The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftrightout

This is the kind of comment that gets people offside with the whole thing.

You BELIEVE Snake lives in gods world whether he likes it or not. Just as snake BELIEVES he doesn't.

Probably being captain obvious here and it has more than likely been said already but you can't claim your religion as fact the same as Snake cant claim his science as 110% fact as theories keep changing.

You are arguing virtually the same argument from the two sides of the story. Both sides here are being as hypocritical as each other.

---

I think you need to put your brain back in neutral take a couple of breaths and relax.


Plague asked from a religious perspective some understanding on the matters he raised.


From my position as a religious believer I gave it to him.

Nothing I said from a religious belief is untrue. Nothing you won't get from other believers

Whether non believers take offence to the religious perspective is irrelevant.

It is what it is and it is the religious perspective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftrightout

This is the kind of comment that gets people offside with the whole thing.

You BELIEVE Snake lives in gods world whether he likes it or not. Just as snake BELIEVES he doesn't.

Probably being captain obvious here and it has more than likely been said already but you can't claim your religion as fact the same as Snake cant claim his science as 110% fact as theories keep changing.

You are arguing virtually the same argument from the two sides of the story. Both sides here are being as hypocritical as each other.

---

Issac Newton was an athiest and a practicing homosexual. Sort of makes you wonder why God would create one of the smartest individuals to have ever lived to be both a non-believer and someone who lived a lifestyle that the bible would condemn.

Or was god trying to set an example by proving that those that disobeyed him would be given superior intelligence and the ability to make the lives of everyone around them easier due to advances in engineering and so on....

The so called evidence is pretty strong against the sky santa team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftrightout

.

You are arguing virtually the same argument from the two sides of the story. Both sides here are being as hypocritical as each other.

---

Maybe we need both cause when we are praying for good health scientists help create a remedy. and we need public holidays

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Issac Newton was an athiest and a practicing homosexual. Sort of makes you wonder why God would create one of the smartest individuals to have ever lived to be both a non-believer and someone who lived a lifestyle that the bible would condemn.

Or was god trying to set an example by proving that those that disobeyed him would be given superior intelligence and the ability to make the lives of everyone around them easier due to advances in engineering and so on....

The so called evidence is pretty strong against the sky santa team.

---

This is the first I have heard about Newton! Where is the factual evidence of both his non-belief and his homosexuality?

Is it possible that both God and science are real?

Can they not coexist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Issac Newton was an athiest and a practicing homosexual.

---

{puts Premy hat on}

Can you prove these claims?

dunster - pretty sure newton was deeply religious. i have no comment on his sexuality / lack thereof, but he certainly wasn't interested in women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

And that is in the context of what in that entire passage???

---

Snake any chance you can answer that??

I am dying to start talking about a subject that is close to my heart and that is the dreaded Plastic Fans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

{puts Premy hat on}

Can you prove these claims?

---

:chant:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by q-money

yo can someone fill me in on this one?

the only time God is going to reveal himself in the future - he is going to kill everyone, and everything?

---

da rapture! lovely bloke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftrightout

This is the kind of comment that gets people offside with the whole thing.

You BELIEVE Snake lives in gods world whether he likes it or not. Just as snake BELIEVES he doesn't.

Probably being captain obvious here and it has more than likely been said already but you can't claim your religion as fact the same as Snake cant claim his science as 110% fact as theories keep changing.

You are arguing virtually the same argument from the two sides of the story. Both sides here are being as hypocritical as each other.

---

I don't mean to be rude to you leftrightout but actually you're completely wrong here, and the reason you're wrong is central to the discussion.

Yes everyone is arguing about different theories here, but not all theories are created equal.
Have a think about it: science (and the modern world with it) would be in chaos if all theories were treated equally. plague could propose that the observations about gravity are explained by invisible lulz turtles moving everything for teh lulz :lulz:, and that would be given equal credence as Galileo/Newton's/Einstein's theories.

So it's obvious from that example that we need a way of distinguishing between theories, but how do we do that?
Well put simply, a good theory will satisfy a set of criteria:

1. Must be falsifiable (i.e make predictions which can be tested and potentially proven false) (this is a criterion for any scientific theory, not just a good one)
2. Must be consistent with known observations
3. The bolder the better
4. (Not always true) The simpler the better

The above is a simplified description of it and of course there are debates (if you want to know more I suggest you start reading about the philosophy of science), but generally this is how it works and I'm sure people can appreciate the rationality behind it. You will also note that theories about religion/God goes against nearly all of these criteria, which goes to the next question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackmac

Is it possible that both God and science are real?

Can they not coexist?

