No favourite stories listed.
Pulp Fiction remade with The Muppets (Miss Piggy as Mia, Kermit as Butch, Fozzie Bear as Vincent Vega, Gonzo as Jules) Then please let me introduce you to one of Peter Jacksons earliest (and in my sick sense of humour, best) movies... https://www.youtube.com/embed/YSg0IMXptn4
"Moving forward." A pointless filler by pollies and business 'leaders' commenting on the future. Utterly rampant now."It's common sense". Read, I haven't the brain power or couldn't be bothered to work out the actually reason.there'd me many more
I would question why someone would continue to masturbate while falling and be quietly chuffed that I was strong enough to catch such a heavy weight (no offence).Then I would place him back on the ground, averting my eyes and say please continue without me, wishing that instead I had caught one of the gorgeous masturbating lush women inexplicably raining down around me. Cue song... it's raining masturbating lushies hallelujah it's raining ... hmmm might have to redefine the term cum shower now.
In my experience women are much better.No man can ever get me hard to have sex.On the other hand, women seem to do it easily. So, I've had sex with over 30 women, and with one man - me. The sex is always good, some better than others of course, but always good. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that I'm absolutely fantastic at sex, that's still around 30 to 1 in the favour of women - from my somewhat skewed sample.To do a true scientific analysis though I guess we'd need to do some double blind (fold) studies.
It's the only way I've slept since about 18. Hate sleeping in clothes - they get twisted around me. The only exceptions - bunking in with a bunch of people - in which case I'll wear boxers - and if I'm just a little cold - and I'll put socks on - the sexiest look
Definately the lounge room/kitchen flaw. And in seeing at the top of this page that I have posted the same response before - I must answer this seriously... my memory is my biggest flaw - lol. Though poor organisational skills, procrastination, indecisiveness, poor self discipline all come a close second.
Definately the lounge room/kitchen flaw.
Actually, no. I don't know why you thought I'd take that personally. If I'm wrong and go to whatever Hell they believe in, then that was my mistake. There's nothing personal to take there. The God of Christianity doesn't put a gun up to people's heads. That's not what He does. I don't know why you thought that, but it's the deranged followers that do, not the God. And nowhere in the Bible does it advocate the killing of pagans. In the OT, yes, the Israelites killed people in the Lord's name, but that's Jews and Gentiles, not Christians and pagans. Christians who try to force people to believe in Christianity destroy the purpose anyways. We're supposed to love people and show Christ through our love, and not the common, everyday "love" that teenagers think they have when they meet that "special someone", but also not sex. I mean actual love that gives and expects nothing in return.Different denominations represent different interpretations of the Bible, and for the most part, there's no problem with that, unless it causes strife, which it tends to do. And also, Christians have had guns put to their heads and been told to reject God more than they have put guns to people's heads. If you want to bring up the Crusades, that's Catholocism. Christianity has been oppressed more than it has spread by the sword, and I would think that you would be able to see that. It seems I need to be a little more careful in what I write lest I be taken too literally. I wasn't saying that this god literally puts a gun to peoples heads. It was a way of getting across the extortion inherent in the idea of 'believe in me or go to hell' - a metaphorical gun the head. Everything I wrote needs to be taken in that context.As to who has oppressed who the most I think you'll find the ledger is weighs pretty heavily in both directions, dependent on which ideology is dominant in that culture. Ideologies, whether religious or political tend to result in the attempted forced conversion in others for those more strident and aggressive in their beliefs, and nonbelievers, or those that denied specific aspects of the dominant beliefs (eg Galileo) could well be goaled. And then there is the less overt oppression where someone who admits they're not a believer is less likely to treated fairly in society. Many non believers in the US would hide that fact lest it affect their employment prospects or how they were treated by their social set. This seems to be changing though this is only an observation from afar. In Australia it isn't anywhere as much of an issue though a politician will generally be better off to be a church goer.Different interpretations is a problem if only because it highlights how the supposed message is all so vague and up to the individual such that I wonder what the point is. It certainly smacks of as much moral relativism as working it out for yourself.
