assassin_696

Walk Among The Cobras Pt. 1 - Dan Sartain

Nice reply, care to elaborate? Like providing some evidence. Unless you're about to tell me you're actually a personal friend of the Queen and you know the in's and out's of her itinery? Parabola pretty much summed up my ideal response. The figure of 52p was acually a hazy recollection, it's actually 62p. And if you think because they live in large palaces that it's all rosy and easy for them then you're very naive. I wouldn't trade places with her really for a second.

changed the title to something more appropriate.

Did I say I was worried? :wink: :P Slightly annoyed, yes. Worried, hardly. I know the science backs me up and I have no reason to be biased. Here's a shocker guys; if evolution is wrong... I don't care. :P Science moves on, so do I and generally all scientists who don't have some sort of egotistical inferiority compex. Figure of speech :wink:

Actually the Queen has worked incredibly hard in her current position, often to the point of neglecting her own family. How many people are still working full days at 81 and will be until their death? Like I said, the rest not so much, but the Queen certainly works hard. Besides, she's really not payed that much, most of her wealth is tied up in art and other assets. It costs something like 52p for each taxpayer in the UK to support the royal family. Oh cmon, the Queen hasn't worked a day in her life. According to your figure of 52p a year thats several hundred million pounds a year that comes into for the Royal family. She is waited on hand and foot and has several palaces. Also don't tell me your idea of working is driving around waving at people, signing documents and being handed flowers all the time. My personal opinion of the Royal family is that they should be got rid of. Britain as a democracy should not be promoting a 'Royal' bloodline, sure there are flaws in the democracy but this is one that could easily be got rid of. Most of the sensible(lol) countries got rid of their monarchy centuries ago. Haha, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

And so we're back to: "God did it!"

Oh yeah because they'll really have access to that in rural Africa. (Incidentally, part of the reason AIDS is so rife in Africa is because the Catholic missions refused to spread birth control, but whatever.) In response to that report Ambassadar brought up, regardless of the results, why were people trying to suppress them anyway? Who on Earth has the right to try and change who they are? Forgive me if that was a rethorical question, but how about their parents? I mean, parents have been teaching alot of things to their children even before the bible, or written history for that matter. :-k Any parent worth their salt would be proud of and encourage their child's sexuality, whatever it was. It's parents who were ashamed of their children being homosexuals that are resposible for a lot of problems associated with it.

Warrior, Tigra, don't worry it's another one of those Creationists Claims! I'll post the relevant response here, which is absolutely true by the way Obvious when you think about it really. How ignorant, tell your Youth Group leader he needs to get some different DVDs. Every theory, ha.

Oh yeah because they'll really have access to that in rural Africa. (Incidentally, part of the reason AIDS is so rife in Africa is because the Catholic missions refused to spread birth control, but whatever.) In response to that report Ambassadar brought up, regardless of the results, why were people trying to suppress them anyway? Who on Earth has the right to try and change who they are?

Actually the Queen has worked incredibly hard in her current position, often to the point of neglecting her own family. How many people are still working full days at 81 and will be until their death? Like I said, the rest not so much, but the Queen certainly works hard. Besides, she's really not payed that much, most of her wealth is tied up in art and other assets. It costs something like 52p for each taxpayer in the UK to support the royal family.

It's been proven that morality has proven advantages for natural selection, a proven theory.

There isn't biological evidence for morality. Let me put it to you this way: How do we know that our hearing is a result of the brain? I don't know if you're perhaps referring to some metaphysical concept with that question, but I don't think you want the real scientific answer, because there is one. In reference to your first statement, i've just shown you that there is biological evidence for morality but you're either refusing to read it or refusing to accept it.

I'm sorry, but what? Did you properly read any of the links? Behaviour is governed by biology, and the years and years of research that's been done on the subject is not entirely speculative, it's based on increments of facts compiled together and complex analysis of data to produce a clearer picture of morality. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot more reliable than a concept of absolute morals given to us by an absolute power. Now that's speculation. Another point I'd like to make. I do not think that atheism is arrogant at all. I do not believe it is arrogant at all to think that something doesn't exist when there is evidence against the existence of a God. Religious people are making the claim that a God exists, therefore the burden of proof rests with them, if anything (until they can in theory prove it) they're the arrogant ones. You wouldn't call me arrogant for not believing in fairies, would you?

You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made? I'm sure. Would you please provide me with some biological evidence to show me what causes morality? I'll confess now that I am absolutely no expert on this, so i'll instead refer you to some more authoritive sources. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals - This looks to be a very good book as well, worth a read if you're interested. Again, Wikipedia Here's an interesting article on it all, with some fascinating conclusions at the end if you want to skip the bulk of it. When you think about it, morality as an evolutionary advantage absolutely makes sense.

You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made? I'm sure.

I think she's a very important and leading figurehead for the UK. I like her, she's worked incredibly hard and is a very good role model for us as a country. The rest of the royal family are all mostly wasters, but whatever.

Because we rise above that, stand for beauty and righteousness, and heckle them from a distance.

Isn't it consistent with non-theism to assume non-morality? I mean, without a God, where is your moral standard coming from? If it is coming from yourself, then you can do whatever the hell you want and still be "moral". It would be inconsistent to see humans as moral beings without an absolute standard of morality, no? Honestly, no, it's not. It's been explained but i'll explain it again; contrary to popular belief human beings as a species do not get their sense of morals from the Bible or indeed any religion. Morality is an evolutionary advantage, and in my view there isn't an absolute good or bad hanging out there somewhere to judge all our actions by. People do good things and people do bad things. Moral standards change over time, that much is clear, and what are we judging these advancing moral standards by? It certainly isn't religion. We live by the standards of the law which were laid down by (hopefully) democratically elected parties representing the views of the majority of the people. That is how we judge our moral actions. Ridiculous statement.

I love big companies with a sense of humour like that :)

Rofl :lol: And stop nesting quotes.

Happy Feet! I expected a happy feel good film about dancing penguins. What I got was an absolutely visually stunning, brilliantly voiced and animated film about dancing penguins, with an eco-message at the end. My only criticism was that for a U certificate it wasn't quite as happy as I expected, kinda. I mean, did Mumbe get with Gloria? Why did he turn her down? :( Cleverly done though, deserved the Oscar.

Nick, age 16: He's overrated.

I'm not a great fan of him. I just don't get him. If he's being all 'crazy' and eccentric in an ironic way, then I suppose t'is rather good, but if he is simply acting strange 4 laughs, then I hate him. I don't really understand his humour at all to be honest, teh man only has one set of clothes as well, and he must use enough hair spray to dent his own personal hole in teh ozone layer. A lot of people don't get him, and I didn't for a while, but since listening to his BBC Radio 2 show i've really got into him and found him brilliant.

Russell Brand or Ricky Gervais. Robin Williams is funny as hell as well.

Great lineup, decided who you're going to see yet?