7), how many years would a man have to live to produce 10^22 sperm? as a follow up question, in your calculation, does it really matter at what age you assume the male to have gone through puberty?

I won't answer a single thing from you until you provide me with an answer (or an attempt) to the question in green. failure to attempt to do so will demonstrate that it's not worth my time dealing with someone of limited curiosity or intellect. asking for hints/help is permissible. please, show your working.

[plague]

if i came across anything like this, i would legit be more famous than joey johns and super hubert combined.

and jamieson would be frothing over me, not the other way around.

Sorry didn't mean you finding it, rather you reading or hearing about something where you've gone 'dang, that's some pretty compelling shit right there'.


Also:
more famous that Joey in Newy?

You could cure cancer and blokes at the pub would be like "YEAH BUT WOULD HE HAVE GONE BLIND SIDE TO ALBERT IN '97?".

[snake]

Sorry didn't mean you finding it, rather you reading or hearing about something where you've gone 'dang, that's some pretty compelling shit right there'.


Also:
more famous that Joey in Newy?

You could cure cancer and blokes at the pub would be like "YEAH BUT WOULD HE HAVE GONE BLIND SIDE TO ALBERT IN '97?".

:rof:

they're finding a lot of other organics on mars, and some of the moons of jupiter/saturn that may suggest some form of biological activity. you need a lot of evidence to call this kind of stuff though. in lieu of actually getting samples of the microbes or whatever they may be, and demonstrating that they are not from here, you need to demonstrate that simple geologic processes and/or UV are unlikely make what you're seeing.

this is only in our neighbourhood, though. time will tell.

[GazFish35]

i cant wait for someone to ask a religion question at the member's forum.

[MFKS]

m8, if you could show me one scientist who is willing to say that science is complete, i'll show you a scientist who isn't getting funded anytime soon :rof: :rof:

of course it's not complete, you silly sausage.
So if science is not complete as you claim and the universe is a big place that all you scientists haven't scratched the surface with yet it is safe to say that some of your conventional theories that you believe are fact at this point in time are not exactly 100% concrete as there may be something out there undiscovered yet that you haven't taken into account??

As for your claims that your opinions are pretty mainstream I will point out the number in my religious denomination is estimated to be 1.2 billion people on this planet and being the largest religion I would also suggest we are quite mainstream

That's not taking into account the rest of the 1.2 million Christians in the various sects as well as those who support other well known religions like Judaism and Islam

All up religion is what you would call pretty mainstream

As for your question on sperm?? Can I borrow a calculator that goes to the power of 22. My phone calculator ain't cutting it. Will admit maths ain't my strong point and **** knows why you want me to answer it but not owning the calculator that big is leaving me a little high and dry

[snake]

As for your question on sperm?? Can I borrow a calculator that goes to the power of 22. My phone calculator ain't cutting it. Will admit maths ain't my strong point and **** knows why you want me to answer it but not owning the calculator that big is leaving me a little high and dry

use google calculator. or at least show the working.

happy to show you how you're views are wrong. till you try the calcs, you get nothing from me.

[MFKS]

322320709105 years approx.

[snake]

322320709105 years approx.

well done.

that number is about 200 times the age of the universe. at 85 million stars examined per day, you'd need 200 times the age of the universe to examine it all. basically, it'll never happen.

i'll answer your other stuff when i get home. in the mean-time, if you get the chance, try and predict the weaknesses i see in your reasoning, and attempt to strengthen your arguments.

[snake]

So if science is not complete as you claim and the universe is a big place that all you scientists haven't scratched the surface with yet it is safe to say that some of your conventional theories that you believe are fact at this point in time are not exactly 100% concrete as there may be something out there undiscovered yet that you haven't taken into account??

As for your claims that your opinions are pretty mainstream I will point out the number in my religious denomination is estimated to be 1.2 billion people on this planet and being the largest religion I would also suggest we are quite mainstream

That's not taking into account the rest of the 1.2 million Christians in the various sects as well as those who support other well known religions like Judaism and Islam

All up religion is what you would call pretty mainstream

As for your question on sperm?? Can I borrow a calculator that goes to the power of 22. My phone calculator ain't cutting it. Will admit maths ain't my strong point and **** knows why you want me to answer it but not owning the calculator that big is leaving me a little high and dry

ok, lets go.

firstly, the sperm calc was an attempt to get you how big the universe is. there are comfortably more stars in the observable universer than there has been sperm produced by all the humans in all of history, even at an astonishing rate of 85million per day. that's a pretty big number, right? why all those stars should be put there for me, considering most of them will never be seen as they're just too far away, and many of the galaxies have been able to see (for the last 20 years) with your hubbles etc, are actually redder than they actually are, since they're moving away from us very quickly, so we can't directly see them as they are, anyway. if god is nothing else, he's an over-elaborator.

