Shinjula

I believe the one you actually need is from Corinthians Its one of the letters that Paul sent. And here he is in Romans From reading the bible it seems to me the Paul was out and out a homophobe, hes got quite a bee in his bonnet about alsorts of things and so personally I wouldnt trust him further than I could spit him. I'm sure Jesus had to spend an awful lot of time calming him down at parties. 95% of the things people use to outcast homosexuals in the bible are bogus, the stuff in leviticus is all ignorable because when Jesus arrived on the scene that brought about a new compact with god, every other law was over turned. Jesus himself never mentioned homosexuality although he did condemn sexual immorality in Mark In fact most of the old testament prohibitions on homosexuality are of dubious origin anyway, many times what crops up in early english translations of the bible are translations of the word for child prostitute, prostitute, and several times homosexual is used to refer to someone who sleeps with a man whilst married to a woman. But on the other hand Paul is kinda quite clear, if you wish to believe that every word in the bible is precisely true and that all the dicsiples spoke only the word of god, then sure with that view homosexuality would be wrong, of course then I would have to ask, with that view point, how come jesus had to teach the disciples anything, if whatever came out of the mouths was gods word?

There's also the position someone could take of "I don't believe facts are as important as belief" which would be a self sustaining position - if they believed it to be true, no facts we could show them would persuade them to change their mind, I've never met someone with that philosophy, but that doesnt mean they don't exist and it might prove an interesting philosophy to hold.

Even if it did, it's such a strange juxtaposition, the two clearly havent anything to do with each other. It's like saying "I'm a vegetarian Scientist" or "I'm a Buddhist Mathematician", the one doesn't qualify the other. The implication is therefore that it IS qualifying it, and the actual result is the very negative qualification. What Christian scientist SHOULD mean is the "I'm a Christian but any parts of my doctrine which contradict science I will throw out as mistakes", when what it actually means is "I'm a scientists but anything which contradicts with my faith I will refuse to admit". And this I can't help but see as a negative thing. Facts and evidence really SHOULD take precedence over beliefs. Although I would be interested if someone wanted to debate that facts should not take precedence over beliefs, I doubt anyone would actually do so.

Just seen a really interesting you tube vid (courtesy of boingboing) about the idea of a "Baloney Detection Kit", 10 things to think about when deciding whether to be skeptical of a claim. Thought it might be worth posting here... Its from the Richard Dawkins institute, but regardless of what you think of the man (my own opinion is not very high) these are some good guidelines for a starting position on the question of gods existence and particularly on the position of creationism. Here's the ten point scheme for the "Baloney Detection Kit" 1: How reliable is the source of the claim? 2: Does the source make other similar claims? 3: Have the claims been verified by anyone else? 4: Does this fit with the way the world works? 5: Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? 6: Where does the preponderance of evidence point? 7: Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? 8: Is the claimant providing positive evidence? 9: Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory? 10: Are personal beliefs driving the claims? Let me know which ones you think Creationism succeed or fail on, similarly let me know which you think the existence of God fails or succeeds on?

Then you've already lost the debate

Ooooh those are dodgy arguments. First I'm in the UK, so as we have the BBC which is government sposored we have TV here which is not made for profit. And brit art is incredibly profit linked Damien Hirst has in fact made a whole art form out of profit making Next theres no reason mass produced items can't be art, we went through that with Warhol in the sixties Entertainment has never been exclusive of art, music is an art form And the presence of pulp versions of a medium doesnt stop it being a medium, there are plenty of utterly pulpy books, and also consider how many drawings there are and what the majority of them evoke (not very much probably) I dont mean to be so down on a post but the whole modern art movement liberated us from a narrow view of art as solely sculpture and painting and I'm so grateful that it has done so, anything can be art it only requires the eye of the beholder to percieve it so, to look for the artistry TV, graphic novels, architecture, design even advertising can all be considered art forms in themselves and exalted beyond they banal existance. At least in my opinion and also in the opinions of some very well respected artists. Of course your own opinion is your own and I respect it, but I urge you to consider the alternate

No, I'm saying that TV can be an imaginative experience. Please don't take everything I've said as a critisism of anything you've said. I'm stating positives of television which doesn't imply that anything else is negative. Books are great. You're taking that out of context. Yep I am, it was funny, thats all But its the ease at which it happens which is my point. I go to the library I might pick up a couple of books I know nothing about and bring them home and read them. If I get a few chapters in and they do nothing for me I have to go back to the library for another one. With TV there is no distance between you and it, your engagement with it is on an instant basis, if you dont like it you can move on, and indeed came back to it. Of course this does cause a problem in that program makers adapt to this and the medium devote its resources to grabbing your attention at the expense of the long term viewing, but I think on balance this trade is a good one.

