Pete_the_Viscous

Now I'm bitter.

Oh, he knows. My brother's class had him as a teacher before I came to college, and they made sure he knew. It think he's lightened up about it now, though: on the last day before the holiday there was a computing quiz... I say computing, most of it turned out to be about Pink Floyd (needless to say, my team won). The last few questions were a picture round, in the style of "who is this", and the last picture was Chuck Norris. (It was the teacher who made the quiz).

I didn't learn it this year, but my computing teacher looks just like Chuck Norris. In fact, it's a running joke in his classes, so much like him does he look. This year I learnt to juggle.

Coal. Juggling balls, One of those whizzing th... hang on... One of those, Some money, Edinburgh rock.

I wouldn't get the tablet unless you're really devoted to drawing on the computer. The novelty wears off in about a minute, and they're pretty difficult to use well. iPods are good, but make sure you don't get a small one and then think "bah, this now seems too small, and I am frustrated that I cannot fit all the things I want to on it". A camera: that's a good idea, as long as it's a good camera. I mean, everyone should have a camera; if you don't already have one, I'd get that -- you may not use it every day, but it's worth having. If you do already have a camera, make sure this one is much better than your current one (unless you're a photography buff and a small increase in quality is worthwhile, in which case use your own discretion, of course). I'm not sure about a guitar -- I've never tried playing one. If you know it's something you want to do (play guitar) then go for it. If you're not too sure, try learning on a friend's guitar first, then, if you like it, get one.

Haha. Not sure, really. I suppose I'll just make my usual: procrastinate less. Of course, I'll probably not get it together... I just can't be bothered being bothered, you see.

I don't mean to say that it's wrong to believe what you believe -- which is why I keep mentioning that I agree with you. However, the whole point of this argument has been that simply accepting that the physics is right is as small minded as accepting that there is a god who controls everything; both are just as reasonable. Indeed, and in most cases, it doesn't matter that you can't know for sure -- you're most likely correct (or your wife has made a cuckold of you and has changed the locks). However, we're not dealing with every day life, here: we're talking about religion, and what is ultimately correct. I wasn't even talking about religion when I first came into this topic, thank you very much. I just wanted to correct a minor error that someone made. Ah, well sorry about that, I should have payed more attention; I assumed you were the one to have brought the physics in, being so vehement and ... pernickety... as you were. Still, you've started arguing now, so... Your saying that science and theology are not the same illustrates exactly the thing I'm trying to get at. Science and theology are very much the same, whether you believe both or not. Science is exploratory, I'll give you that, but it offers no more in the way of explanation than theology. Listen, I don't like having to play devil's advocate here, but I'll give it a go... Let's say I'm a Christian. I feel the love of God day in, day out. In fact, God speaks to me. He tells me all sorts of things, and assures me that the world works through his greatness. All that sort of thing. I've been told beyond doubt that this is the case, and so can believe quite easilly that all this physics business only works because of God. [/horrible contradiction of own beliefs] Now... "What the hell do religious people have?" you ask? Well, what do you have? You surely don't have facts: you have things you assume to be true -- that you take for granted as being correct. So too does the religious person. You might argue that yours have a lot more evidence than theirs; this is not the case. [again with the religious fervor] I see the work of God in everything I encounter, I feel it in my bones, and all that. Last evening, the told me that the sun moves round the earth, just like I assumed. Also, he told me that there's some great big invisible man in the sky. I looked to God for confirmation of this; he said it's true. I've read in a book that the earth goes round the sun. I don't believe this; I have no reason to. I further saw a documentary on television, pertaining to astronauts, who say they have seen that the earth goes round the sun. It's their word against mine, I suppose. [/anathema to my very being] Now, the evidence is highly stacked in your favor: all things point to the earth moving round the sun, I'll give you that. Also, do not get the impression that I'm trying to suggest that, because the religious person doesn't know any better, what he believes is right -- this is not the case. However, how do you justify saying that your evidence is any more reasonable or plausible than his? Loth though I am to repeat myself but have you ever been there? Into space, I mean. If you have, bah, not fair, I want to go into space. If not, how do you know any of the cosmology that you've learnt is true? It seems to work, that's how. To the religious person, religion seems to work. The invisible man in the sky seems to be there, just as much as the satellite photos seem to be there. The observations of the religious person are... I don't know, whatever they claim as evidence for their religion. The smiles on little babies' faces, for all I care. What matters, you suggest, is that they seem to work. This is how the claims are equal: they both seem to work. (At least to some people). Again, you seem to be so sure that you're right that you're missing the point. (And once again, I agree with you, but that's not what's important). Religion is just as much about knowing the placement of the gears as science. What do you think people spend all this time coming up with whacko religious concepts for? The idea of dwarves working the clock is just as reasonable as it being worked by gears, in that, as you can't see the gears, you don't know if they even exist. Similarly, you don't know the dwarves don't exist. Again we arrive at the crux of the matter: that you are assuming religious explanations of the world to be wrong, simply because they sound stupid to you. Oh, and the dwarves don't necessarily eat; religious people are not so small minded as to assume that the extraplanar dwarves of chaos require sustenance. Rather, they are content to allow the dwarves to continue with their working the universe, which they seem to be doing so well. Not really: we can all throw something up in the air and watch it fall down again. We can also all test how fast they accelerate when falling down, and do all sorts of experiments to see how this relates to all manner of other matters. We can all watch things go mouldy, and we can all look through microscopes and actually see the little things. What we cannot all do, however, [edit] extrapolate that, so many billions of years ago the universe began in a big bang. The big difference is the extent to which these ideas are based upon other ideas: we can see gravity "happening"; we can see germs "happening"; we can see that, because of this or that which we can see happening, the big bang must have happened. It is similar to saying "I can see the germs on the bread: now I may assume all manner of things about how these germs got onto the piece of bread". Obviously it's not quite like that; I'm sure there's a whole load of evidence I've not yet come across for the big bang. No amount of evidence can ever bring us back to the time of the big bang so that we can observe it happening, however. * There you go again... Data, graphs, analysis, observations -- these things are not better explanations of the beginning of time: they are simply ones which you think are more likely to be correct. I think so too; this doesn't mean we're right. For all we know, there could be a god of maths, who makes these things work to keep us occupied. *and yes, I am aware of the whole "radiation from the big bang" observation business: this is no more proof of the big bang than the is proof of god. Edits: added "is". Removed one "bang". Not even going to justify katsuro0's narrow minded post with a responce, if he/she wasn't reading mine clearly enough to see where I was taking the role of a religious person for the sake of argument. Kirbybeam admitted that certain things are unknowable (or something to that effect); if we've already got past that part of the argument, I see no reason to explain it again.

