Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Deicide on June 30, 2009, 10:01:17 AM
-
-
(http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/item/102/324/617/U7FVzTjAQ8rTgsG.jpg)
-
"The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says your genes care about themselves.."
Quite philosophical.
Those lifes are just a back up memory of informations called gens.
Impressive..
-
Every sciences end up with Metaphysics.
Cus we are just going back and forward inside of our narrow limited superficial conciousness(Inteligence).
-
Every sciences end up with Metaphysics.
Cus we are just going back and forward inside of our narrow limited superficial conciousness(Inteligence).
Next time, use Kanji...
-
Richard Dawkins thinks Ron Paul is moronic. Especially when it comes to his stupidity of not believing in Evolution yet being a doctor, the funding of Science and separation of Church and State.
-
Looks interesting.
I am currently going through my second go around with The God Delusion.
Dawkins is an excellent writer and orator.
-
dawkins is a myopic closeminded asshole.....ben stein makes him look like a fool in the movie 'expelled'
-
Is it the same pseudo-philosophic positivistic drivel again?
-
haha Ben Stein, sorry, hahahahaaaaaa
-
haha Ben Stein, sorry, hahahahaaaaaa
yeah, you fucking uneducated douche......ben stein.........the attorney, economist, spechwriter for two presidents, filmmaker,valedictorian of YALE, noted historian, political commentator.......column ist for publications such as the wall street journal, the new your times, barrons and penthouse
but you, the uneducated douche, know him as the guy with the monotonous voice on the wonder years.........because you are an lopudmouth asshole
ben stein is one of the most highly educated, brilliant people this country ever produced..........and on a higher intellectual plain then richard dawkins........any day of the week
sorry fuckhead, hahahahahaha ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
The ben stein documentary has lots of flaws too, but at least one or two people who cut through the bullshit.
-
The ben stein documentary has lots of flaws too, but at least one or two people who cut through the bullshit.
Ben Stein is a creationist. Are we shifting here Mr. 'Scientific Aspect'?
-
Ben Stein is a creationist. Are we shifting here Mr. 'Scientific Aspect'?
Maybe you misread my previous post.
-
Maybe you misread my previous post.
No. I am not a positivist anymore because of my experiences this year but despite this see zero evidence for any deity. Do you wish to claim otherwise?
-
No. I am not a positivist anymore because of my experiences this year but despite this see zero evidence for any deity. Do you wish to claim otherwise?
I don't wish to claim anything.
-
Ben Stein is a creationist. Are we shifting here Mr. 'Scientific Aspect'?
no, ben stein is not a "creationist"........he is a proponent of intelligent design.......there is a huge difference there
-
The ben stein documentary has lots of flaws too, but at least one or two people who cut through the bullshit.
and i agree, expelled was not without its own flaws
-
no, ben stein is not a "creationist"........he is a proponent of intelligent design.......there is a huge difference there
Intelligent design is still pseudo-science in my opinon. Why not just practice philosophy instead?
-
no, ben stein is not a "creationist"........he is a proponent of intelligent design.......there is a huge difference there
Uhmm...there is no difference. Everyone with half a brain knows what ID is...it IS creationism.
-
yeah, you fucking uneducated douche......ben stein.........the attorney, economist, spechwriter for two presidents, filmmaker,valedictorian of YALE, noted historian, political commentator.......column ist for publications such as the wall street journal, the new your times, barrons and penthouse
but you, the uneducated douche, know him as the guy with the monotonous voice on the wonder years.........because you are an lopudmouth asshole
ben stein is one of the most highly educated, brilliant people this country ever produced..........and on a higher intellectual plain then richard dawkins........any day of the week
sorry fuckhead, hahahahahaha ;) ;) ;) ;)
Oh the folly of man!
-
Uhmm...there is no difference. Everyone with half a brain knows what ID is...it IS creationism.
no, your so wrong its silly......creationism basically adheres to the biblical story for the orgin of life.....adam and eve, earth 10,000 years old, ect....
ID say that of course the earth is billions of years old, and of course life evolves, but something just did not start one day from nothing, or piggyback on crystals.......there was somekind of conciousness that was responsible for the quickening, and directed it along the way................maybe it was what some people call "god"........or maybe it was space aliens, who knows
-
no, your so wrong its silly......creationism basically adheres to the biblical story for the orgin of life.....adam and eve, earth 10,000 years old, ect....
ID say that of course the earth is billions of years old, and of course life evolves, but something just did not start one day from nothing, or piggyback on crystals.......there was somekind of conciousness that was responsible for the quickening, and directed it along the way................maybe it was what some people call "god"........or maybe it was space aliens, who knows
Unessary postulate. Why posit the existence of any sort of 'creator' when it is not necessary? That is not science. It is still more damning that merely invoking one has nothing to do with the scientific method or its principles.
-
Unessary postulate. Why posit the existence of any sort of 'creator' when it is not necessary? That is not science. It is still more damning that merely invoking one has nothing to do with the scientific method or its principles.
no, not an unnecessary postulate at all........if you see a random pile of rocks strewn about a field, it is logical to assume them being there is happenstance......no order or intelligence responsible............. ....now you arrive upon a field and see an obelisk, or stonehenge perhaps, you see order, you know those rocks were cut, arranged, aligned................y ou know some sort of intelligence or conciousness must have been present there.........maybe its not there anymore, maybe it left, maybe its a clockmaker......who builds the clock, sets it,........and the clock runs on its own for eternity..........but it is only logical to assume something was present to change complete entropy to extropy.
but it silly to start arguing meta-physical semantics.........im not here to change anyones mind............you seem like a smart guy,there must be a good reason you hold the beliefs you do
-
no, not an unnecessary postulate at all........if you see a random pile of rocks strewn about a field, it is logical to assume them being there is happenstance......no order or intelligence responsible............. ....now you arrive upon a field and see an obelisk, or stonehenge perhaps, you see order, you know those rocks were cut, arranged, aligned................y ou know some sort of intelligence or conciousness must have been present there.........maybe its not there anymore, maybe it left, maybe its a clockmaker......who builds the clock, sets it,........and the clock runs on its own for eternity..........but it is only logical to assume something was present to change complete entropy to extropy.