also, every sperm us sacred. even the gimp ones.

citing the popularity of your religion as support for it's veracity is a logical fallacy. a simple example shows why. in galileo's time, everyone knew, based on the bible, that the earth was the centre o the universe. with his shiny new telescope, galileo observed 4 (i think??) moons orbiting jupiter. anything orbiting jupiter obviously wasn't orbiting earth, and so the catholics in the time developed a large amount of abrasive silicate deposits in vaginae.

it was literally 1 man and his evidence vs. the world. the evidence won out.

so, why's it ok for me to say my views are mainstream. simply, they are based on evidence and reasoned conjecture, not dogma.

basically, with our 10^22 stars, there's at least 10^14 planets/bodies suitable for life. we know from earths history, that as soon as she cooled to a level suitable level, microorganisms appeared. that suggests that the transformation from chemistry to biology isn't that difficult. we also have discovered in theast 30 years ago life living in environments previously thought impossible, like ultra-acidic pH 0 geothermal springs or near high pressure hydrothermal vents. so our own biosphere is only growing, which only grows my already large 10^14 number. weighing these large numbers up, if life only arose once (here), then we'd both agree we are pretty special, but disagree as to why.

so finally, you say because there us more to discover, some of our useful theories of today may be overthrown. that's true. i've already said my acceptance of a certain theory is conditional, and is liable to change based on potential new contradictory evidence. believe it or not, i'm not only ok with this, i wear it as a badge of honour! don't get too excited.though! that's not an opening for you. any new theory would have to explain the new contradictory evidence AND ALL THE EVUDENCE THE CURRENT THEORY READILY EXPLAINS. that basically means that it too, will be contradictory, with abrahamic creation.

tl;dr. there's no god, but nvm, snake still luvs u :rof: :wub:

[hawk]

i just saw Jesus having dinner with scientists #reallyconfused

[joel31]

tl;dr. there's no god, but nvm, snake still luvs u :rof: :wub:
Considering you said that you are open to new evidence don't you think you are bit close-minded by making this statement. You may see an Abrahamic god impossible but how can you say when you haven't seen the whole universe or what's outside of it (if there is an outside of it) and you aren't some kind of all-knowing being that there is conclusively no intelligent designer or creator

[plague]

ok, slightly off topic, but by all means continue with the God debate (its legit fascinating on all sides).
BUT.

Came across this photo today of the note left by the 2 american blokes that recently busted out of prison.
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2015/06/08/1227387/769310-99441ede-0d68-11e5-a7cb-854c2b6b7d3b.jpg

Now, the headline described this as a "racist" note.

Question for everyone: YES or NO, is this note "racist"?

[joel31]

A few philosophical questions for our all-knowing Snake
1. What is logic?
2. What is rationality? And how do you know yours is correct?
3. What is morality? And is it important? If so why / if not why not

[snake]

Considering you said that you are open to new evidence don't you think you are bit close-minded by making this statement. You may see an Abrahamic god impossible but how can you say when you haven't seen the whole universe or what's outside of it (if there is an outside of it) and you aren't some kind of all-knowing being that there is conclusively no intelligent designer or creator

lol. didn't i already cover this with you?

i should have said that our current understanding of the universe is wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis of an abrahamic god, rendering the probability of it's existence vanishingly small. but that's not so catchy. aren't i allowed just a little arristic.licence?

so, to recap from the past dozen or whatever pages. the bible - the only "evidence of yahweh - is horribly unreliable and of dubious authorship. either the authors transcribed
it wrong, yahweh's a mischievous conniving so-and-so, or it's all bullshit.

in lieu of any evidence, and in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we reject the gos hypothesis.

and why would you care if there was a non-abrahamic god? as far as He/She/It's concerned, you're as bad as me :rof:

and if there's a deistic god, well, by definition it doesn't interfere with the universe, so who cares?

[snake]

A few philosophical questions for our all-knowing Snake
1. What is logic?
2. What is rationality? And how do you know yours is correct?
3. What is morality? And is it important? If so why / if not why not

1. consult a dictionary.
2. consult a dictionary. rational application if science is progressive and gets results. religion does neither.
3. other animals have morality, joel. it's not a uniquely human condition. why do christians think this is such a stumper for atheists? have a bit or research mate. you're young, use the time to do some learnin' before life bogs you down.

yep, morals are important. that's why i don't get mine from the bible. for instance, i'm not ok with getting a mate tie his son down and threaten to stab him, then yell out "lol jks" just before the poor child was about to be killed. that is not ok by me. see also some of premy's questions.