Look, I'm sorry that I don't agree with you and that you for some reason think that nothing in science is 100% true. I'm also sorry that you think that I believe that I am superior. None of those, however are my problem. I don't believe that I am superior in any way. You just assume that I do. I think that I am right and you think that you are right. That doesn't make either of us any more superior than the other. You also called into question my intelligence. I don't deal with people like you because of this fact. I've met many people like you. People who believe evolution to be true because of the evidence that evolution has supposedly found and thus think themselves superior because they have more knowledge about evolution and proceed to question the intelligence of anyone who does not accept evolution. To say that there are no facts in science is folly. For to believe this would mean that gravity does not exist. Would you agree that someone who believed gravity to be mythical lacked intelligence or understanding? It is a scientifically proven fact.I'm not going to go any farther with this thread, because it is clear to me that you believe me to be unintelligent, and there is no favorable outcome for either of us except perhaps the feeding of your ego in such a situation as this. However, I will leave you with this: "If you're right, then I just die. But if I'm right, then you're going to Hell." So please, don't slander me just because I don't accept the same thing that you do. I never slandered you, and frankly, there was no legitimate reason to slander me. Thank you for the time wasted. The reason I don't think anything in science is 100% true is because nothing is, or more to the point we can't know whether something is with absolute certainty. I expect there is an unalterable truth out there but our ability to know that is limited by our ability to trust our senses. Descartes worked that one out many years ago. When trying to work out what he knew with absolute certainty he couldn't go any further than his own mind. 'I think therefore I am' Perhaps I'm sitting in a padded cell now typing on a piece of cardboard arguing with myself and nothing called the internet even exists. Not a particularly useful scenario to explore though and no way that it can be probed if I've created a nice hermetically sealed scenario around it.You're probably right in that we shouldn't discuss things because you are totally missing the subtleties of my argument nd you seem to be getting defensive. Science is by definition the only way we have to know about the world around us. If any other approach is found it will be gladly accepted by science. But that doesn't change that we can't know something with 100% certainty if only for my previous argument, and there are many possible layers on top of that. The paleontological record of millions upon millions of fossils laid down sequentially in a way that aligns with evolution and genetics could be by chance but the likelihood of that is so staggeringly small as to be not worth considering.I don't think you think your superior, not sure where you got that idea. I also don't think I'm superior but I expect my understanding of evolutionary processes is a lot better than yours. Happy for you to show me wrong. If the idea came from my mention of the dunning kruger effect then it's probably a flippant ending I shouldn't have posted simply because it could get someone's back up (but it is the case that we tend to overestimate our abilities and knowledge the less we actually know, the less skilled we are.) And ignorance isn't a reflection of intelligence anyway.The last comment is called pascals wager . The main problem with it is why is your conception of god the right one. If those in ISIL are correct then you're going to hell - and there have been thousands of gods over the millennia with various concepts of the afterlife, though at least some that aren't so arrogant as to be prescriptive of what you need to believe in to determine which afterlife compartment you get shoved into. Even within Christianity there are many different denominations. Secondly, any god that has to put a gun like that to peoples heads to believe or else isn't worth following even if they exist. If you're right and I'm presented with that scenario I'd tell it to shove it up it's arse. I'm sure you'll take that comment personally but it's actually meant to be an indictment on any deity that thinks it's acceptable to try and extort belief with bugger all evidence of their existence and judge people for an eternity based on a finite amount of time on this earth with each individual starting with vastly different levels of access to knowledge (even of that gods existence in many non Christian societies) and vastly different abilities to analyse that knowledge. Any god like that is not benevolent but insecure, capricious, bullying, meglamaniacal and frankly evil.
Creationism is based on the Bible, yes, but there are people out there who believe in Creation and evolution also. Humans grow, yes, but we do not evolve. Just as animals and plants do not evolve. Survival of the fittest cannot be attributed to evolution. Survival of the fittest is just saying that the strong will survive, while the weak will not, and that has nothing to do with evolving, that's just instinct. (I've heard it used as proving evolution, which is a load).An open mind is not what Creationism tries to obliterate. Creationism has no conscious, and thus cannot try to do anything. Creationism in and of itself cannot do anything at all. It cannot make people believe it. Creationism can do just as much as evolution can do, which is nothing. Evolution is not observable. Change is observable. I actually find it rather comical that anyone believes evolution anymore. Some of the biggest promoters of evolution, back when it was getting very popular, even said that it takes faith to believe evolution. Charles Darwin denied it, saying that it was just a theory. Evolution is also still a theory, not a proven fact. It is also not a field of science, just like Creationism is not a field of science. I'll start here with your last point which shows a lack of understanding of science. Science is simply the process by which we understand the world(universe) around us and the accumulated body of knowledge that results from it. That knowledge is never really considered 100% true because no matter how much information you gather to support a theory there can always be the tinniest amount of doubt. And so strictly speaking there are no 'facts' in science - unless you want to call individual pieces of data facts and there they could still be incorrect readings/analysis. Proofs only apply to mathematics and logic and even there they are based on initial assumptions. And so a theory is the pinnacle of science and so the comment 'it's only a theory' just highlights how you don't understand the basics of science. Many theories gain so much supporting evidence that for ease of discussions they are often called facts, but they are never strictly 100% true.Some theories have more evidence supporting them than others and most theories bring together many different ideas under the same banner which individually will have more or less evidence in support of them and all theories tie in with other areas of science in some way creating a structure of knowledge that is exceedingly robust. The theory of evolution is one of the best supported of evidence in science with billions of data points in support utilising our understanding from areas of science as disparate as palaeontology, geology, nuclear physics, chemistry and pretty much ever discipline of biology. As an example, a young earth creationist needs to reject (amongst all the rest) radiometric dating, the science of which underpins nuclear medicine, nuclear energy, nuclear bombs, and the weird and wonderful world of quantum physics - perhaps the best supported theory in science (though less obviously to most). Anyone can be an old earth creationist if they want, saying that god set it all in motion but the idea adds absolutely nothing to the science of evolution in that it provides no predictions that can be tested for - a prerequisite for any theory.Faith requires the belief in something without, or in spite of, supporting evidence. It can be characterised as an unchallengeable assumption. Every idea in science can be challenged but you need to bring supporting evidence to the table to do it. No faith is required for evolution - though to explore this idea properly you need to come up with a proper definition of what a belief is. (If it is that someone 100% believes something to be true then there are no beliefs in science)Evolution can and has been observed, but it is not possible to watch, say, our ancestors once again evolve from our common ancestors with the chimp because it happened in the past and so we look for evidence to show that it has happened and the paleontological record, comparative anatomy and now most importantly genetics all support it. The same evidence can be applied across the spectrum of life further back in time. I'd suggest you peruse this site before considering evolution comical least you want to appear comical yourself or be yet another piece of evidence in support of the dunning kruger effect .
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.
What would you like to do?