but it silly to start arguing meta-physical semantics.........im not here to change anyones mind............you seem like a smart guy,there must be a good reason you hold the beliefs you do
Any positing of a 'creator' is faced with the problem of infinite regression. If you insist there is a 'creator' because 'creation' requires such, then who or what created the 'creator'? and as for intelligence...gotta love Neil de Grasse Tyson, Stupid Design:
-
Any positing of a 'creator' is faced with the problem of infinite regression. If you insist there is a 'creator' because 'creation' requires such, then who or what created the 'creator'? and as for intelligence...gotta love Neil de Grasse Tyson, Stupid Design:
yeah, tyson is a very intelligent individual........ all i can really say about your infinite regression query is that i personally believe, if there were a creator, we, as humans would not be able to qualify the purpose of a 'god' or understand the nature of his existance..........some posit that he would be pure energy.......which as you knwo is timeless.........but for us to try to understand anything about god, would be like the ant you step over on the sidewalk attempting to understand the complex and varied emotions and nuances of human beings, it could not be done.......they do not have the capacity, the hardware, or the software...........now times that by infintiy........and you would have the human mind trying to understand the nature of god
-
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
-Richard Dawkins
-
Just a few points
The story of creationism in the bible is a parable - A lot of the new testament and Marks gospel in particular is. Many people back then were uneducated
Catholicism acknowledges both evolution and creationism. Not many people know this
Dawkins has a girly voice
-
Just a few points
The story of creationism in the bible is a parable - A lot of the new testament and Marks gospel in particular is. Many people back then were uneducated
Catholicism acknowledges both evolution and creationism. Not many people know this
Dawkins has a girly voice
Were they saying this was a parable 2 or 3 hundred years ago?
I wish I could live long enough to see Christianity dwindle to absolute mythical nonsense, which it will at some point in the future.
-
Yes.
The bible is FULL of parables. Littered with them. It helped people understand the point that was trying to be made.
I dont care about atheism or agnostics. I dont see why they care so much about religious people. Each to their own.
-
Yes.
The bible is FULL of parables. Littered with them. It helped people understand the point that was trying to be made.
I dont care about atheism or agnostics. I dont see why they care so much about religious people. Each to their own.
Because upwards of 50% of the United States believe in Creationism in a literal sense.
And millions of them elect their representitives based on this, who in turn push an agenda of teaching this nonsense in schools.
This is why some people care.
-
Well its a democracy - so you have to expect difference of opinions.
Religion is very important to many people.
-
Well its a democracy - so you have to expect difference of opinions.
Religion is very important to many people.
I really can't make my above post any clearer.
And yes, you are right on both counts.... This is a democracy, and Religion is important to many people.
Congratulations.
-
Wll write to your senator,
or
Have a little tolerance.
-
Because upwards of 50% of the United States believe in Creationism in a literal sense.
And millions of them elect their representitives based on this, who in turn push an agenda of teaching this nonsense in schools.
This is why some people care.
And many people of the opposing beliefs think what you believe is nonsense. Who exactly are you to judge others? You are no better or worse than anyone else because of what you chose to believe or not to believe. Both sides need to get off their high horses about being "right" and realize we're all brothers and sisters living in this world together.
Yes, it will never happen, but that's just how I feel.
-
And many people of the opposing beliefs think what you believe is nonsense. Who exactly are you to judge others? You are no better or worse than anyone else because of what you chose to believe or not to believe. Both sides need to get off their high horses about being "right" and realize we're all brothers and sisters living in this world together.
Yes, it will never happen, but that's just how I feel.
The only thing that I am asserting about being "right" is that Young Earth Creationsim is scientific junk.
I have no problems with anyone as long as they don't try to push this in our schools.
-
Because upwards of 50% of the United States believe in Creationism in a literal sense.
And millions of them elect their representitives based on this, who in turn push an agenda of teaching this nonsense in schools.
This is why some people care.
this is not really true.......athiests like to discredit and humiliate people who believe in god and question the dawkins/darwin paradigm of evolutionary thought...........they say say "these people dont believe in evolution........its been proven look at all the evidence".............when in fact this should be qualified..........some choose not to, based on alot of of evidence, and missing evidence....tons of it.......accept that all varied forms of modern life on earth is drawn from one single, single celled creature which itself just appeared out of entropy and total nothing ness......that life was produced from non-life. and mind you, the dawkins crowd has absolutely no idea how this happened, not even a working hypothesis.....they just take random guesses when pressed. no one, except a few on the fringes are arguing that species do not adapt and change (evolve) over time.
and this is the conflict in the definition of evolution............if you are saying that species over time, adapt to their enviornments, and change based on requirements........ever yone accepts that.............but what they mean is that every form of life came from a single celled creature, which itself came from nothing............so when they say that ID proponents dont believe in evolution.........what they are talking about is their specific brand of evolution
not long ago, maybe it was the movie expelled, which in light of some argumentative fallacies, is a pretty good movie, someone said .............the chance that all modern life on earth is sprung from total disorder, chance, and non-existance............is like a tornado going through a junkyard full of old airplane scraps......an leavign in its wake a brand new, fully functional boeing 747.
just like ancient earth......of course tidal pool and volcanos were able to thrash some chemicals around...... but that is not a way to create a functional cell........... if 25 years ago we thought that a cell was like a cadillac, today we consider it a fighter jet..........scients still stymied by the milllions of functions it is able to perform and regulate..........its like a supersomputer
remember our universe seeks entropy, things move towards disorder, youu need conciousness and energy to produce extropy from total entropy
-
(http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/item/102/324/617/U7FVzTjAQ8rTgsG.jpg)
spot on as always (http://www.naturalmastersbodybuilding.com/laf.gif)
-
yeah, you fucking uneducated douche......ben stein.........the attorney, economist, spechwriter for two presidents, filmmaker,valedictorian of YALE, noted historian, political commentator.......column ist for publications such as the wall street journal, the new your times, barrons and penthouse
but you, the uneducated douche, know him as the guy with the monotonous voice on the wonder years.........because you are an lopudmouth asshole
ben stein is one of the most highly educated, brilliant people this country ever produced..........and on a higher intellectual plain then richard dawkins........any day of the week
sorry fuckhead, hahahahahaha ;) ;) ;) ;)
I only know him as the host of that short-lived MTV game show from the 80's, "Win Ben Stein's money". Oh, and also from the Visine commercials.
-
I only know him as the host of that short-lived MTV game show from the 80's, "Win Ben Stein's money". Oh, and also the Visine commercials.
It was funny how this "intellectual" was always losing his ass to random contestants on that game show.
-
I only know him as the host of that short-lived MTV comedy central game show from the 80's, "Win Ben Stein's money". Oh, and also the Visine commercials.
fixed
-
I'll watch this, it looks interesting.
