FAO: Stupid people.
Comments
-
joshtp wrote:MacAndCheese wrote:joshtp wrote:BTW, im a Jehovah's Witness
Joshtp I have a guenuine question (i'm not trying to take the p1ss) - If you had a massive stack on your bike which resulted in you needing a blood transfusion to survive, would you take it?
I'm just asking because I've never got my head around things like that.
Fair Q. I would refuse. Its not that i want to die, i love life. But i also take my belifes very seriously, and its pretty clear that the bible, and so God condems the intake of blood whether that be in either medical use or food. The thing is though, that im not really that worried about it. In recent years bloodless surgrery has become common place, and many doctors actually refuse to use blood, there are Very few situations that really require the use of blood.
check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9w
that video is nothing compared to the bloodless liver transplant....
Bloodless surgery isn't really the no blood surgery you might think either....it at least, still uses products made from blood,.....and
it doesn't happen in anywhere except maybe 1 or 2 private clinics in the UK.......Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
i couldnt imagine my life without faith in god in it.
i know he exists and i am the person i am because of it.
i dont think this is a bad thing.
i like to argue about religion because it pleases me to see how upset people get.
i dislike church and religion, however, i was slightly sucker punched when speaking to my mother and step father durng a recent trip to rhyl. i told my folks that i appreciate having been made to go to church as a kid, it gave me my relationshp with god, but i couldnt go to church as i dont see the point, i dont like it and im 100 % certain that being a good person and following a sound morale compass is enough to get to heaven.
my old dear then told me that the people in her church pray for me every week, which i know for many people is a wierd and pointless thing but for me, a man who dislikes church, to find out i was in the thoughts of people who have never met me who hope i am well and come to no harm, not least because of my chosen profession was massively humbling and even now as i type this it affects me to really think about.
for the folk who dont believe in god or like religion, i get your point, the world is a terrible place and some awful things happen in the name of religion but lets not forget, there are lots of people who believe in god and religion who are good people with it.
also you heathen godless fucker5 will burn in hell0 -
We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'd argue that what you're describing is actually having knowledge of all time rather than the power to have the knowledge. Omniscient comes from the Latin Omni Scientia, which means "all knowledge", ie, they can know anything that can possibly be known. I argue that the results of a truly free will decision cannot be known, therefore it's irrelevant if a being is all powerful or all knowing, they still can't know the outcome.Grondel wrote:
Nahwhyamihere wrote:actually omniscience, not omnipotence as you keep describing it
My use of the word was used in the correct context.
Omnipotent comes from the Latin Omni Potens which means "all power", ie., they can do anything at all, including see the past, present, future, or turn into a small otter named Roy.0 -
Not only are you blowing your own trumpet, but you're acknowledging my mad skillz too, thankswhyamihere wrote:
By the way, regarding this, I think that yeehaa and I are essentially arguing both sides at the same time (which takes real skill, let me tell youjoshtp wrote:BTW, is it not a little unfair, having 5 or 6 all lobying against my line of thought, and me being the only one to reason the other side.... Can i call for back up?
).
But you're right. I can see how both sides can be believed, and how both can coexist.
My one main belief, if it can be called that, is that people should make up their own minds about things, and not regurgitate a commonly held belief.
And whether making their own mind to be religious, or scientific, or even something else, that's fine by me, as long as they weren't indoctrinated into it.
It's such a vast topic, and none of us really knows jack sh*t about it, that it always makes for enlightening conversations, given the right company, of course.0 -
joshtp wrote:BTW, is it not a little unfair, having 5 or 6 all lobying against my line of thought, and me being the only one to reason the other side.... Can i call for back up?
Also josh...i am not on either side...
like whyamihere...I describe myself as agnostic.
To me...religion is what man says about the divine.
I have some quite deep spiritual feelings, however, none of the common ways which man has used to describe their sprituality, really does my feelings justice.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Or to take it one step further, the possibility could be that all known possible paths/outcomes could be known, that is, each endpoint could be known. However, which endpoint is reached could not.whyamihere wrote:I argue that the results of a truly free will decision cannot be known, therefore it's irrelevant if a being is all powerful or all knowing, they still can't know the outcome.
For example, if I have say a thousand strands of string, and tangle them up or tie them so that there's a big crow's nest of mess in the middle. I can see the start and end points of each piece of string, but I do not know which one goes where.