[Premy]

By your assumptions of a believer doing everything in the bible I should head to beach and part the seas, Spend my week at SD's walking on water and turning his pool to wine, should have taken a Slingshot to Middleby Muppet and Tinkler and should hang myself when I betray someone.
How did i miss this earlier.
In these references you use in the good book is there any suggested text were these acts be carried out?

That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

See the suggestive text there?

[Premy]

So I'll ask again, not necessarily by your hands but do you believe I should be put to death?

[MFKS]

How did i miss this earlier.
In these references you use in the good book is there any suggested text were these acts be carried out?

That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

See the suggestive text there?

Which death we talking about??

The first or the second death??

Maybe the passage refers to the second death???

[snake]

m8, don't play dumb, it says kill the non-believers.

oh, and good morning!

[MFKS]

m8, don't play dumb, it says kill the non-believers.

oh, and good morning!

Play dumb I am not playing dumb.

Not playing dumb at all. More a case of dealing with an attempt repeatedly to pointscore where he has no grounds

Lets have the passage in entirety and not one line from it to suit an agenda






2 Chronicles Chapter 15

1 And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded:

2 And he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin; The LORD is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.

3 Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.

4 But when they in their trouble did turn unto the LORD God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them.

5 And in those times there was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in, but great vexations were upon all the inhabitants of the countries.

6 And nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city: for God did vex them with all adversity.

7 Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded.

8 And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the LORD, that was before the porch of the LORD.

9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.

10 So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.

11 And they offered unto the LORD the same time, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep.

12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;

13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

14 And they sware unto the LORD with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets.

15 And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about.

16 And also concerning Maachah the mother of Asa the king, he removed her from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.

17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.

18 And he brought into the house of God the things that his father had dedicated, and that he himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels.

19 And there was no more war unto the five and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa.



So how does a passage in the bible where someone makes a oath to god to kill the non believers have any bearing on what the rest of the believers are to do??

There is absolutely nothing there saying it was a 2 way pact and god agreed to it.




I will just throw this one at you it is pretty clear cut and not really some ridiculous version where you are interpreting it into an agenda


Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.

Makes it pretty clear gods views on me being involved in killing doesn't it.


I do also find the verse Premy comes up with a bit laughable. I can see he is pushing an agenda and I will respect that but it does show through how little he knows of the bible. I would be curious to know how much he has had of involvement with it. Has he even read the thing in it's entirety would be a question I would love to know??

[MFKS]

lol. didn't i already cover this with you?

i should have said that our current understanding of the universe is wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis of an abrahamic god, rendering the probability of it's existence vanishingly small. but that's not so catchy. aren't i allowed just a little arristic.licence?

so, to recap from the past dozen or whatever pages. the bible - the only "evidence of yahweh - is horribly unreliable and of dubious authorship. either the authors transcribed
it wrong, yahweh's a mischievous conniving so-and-so, or it's all bullshit.

in lieu of any evidence, and in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we reject the gos hypothesis.

and why would you care if there was a non-abrahamic god? as far as He/She/It's concerned, you're as bad as me :rof:

and if there's a deistic god, well, by definition it doesn't interfere with the universe, so who cares?

So your scientists current understanding of the universe is inconsistent with their being a god??Ok

The same scientists who due to the sheer size of the universe have barely scratched the surface of their craft as you used to defend them??


Being that their craft is not complete and science has to be proven to be consistently correct or is just a crack pot theory etc I struggle to understand the arrogance you have towards religion.

You can not prove god doesn't exist but you are arrogant enough in the way you convey your view to belittle the religious view when putting forward your view. Hey I have no drama that you believe not in god. Your call. Where does the arrogance though come from though??

It ain't like your science is complete enough to put you in a position where you can't be wrong


On another note couple of science questions for you.

1 With the Alleged Moon Landing your scientists had some footage of a USA flag being deployed on the moon/Hollywood Studio or wherever it was filmed.

Being that the moon has no or little atmosphere like here on earth how come the flag can be seen to blowing in the breeze in the footage that NASA offered up to the world to as their so called proof they were there??

2 Being the billions of $$$ wasted on medical research by your scientific colleagues.
When are we gonna see some actual cures of note??

The last thing you had any success of note on was Polio in the 1950's

What exactly do you guys spend the money on and does it concern you about their constant failures to deliver anything tangible like curing cancer Aids etc

[plague]

Member, spend 2 mins on the internetz to solve your flag flapping question (btw 'alleged moon landing' well played).
As for diseases AIDS already has a cure (cc:Magic Johnson).