-
fixed
You're correct. It's not often G o a t b o y is wrong, so everyone enjoy this moment. >:(
-
You're correct. It's not often G o a t b o y is wrong, so everyone enjoy this moment. >:(
well if i was being a stickler i would also have mentioned that the show was on air during the late 90s......lol
-
The only thing that I am asserting about being "right" is that Young Earth Creationsim is scientific junk.
I have no problems with anyone as long as they don't try to push this in our schools.
I agree , believe what you'd like but don't fuck with the Constitution in the process
-
Were they saying this was a parable 2 or 3 hundred years ago?
I wish I could live long enough to see Christianity dwindle to absolute mythical nonsense, which it will at some point in the future.
Like Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.?
It was and will always be either literal truth or mythical nonsense to most people. That's the fate of any spiritual scripture: to be misunderstood.
-
Like Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.?
It was and will always be either literal truth or mythical nonsense to most people. That's the fate of any spiritual scripture: to be misunderstood.
These faiths will continue to make concessions. The literal truths of today will be conviently be labeled the parables of tomorrow until each particular faith has been whittled down to nothing just like the faiths before them.
-
These faiths will continue to make concessions. The literal truths of today will be conviently be labeled the parables of tomorrow until each particular faith has been whittled down to nothing just like the faiths before them.
Concessions are only made by people who have misinterpreted spiritual scripture in the first place.
-
The fundamnetals of catholicism have never changed -
-
I long for a time when people see religion for what it is: the attempt of ignorant primitive man to explain the world around him, and to provide psychological comfort in the face of an often difficult existence and with the knowledge of his own mortality. "Scripture" of all variety is fable, created by ordinary men with no divine insight. It seems so plainly obvious to me, kind of like a "well, duh!" kind of thing, and I have real difficulty understanding why others don't see it. Whether there could be a "higher power" beyond us is a separate argument, but the non-divine human origins of all current religious movements should not be in doubt to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a gnat.
-
spot on as always (http://www.naturalmastersbodybuilding.com/laf.gif)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ISAhuWC0qeE/SabjQtze-3I/AAAAAAAAEWg/zeaWMhuZnPc/s400/Danny+Hindalov+06.jpg)
-
I long for a time when people see religion for what it is: the attempt of ignorant primitive man to explain the world around him, and to provide psychological comfort in the face of an often difficult existence and with the knowledge of his own mortality. "Scripture" of all variety is fable, created by ordinary men with no divine insight. It seems so plainly obvious to me, kind of like a "well, duh!" kind of thing, and I have real difficulty understanding why others don't see it. Whether there could be a "higher power" beyond us is a separate argument, but the non-divine human origins of all current religious movements should not be in doubt to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a gnat.
It deserves repeating. ;)
-
Concessions are only made by people who have misinterpreted spiritual scripture in the first place.
I find this statement very intriguing.
By what criterion does "wavelength" decide which passages of scripture are symbolic and which are literal?
-
I long for a time when people see religion for what it is: the attempt of ignorant primitive man to explain the world around him, and to provide psychological comfort in the face of an often difficult existence and with the knowledge of his own mortality. "Scripture" of all variety is fable, created by ordinary men with no divine insight. It seems so plainly obvious to me, kind of like a "well, duh!" kind of thing, and I have real difficulty understanding why others don't see it. Whether there could be a "higher power" beyond us is a separate argument, but the non-divine human origins of all current religious movements should not be in doubt to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a gnat.
I agree
-
I find this statement very intriguing.
By what criterion does "wavelength" decide which passages of scripture are symbolic and which are literal?
I believe they call that ' cherry picking '
-
I find this statement very intriguing.
By what criterion does "wavelength" decide which passages of scripture are symbolic and which are literal?
If one accepts this premise...
"Scripture" of all variety is fable, created by ordinary men with no divine insight.
...does it really matter?
-
Because upwards of 50% of the United States believe in Creationism in a literal sense.
And millions of them elect their representitives based on this, who in turn push an agenda of teaching this nonsense in schools.
This is why some people care.
The real irony here is that Deicide will readily advocate for and willingly place one of those repersentatives in power who do not believe in evolution, believes in putting prayer in public schools, does not value or really support the wall of separation between church and state and also beleives in teaching creationism and Intelligent Design in public schools whilst getting rid of NASA, NIH, CDC, USDA, etc...and any other science based government based entity. That religious zealots name is Ron Paul.
Oh the irony is so thick you`d think he is totally misguided.
Richard Dawkins would not approve of Deicides love affair with Ron Paul, nor do I.
Ron Poop is poop.
-
The real irony here is that Deicide will readily advocate for and willingly place one of those repersentatives in power who do not believe in evolution, believes in putting prayer in public schools, does not value or really support the wall of separation between church and state and also beleives in teaching creationism and Intelligent Design in public schools whilst getting rid of NASA, NIH, CDC, USDA, etc...and any other science based government based entity. That religious zealots name is Ron Paul.
Oh the irony is so thick you`d think he is totally misguided.
Richard Dawkins would not approve of Deicides love affair with Ron Paul, nor do I.
Ron Poop is poop.
Sadly, the way the political issues of the day are divided amongst the parties, people like me are left in a quandry as to who to vote for. I hate the religious right and everything they stand for, and I'm not a fan of "Patriot Act" aggressive law-n-order types either. I think the war on drugs is stupid, and the bill of rights should be protected. But, I also hate socialism with a passion, support gun rights and individual rights and responsibilities (as opposed to "group rights", PC is BS), think taxes should be low and government smaller with fewer laws, and believe in a foreign policy that pursues the economic and security interests of Americans, even at the expense of the "rest of the world"... isn't that what most societies do, pursue their own interests rather than bending over?
-
there was somekind of conciousness that was responsible for the quickening, and directed it along the way................maybe it was what some people call "god"........or maybe it was space aliens, who knows
and the evidence for this is..............?