(Just registering my agreement with GhostRanger). ...in order to bring something new to the discussion, however, I might add that I firmly believe that we don't die. At all. It seems to me that dying is just something that happens to other people; I'm not going to believe I'll die until it actually happens to me (if it actually happens). By "we" don't die I mean that this could be applied by you to yourself, in that I could die, and you won't ever. Not that I actually think this, or anything.

First off, death_by_pod made a good point about physics being able to explain things, and so being useful in discussing religion -- quite true, but not constant blurting out of laws as if they are of any relevance. Now, kirbybeam, you just don't seem to grasp what I'm saying here. Your own analogy of the unopenable pocke[bleep]ch illustrates what I'm saying well: you don't and will never know whether or not any of these laws are ultimately correct. You say the universe is expanding? Sure, it seems that way; yet you don't know for sure. In this way, you cannot be sure that it had a beginning. In fact, in no way can you be sure. You say that physics is used to explain how things seem to work to us: true, and this is a good point, relevant to religious topics. What is not relevant is each individual law that you believe the universe seems to work by. Unless, of course, you are simply telling us how you think the world works -- in this case, it would be better to refer us to a text book. No, what you seemed to be doing was trying to refute other peoples' religious arguments with your knowledge of Physics. This does not work. In admitting that you cannot open the pocke[bleep]ch, you simultaneously admit that you know just as little as the religious types about the universe and the way it works. Sure, your way is the way that actually seems to work, but you have said yourself that you will never know the actual "thing" itself. You must understand: to them, what they have said is just as valid as your Physics. I may happen to agree with you, and not them, but that doesn't mean I think your argument holds any water in this field. Oh, and you said that the whole "the more you know, the more you realise that you don't know" was true for all topics? Well... yes and no. It's not quite the same, but those who "have religion" often believe that, in knowing their love for god, they know all they need to know, which is a shame.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: how on earth do you know that the laws of physics did or do not apply at the beginning of the universe? Were you there? Which laws, exactly, and in what way? How do you even know there was a beginning to the universe? Supposing there were a beginning, (which I'm only debating for the sake of argument) -- the laws that you say don't apply are laws created by people, not real laws of physics in a decent sense: they are models, not... unbreakable, perfect explanations for everything. You may know a lot about physics -- or at least are good at finding relevant wikipedia articles -- but the more you know about physics, the more you should relise that you don't know squat*. Theoretical physics is so called for a reason. You may find this useful. *I realise you obviously know things -- anything compared to the infinity of knowledge out there is to be considered squat, however -- it's just peanuts to space, remember.

Doesn't that say it all? To them it is a franchise.

I am inclined to agree. I think it incredibly cool that someone has made a robot hand, connected it to their own arm, and could feel what he touched with it accross the room -- something like that, anyway. Evolution... should really require some stimulous to begin. There doesn't really seem much of a need for us to develop gils at the moment; nothing is telling our bodies that we live under water. What I expect is more likely is that people will become more intelligent, taller and so on -- don't ask me why I think taller: that just seems to be happening. Robot body parts, though, that would be great. One could actually have wheels, motors, strength enhancements, torches... death rays... anything implanted. Assuming, of course, they overcome the whole rejection thing.

