Awesome! If you want to prove your ability to aim at something, archery is far more elegant. And you can't pack a bow. And hunting? We have slaughterhouses for that.
NB2: Switzerland is heavily armed. Norway is, too. Both countries have amazingly low crime rates.
Switzerland also has one of the most corrupt police forces (and governments) in Europe. My cousins have lived there for 20 years. When my youngest cousin was knocked off his moped by a drunk friend of a police officer, what do you think happened? He bought a new moped with his own money.
I have to agree. The "we fought for our rights" thing is getting boring. People have fought for their rights ever since fascism started.
The concept of "freedom" is treated as a universal concept. Yet "free" countries ban all sorts of things. You're not free to murder or distribute child-porn (surely a contradiction to the first amendment which we begrudgingly accept?). Britain added one to that list after some wanker in Dunblane killed 16 children and 2 teachers with a gun he bought in a shop.
I feel freer now that when I go outside; it's difficult for the local shitheads to buy a gun.
Us Brits once fought for freedom too. It was called the English civil war, and Thomas Jefferson was inspired by it in the war for US independence. [citation needed, i know, but i can't be arsed. look it up, it's there].
When the parliamentarians found themselves up against the catholics, the new model army was formed, and people that NEEDED guns got them, in vast supply. I guess it's a different philosophy here. People fighting against a corrupt government weren't a loosely-knit group of people coming out of their houses with the gun they kept in their cupboards, they were an army formed by a cause big enough to form it. That's why we didn't bother with the "right to bare arms" rule when democracy was won in 1646.
Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!
Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea? Do they give you an erection?
So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up". Not a real loss. Perhaps if they could then physically remove the individual little twat from society and put them in a nice home or something while they learn some respect for other individuals, I'd be happy.
At least, they said they were. Judging by their behavior, I'd more readily describe them as demons. This is all pretty moot anyway. Just to clear up any confusion, this:
Is not the petrified corpse of Lot's wife, it's a salt pillar created by evaporation of sea water in the dead sea and subsequent erosion. Nice story though. Wait, it's not even a nice story.. it's a horrible story.
Moreover it's your assertion that the GP point that it's absurd to think 2 of every species fit on a boat because the bible says it was >=2 of every kind of animal/bird fit on a boat?
Indeed. I also said beetles and frogs. Are beetles and frogs classified as "clean" now?:-) Incidentally, I don't recall any mention of kangaroos or wombats, or how he delivered them to australia never to seen again for 4000 years without anyone noticing.
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so) (and following genesis quote)
Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.
Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).
Genesis 19:8: "19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." etc..etc.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html You would've thought that a prophet charged with punishing the nasty gay people for their sins would set a better example than trading his daughters as collateral for his imaginary sky friend.
Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.
Except that bit where I was forced to read it by a load of fundie teachers and do a GCSE exam on the subject, before joining a bible reading group.
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
Splitting hairs over the specific number of animals that boarded the ark is hardly a reasonable argument. If you're going to defend the story, supposed to be making the whole thing sound plausible, not say "haha, you didn't quote it verbatim".
And that's why I didn't dispute it. It's just that a rigorous argument on the role of philosphy in science would go beyond the scope of this forum, whilst not providing any data relevant to the debate on evolution. Yes, it's possible that the earth was created 6000 years ago, with light from the distant stars already in transit to us to confuse us into thinking that those stars are older than they are. It's also possible that I'm a squid, and I'm typing this using my tentacles into a futuristic laptop that hacked into a government satellite to gain net access. Care to prove that wrong? You can't, but science says it's pretty damn unlikely. Science makes a few assumptions, but a philosophical argument about those assumptions belong in philosophy lessons (along with criticsm of the Bible, which I don't see being legislated into classrooms), not science lessons.
You can say that all you want, but there's always modus ponens, and (the related) modus tollens.
Don't dispute that. But that's bordering on philosophy.
your unenlightened (but surely popular) rant.