Science has already shown that chemically quite simple macromolecules like RNA can be self-catalytic. From this point on it does not require a leap of faith to get to proteins (translation via tRNAs), which can be more much complex, both structurally and functionally (= enzymes) than nucleic acids. Evidence also suggests that RNA evolved before DNA; for example RNA-only organisms exist (eg RNA viruses), whereas all DNA containing cells need RNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)
-
this is not really true.......athiests like to discredit and humiliate people who believe in god and question the dawkins/darwin paradigm of evolutionary thought...........they say say "these people dont believe in evolution........its been proven look at all the evidence".............when in fact this should be qualified..........some choose not to, based on alot of of evidence, and missing evidence....tons of it.......accept that all varied forms of modern life on earth is drawn from one single, single celled creature which itself just appeared out of entropy and total nothing ness......that life was produced from non-life. and mind you, the dawkins crowd has absolutely no idea how this happened, not even a working hypothesis.....they just take random guesses when pressed. no one, except a few on the fringes are arguing that species do not adapt and change (evolve) over time.
and this is the conflict in the definition of evolution............if you are saying that species over time, adapt to their enviornments, and change based on requirements........ever yone accepts that.............but what they mean is that every form of life came from a single celled creature, which itself came from nothing............so when they say that ID proponents dont believe in evolution.........what they are talking about is their specific brand of evolution
not long ago, maybe it was the movie expelled, which in light of some argumentative fallacies, is a pretty good movie, someone said .............the chance that all modern life on earth is sprung from total disorder, chance, and non-existance............is like a tornado going through a junkyard full of old airplane scraps......an leavign in its wake a brand new, fully functional boeing 747.
just like ancient earth......of course tidal pool and volcanos were able to thrash some chemicals around...... but that is not a way to create a functional cell........... if 25 years ago we thought that a cell was like a cadillac, today we consider it a fighter jet..........scients still stymied by the milllions of functions it is able to perform and regulate..........its like a supersomputer
remember our universe seeks entropy, things move towards disorder, youu need conciousness and energy to produce extropy from total entropy
While the origin of the species can be debated, the utter stupidity of accepting primitive self-serving human writings ("scripture") as divine truth cannot... it is self evident.
-
i agree compleatly.......scriptu re is pure fairytale at its worst and decent metaphore/parable at its best........i am not part of any religion, they are human constructs in place to keep the masses in line..........if there is a god, his nature would be so far beyond us that it is not even worth mentioning, like i said us trying to understand the motivations of a god would be like an ant trying to understand a human, totally impossible/........so i cast shame on those who pervert the god concept to exploit dumb people here on earth, and all the atrocities commited in his name..........but i personally still believe in some kind of higher power, it cant imagine that everything i see around me is just a random anomoly in a dark void of nothingness.
-
Wow, I was truly impressed with your post before this one. I agree 100% with intelligent design, but not neccesarily with what religious people view as a god. Its just difficult for me to imagine the world just "happening".
My lame 2 cents
i agree compleatly.......scriptu re is pure fairytale at its worst and decent metaphore/parable at its best........i am not part of any religion, they are human constructs in place to keep the masses in line..........if there is a god, his nature would be so far beyond us that it is not even worth mentioning, like i said us trying to understand the motivations of a god would be like an ant trying to understand a human, totally impossible/........so i cast shame on those who pervert the god concept to exploit dumb people here on earth, and all the atrocities commited in his name..........but i personally still believe in some kind of higher power, it cant imagine that everything i see around me is just a random anomoly in a dark void of nothingness.
-
Wow, I was truly impressed with your post before this one. I agree 100% with intelligent design, but not neccesarily with what religious people view as a god. Its just difficult for me to imagine the world just "happening".
My lame 2 cents
yeah sometime organized religion kind of hijacks the concept of ID because they will grasp on to anything that contradicts the dawkins athiest crowd........but in truth the designer could be really anything, because we have no chance of comprehending it anyway..........maybe it was aliens, maybe an omnipotent and benevolent force (a god), or maybe we are akin to an ant farm or fish tank for powerful trandimensional beings............but my gut tells me the we are not here because some carbon and nitrogen mixed together in a mud puddle
the farther we, as humans progress in science.......the more blown away scientists are at how complex and perfectly designed we are..........the human cell, information encoded in DNA....these things were engineered with purpose.
-
The real irony here is that Deicide will readily advocate for and willingly place one of those repersentatives in power who do not believe in evolution, believes in putting prayer in public schools, does not value or really support the wall of separation between church and state and also beleives in teaching creationism and Intelligent Design in public schools whilst getting rid of NASA, NIH, CDC, USDA, etc...and any other science based government based entity. That religious zealots name is Ron Paul.
Oh the irony is so thick you`d think he is totally misguided.
Richard Dawkins would not approve of Deicides love affair with Ron Paul, nor do I.
Ron Poop is poop.
We have been through this before Adam, I guess you didn't pay attention, or maybe you are just trying to be irritating on purpose?
-
That's all well and good, but will this disrupt dinner?
-
That's all well and good, but will this disrupt dinner?
Maybe not, depends on the dump...
-
Maybe not, depends on the dump...
Meat pie + tea & biscuits for dessert = good dump
-
Meat pie + tea & biscuits for dessert = good dump
Sure sounds like it.
-
Sure sounds like it.
Yes, was probably one of my better dumps. This morning was very good too. Coffee and cardio = winner. 8)
-
Yes, was probably one of my better dumps. This morning was very good too. Coffee and cardio = winner. 8)
You have cardio machines in your house?
-
You have cardio machines in your house?
Yeah, but i prefer walking outdoors. Going for a walk early in the morning is one of those simple pleasures i have always enjoyed.
-
Yeah, but i prefer walking outdoors. Going for a walk early in the morning is one of those simple pleasures i have always enjoyed.
Sounds amazing...load up on food and coffee, go for a nice walk in a posh Sydney subburb, come back and have a nice, relaxing dump. That is living the dream my friend. 8)
-
Sounds amazing...load up on food and coffee, go for a nice walk in a posh Sydney subburb, come back and have a nice, relaxing dump. That is living the dream my friend. 8)
Yes, walking the dog along the esplanade and taking a quick dip in the ocean or the pool afterwards is nice. I shall enjoy it whilst it lasts.
-
Yes, walking the dog along the esplanade and taking a quick dip in the ocean or the pool afterwards is nice. I shall enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Living the dream baby, living the dream!
-
Living the dream baby, living the dream!
It almost makes up for my horrible genetics........almost (sigh)
I did some cardio at home after the gym today and now i feel kinda sick. Indoor cardio = gay.
-
It almost makes up for my horrible genetics........almost (sigh)
I did some cardio at home after the gym today and now i feel kinda sick. Indoor cardio = gay.
Yup...
-
The real irony here is that Deicide will readily advocate for and willingly place one of those repersentatives in power who do not believe in evolution, believes in putting prayer in public schools, does not value or really support the wall of separation between church and state and also beleives in teaching creationism and Intelligent Design in public schools whilst getting rid of NASA, NIH, CDC, USDA, etc...and any other science based government based entity. That religious zealots name is Ron Paul.