---

No!
Or at least believing in God would amount of believing in pseudoscience.

As someone mentioned earlier, yes there are lots of religious scientists, but I can assure you that if they ever tried to incorporate their religious beliefs into their scientific work they'd be laughed at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by militiamon

Well put simply, a good theory will satisfy a set of criteria:

1. Must be falsifiable (i.e make predictions which can be tested and potentially proven false) (this is a criterion for any scientific theory, not just a good one)
2. Must be consistent with known observations
3. The bolder the better
4. (Not always true) The simpler the better

---

OK, so can we use this set of criteria to prove/disprove the following:
1. Wilts 100 point game.
2. If Newton was a pillow biter.


I'm actually not joking about this, get at it lads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

I think you need to put your brain back in neutral take a couple of breaths and relax.


Plague asked from a religious perspective some understanding on the matters he raised.


From my position as a religious believer I gave it to him.

Nothing I said from a religious belief is untrue. Nothing you won't get from other believers

Whether non believers take offence to the religious perspective is irrelevant.

It is what it is and it is the religious perspective

---

yep, this is exactly what I was asking.

Cheers Member.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by q-money

yo can someone fill me in on this one?

the only time God is going to reveal himself in the future - he is going to kill everyone, and everything?

---

He will take out ISIS, and the Gypos.

Not all bad imo.

the devil's greatest trick was making the world believe he doesn't exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parksey

the devil's greatest trick was making the world believe he doesn't exist

---

Seth!

Kint paraphrasing Baudelaire actually

as with all religions, its just a spook story criminals tell their children at night

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake

dunster - pretty sure newton was deeply religious. i have no comment on his sexuality / lack thereof, but he certainly wasn't interested in women.

---

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier and Newton correspondence in Newton Collection at Trinity Library provides strong evidence of a more than friends relationship between them.
Some of the letters from Fatio mention things like never being able to marry or indeed Fatio saying that he could spend the rest of his life with Newton... and so on.
Now if Plague were to send me a letter of that kind I'd probably not be all that impressed. Newton on the other hand - he showered Fatio with gifts and money.

When the relationship did end [Fatio started a relationship with another man] Newton fell deeply into depression..... and so on.

There is no evidence that Newton and Fatio actually had a sexual relationship but anyone thinking they didn't would also have been shocked when Freddie Mercury or Ian Thorpe came out.

With respect to religion: Dissenters were not offered fellowships at any of the colleges at Cambridge until the later stages of the 19th Century. As such if you wanted a fellowship you got on board the religion train or they left you at the station - regardless of your talent.

As such, Newton like anyone else in his position would always declare themselves to be a Christian.

Again. go though Newtons papers or indeed the diaries of others and you will find he probably never lectured even though it was a requirement of the Lucasian Chair and he very rarely if ever attended any religious ceremonies - something most unusual for a fellow at Cambridge let alone a Lucasian Professor.

Obviously I haven't been through Newtons entire catalog - nobody has to my knowledge. However, we probably know more about him now than we did 200 years ago.

If I get bored and decide to crack open some boxes I might shoot a few direct quotes from Newtons papers [ copies of course] - although by now they would probably be on the interwebs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Now if Plague were to send me a letter of that kind I'd probably not be all that impressed.

---

Any letters from me would be full of very funny things and lots of snark.
if you fail to be impressed by such things then thats on you, not me.

Although i do accept gifts and/or cash considerations for any services rendered.

cheers,
Plague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tha_hauss

... There is a part in the Bible where Jesus instructs his disciples to shake the dust from their sandals and walk, and I think that's damn good advice.

---

for those (not hauss, who haveth regequit) interested in the context of the above quote, i'll provide it for you. i kid you not, the very next sentence following this passive quote is one of hate and destruction. the very next sentence!

Quote:

---

"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

---

jesus sent his bros to spread the word. if they weren't recieved, dust your feet and leave. the fate that awaits those who don't recieve the word? apparently, worse than having a city destroyed by fire and brimstone. doesn't jesus know that people hate door-knockers? ****ing god-botherers :rof:

thankfully, it's all fiction.

even though jesus (who is also god, apparently) is more tolerant in his later years, he's still not that tolerant by current standards. still a giant ****, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

On a different note Hauss said something id never heard before can someone clear it up.

Do Christians believe that God physically exists within the physical /material universe that Snake lives in. and which Smake and his friends are trying to explore and understand.

Or

Does Snake live in Gods world where the existence of God is forever 'on the outside' of and therefore will never be physically seen by the non believers trying to look for Him no matter what scientific methods they use.

I hope that question made sense.