So I'm unenlightened, in spite of being a former catholic Christian via indoctrination, having read the entire Bible (at which point I became a sceptic), before going on to read Kant, Descartes, Simon Blackburn and John Gray, having the audacity and rationally derived confidence to risk the possibility of going to hell for denying the holy spirit (I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT, fuck you God. hah, did it. wasn't hard), then having the enlightenment to question what I'd always "known" because I was brought up that way? Pull the other one. The definition of the enlightenment era was funnily enough when scientific reason finally got to trump religious solipsism.
So let's assume that the Bible is utterly false
No, don't do that - amongst its camp-fire mutated whimsical musings, it does describe actual historical events. It's the job of archaelogists to determine which ones are true and which aren't, and it's the job of philosophers and critics to find poetic wisdom within it which we can all appreciate.
knowing the Bible was false would imply that "science" was true.
The whole POINT of science is the persuit of truth. If someone proves someone else's scientific theory wrong, it's welcomed. Go and disprove evolution - you'll be famous.
I find it VERY scary when charlatans with no sound knowledge of logic try to defend science.
No sound knowlege of logic. I refer to the introspection of Descartes above, which took a huge amount of logic to derive "cogito ergo sum".
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses.
Typical case of religion interfering with rational thought. Scientist: "here's the facts, what conclusion can we draw from them?". Christian: "here's the conclusions, what facts can we find to support them?"
If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
You missed one - or the Bible is flawed. It's amazing that if you tell someone that the world's biggest desert is Antarctica, they might be sceptical and look it up, but if you tell someone some guy was born of a virgin, resurrected someone who was dead long enough to stink, fed 5000 people with a bit of bread and a fish, and made 300 pigs jump off a cliff, backed up by dubious morality like Lot leaving his daughter out to be raped and murdered and having drunken incest just to protect the angel Gabriel (who you would've thought could look after himself), killing gay people (that thing that occurs naturally as a result of pre-natal hormone irregularity), and handing the same fate to people who eat shellfish (mmm, mussels in garlic sauce. yum) they take it in a snap. Of course it happened! I know this, because I was indoctrinated with this bullshit when I was young and I haven't become mature enough to be openminded and consider if it's wrong!
"Creation Science" is a contradiction in terms, but if you are going to consider it, look up "creation myths" in wikipedia, because there's a few hundred other hypotheses which deserve equal attention before you go for the one that YOU were taught as a child. Hawaiians believe that the first animal on the planet was an octopus which is part of an alien race, and all life came from that. You need to put that on the same level as your Jesus hypothesis.
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog. Those two would take the lifetimes of thousands of people, and we haven't even worked out a way to stop the lions eating the gazelles.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
So an employee left, and went to work for a rival. The boss (paranoid fucker that he was) asked me to read his email. After pointing out that we don't keep logs of people's emails, he asked me to write a filter to put it in a file.
Fine. I did that, then immediately had a quiet word with the guy to tell him he was being watched.
I was also once asked to fix a laptop, and discovered a whole load of links to fetish prostitutes in north london (wtf he was using a work laptop for that for I don't know). I deleted them and never mentioned it. He probably got the hint when he realised that they'd gone.
People's own private information is their own private information. I'm not interested in it. Yes, I have morals.
Slashdot Mirror
Fun.
Awesome! If you want to prove your ability to aim at something, archery is far more elegant. And you can't pack a bow. And hunting? We have slaughterhouses for that.
Walthamstow. Some arab guy started demanding a fag off me. I said "why do I owe you a cigarrette?". Next thing he pulled a knife out and used it.
Managed to kick him in the face first though :-D
NB2: Switzerland is heavily armed. Norway is, too. Both countries have amazingly low crime rates.
Switzerland also has one of the most corrupt police forces (and governments) in Europe. My cousins have lived there for 20 years. When my youngest cousin was knocked off his moped by a drunk friend of a police officer, what do you think happened? He bought a new moped with his own money.