Oh the irony is so thick you`d think he is totally misguided.
Richard Dawkins would not approve of Deicides love affair with Ron Paul, nor do I.
Ron Poop is poop.
Doesn't Obama believe in God? Does he, or would he be man enough to say he believes in evolution via means of natural selection?
-
Doesn't Obama believe in God? Does he, or would he be man enough to say he believes in evolution via means of natural selection?
-
Doesn't Obama believe in God? Does he, or would he be man enough to say he believes in evolution via means of natural selection?
Sadly in the United States you must lie about your religious beliefs to be elected to Congress or the Senate.
I believe we have something like 1 confirmed atheist out of 435 members Congress and 100 members in the Senate.
-
Sadly in the United States you must lie about your religious beliefs to be elected to Congress or the Senate.
I believe we have something like 1 confirmed atheist out of 435 members Congress and 100 members in the Senate.
Yeah, what I was trying to get across was Adonis's hypocrisy.
-
this is not really true.......athiests like to discredit and humiliate people who believe in god and question the dawkins/darwin paradigm of evolutionary thought...........they say say "these people dont believe in evolution........its been proven look at all the evidence".............when in fact this should be qualified..........some choose not to, based on alot of of evidence, and missing evidence....tons of it.......accept that all varied forms of modern life on earth is drawn from one single, single celled creature which itself just appeared out of entropy and total nothing ness......that life was produced from non-life. and mind you, the dawkins crowd has absolutely no idea how this happened, not even a working hypothesis.....they just take random guesses when pressed. no one, except a few on the fringes are arguing that species do not adapt and change (evolve) over time.
and this is the conflict in the definition of evolution............if you are saying that species over time, adapt to their enviornments, and change based on requirements........ever yone accepts that.............but what they mean is that every form of life came from a single celled creature, which itself came from nothing............so when they say that ID proponents dont believe in evolution.........what they are talking about is their specific brand of evolution
not long ago, maybe it was the movie expelled, which in light of some argumentative fallacies, is a pretty good movie, someone said .............the chance that all modern life on earth is sprung from total disorder, chance, and non-existance............is like a tornado going through a junkyard full of old airplane scraps......an leavign in its wake a brand new, fully functional boeing 747.
just like ancient earth......of course tidal pool and volcanos were able to thrash some chemicals around...... but that is not a way to create a functional cell........... if 25 years ago we thought that a cell was like a cadillac, today we consider it a fighter jet..........scients still stymied by the milllions of functions it is able to perform and regulate..........its like a supersomputer
remember our universe seeks entropy, things move towards disorder, youu need conciousness and energy to produce extropy from total entropy
you are a mental midget. nice fuckup on entropy at the end to.
evolution is a proven fact, macroevolution has been witnessed. All fields of science point towards it. You see complexity as needing design, yet fail to infer that a creator would be even more complex begging that it to be designed. Your argument initiates an infinite regress and has no axioms whatsoever. God is a failed hypothesis my friend, logic dictates that he cannot have the attributes we ascribe.
the 747 comment is out of context and is not a proper analogy. Expelled my friend is propaganda full of liars. Would you like me to demonstrate the lies found within? the people for ID are liars. ID has been proven in court, twice, to be nothing more then religion. The proponents of ID would not stand trial.
-
Let's keep this thread bodybuilding related.
(http://www.musclegallery.com/pj_braun/images/pj_02.jpg)
-
I don't get the Dawkin's nuthuggers. It isn't as if he has anything original to say on religion and he is a philosophical peasant. At least Christopher Hitchens is slightly amusing despite being a trotskyite muppet.
-
I don't get the Dawkin's nuthuggers. It isn't as if he has anything original to say on religion and he is a philosophical peasant. At least Christopher Hitchens is slightly amusing despite being a trotskyite muppet.
Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you wouldn't throw around such slanderously false accusations?
Show me evidence that Hitchens is currently a Trotskyite.
I, on the other hand, can show you documented corroboration to the contrary.
Here is an excerpt from an interview Hitchens granted to Rhys Southan in the November 2001 issue of Reason Magazine
Free Radical
Journalist Christopher Hitchens explains why he's no longer a socialist, why moral authoritarianism is on the rise, and what's wrong with anti-globalization protestors.
REASON: So, do you still consider yourself a socialist?
Hitchens: Brian Lamb of C-SPAN has been interviewing me on and off for about 20 years, since I’d first gone to Washington, which is roughly when his own Washington Journal program began. As the years went by, he formed the habit of starting every time by saying: "You haven’t been on the show for a bit. Tell me, are you still a socialist?" And I would always say, "Yes, I am." I knew that he hoped that one day I would say, "No, you know what, Brian, I’ve seen the light, I’ve seen the error of my ways." And I knew that I didn’t want to give him this satisfaction, even if I’d had a complete conversion experience.
The funny thing is that, recently, he stopped asking me. I don’t know why. And just about at that point, I had decided that however I would have phrased the answer -- I didn’t want to phrase it as someone repudiating his old friends or denouncing his old associations -- I no longer would have positively replied, "I am a socialist."
I don’t like to deny it. But it simply ceased to come up, as a matter of fact. And in my own life there’s a reason for that.
There is no longer a general socialist critique of capitalism -- certainly not the sort of critique that proposes an alternative or a replacement. There just is not and one has to face the fact, and it seems to me further that it’s very unlikely, though not impossible, that it will again be the case in the future. Though I don’t think that the contradictions, as we used to say, of the system, are by any means all resolved.
-
Quite a few misguided attempts at discrediting method, so lets get started.
If by macroevolution, you are more directly referring to cladogenesis, then thats fine. But the layman considers macroevolution to be large scale broad evolution.
Second, a lot of scientists argue that cladogenesis isn't due to "survival of the fittest", but more to do with genetics. Do a little research about genetics, its fantastically complicated, and we as humans have only scratched the surface. Everything in the genetic code points towards some sort of intelligent creation.
Using the logic that since the courts have proven ID to be religious than it must be, is weak at best. Just because a law is enacted doesn't make it correct or fair. Remember slavery?
