warri0r45

Horsell Common. A great Aussie alt rock band.

I suppose that would be the best way to do it - come down as parallel as possible and land it like you're landing on a runway. That's what his training would have told him to do, and it might just have saved lives. :thumbup:

Sounds like they were lucky no one died. Good work to the pilot, though, and to all those in boats who came to the rescue. I could only imagine the horror any witnesses felt when watching it. You just know they would be thinking back to 9/11.

I don't see any reason to cover up such a discovery. It would probably be one of the most celebrated, publicised discoveries of the last 50 years.

Realm Of Ecstacy by Thanatos (album).

It's a very simple answer for me: the brand of Radicalism that sees people strap bombs to themselves and kill innocent people are never justified in their actions, no matter how right they think they are. We need to learn how to coexist on this planet. Mass extermination of everyone but those of your "tribe" is one of the most abhorrent things I can think of.

I don't really see any discussion value here, but yeah, that is totally disturbing.

We can't do a study though. Therefore if you ask me, theists and atheists bring up equal points and should be treated as such. Maybe you missed my post where I apologized for bringing up probabilities but I think the point still stands. Instead of nitpicking technicalities, why not look at the main point? We know nothing about this concept. Therefore saying theists can be any more correct than atheists or vice versa is just plain wrong. None of us know! Nitpicking technicalities? I think you should take note of that yourself before posting something like this: Nothing? I'm sure that's not true. If something is possible, then that shows there is a probability of over 0% for it being true. That's saying something about the probability. As for the main point, thanks for clearing it up, but I couldn't help but get mixed messages when you claimed again that they are "both as likely to be true" after saying that we can't put a probability on it. Still, the same problem remains - how can you say any one probability is the most logical without doing a study or knowing to some degree? It seems to me that you're just appealing to 50/50 being the "most logical" because it sounds the most fair. As far as I'm concerned it's an entirely illogical question, so the 50/50 loses any meaning. Are they both possible? Sure. Are they equally likely or is equal likelihood the most logical answer? No, I don't think so at all. It doesn't look like we'll agree on this point, so I'll agree to disagree.

Wow, awesome collection mate. What's your favourite of all of them, or is that too hard to pick? Ordered: Unquestionable Presence by Atheist Elements by Atheist Traced In Air by Cynic Focus by Cynic Dark Recollections by Carnage The Negation by Decapitated

Millennium by Monstrosity (album). What Corpsegrinder did before CC. Love this album lots. :thumbup:

Try Obituary. The End Complete is a good album to start with.

World Demise by Obituary (album). Riff-heavy with a distinct lack of blasts. Not exactly my tastes, and not my favourite Obituary album, yet by no means bad either.

Some threads might have little to no care-factor or relevance to given people, but all of those have some point or topic for discussion. The idea that the entire "point" of this thread is posting a cartoon and asking for discussion is ridiculous, and that's the reason why some people are questioning it and asking why it wasn't locked. Evidently, it was locked, but that's not because anyone admitted it was pointless, it was because of "popular demand". Theoretically, under this precedent, I could post any cartoon and ask for discussion right now. How about this one: [hide=] See? He wasn't a real cop. Let's discuss this.[/hide] That's exactly what I see when I read the OP. As expected, the discussion value thereafter was virtually zero. Just skim through the thread again if you don't believe me. By the way, as ginger said, I'm not asking for this to be locked, I'm just explaining why some people (myself included) questioned the thread.

I think people are eventually covering me pretty well... Death, Tool, Suffocation, Malevolent Creation, etc. I've got another one - Bon Iver with assassin_696.

Molesting the Decapitated by Devourment (album).

Good memory. :) Reminds me - I haven't listened to a Bill Hicks CD in ages. I'll have to do that soon. Anyway, I'd definitely associate you with BTBAM.

People probably know by now, but Matty Hayden retired today. He was one hell of a batsman and a great contributor to the Aussie team for over a decade.

It depends on the lyrics and band, obviously. Most metal bands would be secular or neutral, and some are even Christian or religious. The only sub-genre that seems significantly "satanic" would be black metal, and to a lesser extent death metal. A blanket statement like "metal is satanic" is just ignorant of what metal is and how rich and diverse it can be.