If I ask you to choose a piece of string of your own free will, even though I know all the possible starting points, and end points of your chosen string, I do not know two which they are until you've untangled it from the mess.0 -
I may pinch that for explaining quantum mechanics. People can be uncomfortable with a cat being potentially killed, even if it's only a thought experiment.yeehaamcgee wrote:
Or to take it one step further, the possibility could be that all known possible paths/outcomes could be known, that is, each endpoint could be known. However, which endpoint is reached could not.whyamihere wrote:I argue that the results of a truly free will decision cannot be known, therefore it's irrelevant if a being is all powerful or all knowing, they still can't know the outcome.
For example, if I have say a thousand strands of string, and tangle them up or tie them so that there's a big crow's nest of mess in the middle. I can see the start and end points of each piece of string, but I do not know which one goes where.
If I ask you to choose a piece of string of your own free will, even though I know all the possible starting points, and end points of your chosen string, I do not know two which they are until you've untangled it from the mess. 0 -
here's a diagram too...
0 -
that diagram is EPIC!
It's like string theory AND religion AND free-will AND home-ec for pre-schoolers, all in one!
And Northwind, I know what you mean, the Schroedinger's cat thing can be tricky, when you have to keep mentioning pussy and box over and over.
Man, if I hit that pussy, I know what the outcome would be! 0 -
im not sure why but i was compelled to make a quick couple of simple additions to that image:
0 -
suprise Sheeps didnt add some limes to the string....
Oh, and its refreshing to speak to open minded, thinking people like Yeeha and some of the others around here....
I like bikes and stuff0 -
joshtp wrote:
Oh, and its refreshing to speak to open minded, thinking people like Yeeha and some of the others around here....
get stuffed mental patient0 -
sweet, thanksblister pus wrote:joshtp wrote:
Oh, and its refreshing to speak to open minded, thinking people like Yeeha and some of the others around here....
get stuffed mental patientI like bikes and stuff0 -
on second thoughts... go ride the Jaw drop on a Shoping bike.I like bikes and stuff0
-
Nah, he's just surprised that someone sees me as an open minded, thinking person!
Quite a few people really don't get that 0 -
get it... fair enuf!yeehaamcgee wrote:Nah, he's just surprised that someone sees me as an open minded, thinking person!
Quite a few people really don't get that I like bikes and stuff0 -
I like bikes and stuff0
-
That is epic, the fisherman is even sat with his legs crossed 0
-
joshtp wrote:
sweet, thanksblister pus wrote:joshtp wrote:
Oh, and its refreshing to speak to open minded, thinking people like Yeeha and some of the others around here....
get stuffed mental patient
i should have put a at the end
but forgot. 0 -
0 -
I can't believe how good tempered this has been, it's probably the most emotive subject in the world.
Personally I'm a lapsed catholic, now atheist, (notice theres a few of those about). I've no problems with belief or faith but some organised religion can, I believe, be very negaative in it's outlook.
Also, with two kids at prmary school I'm very uneasy about RE in schools.0 -
RE?
RE = Legendary0 -
sheepsteeth wrote:RE?
RE = Legendary
My boy would dearly love to do that at school, or anywhere else for that matter 0 -
full build takes about 20 minutes in real life but i think the world record is about 8 minutes or summat. i love bridging, its almost as good as blowing stuff up!0
-
did someone say military engineer?
0 -
Yeehaa, the problem I have with your "why can't the two sides exist side by side" POV is that this requires a large amount of picking and choosing which parts of the bible (or similar) one chooses to believe.
For example, ....i appreciate this is a very christiancentric example but as an ex chiorboy, that's the one I know best...As a geologist, I can explain the formation of the earth and how everything got to look like it does now - a biologist can do the same for the natural world and so on.....
Now, for people to take that account as true and Genesis as "just a story" is fine. However, if it is OK to take Genesis as a story, then why is it not OK to take the ressurection, jesus as the son of god etc etc as stories?
There are similar examples for most religions (although I admit I can't describe them as well). I ve had this discussion with a few christians on my course (I still can't see how they can be geologists and christians, probably never will).
It was a foolish moment for Hawkins to use god as an analogy in Brief History of time but he had his reasons I suppose, perhaps this is why he has brought it up again...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It doesn't though, this was just one particular example.ddraver wrote:Yeehaa, the problem I have with your "why can't the two sides exist side by side" POV is that this requires a large amount of picking and choosing which parts of the bible (or similar) one chooses to believe.
There is NOTHING in this world of ours that prevents religious people from believing their religious views, and scientists from believing science.0 -
No, I wouldn't expect that, even though there may be the occasional bit of common ground, or similarity in what makes people go "WOW!".0