---

god used to be everywhere. how else could a tree or a child grow, if not for the guidance of god? then we looked, and he wasn't there. i haven't looked under my bed lately - perhaps he's there?

as a result of never showing up anywhere, ever, spiritual folk have invoked wishy-washy concepts as a place for god to live. "outside our physical world", you may hear. well, that's some great goalpost shifting. but, if he exists ouside our physical world and leaves no sign of anything in our world, then there can be no miracles. ironically, that's exactly what we see. there are no miracles. no-one has ever regrown a lost leg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Nicolas Fatio de Duillier and Newton correspondence in Newton Collection at Trinity Library provides strong evidence of a more than friends relationship between them.
Some of the letters from Fatio mention things like never being able to marry or indeed Fatio saying that he could spend the rest of his life with Newton... and so on.
Now if Plague were to send me a letter of that kind I'd probably not be all that impressed. Newton on the other hand - he showered Fatio with gifts and money.

When the relationship did end [Fatio started a relationship with another man] Newton fell deeply into depression..... and so on.

There is no evidence that Newton and Fatio actually had a sexual relationship but anyone thinking they didn't would also have been shocked when Freddie Mercury or Ian Thorpe came out.

With respect to religion: Dissenters were not offered fellowships at any of the colleges at Cambridge until the later stages of the 19th Century. As such if you wanted a fellowship you got on board the religion train or they left you at the station - regardless of your talent.

As such, Newton like anyone else in his position would always declare themselves to be a Christian.

Again. go though Newtons papers or indeed the diaries of others and you will find he probably never lectured even though it was a requirement of the Lucasian Chair and he very rarely if ever attended any religious ceremonies - something most unusual for a fellow at Cambridge let alone a Lucasian Professor.

Obviously I haven't been through Newtons entire catalog - nobody has to my knowledge. However, we probably know more about him now than we did 200 years ago.

If I get bored and decide to crack open some boxes I might shoot a few direct quotes from Newtons papers [ copies of course] - although by now they would probably be on the interwebs...

---

cheers.

i haven't read too much, but documentaries i've see have claimed he was devout. and an alchemist. and a whiny ****. but a brilliant one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

OK, so can we use this set of criteria to prove/disprove the following:
1. Wilts 100 point game.
2. If Newton was a pillow biter.


I'm actually not joking about this, get at it lads.

---

firdtly, you can't "prove" these. only pure logic and mathematics have proofs. everyone else just fails to disprove them, after trying really hard.

/pedant

can the methods be used to test those questions - a resounding yes. is there sufficient evidence to support either claim?

1. i don't know
2. i don't know

hope this helps!

dont underestimate the 8 ball

so anyway, tones hates wind energy. flying out of frankfurt in 2012, it was noticable how far behind we are. they seem to polarise our society - do others find them as unappealing as our dear leader does? while i'd "prefer" a natural landscape, i don't find them unattractive, certainly not on the level of old tv antennas or telegraph poles. actually, i'd say somewhat relaxing. certainly a preferable alternative than the complete destruction of mining activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake

so anyway, tones hates wind energy. flying out of frankfurt in 2012, it was noticable how far behind we are. they seem to polarise our society - do others find them as unappealing as our dear leader does? while i'd "prefer" a natural landscape, i don't find them unattractive, certainly not on the level of old tv antennas or telegraph poles. actually, i'd say somewhat relaxing. certainly a preferable alternative than the complete destruction of mining activities.

---

I am surprised no-one has asked him if he prefers the devestated landscape and issues for future generations that mining leaves?

Personally am always disappointed that we don't have greater wind generation of power.

Anyone keen on Nuclear energy?
Solves all* our problems innit?





*yeah yeah I know, please don't say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Anyone keen on Nuclear energy?
Solves all* our problems innit?





*yeah yeah I know, please don't say it.

---

Someone a little while ago, lets call them an expert, they were certainly a commentator on this kind of thing at anyrate.

They said that Australia had almost certainly missed the boat on Nuclear Energy and that the funds needed to catch up would be substantially greater than what we would ever be willing to spend, basically saying that we would be better off investing in "newer" forms of energy.

Attn: supernerdz, is there any evidence/opinion that wind/alternate energy sources are ready to take over (reliably) from fossil fuels?
If not is there some sort of time frame that we can successfully transition from one to the other?

Costa Rica is run 100% on renewable energy. (A vast portion of that though is methane and ethanol I believe).

Solar power is still only maximum 30-35% efficient and even that I think is in experimental panels.
There was a company making solar tiles for housing a while back, which when combined with lithium batteries could make individual houses completely fossil fuel free. Issue here is that there isn't a great deal of lithium available, and that we would run out before this could occur. And so we would still require centralised power generation over each dwelling making their own, which would be best in a perfect world.

