Lateralus

Yeah, I thought it was a great film.

I like almost everything Louis Theroux does, and David Attenborough of course (though I don't think you're talking about things like Planet Earth). For some reason I really enjoy Ice Road Truckers. There's not really anything interesting about it, but I'm happy to sit and watch it.

Dinosaurs had tiny, tiny brains. There's a ratio called the Encephalization Quotient which shows the size of a creatures brain compared to its body. Humans have huge brains, and our EQ sits at around 5. I don't think there's a single dinosaur who even comes close to 1. To put it in perspective, elephants are around the 0.6 mark and a triceratops around 0.1.

I'm curious to know what kind of news stories people would rather see to make them want to ban words like "president", "economy", "health care" and "election".

A gin & tonic is gin mixed with tonic water, usually served over ice. With a slice of cucumber in it it's one of the sharpest and most refreshing drinks I've ever tasted.

People want to ban all my favourite things.

Nouvelle Vague are a French bad who do covers in an easy listening Parisian kind of style. Soko would be another one to check out. I'm addicted to this song for some reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38nRFafXIn0

10 pints of Stella would cost 30 quid at my local. As far as lager goes, Stella is an expensive pint. Also it tastes excellent.

I think my greatest joy in life is arguing. By that I don't mean bickering of course, something a little more cerebral.

I like most alcohol. Lager, white/rose wines, scotch and gin would be my drinks of choice. I really hate red wine though, just never got the taste for it. I think white rum is horrible also. And somewhat contrary to most peoples opinion here, I love getting drunk and drink to get drunk fairly often.

Boobs are completely different when they're unshackled. Most of the time they look better in the bra.

You swear too much. Normally I wouldn't mind, but it looks stupid when it's censored.

Yes, there are cases where bad things happen when people assign to much value to their unsupported beliefs - but I'm not doing that. In fact, I never even said that's what I believed. Just that it's a possibility. You have to understand that I'm not being critical of you personally. I said in the first post that I didn't think it was your opinion. I think ridiculous for someone to say that an apparition is proof of the existence of a god and then go on to put any kind of faith (for want of a better word) in their interpretation of why it's there. Useless? Who's to say it wasn't for a bit of fun? Or thought provocation? Like I said, I'm not trying to crack any codes or anything or else I would have some support to what I said. I see no harm in suggesting possibilities. And if I am wrong, I don't see what the problem is. I will still wake up and live life normally. I make hypotheses because I don't fear being corrected. I don't see it being unverifiable as a problem either. We can't verify whether we're living in a matrix or not but yet the idea is fun and thought provoking. Actually, now that I think about it, I think the fact that there are no other good reasons for God to send us those messages can be considered support. Again, I wasn't taking a shot at you personally. Unverifiability is a problem when people take these things seriously. To your matrix example - What if someone lived their life (tried to live their life? I'm not sure what they would do) as if they did live in a matrix just because it was possible? That aside, solipsism bores me. Why is causing controversy a 'good reason'? Without knowing anything about the mind of god there's an infinite number of equally implausible explanations for why he would send an apparition. Perhaps it was a dare, or a bet.

Wow. We have very different world views.

People live and die by religious speculation and revelation when they assign too much value to it, and it retards proper inquiry. I would not call it harmless. Any hypothesis like this is useless because it will never be verified. I won't answer your last question because it wasn't your specific answer that I was being critical of, it was that people would suggest any answer without any real support for it. (Yes I evaded the censor, but I don't think it's a problem here. Obviously a mod can change it if they must.)

Inventing was the key word in the sentence, as in fabricating. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is to be encouraged, of course.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, since that's the same kind of thinking which annoys me. Inventing an explanation or reason for the sake of having one doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe the purpose of the message is to send controversy to earth. Typical speculative religious thinking. I'm pretty sure you're just making a suggestion and that it's probably not your own opinion, but that kind of thinking really gets my back up.

So you employ much less credulity when dealing with other faiths, as is to be expected. It wasn't my intention to start comparing religions, I was just seeing if the appearance of an 'opposing' religious figure would make your belief waver as much as St. Mary appearing seems to have affirmed it. Like I said earlier I can't explain it, especially not with the terrible photographs, but that doesn't make it supernatural. Whatever the cause I still think it's shoddy 'proof' of anything.

I don't understand the difference. If a god (any god) used a Christian symbol to show himself to the world, doesn't that suggest it's the Christian God? I don't think believers in Hinduism would take Mary's appearance as proof of god's existence. You don't see the possibility of it being something other than a trick or hoax or divine intervention? It could just be a natural phenomenon. That aside 'seeing an image' to 'God exists' is a jump in logic. You can't know for certain what this shape is, you're just speculating, which can hardly be called proof. An interesting question occurs to me. How would you react if Mohammad or any other non-Christian religious figure appeared to you?

I don't doubt what people saw and I can't explain it, but can you see how 'saw outline of Mary' to 'Christian God exists' is an odd jump? What if it had been the outline of the Buddha or Muhammad - Would that have convinced you that those religions were right? Well, St. Mary isn't just a random person... She is the mother of Jesus Christ, and she wasn't chosen randomly. She appeared on the St. Mary's church. But let me ask you. If St. Mary or Jesus would appear to you, and you would clearly see them, wouldn't this convince you that there is a God, and maybe encourage you to read the bible or do some research? I accept that Muhammad and Buddha were real persons, but that doesn't mean I think those religions are right. If St. Mary or Jesus were to appear to me, and me only, I think I'd check myself into a mental institution. If they appeared to many people and there was no doubting them then I'd have no choice but to reverse my position. I would like to think that I'd continue to ignore God and religion, because even if it were true I'd still disagree with it. I have read the Bible by the way. It would be difficult for me to understand Paradise Lost or The Divine Comedy without having my King James Bible next to me. You didn't really answer my questions either. Why does Mary appearing make your religion correct if the same doesn't hold true for other religions? There's also the issue of the unfalsifiability of a God who doesn't intervene directly. If he can't be disproved then he can't be proved to be true, especially not by an apparition. People seeing stuff = God exists just doesn't make sense. This supposed sighting is no more proof for the Christian God's existence than God 'talking to people'.

I don't doubt what people saw and I can't explain it, but can you see how 'saw outline of Mary' to 'Christian God exists' is an odd jump? What if it had been the outline of the Buddha or Muhammad - Would that have convinced you that those religions were right? I think it's a little unfair to say I'm ignoring evidence as well, since incredulity is never a real barrier when the evidence is strong enough.

It's interesting that the supposed apparition looks like the European paintings of Mary which are obviously wildly inaccurate. People see what they want to see. EDIT: When I was flicking through google image results for "Virgin Mary Apparition" I came across this: It bears about as much resemblance to the classic Mary image as most of the miraculous sightings. Not quite so magisterial when it's a flesh wound.

I have to say I did a double take when I saw you posting this. Far be it from me to deride your taste in music, but I think they're terrible.

Nail. Head.