assassin_696

I love Heroes too, I had a great summer holiday watching it through. :)

Wait, can these include card games involve alcohol?

At least they didn't take the drivers points away, there's still enough drama there for anybody.

Yeah, well since this topic is a bit old for relevant discussion, I may as well lock this.

Apparently they had something like 20 million applications for tickets. Wow... But, I think it'd be a waste of money. It would have been fantastic to see them in their day, but I think it's probably mainly older men who'll be reminiscing about them in their day. You could probably have a better time at a gig of a new band for a fraction of the price.

3 sets of about 10-12 crunches or 18-20 pushups a day is absolutely fine if you're not lifting as well. I still try and do crunches daily though, simply because the abs are a hard muscle to train so hard that they need days to recover. It's possible, but hurts like hell.

I'll second that. I debate with religious people so often not because I hate them, but because I just enjoy it, I find it interesting to see different perspectives and opinions, even though I might vehemently disagree with them. Oh, and Paperclips is the win :lol:

There's no need to make a whole new thread to simply make a potentially invalid refutation against a guide. Locked.

Christian doctrine explicity states that children should be raised in a Christian environment, it's part of Jesus' message. Since children are too young to weigh up the facts objectively if you tell them that in The Bible it says that the world was created in 6 days they'll believe it. Your right, God and science are not mutually exclusive, but Christians don't just believe in a higher power do they? It's hard to outline explicitly what it would involve, but I think I would let my child come to her own decisions about fairly deep philosophical questions such as the existence of God when she was old enough to weigh up all the arguments for and against. So we should all lie and pretend that fiction is true for the sake of short term happiness? I'm all for the magic of Christmas for children, but to pretend that LOTR for example is anything other than a work of fiction is plain dishonesty and will be more damaging to the child when they find out that it's not real. I wasn't particularly traumatised when I found out Santa wasn't real, none of my friends were either. Oh really? So when you read the Bible to children, or tell children to read the Bible, and they read the rather horrifying passages about the threat of hell that isn't damaging? The effects of Christianity extend far beyond what the Bible explicity tells people to do, reading the Bible is supposed to be an important part of being a Christian, but some of it rivals works of horror. And I thought that I had shown that saying children are born with sin due to past actions of other people over which they had no control is illogical and another 'bad' feature of Christianity. How generous of him, but he would still seek to use a child as an instrument to test the faith of an unrelated person? Besides, it was an angel who stayed his hand, acting on God's orders probably, but nonetheless, it seems odd. Fair enough. But he was prepared to because God asked him, Abraham's intent remains, which God could presumably have worked out anyway. Yes, supposedly Sarah's conception was a miraculous gift from God, and since God knew how much Abraham loved his son, the act was a perfect test of faith, except that the child had no say in the matter, and was merely used as a tool by both parties. Think about it, if the same situation happened today, a father sacrificed his son because God told him to (I'm not saying he did, but let's use the same motivation), would you say that's okay? That's true enough, but isn't it the same God? Fair enough. Although interestingly at a slight tangent (your point is still valid), God approves of human sacrifice several times in the OT, but never explicity rebukes them in the NT. I never said it was doctored by a single author at the same time. The point was that presumbably the crucifiction of Jesus was part of God's plan, and hence the Jews involvment was necessary, yet the Vatican still blamed them directly up until recently. But it still happens because children are told to read the Bible, and because parents feel obliged to tell their children of the consequences of sinning for their own sake. Which is fine, when Christ's forgiveness is the only message of the NT, but when you get conflicting passages and messages it's not so clear. I don't think people feeling guilt for sinning is part of Christian principles either, but it's an inevitable consequence, you can't deny that when you place such a grave weight on sinning (which the Bible does) then you're going to get such feelings of guilt.

Moved to Tech & Computers :)

It's funny, i've played sport at school pretty much all my life but i've never showered naked with a bunch of guys, the school policy is we all wear our swimming trunks. I guess it's because at a younger age a teacher is often in the changing room to supervise, and it's probably easier for them, but it'd be weird I guess to start now. To be honest I probably wouldn't care, but I wouldn't really do it unless I had to. As for the gym, there are individual cubicles, so again never had that problem.