For now I will leave it at that, as I'm sure you don't want to have an in depth discussion about entropy on the interweb.
you are a mental midget. nice fuckup on entropy at the end to.
evolution is a proven fact, macroevolution has been witnessed. All fields of science point towards it. You see complexity as needing design, yet fail to infer that a creator would be even more complex begging that it to be designed. Your argument initiates an infinite regress and has no axioms whatsoever. God is a failed hypothesis my friend, logic dictates that he cannot have the attributes we ascribe.
the 747 comment is out of context and is not a proper analogy. Expelled my friend is propaganda full of liars. Would you like me to demonstrate the lies found within? the people for ID are liars. ID has been proven in court, twice, to be nothing more then religion. The proponents of ID would not stand trial.
-
Quite a few misguided attempts at discrediting method, so lets get started.
If by macroevolution, you are more directly referring to cladogenesis, then thats fine. But the layman considers macroevolution to be large scale broad evolution.
Second, a lot of scientists argue that cladogenesis isn't due to "survival of the fittest", but more to do with genetics. Do a little research about genetics, its fantastically complicated, and we as humans have only scratched the surface. Everything in the genetic code points towards some sort of intelligent creation.
Using the logic that since the courts have proven ID to be religious than it must be, is weak at best. Just because a law is enacted doesn't make it correct or fair. Remember slavery?
For now I will leave it at that, as I'm sure you don't want to have an in depth discussion about entropy on the interweb.
\
when you postulate an intelligent designer you lose all credability. What you say about the courts is fallcious, the best evidence was presented to people who are not involved in the dispute and they, on both occasions, deemed ID is religion. In fact one of the exhibits was an old text with the words rearranged, how embarrassing.
there really is no distinction between the two, if we use laymens terms i am referring to change at the level of a species, such that they can no longer procreate.
Once you say points to an intelligent designer you have to say why something needs a designer, simple analogies like a watch wont do here. How it creates,why,when etc... you are adding complexity to the situation by envoking a creator, something outside the system. It is what meatbags do when the shit gets to complex, lets just say god did it.
"Everything in the genetic code points towards some sort of intelligent creation."
what kind of pseudoscientific bullshit is this? like what?
-
Looks interesting.
I am currently going through my second go around with The God Delusion.
Dawkins is an excellent writer and orator.
have you read "god is not great"?
-
you are a mental midget. nice fuckup on entropy at the end to.
evolution is a proven fact, macroevolution has been witnessed. All fields of science point towards it. You see complexity as needing design, yet fail to infer that a creator would be even more complex begging that it to be designed. Your argument initiates an infinite regress and has no axioms whatsoever. God is a failed hypothesis my friend, logic dictates that he cannot have the attributes we ascribe.
the 747 comment is out of context and is not a proper analogy. Expelled my friend is propaganda full of liars. Would you like me to demonstrate the lies found within? the people for ID are liars. ID has been proven in court, twice, to be nothing more then religion. The proponents of ID would not stand trial.
you seem like a very hateful parson, very characteristic of the zeitgeist your defending............the ultimate "humanists" in my experience have been the most idealogically entranched and interpersonally detatched. first of all, i never said that 'Expelled' was the be-all-end-all of the argument, i merely pointed out that it had some very cogent points which shook the dawkins paradigm to the core.
as previously stated by me, "evolution" is proven fact..........but the whole non-life-->life-->single cell-->>modern complex multicellular organism threory is not just frought with some loose-ends...........its entirely unproven and unevidenced........to buy this hook, line and sinker takes almost the blind leap of faith it would take to believe in a creator.
im just a dumb muscle head who comes here to talk about oiled musclemen in thongs, you can probably run circles around when it comes to talking about biochemistry and evolutionary theory........but in the end, all people like you are the same............as intellectually closeminded and hateful as the misguided faith you portend to be fighting..........you are an exquisitely empty individual, and you must loath the possibility that there may just be a creator, and that someday you may be taken to task for your actions during your stay here.
your argument ; that you, and dawkins, KNOW, that our universe is compleatly indifferent and that you are Positive there is no creator is laughable.............no ne of us really know anything, and for you to say that you know there is no god, means that you are saying that you areas smart as a god............because like i said, maybe there is no god, maybe we are here becasue we were seeded by aliens, or maybe we are like one big ant farm for some being in another dimension............... ..but you keep thinking that you have all the answers, it makes you sound very smart on message boards ;) ;)
-
you seem like a very hateful parson, very characteristic of the zeitgeist your defending............the ultimate "humanists" in my experience have been the most idealogically entranched and interpersonally detatched. first of all, i never said that 'Expelled' was the be-all-end-all of the argument, i merely pointed out that it had some very cogent points which shook the dawkins paradigm to the core.
as previously stated by me, "evolution" is proven fact..........but the whole non-life-->life-->single cell-->>modern complex multicellular organism threory is not just frought with some loose-ends...........its entirely unproven and unevidenced........to buy this hook, line and sinker takes almost the blind leap of faith it would take to believe in a creator.
im just a dumb muscle head who comes here to talk about oiled musclemen in thongs, you can probably run circles around when it comes to talking about biochemistry and evolutionary theory........but in the end, all people like you are the same............as intellectually closeminded and hateful as the misguided faith you portend to be fighting..........you are an exquisitely empty individual, and you must loath the possibility that there may just be a creator, and that someday you may be taken to task for your actions during your stay here.
your argument ; that you, and dawkins, KNOW, that our universe is compleatly indifferent and that you are Positive there is no creator is laughable.............no ne of us really know anything, and for you to say that you know there is no god, means that you are saying that you areas smart as a god............because like i said, maybe there is no god, maybe we are here becasue we were seeded by aliens, or maybe we are like one big ant farm for some being in another dimension............... ..but you keep thinking that you have all the answers, it makes you sound very smart on message boards ;) ;)
well the fact that you same non-life-->life blah blah and are talking about evolution shows me you know nothing about science. Totally seperate fields, to be frank, im sick of idiots attacking evolution who havent read a single peer reviewed article on it.
Show me one argument ben stein presented that was decent? please...
he is a proven liar, the documentary is complete shit, wrought with lies, complete bullshit from half the interviewees
-
yeah, more peer-reviewed journal articles ::) ::)............i'll get right on that when im done with the LSATs. haha, you win, there is no god..........have a good day, and enjoy your meaningless existance. ;D
-
Growing up in Kansas I have heard and read plenty about the Intelligent Design debate. While it can be argued about who the designer is, the original argument was that a Christian GOD created man and the Earth and so on. People on the Kansas Board of Education that voted for the teaching of ID expressed specifically that they believe that their Christian God created man and it should be taught in school as a possibility of existence. The debate has morphed into saying that the creator could be something other than a God but there is still a creator. This is avoid the original arguement because the bible has many flaws and contradictions that can easily be rebuffed through debate. Such as Noah holding ever creature on Earth in his Ark.