I am a massive fan of television as an art form. To those who say that reading a book takes more imagination than watching a TV program I would suggest that they aren't using enough imagination. I use my own imagination with television all the time, wondering about all the things left unsaid, the background of characters and their motivation. Found quite funny the guy on the last page who said TV made people unhealthy because they didn't go outdoors and that he'd rather stick with his books - I know he said and his outdoors too but the point is he has both, why would he assume that someone watching TV has any less potential to have both? Mostly I'd concentrate on the argument for it as an art form and an artistic and informational medium. As an informational resource it is second only to the internet and thats a pretty good achievement. As a medium, is it surely only different to other mediums in form and neither better nor worse. Is a painting better than a sculpture? Is a watercolour better than an oils, neither they are simply different mediums and have different properties. It is simply that individual efforts in a particular medium may suit or not suit that medium. There are artists out there who repeatedly redefine the genre of television showing again and again how much can be done with the medium in the areas of story telling and factual documentary, think of the Sopranos, or Lost or Queer as Folk (the UK version), or David Attenboroughs wildlife documentaries or the RI Christmas lectures, film too is constantly recreating itself. TV is also one of the best arenas for accessibility, people can see so many different sides to life that they would never have experienced if it weren't for television. How often do you go to a book store or library and just choose a book randomly without knowing anything about it, yet channel surfing on a TV is as easy as pressing a button and the channels are spaced out so that even just going from one channel you normally watch to another you pass through channels you wouldnt ordinarily watch. Me = passionate about TV :)

Actually theres even some very good statistic evidence that piraters increase sales by a significant margin. Most people who watch pirate copies are very media savvy, and will because of the freeness of the pirated copies, watch a far wider range of films than others and as a result will be people who have developed their media awareness and thus are more likely to be a respected source of information about films to their friends and will also be likely to review stuff for their friends which their friends have not seen, who may then go out to the movies to watch it.

It really wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I have a photographic memory, at least from one perspective him recording it is very similar to me closing my eyes. The only other difference is that he can copy it, but if I were better at telling stories I could also do the same. One thing to remember, copying is not the same as stealing. If I visit your house and stole your favourite book, you are left with no book. If I write a copy of that book and leave with that you have lost nothing - you still have your book and can read it when ever you want. Copying = fundamentally different from stealing

1.infinite colors; since its subjective what divides two colors we can continually break the spectrum into halves then fourths and so on ad infinitum 2. There are different degrees of infinity; the set of all positive (whole) numbers is small then the set of all positive and negative(whole) number, but both are infinite sets. Actually while you are quite correct to say that there are different degrees of infinity, the number of positive integers is the same as the number of positive and negative integers (This is something I have studied so I feel confident saying). The proof for this is known as Hilbert's hotel. Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, guest 1 lives in room 1, guest 2 lives in room two and all the way up to infinity, so the number of rooms is equal to the number of positive integers. Now an infinite number of people arrive at the hotel wanting rooms (the negative numbers , the hotel manager places each person currently occupying a room in the room with the number that is twice the size of his original room number, (so guest 1 is now in room 2, guest 2 is now in room 4 etc) and then fits the new people in the freed up rooms (Guest -1 goes in room 1, guest -2 goes in room 3 and guest -3 goes in room 5) All the guests are still in rooms so the number of positive and negative numbers is equal to the number of room which is equal to the number of positive numbers. The different sizes of inifinty (called cardinalities) are given different 'Aleph' number, Aleph(0) (spoken as aleph null) is the number of positive whole numbers, the number of positive and negative whole numbers, the number of prime numbers and the number of fractions, these sets are called countably infinite. Aleph(1) is the number of irrationals which is 'larger' than Aleph(0), irrational numbers are ones which cannot be represented by fractions or repeating decimal expansions, such as the square root of 2, Aleph (1) is also the cardinality of the Transcendental numbers which includes such luminaries as pi and e (Shout me if you want a proof that the irrationals arent countable)

There is no finite speed you could go at to give you that average

Try the xkcd forums - xkcd is a geek webcomic, but their forums are populated with some very large brains, and they have a huge range of incisive and interesting topics on all levels from high school up to postgraduate. I particularly like the mathematics forum, but the linguistics forum is very interesting too. The web address is http://echochamber.me/ And can I also give props to anyone wanting to expand their mind? A great thing to see in this day and age, respect to ya.

What you have to remember is that these people are less intelligent than you and just as there are people less intelligent than you there are also people more intelligent than you. What do you imagine you look like to them? - to them you are just the same as those who look stupid to you. Now think about how you want to be treated by those more intelligent than you. And treat those more stupid than you the same way. Personally I wish to be treated with respect by everyone even if they are cleverer than I am, so I treat those less intelligent than myself with respect also.

Try this one, its called the curveball illusion... http://illusioncontest.neuralcorrelate.com/2009/the-break-of-the-curveball/ It won first place in this years Best Visual Illusion of the Year contest at illusionsciences.com and its absolutely awesome in the extreme to which it works, first the ball is falling straight down then suddenly its skewing sideways off at a tangent, I'm completely baffled by it - hope you all like it.