QF smegging T Have you not got better things to do than to hijack some man's mundane life in getting you on time to school for your worthless education? I'll ditto that. I mean sheesh it might be funny, like once, for a quick laugh or something, but how can selfish can you get? You don't like his choice in music so you're just going to change it to what you want and he has to go along with that, right? Think about how that sounds. Besides, those things can only broadcast on empty frequencies, probably wouldn't work.

1. Not all Christians believe in 6-day-creation. 2. Calling Christianity a fairy tale makes it easy to refute since you're already assuming that it is invalid. This is called circular reasoning. 1. True, but even those who don't present it to their children as fact. My parents are not Biblical fundamentalists by any means, they're not even that Christian, but when I was young I was told that the world was created in 6 days by God. It's a story which is told with a surprising degree of conviction given the fact that most of the adults who are telling it might not even believe it themselves. But your point has little consolation towards the children of any Christian parents or any kind of faith, who, like me were brought up believing the creation story literally. 2. I didn't call Christianity a fairy tale, I called most of the creation stories of the various religions fairy tales, which when you examine them they are. Read about the Hindu creation story, sounds pretty far fetched, but it arose with the same intentions as the Christian version, to try and explain what we could not know at the time. To take it as historical fact nowadays when we know better is like basing all your scientific knowledge on Aristotle. 1. You're assuming that God and science are mutually exclusive, which they are not. This has been reiterated on so many threads, so many times I'm surprised someone like you would still attempt that this argument. 2. You're leaving out those who become Christians later on in life. How does your idea of child imprinting work here? 1. Biblical literalism and science are mutually exlusive. You cannot believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in 6 days and the scientific version. They just don't fit. 2. Thankfully it doesn't, they come to Christianity for their own reasons, often in times of need and when they feel like they need some kind of support. Clearly you don't have to be indoctrinated into a religion to believe in it, but i'm willing to be that if you raised one generation of children in a neutral, objective manner you wouldn't get them growing up thinking of the existence of God or validity of the Bible as obvious. So I guess you won't be telling your children about Santa Claus then? You will always tell your children 100% truth? Why do you get to choose which lies children believe are moral and which aren't? Guess you'd better throw out fairy tales or fiction novels. Or at the very least, tell your children before you read them any story that it didn't actually happen. That would be consistent. I'll probably tell my kids about Santa Claus, it's a harmless myth, I don't think you get kids growing up terrified of the consequences of the existence of Santa Claus, or somehow secure in the knowledge that Santa Claus is an absolute and obvious truth. Ditto to fairy tales and fiction novels, you didn't really read fiction thinking that somewhere out there it was happening did you? Do you think knowing that it's fiction that takes away any of the enjoyment? That's a logically impossible standpoint to argue from, sure if the Christian God exists he could do whatever he wants, he could have placed all this scientific evidence here to try and test our faith, he could have sent me here to test your faith as well, but since there's no evidence of that either we have to start from a rational explanation, or at least assume a rational God. 1. What is this incredibly "objective" view from which you look at this story? 2. What does this isolated event have to do with Christian doctrine? 1. You mean like actually thinking about how God was asking a man to kill an innocent child for the sins of the man? Doesn't that disgust you? 2. Quite a lot, when it's held up a shining example of the virtues of faith in God. 1. What crimes? 2. We're assuming God exists since this is a discussion about Christianity. That makes all creation belong to God. That means God can take life, just as he gives it. From a Christian perspective, no person is innocent, either. We are all sinful and deserving of death. Since Abraham is acting for God, it is not murder. 