But even if Intellegent Design were true then how did the creator(s) become to exist? If a super intelligent alien race created the humans on Earth, then who created the alien race and so on?
I am on par with Dawkins belief scale and place myself at a 6 out of 7. I can't say I believe 100% there is no God because that would be as stubborn and ignorant as those that say without question there is one.
-
yeah, more peer-reviewed journal articles ::) ::)............i'll get right on that when im done with the LSATs. haha, you win, there is no god..........have a good day, and enjoy your meaningless existance. ;D
nice avoiding any actual arguments, wouldnt want to actually read science. If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around. A finite amount of time means our lives have meaning, living forever, robs us of purpose.
-
nice avoiding any actual arguments, wouldnt want to actually read science. If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around. A finite amount of time means our lives have meaning, living forever, robs us of purpose.
avoiding actual agruments......i have been arguing for 4 pages with people like you.......all of your premises are either flawed or purely speculative.........like when you say "If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around" .........how the fuck would you know that, how could anyone polssbly know that unless they themself are a god............i not here to change anyones mind, and i didnt set out to. we have traded some barbs, but i hope everybody finds their own way to internal peace and self-fulfillment in life.
and remember everyone.......all that truely matters is this: ;D ;D
-
avoiding actual agruments......i have been arguing for 4 pages with people like you.......all of your premises are either flawed or purely speculative.........like when you say "If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around" .........how the fuck would you know that, how could anyone polssbly know that unless they themself are a god............i not here to change anyones mind, and i didnt set out to. we have traded some barbs, but i hope everybody finds their own way to internal peace and self-fulfillment in life.
and remember everyone.......all that truely matters is this: ;D ;D
well most people equate god with an afterlife, jesus with living an eternity in heaven, its not to far fetched. I like how you tell me im being speculative as you cherry pick my response for something so off center. Meanwhile, all you have done is speculate and challenge established science with nothing more then, its to complex someone did it.
-
When it comes to religion and other belief systems, such as bodybuilding, people cling to pet beliefs. What a pity that believing something doesn't make it true.
The intelligent design crusade is lame. Complexity can evolve. The process is a physical one. There is no direction in evolution. It may appear that species adapt to environments but that is not how evolution works. Simply, the individuals who survive are the ones who have advantages in their environment.
The human genome was described in 2001. What puzzled scientists was why the vast majority of the 3 billion genes are not needed to replicate an individual. Well over 90% of those genes do not serve any known purpose. Clearly if all life was designed by an intelligent agent then why all this rubbish? That can't be intelligent.
When scientists understand more about genetics they can and will improve the human genome. We will accept it when genetic diseases can be controlled and even avoided. Will scientists then become God? I think not, but the future is going to be very interesting. Who knows what humans will eventually become.
It amuses me the way some individuals keep creating new ways to use language. Where is this higher 'intellectual plain' someone was arguing about? What kind of plane is that?
-
Basile, pretty weak argument regarding us not knowing what 90% of our DNA does. Hell we cant even cure the common cold, the human genome was decoded less than fifty years ago, we haven't been to another planet, etc. Scientists tend to think they know it all and work off of unproven "theories" to build other theories. I imagine in 50 years we will look back and laugh at how stupid our science was.
When it comes to religion and other belief systems, such as bodybuilding, people cling to pet beliefs. What a pity that believing something doesn't make it true.
The intelligent design crusade is lame. Complexity can evolve. The process is a physical one. There is no direction in evolution. It may appear that species adapt to environments but that is not how evolution works. Simply, the individuals who survive are the ones who have advantages in their environment.
The human genome was described in 2001. What puzzled scientists was why the vast majority of the 3 billion genes are not needed to replicate an individual. Well over 90% of those genes do not serve any known purpose. Clearly if all life was designed by an intelligent agent then why all this rubbish? That can't be intelligent.
When scientists understand more about genetics they can and will improve the human genome. We will accept it when genetic diseases can be controlled and even avoided. Will scientists then become God? I think not, but the future is going to be very interesting. Who knows what humans will eventually become.
It amuses me the way some individuals keep creating new ways to use language. Where is this higher 'intellectual plain' someone was arguing about? What kind of plane is that?
-
Over 90% of our genes are rubbish. How does anyone explain that in the intelligent design debate? I design and build gym equipment. You have to get it precise to make it work. Well, what kind of intelligence is in the design of the human genome? If most of the genes are rubbish there is no design. The rubbish was passed on through countless generations but only a few genes have information needed to replicate another human. Perhaps less than 40,000 out of 3,000,000,000 are active ones. What about the vast majority of those other genes? What kind of design is this? Answer: no design at all.
Those who think clearly accept the evidence and go from there. Those with an agenda keep dodging and retain their beliefs. The whole of science supports evolution. There is no support for ID that I could find. Only the zealots from the bunkers of organized religion.
-
When it comes to religion and other belief systems, such as bodybuilding, people cling to pet beliefs. What a pity that believing something doesn't make it true.
I 100% agree... you can tell people in the gym how you trained to achieve to your muscular size which they sooo wanted to know... but they are still referring to what they heard... i.e. thats overtraining or thats too often... etc.
Well then why ask? ...you saw the results in the first instance?
if some people ran their business accounts like they did their bodybuilding efforts... oh my...
-
In science if your theory is false you either have to try to find more evidence to support yours or you abandon it. I am prepared to abandon my belief in evolution if evidence finds otherwise. Are the religious people ready to abandon their religions if proved false? Therein lies the issue. Those who believe in religions will not abandon their beliefs no matter what they find. They can always 'explain' everything through nonsense concepts such as God.
The sad thing is that we all have to live in societies forged by believers. In the USA there is still severe censorship re nudity, etc. In 2009? Those of us who went to university some half a century ago would not have believed that it would be possible for a modern country to sustain controls on the media. I guess anything is possible in a country where you can still elect local sheriffs! Why can't we watch the popular show Jerry Springer without censoring swearing and nudity? Darwin put a dent in religion but most persist and it is business as usual and plenty of new disciples appearing daily. Einstein was right when he said that the only unlimited thing in this vast universe was human ignorance.
-
Einstein was right when he said that the only unlimited thing in this vast universe was human ignorance.
LOL!
haven't heard this one before...
-
.
-
ah yes pick on the old fella having his day in the sun... ::)
-
ah yes pick on the old fella having his day in the sun... ::)
Hopefully, there aren't any unsupervised children running around on that day.