I have to agree. The "we fought for our rights" thing is getting boring. People have fought for their rights ever since fascism started. The concept of "freedom" is treated as a universal concept. Yet "free" countries ban all sorts of things. You're not free to murder or distribute child-porn (surely a contradiction to the first amendment which we begrudgingly accept?). Britain added one to that list after some wanker in Dunblane killed 16 children and 2 teachers with a gun he bought in a shop. I feel freer now that when I go outside; it's difficult for the local shitheads to buy a gun.
Us Brits once fought for freedom too. It was called the English civil war, and Thomas Jefferson was inspired by it in the war for US independence. [citation needed, i know, but i can't be arsed. look it up, it's there]. When the parliamentarians found themselves up against the catholics, the new model army was formed, and people that NEEDED guns got them, in vast supply. I guess it's a different philosophy here. People fighting against a corrupt government weren't a loosely-knit group of people coming out of their houses with the gun they kept in their cupboards, they were an army formed by a cause big enough to form it. That's why we didn't bother with the "right to bare arms" rule when democracy was won in 1646.
Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!
Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea? Do they give you an erection?
So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up". Not a real loss. Perhaps if they could then physically remove the individual little twat from society and put them in a nice home or something while they learn some respect for other individuals, I'd be happy.
I was stabbed in March in an unprovoked attack. I have a scar on my left side. Knives are fucking everywhere.
And all those people who say that cats always land on their feet... they just aren't throwing them right.
The trick is to first saw their legs off with a bread knife.
I was wondering why a swiss person just flew past my window at light speed.
and a cow.
They got thetans to do it, using their special powers.
That's a subscribers only section.... try logging into your account ;)
ok.. *clicks*
AAAIEEE!!!! JESUSFUCK, MY EYEEEES!!!!!!!!
good move across the diagonal. That puts me in Knid, so I miss a turn.
only in Microsoft's case they have no friends.
Apart from Baal, Dr Evil, Satan, Cthulu, Shub-Niggurath, Dr Evil, Darth Vader, Celine Dion, Pinhead, the ebola virus, Cowboy Neil, er..
i don't get it
Imaginary? He had angels in his house.
At least, they said they were. Judging by their behavior, I'd more readily describe them as demons. This is all pretty moot anyway. Just to clear up any confusion, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SaltPillarDeadSea.jpg
Is not the petrified corpse of Lot's wife, it's a salt pillar created by evaporation of sea water in the dead sea and subsequent erosion. Nice story though. Wait, it's not even a nice story.. it's a horrible story.
Seen the pictures of the official temperature recording sites...right in the middle of parking lots, etc.?
No. please enlighten us.
My wife grows modus ponens in our flower garden.
that's inevitable.
Moreover it's your assertion that the GP point that it's absurd to think 2 of every species fit on a boat because the bible says it was >=2 of every kind of animal/bird fit on a boat?
:-) Incidentally, I don't recall any mention of kangaroos or wombats, or how he delivered them to australia never to seen again for 4000 years without anyone noticing.
Indeed. I also said beetles and frogs. Are beetles and frogs classified as "clean" now?
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so) (and following genesis quote)
Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.
Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).
Genesis 19:8: "19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." etc..etc.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html You would've thought that a prophet charged with punishing the nasty gay people for their sins would set a better example than trading his daughters as collateral for his imaginary sky friend.
Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.
Except that bit where I was forced to read it by a load of fundie teachers and do a GCSE exam on the subject, before joining a bible reading group.
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
Splitting hairs over the specific number of animals that boarded the ark is hardly a reasonable argument. If you're going to defend the story, supposed to be making the whole thing sound plausible, not say "haha, you didn't quote it verbatim".
But without philosophy you don't have science.
And that's why I didn't dispute it. It's just that a rigorous argument on the role of philosphy in science would go beyond the scope of this forum, whilst not providing any data relevant to the debate on evolution. Yes, it's possible that the earth was created 6000 years ago, with light from the distant stars already in transit to us to confuse us into thinking that those stars are older than they are. It's also possible that I'm a squid, and I'm typing this using my tentacles into a futuristic laptop that hacked into a government satellite to gain net access. Care to prove that wrong? You can't, but science says it's pretty damn unlikely. Science makes a few assumptions, but a philosophical argument about those assumptions belong in philosophy lessons (along with criticsm of the Bible, which I don't see being legislated into classrooms), not science lessons.