1. His own sins. 2. We are all deserving of death? How tragic, how self-deprecating that you should submit your precious life to the whim of an apparently fickle creator. If God is omnipotent, and omniscient why place the child in the world in the first place if he knew Abraham would have to kill it? And why on Earth should he get the father of the child to do his own dirty work? It doesn't make any sense that God should have put a child in the world for the sake of testing the faith of Abraham. Trying to back-justify murder by saying it's an act of God sounds dangerously close to immorality. This is offensive and circular in logic. Why is it offensive? It's unspecified how God communicated to Abraham, he'd previously communicated in dreams (in his head), little more is said. It's more than likely that this communication takes a similar form of a voice in his head, I didn't say who's it was. Some Christians rape children. What does this have to do with Christianity? Does the Bible tell Christians to rape Children? No (although he condones it numerous times), does God approve of animal sacrifice? Yes. Some passages also indicate he approves of human sacrifice. Impress humans? Give me a break. This is a joke, right? You wish. The Disciples were Jesus' best friends. They did not try to stop it. And therefore they did the right thing? So if your best friend was being tortured, and put on some kind of a vicious show-trial you wouldn't try and stop it? I know this was an aside to try and insult Christianity one step further, but I honestly think contradictions are proof that the Gospels were not a doctored story. It wasn't an aside at all, I was pointing out that there are numerous contradictions in the telling of this particular story. How do contradictions give the Bible any more authority? Funny, I thought the Bible stated that we had to accept the fact that we are sinners and that Christ died for us. But of course, your Bible knowledge is obviously greater than mine. I'll ignore the unnecessary snide remark at the end, but by accepting that Christ died for us and that we are sinners then we are ultimately responsible for what I said. Our sin is deemed original, and unescapable. If you're saying that we're born sinners, why? Because of the original sin of Adam? And so therefore we're responsible, and my point still stands. I believe I posted about this earlier. Did you miss it? Possibly, I haven't read through the entire topic. None of this makes any sense at all. Sorry, maybe you can explain it better, but this seems to be some crackpot theory you dreamt up on the spot. I wish it was. The sad truth is that the charge of deicide was only recently dropped by the Vatican, look it up. This isn't Christianity. Hell isn't part of Christianity? The last part maybe, but the first is still relevant. This isn't Christianity either. We are not told to be flippant with our lives. You might not be told to, but the promise of an afterlife can lead people to be so. I've addressed it in a previous post. The Law was established to realize how much we cannot do, and to point us to God - what really saves us is not the Law, but the dependence on God that comes from a failed attempt at observing the Law. I guess what you're suggesting is that if a Law cannot always be followed it, to just abolish it? I disagree with that notion. So do I, but by commanding people to do something which they cannot hope so achieve with the threat of hell if they don't I do disagree with. That train of events is a slippery slope and, just untrue. Based on who's experience? Calling something untrue without evidence isn't much of a refutation, there's clear psychological evidence of people feeling immense guilt most of their lives for "sinning". And if you don't believe the second then look no further then certain pastors or preachers who do indeed violently denounce other sinners. This is nothing but a anger-filled hate-fest against all religion. There's nothing to even respond to here. Your post has degraded, and thus I disgress. Maybe I"ll respond to the rest later on. A hate filled anger-fest? No, this is fact. The above is all true, uncomfortable as it may be. If you want to call an expression of the sad truths and facts a degredation of my post then so be it, but there is little bias in what I just said, it's just presenting it in a different light to the status quo.