[snake]

nothing of note in 50 yrs ffs :rof:

members dad was having the same arguments on the internet back in his day :rof:

[MFKS]

Member, spend 2 mins on the internetz to solve your flag flapping question (btw 'alleged moon landing' well played).
As for diseases AIDS already has a cure (cc:Magic Johnson).

Running a google search offers up quite a few theories on why the flag was as it was from that was how it unfurled, exhaust fan system of the actors/astronauts, their space ship etc.

Being you can't have all of them which one you going with??

Magic Johnson has not been cured of aids. He still has it. He takes medication that helps him live and mitigates the effects of the disease on his immune system. Reality is he ain't cured as he still has it so don't try palming it off as a cure when it ain't

As for the bit about my old man and no significant developments in 50's years and your internet joke.

Did you miss the bit about medical research or are you that dodgy a scientist you ignore bits of relevant information that don't suit your agenda??
Don't know how you missed it. It was pretty clear as day my remark on lack of success in medical research

[Premy]

Play dumb I am not playing dumb.

Not playing dumb at all. More a case of dealing with an attempt repeatedly to pointscore where he has no grounds

Lets have the passage in entirety and not one line from it to suit an agenda



So how does a passage in the bible where someone makes a oath to god to kill the non believers have any bearing on what the rest of the believers are to do??

There is absolutely nothing there saying it was a 2 way pact and god agreed to it.




I will just throw this one at you it is pretty clear cut and not really some ridiculous version where you are interpreting it into an agenda



Makes it pretty clear gods views on me being involved in killing doesn't it.


I do also find the verse Premy comes up with a bit laughable. I can see he is pushing an agenda and I will respect that but it does show through how little he knows of the bible. I would be curious to know how much he has had of involvement with it. Has he even read the thing in it's entirety would be a question I would love to know??
Will openly admit that I have not read the "good" book in it's entirety nor do I have any interest.

But thank you for proving what I have been saying, you've openly admitted that you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and follow.
Hence what I have been saying that I find it hard to believe people who only believe parts of a story so I would be just to think that it's not just towards the Bible were you would use this practice.

[plague]

Magic Johnson has not been cured of aids. He still has it. He takes medication that helps him live and mitigates the effects of the disease on his immune system. Reality is he ain't cured as he still has it so don't try palming it off as a cure when it ain't


Nawwww man. You didn't just........did you?

Also you are missing the biggest conspiracy out there and that is the Stevie Wonder isn't really blind.

That mother****er can 100% see.

Fact.

[snake]

member, given that something like 3 in every 4 conceptions fails to develop into a child (auto-abort), does that make yahweh the single most prolific abortionist in history?

plus all the people he drowned because he was upset. rather petty.

what about the lady he hit with a meteorite.just cos she looked behind her? thou shalt not look behind when i say not to?

do as.i say, not as i do. that's your mates motto :oops:

[tha_hauss]

not quite. i'm just cutting straight to the point to save time.

if the bible is reliable, then the abrahamic god exists, cares abour us, will judge us etc. if ghe bible is unreliable, then all that may still be true, but it can't be used as supporting evidence. however, the hypothesis for a god usually comes the axiom of the bible being reliable. ergo, proper scientific enquiry is to test the veracity of the bible. hence the motivation behind a few of the questions :)

the other questions are to raise your consciousness about how truly arbitrary your religion is. i'm probably correct in thinking you're christian because you were raised in a christian family. most apples don't fall far from the tree. if we were both indian, we would be having the same coversation about hinduism...

Raise my consciousness. What a laugh. I was asking you to behave like a scientist and stick to your principles if this is your main (only) way of discovering truth. But you won't even do that. You cant even ask objective questions. You say my position is wishy washy re subjective experience then you ask me to testify to my subjective experience. Following that logic I can only conclude that you fully intend to learn nothing from our conversation.

As for your comment about apples and trees. Once again you have reached your conclusion without testing the evidence. If you even examined for one minute how I have plumbed the depths of football and examined every corner why would I not do the same for something much more important. You are the one who needs to open your eyes before you jump to conclusions. There are answers to biblical contradictions if you seek them out but the main point you seem to be missing is that the story of the Jewish people and then Christians is a living reality that the Bible was a record of. We don't follow a book but a person. Why would I settle for a lessor religion of words when Jesus is God incarnate. That's like following the Jets when Barcelona is playing out of the same stadium.

[parksey]

yo, member.

i can respect your desire to stand up for your beliefs and all, but bashing medical research and science as a whole in response to criticism of religion is definitely not the best way to make you seem like a sane individual.