Hehe, what, ÃÆÃâÃâàla that flash cartoon where the guy tries to vote for John Kerry, and it keeps moving the button? Maybe. I don't know anything about it. I just don't think you'll accomplish much by telling us about it -- other than controversy, of course.

I do. In fact, I know all about you -- I have a satellite watching your house at this very moment, linked up to the top secret governmental super-net of information regarding people who know too much already. On a more serious note; whether or not you're right, it will be very hard to convince all those people who voted for him to believe you (not least because they must have the IQ of a gnat to have done so).

I myself don't even see why these laws are relevant in discussing religion. If a god is an all powerful being, then he would automatically > all laws of physics. Also, what are people trying to say by these statements? People keep quoting them, as if they in themselves should be a valid argument for the non-existance of god. What's more, it makes the people who use* them look like parrots, spouting whatever they've heard to make it sound as if they know what they're talking about**. I never expect the religious arguments to impress me more than those of the irreligious in a debate on this subject, but when it comes to this sort of thing, I have to re-think things. This is not to say that the religious arguments are any more convincing -- far from it; rather than the science arguments descend to their level of blind faith. *not those people who correct others in their use -- that's fine by me. **anyone who has quoted one of these laws who does know what they're talking about, pat yourself on back, and perhaps stop trying to bring needlessly them into religious debate.

Umm, Black holes can be 'seen', they can't be seen with light by they do produce other noticeable effects such as high frequency emission, relativistic jets and abnormal periodic motion of satellites. The fact that you can't see a black hole is a consequence of relativity but that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that it doesn't 'communicate' information to us. http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php Is a webpage which provides evidence (including a movie detailing star orbits) that Sagittarius A* is a super massive black hole sitting in the centre of our galaxy. This kind of stuff isn't science fiction; they have been studied for years the animation starts with observations from 1992. Do you not think I'm aware of what people think about black holes? I stand by what I said: no-one has ever seen a black hole, as, by their very nature, they cannot be seen. All those things you have mentioned are not "seeing"* a black hole, they are seeing the effects of a black hole, which is very different. My whole point was that we can see only the effects of black holes, so we can only do the obvious and make assumptions as to what causes them. What you don't seem to have got from what I said is that no-one knows. No-one can know any of these things. This is why I think it weak to believe unshakably that there is a god, and arrogant to abjectly believe there could be no god. We can only guess. It's not science fiction only insofar as it has not as yet been proved wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong, either; just that it might possibly be: that's the big difference between science and religion (other than all the maths) -- that they admit that they might be wrong. *If you really want to argue about it, no-one can "see" anything; it's just the effect of the light on our eyes, which could, I suppose, be explained any number of other ways. All I'm saying is that the evidence for real, tangible things is far more potent than that for black holes.

Well, what you say suggests to me that the people who voted for LOTR are the sort to not justify their vote with a post. (Not having seen the Godfather, I didn't vote. I bet that I wouldn't like it though: I can't stand mob films and games).

Nothing. I have no life outside runescape. In runescape, however, I have, like, the biggest social life ever -- so big that it, like, wouldn't fit in lumbridge.

There's always something that puzzles me about animal rights videos and adverts -- the ones that show animals being badly treated. In order to get their film... they must have stood by and let the animal be mistreated, at least until they've got their filming done.

I don't see it working, frankly.

In retrospect I think the problem here was that we had "greatest film ever" and not several "greatest film of x genre" topics. It's like saying that the Bible is better than Brave New World: sure, both are fiction, both are dystopias, but one is sci-fi, the other fantasy. (Sorry, a joke in bad taste on my part, there).

God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen (the first one Bubsa mentioned). I like that one. There's a hilarious bit on a Bottom episode when Richie opens the door to his friends and sings: "God rest ye, merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay, Remember..." (The joke being that the song goes: "God rest ye, merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay, Remember Christ our saviour was born on Christmas day To save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray, O tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy O tidings of comfort and joy". ...and he forgot what comes after "remember"). Mainly I like that one because on the game called Rise of the Triad it was included in the musical score, under the joke name "deadly gentlemen".

It's all about sportsmanship; failing that, it's all about fun, as long as it's not fun at someone's expense. Obviously, on a professional level it's all about winning.

Yeah -- I agree with Schindler's List and the starwars ones... basically, anything composed by John Williams.

Kebabs are the food of gods. The only thing is that the two places I get them from (two completely different cities, I'm talking about) both do them so full that you can't hold them -- it's a knife and fork sort of thing. There's more of it, which is a plus, but it's not like one could walk along eating them. Also, I'd like to see a drunk manage one of them. One of the places I go to does something similar to what Chris was talking about: ... actually, for the life of me, I can't remember what it was now. It was some sort of pot-luck type of thing, anyway.