Okay guys, let's just leave this one and keep vaguely on topic.

If your ankle had been actually broken, instead of just sprained it would not have miraculously healed, that's a fact. In fact i'd be willing to bet all the money in my bank account that if you'd broken your leg he could not have healed it.

I'll expand on those points I mentioned earlier. 1. Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous. Fairly self-explanatory, but i'm sure we all know that as a child you're likely to believe in non-truths which a lot of people grow up to reject. Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy etc. Telling children that God made the world in 6 days in a particular order is just a such a fairy-tale. The only reason children brought up in a Christian environment often carry on accepting it well into their adult-hood is because it's so well imprinted on kids at an early age. If you told a rational 18 year old adult who's well versed in the scientific big-bang model and evolution, the creation story would sound silly, childlike. The same applies to me when I learnt about for example the Hindu or Sikh creation stories. They sound absurd, but in reality why are they any more absurd than the Biblical creation story? What gives either any more validity than the other? The religious creation stories are little more than folk myths passed down the generations, and to present them as fact to children who are too young to know otherwise is unfair and manipulative. 2. The doctrine of blood sacrifice. There is one example of blood sacrfice which stands out as particularly awful to me. Abraham's wilingness to sacrifice his only son is a story common to all three monotheisms, and for some reason was always held up to me when I was a child as an example of perfect faith in God. If you step back and look at this story objectively, it's actually pretty repulsive. This story is held up as an example of what? God's mercifullness? God's testing nature? God's secret passion for blood sacrifice? Naturally, Abraham was praised from the clouds above for showing his willingness to murder an innocent child for his own crimes because a voice in his head told him to. Some Christians do indeed still practice ritualised animal slaughter to celebrate Easter. 3. The doctrine of atonement. The idea of vicarious atonement troubled even C.S. Lewis. Again, in the Christian doctrine we have a father subjecting his own son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress God. He is God, and is trying to impress humans. Ask yourself, if you were told the following what would you think? 2000 years ago a human sacrifice took place against your wishing and under circumstanes so horrible and vicious that if you had been around at the time and able to, you most likely would have tried to stop it. In consequence of this murder your sins are forgiven and you may hope to enjoy everlasting life. But, ignoring all the contradictions between the tellers of said story, let's assume it's basically true. It goes on, in order to actually gain the benefit of this generous offer you have to accept that you are in someway responsible for the flogging, torture and crucifixtion in which you had no say and no part. And everytime you decline this responsibility or sin in word or deed you intensifying the agony of it. You're also required to believe that the agony was actually necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which you also had no part, the 'sin' of Adam (the thirst for knowledge, how dreadful). Of course, if you really think about the original sin of Adam he was created by God with an insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to exercise it. Therefore, your own guilt in the matter is deemed original and inescapable. Of course, God generously gave us free will to allow us to refuse this offer, but should you exercise this choice you face an eternity of torture. A central tennent on Christianity, Jesus dying for "our sins" is in fact a shallow charade, Jesus both needed and wished to die and came to Jerusalem at Passover in order to do so, and all who took part in this murder were actually doing God's will. There is also a passage in one of the Gospel's that the Jews who condemned Jesus asked for his blood to be on their heads for future generations. Odd as it seems, this is then what lead the Vatican to maitain their it was the Jews who had killed Christ, not just some or a few, but the Jews. The charge of deicide was only recently dropped by the Vatican. Jesus dying for "our sins" is scapegoating, plain and simple, the offer of offloading our sins onto someone else is supposed to be loving, but in reality it's just not right. 4. The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment. False hope and children terrified of hell. Need I say more? I suppose I will. What else could drive a suicide bomber to blow themselves up except for the absolute conviction that there will be an afterlife with 72 virgins waiting for them. What else but the idea of pearly gates could lead people to be so flippant with this life, treating it like a temporary state, a borrowed body? As for eternal punishment, that's fairly self explanatory, and i'll elaborate more on it in the next point. 5. The imposition of impossible tasks and rules. The commandment at Sinai which forbade people to even think about coveting goods is the first clue. There's also a passage in the NT from Jesus saying that a man who even looks at a woman in the wrong way has committed adultery, as well as the Christian (now no longer used) and Muslim prohibition on charging interest on money. All these try and place restraints on basic human initiative and instinct (which God made in the first place). They are in effect, thought crimes. This leads to two possible things, eternal guilt and feelings of sin about 'impure' thoughts. These in turn lead to hysterical confessions, false promises of improvement and loud and often violent denunciations of other 'sinners'. The other possibilty is that a large enough donation to the right religious authority and cleanse you of your sins. Or, you can bend the rules, the Dalai Lama tells us that you can visit a prostitute as long as someone else pays her, Shia Muslims offer a temporary marriage selling men the permission to take a woman as his wife for an hour or two with all the usual vows then divorce her straight afterwards. St. Peter's was financed by a similar arrangement. Even some of the ordinarily cherished rules when examined under close scrutiny show elements of this impossibility. "Love thy neighbour", noble as it seems is mild and yet stern, a commandment of one's duty. But to love your neighbour as yourself is too extreme and strenuous to be obeyed, it is nearly impossible for humans to love all other people like themselves, we're not programmed that way. To find someone who you even truly love is rare enough. Love your enemy is by definition, impossible, and even dangerously immoral. You can choose to be altruistic and generous, but you cannot be compelled into it. We are simply not hardwired to be that way, we cannot be compelled into loving those who have done wrong. Perhaps to strive towards it, to strive towards doing no harm is a noble effort, but to be threatened with eternal torture and hell if we don't try and do this is just morally reprehensible.