My attitude to it is that the Ideomotor effect is the method by which it works. Assume for the moment that a completely scientific explanation for the Universe exists and that spirits also exist. It would take a lot more energy to move the marker physically than it would to influence your subconscious. So yes, the movement is caused by your subconscious, but perhaps the spirits are affecting your subconscious. This would also match up with a lot of other spiritual experiences many of which use the subconscious to allow their manifestations, think spirit quests, or drumming and dancing rituals. It also would link in to Tarot reading and cold reading.

For 100k I'd do porn in front of my parents, let them look at my internets, sure, no probs, where do I sign up?

I think you need to be incredibly careful when overlaying your own cultural bias onto someone elses culture. I'm not remotely saying that they were right, I'm saying it is foolishness of the highest degree to judge. We haven't seen the evidence, newpapers ALWAYS hype a story up to the nth degree, so that they can sell their paper. Let the judge decide what he decides, THAT is what he is there for.

No, evil is necessary in order for good to exist at all. I see it as nothing more than a reference tool for comparison. To understand the concept of "hot" you must understand "cold" as well. It's all relative, so a reference tool is required. This could do with a bit of refutation actually. There are plenty of concepts which dont have opposites which we understand perfectly well. But its also I think the start of an intersting philosophical debate (at least I'd like it to be, mind you in this thread almost no subject stays as a nice intersting debate, but [garden tool], hum). There are qualities which have multiple dimensions such as colour which have no opposite, and whilst from some perspectives you can for example suggest from an rgb perspective yellow is opposite to blue, or from a paint perspective orange is opposite blue no true opposite exists, where if its not one then it must be the other (if its not honest then it must be dishonest). Colours arent polarised, if something isnt yellow then then doesnt automatically mean it is blue, and whilst from an rgb perspective it would have a blue component if a non yellow colour was being displayed on tv, in frequency terms that wouldnt be true. There are also qualities which just have singular dimensions such as mass, where there simply is only a positive amount and whilst people always talk of light and heavy objects thats always relative to zero, and in fact your own quality of temperature falls into this category, there is no such thing as cold, our perception of cold is simply because the way we are brought up drives us to create dualistic impressions of the world around us. And this brings in an important piece of information which is worth paying attention to, which I would generally state as "There is no evil, there is only good" - at the very worst there is only a complete lack of good, zero good if you will. i'll not say much more about that in this post I'll leave it up to the rest of you to discuss that proposition and give me your reactions.

Sumerian

Thats ignoring basic psychology, it takes much longer than six months for most people to grapple with a new scale, let alone 5 or 6 new scales, and your idea of leaving anyone behind who doesnt come up to your standards is pretty poor and uncompassionate. Just simply saying 'its their problem' also isnt accurate, when your economy crashes because people are taking 3 or 4 times longer to complete every job they do, its not gonna just be their problem

But just because some people label you an idiot for that belief doesnt make you an idiot. What it does is tell you a lot about which people on the forum give respect and who you should be interested in talking to, actually youve done the thread a service. Ignore those who dont give respect, treat well those who do. You may not actually believe in the FSM but as long as you take the position that you do, on a debate forum, I have to take the position that you believe it, otherwise I miss the point of what you are trying to say and the logical inconsistencies that it points out in other peoples arguments

The length of a coastline What? I can easily measure the length of a single coastline to be x length. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _coastline For example, the length of Canada's coastline is around 200,000km. Sorry that wasn't actually as stupid as it might sound at first glance, you say that canadas coatline is around 200,000km but thats only an approximation, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox EDIT sorry didnt see it had been posted earlier The smallest unit of measurement though is not the atom, theres finer substructure to levels beyond which the uncertainty priciple applies, I'd also be willing to debate that maths wasnt at all a creation of man, and that it exists independant to him, but it think thats beyond the bounds of this thread On the other hand its a good example of an infinite object in real space. it can be debated its not entirely accurate but it cant be just dismissed, if you are refuting it is real that is simply a belief

Well I kinda am going to say that, almost Cos theres going to be some people who have more conscious control than others and some people for whom the subconscious has more rein, and its probably going to be set out as a normal distribution, so about 2/3rd of people will be about average and 1/6th of people will have a great deal of conscious control and 1/6th will have little conscious control - I'm sure youve met people yourself who have little conscious control. Given a population of 53 million people in the UK that means 8.8 million will have little conscious control about 2-10% of which will suffer from severe long term depression (It could be even higher because there's a strong likelihood that depression will correlate to those with little conscious control) Even at the lowest estimate thats 180,000 people suffering from severe long term depression at the end of the bell curve with little conscious control over their lives. And a small amount of those are going to be at the extreme end of the scale with only the tinyiest amount of control over their lives.

When you disagreed with my statement I'm really confused now as to what you believe goes on in the mind now Just for clearness sake, I think that there is both a conscious and a subconscious part of the mind and sometimes one has sway and sometimes the other has sway, could you describe your own picture please?