[snake]

Raise my consciousness. What a laugh. I was asking you to behave like a scientist and stick to your principles if this is your main (only) way of discovering truth. But you won't even do that. You cant even ask objective questions. You say my position is wishy washy re subjective experience then you ask me to testify to my subjective experience. Following that logic I can only conclude that you fully intend to learn nothing from our conversation.

As for your comment about apples and trees. Once again you have reached your conclusion without testing the evidence. If you even examined for one minute how I have plumbed the depths of football and examined every corner why would I not do the same for something much more important. You are the one who needs to open your eyes before you jump to conclusions. There are answers to biblical contradictions if you seek them out but the main point you seem to be missing is that the story of the Jewish people and then Christians is a living reality that the Bible was a record of. We don't follow a book but a person. Why would I settle for a lessor religion of words when Jesus is God incarnate. That's like following the Jets when Barcelona is playing out of the same stadium.

so are you saying there's no lord krishna, or that he is just inferior to jc? what a about thor? ra? what a out the deities of our indiginous people? what about islam, who thinks jc is a prophet, but a less important one than mohammed (pbuh)? what about the jewish people, who don't accept that jc is the prophesised return of the messiah? what a our the funnily similar zoroastranarian (sp?) followers who inhabited the areas near the holy lands before the supposed time of moses.

just because you don't like a question, doesn't mean you should just shirk it. you should have comfortable answers for all of these questions.

[snake]

Running a google search offers up quite a few theories on why the flag was as it was from that was how it unfurled, exhaust fan system of the actors/astronauts, their space ship etc.

Being you can't have all of them which one you going with??

Magic Johnson has not been cured of aids. He still has it. He takes medication that helps him live and mitigates the effects of the disease on his immune system. Reality is he ain't cured as he still has it so don't try palming it off as a cure when it ain't

As for the bit about my old man and no significant developments in 50's years and your internet joke.

Did you miss the bit about medical research or are you that dodgy a scientist you ignore bits of relevant information that don't suit your agenda??
Don't know how you missed it. It was pretty clear as day my remark on lack of success in medical research

flare enuff. i've been caught out only skimming your posts.

i hope you don't only live to the life expectancy of 50 yrs ago. for reasons parkesy raised, i'm having doubts whether i should continue, because of how quickly you've regressed.

[tha_hauss]

Raise my consciousness. What a laugh. I was asking you to behave like a scientist and stick to your principles if this is your main (only) way of discovering truth. But you won't even do that. You cant even ask objective questions. You say my position is wishy washy re subjective experience then you ask me to testify to my subjective experience. Following that logic I can only conclude that you fully intend to learn nothing from our conversation.

As for your comment about apples and trees. Once again you have reached your conclusion without testing the evidence. If you even examined for one minute how I have plumbed the depths of football and examined every corner why would I not do the same for something much more important. You are the one who needs to open your eyes before you jump to conclusions. There are answers to biblical contradictions if you seek them out but the main point you seem to be missing is that the story of the Jewish people and then Christians is a living reality that the Bible was a record of. We don't follow a book but a person. Why would I settle for a lessor religion of words when Jesus is God incarnate. That's like following the Jets when Barcelona is playing out of the same stadium.


so are you saying there's no lord krishna, or that he is just inferior to jc? what a about thor? ra? what a out the deities of our indiginous people? what about islam, who thinks jc is a prophet, but a less important one than mohammed (pbuh)? what about the jewish people, who don't accept that jc is the prophesised return of the messiah? what a our the funnily similar zoroastranarian (sp?) followers who inhabited the areas near the holy lands before the supposed time of moses.

just because you don't like a question, doesn't mean you should just shirk it. you should have comfortable answers for all of these questions.

Ok ill say it plainly then. You are a scientific hypocrite. Your fellow scientists on here should be calling you out on your lack of objectivity. You cant reach a conclusion about a person (me) or their religion without testing the evidence. No matter how you try to twist the conversation. If you cant stick to your principles we havent even left first base. You should also know as a scientist that you cant force a person to give you answers so your accusation of shirking is nonsense. I was hoping that you would see your hypocrisy first but it seems you cant. Your questions arent genuine. Guenuine Questions are meant to be asked to find out information from the person being questioned but you simply want to prove im an imbecile. You have no interest in my answers. I have already explained my position of Christianity versus other religions but you seem to have missed it. Once again. We follow a person, a human being who is also God, who gave proof and still gives proof that he is who he says he is even if you personally choose to ignore such evidence. No other great religion of our times makes these claims so when i look at other religions I find them inferior to the one that calls God their Father.
Ive gone far enough with this. Im too busy. My initial offer to answer genuine questions stands. But snake. Your lack of objectivity is as plain to see as the phone im typing on.