As with all power generation the distance the power has to travel has an effect. So the idea of filling the middle of Australia with 30% efficient solar panels doesn't work either.

Two good articles I've read whilst entering the rabbit hole.
Good for people like me who don't have a dog in the race so to speak.

First: The 7 most intriguing philosophical arguments for the existence of a God.
http://io9.com/the-7-most-intriguing...e-e-1507393670

Second:Old testament God was a pretty shitty person
http://io9.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-...ium=socialflow

abbott launching a prayer breakfast ffs

watching a grown adult talk like this - even one as dumb as this **** is - is one of the most cringeworthy things i've ever seen.

way to lead a supposedly firdt world nation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake

abbott launching a prayer breakfast ffs

watching a grown adult talk like this - even one as dumb as this **** is - is one of the most cringeworthy things i've ever seen.

way to lead a supposedly firdt world nation!

---

Surely you can't be shocked by a pollie grovelling to an influential set of community leaders?

Personally I'd tell em all to get farked but this stuff has been going on since the dawn of time.

(Also tax the farkern church FFS, that's the biggest scandal going on).

Also: no one will ever, ever, ever get close to Sarah Hanson Young as the biggest hypocrite pollie in town.

It's not even close.

She is the ****ing worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Surely you can't be shocked by a pollie grovelling to an influential set of community leaders?

Personally I'd tell em all to get farked but this stuff has been going on since the dawn of time.

(Also tax the farkern church FFS, that's the biggest scandal going on).

---

Churches are (generally. ) not for profit organisations with many barely affording to pay their own pastors and they also support other individuals who help make the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joel31

Churches are (generally. ) not for profit organisations with many barely affording to pay their own pastors and they also support other individuals who help make the world a better place.

---

Yep.
Totally agree.
They also have massive investment portfolios and (legally) circumvent taxes that apply to everyone else in the community.
Plenty of everyday Aussies out there giving up their time and cash for people less fortunate but still pay their fair share to the state.

Churches are run by businesses these days and should obey the relevant laws.

Tax the bottom line like everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joel31

Churches are (generally. ) not for profit organisations with many barely affording to pay their own pastors and they also support other individuals who help make the world a better place.

---

ah come on bruv, don't move the goal posts.

the pentecostal/AOG megachurches are nothing more than rackets for fleecing rich idiots

the pastor of hillsong wrote this book ffs

Quote:

---

http://thebereanlibrary.com/wp-conte...more-money.jpg

---

it's not your small churches that help the childrens, oldies, and so on that need to be taxed/scrutinised per se, it's these leeches that take government funding while they turn over 50 million a year and aren't accountable for it. why isn't there a trickle down to the smaller orgs from the big boys? the hypocrisy is blinding and outrageous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Yep.
Totally agree.
They also have massive investment portfolios and (legally) circumvent taxes that apply to everyone else in the community.
Plenty of everyday Aussies out there giving up their time and cash for people less fortunate but still pay their fair share to the state.

Churches are run by businesses these days and should obey the relevant laws.

Tax the bottom line like everyone else.

---

As you said Plague they legally circumvent the laws as the laws are written in a way they can. They ain't doing anything wrong at all.

No different to the wealthy and elite dodging tax (Kerry Packer) not paying staff ( Hello Tinkler ) etc

Church only plays by the rules

Don't hate the player hate the game etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by q-money

ah come on bruv, don't move the goal posts.

the pentecostal/AOG megachurches are nothing more than rackets for fleecing rich idiots

the pastor of hillsong wrote this book ffs



it's not your small churches that help the childrens, oldies, and so on that need to be taxed/scrutinised per se, it's these leeches that take government funding while they turn over 50 million a year and aren't accountable for it. why isn't there a trickle down to the smaller orgs from the big boys? the hypocrisy is blinding and outrageous.

---

Don't dispute the church should be spending more of its wealth on the less fortunate etc rather than stockpiling it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MFKS

As you said Plague they legally circumvent the laws as the laws are written in a way they can. They ain't doing anything wrong at all.

No different to the wealthy and elite dodging tax (Kerry Packer) not paying staff ( Hello Tinkler ) etc

Church only plays by the rules

Don't hate the player hate the game etc

---

Tinkler not paying his staff is against the law, and I would argue that your rich folk avoiding tax is ever so slightly different to the concessions the church is allowed.

But your point is correct.

Let's just hope the same people defending the church aren't bagging out Joe Hockey for playing by the rules as well.