Odd, since conventional karate doesn't even teach you how to deal with guns. Brave kids I guess.

For god's sake don't just work on your upper body. But for upper body workouts, focus on pectoral chest muscles, delts (shoulders), traps (more shoulders) and your upper and lower back as well as your abdominals. For your pectorals (assuming you do free weights where possible) do: Dumbell press Incline dumbell press Dumbell flys For your delts and back do: Side raises Front raises Bent-over side raises For your back do: Lateral pulldowns Widegrip pullups Upright rows For your traps do: Shrugs Dumbell shoulder presses And for your abs do weighted crunches, preferably using a swiss-ball. For all these exercises make sure your form is near to perfect, and then work out what weights you can use. After a thorough warmup, try and do 8 reps at 80% of your weight, 6 reps at 90% and 4 at 100% for muscle building. So for example if you're doing dumbell presses do 8 reps at 18kg, 6 reps at 20kg and 4 reps at 22kg. Or something like that, you get the idea. For anymore info see http://www.bodybuilding.com

Thanks a lot, but this is why the sticky was created. Locked

What Christianity is about almost entirely depends on which particular denomination you subscribe to. I'm sure I don't have to talk about the different ways of interpretating the Bible, none of them is anymore vaild than any other. I think one thing common to every denomination of Christianity though is the idea of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without that, it's largely nothing. Whether or not Jesus even existed is another matter. The problems within Christianity arise largely because the Bible taken at face value makes numerous glaring contradictions. In one passage Jesus is a mild, peaceful human rights advocate, and in the next he's ranting about eternal fire and doom for all those who reject him. I won't turn this into an argumentative thread, but a lot of atheists get stick from Christians for supposedly thinking all Christians are fundamentalists. I know the difference between a liberal and fundamentalist Christian, and I don't have anything against either per se, but I think that there are more deep seated foundations of Christianity which are common to all denominations no matter how you twist it, which are "not right". Namely: Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent mind. The doctrine of blood sacrifice. The doctrine of atonement. The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment. The imposition of impossible tasks and rules. These are not features that just belong to one denomination, they are central tennants of Christianity, but they are in my view, deeply wrong.

From the scientific viewpoint... Pros: Hopefully at some point a unified field theory of everything will finally be developed. A complete theory of consciousness might be developed. Stem cell research will be implemented to easily facilitate organ transplants. A cure for cancer? Transport will become more efficient and less polluting. Nanotechnology will be developed and implemented, radically changing the world of manufacturing. Commercial nuclear fusion will be developed. Cons: As medical science gets better, more people live longer, the world's population increases and places a further strain on resources. The effects of global warming will inevitably be felt, no matter how green we try and become. New diseases develop, evolved to be immune to nearly all current medical treatment, they spread rapidly across the global network.

Theme From "Sparta FC 2" - The Fall John Peel's favourite band :)

At an all boys school? Yeah, right. :P

Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Parts I-V I'm actually trying to determine if I can tell the difference between different bit-rates of music, my music takes up a lot of space and it would be nice if I could cut some of that down. So far I can't tell the difference at all between a 320kb/s and 192ks/s VBR identical track using a few different headphones.