You can say that all you want, but there's always modus ponens, and (the related) modus tollens.
Don't dispute that. But that's bordering on philosophy.
your unenlightened (but surely popular) rant.
So I'm unenlightened, in spite of being a former catholic Christian via indoctrination, having read the entire Bible (at which point I became a sceptic), before going on to read Kant, Descartes, Simon Blackburn and John Gray, having the audacity and rationally derived confidence to risk the possibility of going to hell for denying the holy spirit (I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT, fuck you God. hah, did it. wasn't hard), then having the enlightenment to question what I'd always "known" because I was brought up that way? Pull the other one. The definition of the enlightenment era was funnily enough when scientific reason finally got to trump religious solipsism.
So let's assume that the Bible is utterly false
No, don't do that - amongst its camp-fire mutated whimsical musings, it does describe actual historical events. It's the job of archaelogists to determine which ones are true and which aren't, and it's the job of philosophers and critics to find poetic wisdom within it which we can all appreciate.
knowing the Bible was false would imply that "science" was true.
The whole POINT of science is the persuit of truth. If someone proves someone else's scientific theory wrong, it's welcomed. Go and disprove evolution - you'll be famous.
I find it VERY scary when charlatans with no sound knowledge of logic try to defend science.
No sound knowlege of logic. I refer to the introspection of Descartes above, which took a huge amount of logic to derive "cogito ergo sum".
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses.
Typical case of religion interfering with rational thought. Scientist: "here's the facts, what conclusion can we draw from them?". Christian: "here's the conclusions, what facts can we find to support them?"
If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
You missed one - or the Bible is flawed. It's amazing that if you tell someone that the world's biggest desert is Antarctica, they might be sceptical and look it up, but if you tell someone some guy was born of a virgin, resurrected someone who was dead long enough to stink, fed 5000 people with a bit of bread and a fish, and made 300 pigs jump off a cliff, backed up by dubious morality like Lot leaving his daughter out to be raped and murdered and having drunken incest just to protect the angel Gabriel (who you would've thought could look after himself), killing gay people (that thing that occurs naturally as a result of pre-natal hormone irregularity), and handing the same fate to people who eat shellfish (mmm, mussels in garlic sauce. yum) they take it in a snap. Of course it happened! I know this, because I was indoctrinated with this bullshit when I was young and I haven't become mature enough to be openminded and consider if it's wrong!
"Creation Science" is a contradiction in terms, but if you are going to consider it, look up "creation myths" in wikipedia, because there's a few hundred other hypotheses which deserve equal attention before you go for the one that YOU were taught as a child. Hawaiians believe that the first animal on the planet was an octopus which is part of an alien race, and all life came from that. You need to put that on the same level as your Jesus hypothesis.
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog. Those two would take the lifetimes of thousands of people, and we haven't even worked out a way to stop the lions eating the gazelles.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
This is where humans came from: http://www.bio-pro.de/imperia/md/images/grafiken/wanderung_homo_sapiens.png
The time you talk of the great flood happening is roughly when humans first domesticated the dog and the sumarians learned to brew beer.
If the whole Bible was translated into wikipedia, someone would break the "citation needed" machine.
So an employee left, and went to work for a rival. The boss (paranoid fucker that he was) asked me to read his email. After pointing out that we don't keep logs of people's emails, he asked me to write a filter to put it in a file. Fine. I did that, then immediately had a quiet word with the guy to tell him he was being watched. I was also once asked to fix a laptop, and discovered a whole load of links to fetish prostitutes in north london (wtf he was using a work laptop for that for I don't know). I deleted them and never mentioned it. He probably got the hint when he realised that they'd gone. People's own private information is their own private information. I'm not interested in it. Yes, I have morals.
You've got the logic misordered as well. Pompeii was, in fact, located near a large volcano.
That's bollocks. Pompey is on the south coast of England near the Isle of Wight
force is the only way to have authority.
That, or the key to the cupboard with all the cookies in it.