-
If I lived in America we would all know who Goatboy was. It would be a project of amusement to find him. Then we could all have a laugh out loud.
-
If I lived in America we would all know who Goatboy was. It would be a project of amusement to find him. Then we could all have a laugh out loud.
America knows better than to issue you a visa.
-
Another thing, religions have spoiled funerals. What an ordeal to sit there listening to crap about how they have gone to Heaven! All those hypocrites with tears in their eyes. Yes, because deep down they know there is no Heaven and it is all going to come to an end for every one of us.
-
What a shit stirrer little Goatboy is. I would rather spend money on new camera gear than waste it pursuing a gimmick account known as, gasp, Goatboy!
-
Another thing, religions have spoiled funerals. What an ordeal to sit there listening to crap about how they have gone to Heaven! All those hypocrites with tears in their eyes. Yes, because deep down they know there is no Heaven and it is all going to come to an end for every one of us. Driving three hours to attend the funerals of random strangers just isn't as fun for me as it used to be.
Fixed it for you, Vince.
-
What a shit stirrer little Goatboy is. I would rather spend money on new camera gear than waste it pursuing a gimmick account known as, gasp, Goatboy!
1970 mr canada
what douche you must be......"i hate the concept of god, thus my argument disproving him must be fool-proof".........and what authority grants you the right to make such an obtuse proclimation???.............."why im vince basile 1970 mr. canada"........ ::) ::) ::)
-
Yeah, debating philosophy with believers is a waste of time. So is debating hypertrophy with the flotsam. No one here is going to stop believing pet theories. So the next step is to attack the critic of their views.
-
:-X
HAHAHAHA @ "Creationists"!!!!!
-
good stuff. Bill pretty much admits he's hedging his bets saying "i'm throwing in with christianity"
-
YES WE KLAN!!!
-
FUCK man I hate that guy so fucking bad- interupting people - good that he got owned
-
i really do not like richard dawkins, but O'reilly really came off as the closeminded, loudmouth, im right because i say im right, annoying american. it would have been great if her finished up by punching dawkins in the face two times real hard, that smug little girl.
-
Moderating influence. What an argument for religion's truthfulness.
-
why went i wanted to type c-u-n-t is it comiong out ####??????
-
why is it that when ever I see him "interview" somebody he
A) has to have the last word
B) You hear him more than the guy/woman he interviews
-
:-X
HAHAHAHA @ "Creationist"!!!!!
Haha, Sweden has the most non believers in god.
Im proud!
-
religion leads to chaos. it needs to be completely obliviated.
-
religion leads to chaos. it needs to be completely obliviated.
Watch your mouth "Stalin"....
;D
-
8% of americans doesn't believe in god.
80%+ of swedes doesn't.
o w n e d
-
Haha, Sweden has the most non believers in god.
Im proud!
X2.
-
8% of americans doesn't believe in god.
80%+ of swedes doesn't.
o w n e d
100% of americans are better than 100% of swedes.
pwned.
-
I always find it funny when someone tells me they're "going to church"... christianity is such a joke... ::)
-
Alex23, How was he owned?
O'Reilley was not owned by Dawkins but Bill never shut the hell up and let him complete his sentences or thoughts. Bill always does this when he has a guest and he always thinks that he is right. ::) Richard Dawkins should have said FUCK YOU instead on Thank you when it was over, i would have bought the book then :D
-
why is it that when ever I see him "interview" somebody he
A) has to have the last word
B) You hear him more than the guy/woman he interviews
bc it is HIS show
-
100% of americans are better than 100% of swedes.
pwned.
Let me guess, you've never been to Sweden :D
-
100% of americans are better than 100% of swedes.
pwned.
is not sweden one of those 'neutral' countries? ya know...they never help out in wars?
communists
-
bc it is HIS show
No one should go on his show because he's not fair to his guests. He interrupts them and doesn't let them finish any thought that goes against his.
Although some guys, Howard Stern for one.. understand this and do the same thing to him.
-
I always find it funny when someone tells me they're "going to church"... christianity is such a joke... ::)
I agree with you on this because my dad is the biggest Christan that there is and spends his money on Crack, Hookers and other stupid shit. I have bailed him out of jail many times and he thanks Jesus for getting out of jail. ::)
-
No one should go on his show because he's not fair to his guests. He interrupts them and doesn't let them finish any thought that goes against his.
Although some guys, Howard Stern for one.. understand this and do the same thing to him.
ALL of the media does this.
they are ALL scum.
Both sides. Does not matter
-
-
-
is not sweden one of those 'neutral' countries? ya know...they never help out in wars?
communists
Why should they "help out"? If I have a mouthy friend that likes to talk shit and someone feels like calling him out on it, i'm not gonna help him. I'll tell him to stop running his mouth and handle his own business.
-
"so we can look forward to more 4 letter words?"... O'Reilly's such a fag
-
da fuc ever came good outa sweeden anyway besides sweedish fish.
-
da fuc ever came good outa sweeden anyway besides sweedish fish.
women!
-
I see no owning here just two guys who can't prove what they are saying
-
is not sweden one of those 'neutral' countries? ya know...they never help out in wars?
communists
I know you christians think war is ok, many of you think it's infact good and seek pleasure from it like from a videogame. But many, many atheists like myself see war as unnecessary ritual in which many lives are lost but nothing gained.
-
I see no owning here just two guys who can't prove what they are saying
Scientists can't prove themselves?
-
is not sweden one of those 'neutral' countries? ya know...they never help out in wars?
communists
HaHa
Sweden is like that friend who was always "in the bathroom" when shit jumped off
-
HaHa
Sweden is like that friend who was always "in the bathroom" when shit jumped off
Great analogy. ::)
-
I know you christians think war is ok, many of you think it's infact good and seek pleasure from it like from a videogame. But many, many atheists like myself see war as unnecessary ritual in which many lives are lost but nothing gained.
That's how I see it
-
Stern is the first guy I've seen who was able to put a leash on that loudmouth O' Reilly.
-
I see no owning here just two guys who can't prove what they are saying
absolutely right, how arrogant is it for anyone to say they know there is a god and afterlife, or that there is not......there is no way for humans to gather information of that sort.
-
absolutely right, how arrogant is it for anyone to say they know there is a god and afterlife, or that there is not......there is no way for humans to gather information of that sort.
On the other hand, it's pretty stupid to base your belief in a god or afterlife (or indeed your whole worldview) on a moldy 2000+ year old book obviously written by primitive superstitious men.