Well, since probability is the likeliness for something to be true, I don't see how there's any difference. There's nothing to say that one is more right than the other, so they are both as likely to be true. If something is possible, it tells me nothing of how probable it is. The sun rising tomorrow and me becoming the next Prime Minister of Australia are both possible, but they're on the opposite end of the scale as far as probability goes. It should be pretty simple to see that possibility and probability are fundamentally different concepts. And again we come back to the same point about 50/50. Ok. Have you ever done any statistics/probability at school? I'll try this one last time with another example. If there were two possible outcomes to shooting a target (hit or miss), would you say the probability of each is 0.5 before doing a study? No, of course you wouldn't. There are too many unknowns to determine the probability - the skill of the marksman, the size of the target, the range from the target, etc. Similarly, with the existence of god there is far too much we don't know or can't control. Back to the example, even if we knew about all of these variables and gave it our best guess, it would still be just that - a guess. You first need to have some hits and misses, and then you can assess the probability. For example, you might get 750 hits and 250 misses. With a sample size of 1000, we can be reasonably confident that the probability of hits and misses is 0.75 and 0.25, respectively. Again, there was no possible way to tell this probability before experiencing the events and there is no such thing as a default 50/50. That concept doesn't exist. What makes you think 50/50 is the default for the existence of god? Where do you even get 50/50 from in the first place? Did you look at a number of different realities and find that 50% have god in them? Of course you didn't, so saying there's a 50/50 chance means nothing.

Can't say I do, but after a while you get to know what kind of music people like.

Middle aged men dying of heart disease because they're morbidly obese certainly isn't unheard of. I think it was a smart decision on the whole.

Haha, always implied but never stated... I had the feeling that you guys like equating atheists and theists in that way. Psychologically, I can understand why - if there is no proof for or against, you want to be seen on equal footing with disbelievers in the rationality stakes. As for the definition of atheism, notice that it's defined as both the belief that god doesn't exist and the lack of belief in god. Both are valid definitions: the former is sometimes called "strong" atheism, while the latter is called "weak" atheism. The former assumes, the latter doesn't.

My paragraph has no connection with your statement about agnosticism not being a 50/50? Oh and I know very well that agnosticism implies no knowledge of the subject, hence the extremely fair fence-sit. I don't think you're getting my point. I know that we have no knowledge of God. I know that we can't come up with an exact or even a remotely close percentage. But based off what we know, which is nothing, I think it's fair to assume theists can be just as right as atheists are. Perhaps I was wrong to bring up the term 'probabilities', but my point is that atheism is making an assumption based off of absolutely nothing just like theism is. This is why I brought up the 50/50. It's the most accurate answer, from what we know (nothing). I foresee someone flinging the burden of proof now... So in advance: God =/= Fairies (God is more of a universal concept. Fairies are something that we know we formulated just out of our own imaginations.) I'm never going to agree with you so long as you keep using 50/50, because that's a probability. Speaking about this question in terms of probabilities and statistics, even if it's something as informal an "50/50", makes no sense. Having said that, I think I see what you're saying. With the bold, you say it's fair to assume either can be right, but that's not talking about probabilities, that's a statement of possibility. In other words, you're saying there is a possibility that either is right, and there's nothing to say that one is more right than the other. I'd agree with that. Just as an aside, atheism doesn't assume anything. It's a lack of belief, not a positive belief or assumption.

Haha, I read the first two paragraphs and my first thought was "the onion". I only had to look up at the url and sure enough..

That doesn't make sense. If there are two possible outcomes (God exists, God doesn't exist), and you have no evidence for either side (no proof for or against him) then wouldn't the standard probability already be at 50/50 from what we can tell? I don't see how 100/2 can equal anything else. I look at it the same as asking someone out. They can either say yes or no, so the most accurate probability would be 50/50. Of course there are factors that should contribute to the probability (your attractiveness, deliverance, personalities clicking) but from what you know, there's no way to tell how those factors would effect the probability. It just seems like 50/50 is the most logical answer out of any other set of probabilities from what we know (we know nothing therefore we don't have any factors to alter that 50/50). A probability isn't 50/50 by default, and the fact that there are two options doesn't change that. We have no knowledge of the probability, and in statistics there is no such thing as a "standard probability" of 50/50 for something which we have no knowledge of. Again, we can only assess the probability of something after we have some experience of it. To use a different example with two possible outcomes, you may want to assess the probability of people choosing one of two brands of milk. It would make no sense to say that the probability is 50/50 before you've even done your study. You didn't really respond to what you quoted, either. You don't really seem to know what agnosticism is.