warri0r45

I'm a Bill Hicksist: :lol:

I wouldn't feel comfortable acting like anyone I'm not. I do whatever is true to me.

Arrrgghhh!! I remember getting mine over the net last year. Got a modest OP 8 (using the OP system for Queensland - 1 is freaking genious and 26 means you have the achievment aspirations of a corpse). So yeah, I got what I needed to do the uni course I wanted, which I'm starting year 2 of next Feb I think. Best of luck to anyone getting their HSC's/OP's or whatever else they call them.

Damn, grats, that's some committed study. Anyway the only time I can remember cheating was in highschool maths. It was lured into temptation because -- (a) I suck(ed) at maths and; (B) our calculators have a programmable thingy where you can save equations etc. Other than that, not really a cheater. I prefer to actually know what it is I'm being studied on because you soon learn it all flows into what you're doing next semester/year etc. Very important thing to realise for those of you still in school and looking to go to uni, trust me, study now and it'll be worth your while. It always helps if your lecturers are too lazy to make up new questions for a test and just use some they put on revision sheets. :-w

Music in general has inspired me to become a guitarist. 6 years running.

I don't know whether making alcohol cheaper would lower binge drinking. I think there's a cultural aspect to this - the Italy example was pretty striking. I mean, if you have parents that gradually bring you onto the drink and educate you and everyone else's parents do the same then the entire society is likely to go some way to being like Italy.

Hey? Then what would you call the increasingly secular countries such as Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, France, etc? Are they just some freakish anomalies to you? They at least prove diminishing religiosity does not turn a society to crap. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d hardly see how unity into these secluded tribes called ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâreligionsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ and tribal wars between them over the centuries and still today could be called unity. To me, exclusive unity is not unity. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a crock. If you want some tired old examples, you neednÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t look further than the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, modern day Islamic jihadists who want to kill the infidels and return the world to their state of Islam, Catholic-Pretestant terrorism in Northern Ireland, etc. Damn, you make us sound so unevolved both biologically and culturally. As above, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need a religious book to make us moral beings. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s interesting that someone can read through the bible, put their finger on the passage ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâdo unto others as youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d have them do unto youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ and say good while a quick read of Leviticus ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ killing disrespectful kids, stoning wizards to death, killing gays, stoning blasphemers to death and burning [bleep] in fire and we say bad. So what should that tell you? That we as human have a moral sense and a holy book as an absolute source of morality is irrelevant. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know about you, but I think thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a good thing. Imagine if we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think Leviticus was a moral atrocity and we took this command by Jesus seriously (Matthew 5): 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. The only people you need guidelines from are your parents. You are so wrong there. Atheists donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in divine retribution. I think your views of why people are moral are skewed. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t act ethically because of divine retribution, I do so because I rather a peaceful coexistence with my fellow man. I can argue this is biologically instilled if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d like, however that pesky old tribalism in the form of religion these days isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t helping humanity much. By the way perhaps you should differentiate between how you define ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâreligionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ and organized religion.

I wish we got snow where I live. Kind of impossible, though.

Its far from a clear line to draw. Its got a heartbeat the fetus is a living creature. Its killing, abortion (literally its killing) and therefore you could say its 'murder.' Preventing the birth of a child by using a condom doesn't create a living creature with a brain and heartbeat, which then you don't have to kill. Unless a child is born from rape, I see an abortion as definitely a wrong thing to do, no matter how old the child (or fetus) is. (note that I trail off towards the end so not all of this is necessarily responding to you, eels) Just curious, would you see killing a fertilized egg as murder? The point is you may see drawing the line in a grey area as kind of nuts but to someone like me, seeing a zygote as a human being with the same rights as a full grown adult would be likewise nuts. I've seen a logical justification for the position of 'conception afterwards is murder because it's a person' yet for me a prime candidate for being a person would be some form of brain function. And yes, people in comas, the mentally handicapped and the unconscious all have brain function. If your EEG (electroencephalogram) reading flatlines, you are legally dead. But then there's that grey area. It's a difficult issue, no doubt. For me, the earlier in the pregnancy and the less often, the better (and using it as another form of contraception is just a weak attitude). I personally don't think dictating to a woman that she's morally obliged to carry her child to birth is the way to deal with the issue. As I've said in the above post, I'd be looking at something more pragmatic and useful like contraception. But as a matter of principle, I've got nothing really against pro-lifers. I just think the whole dogma bashing side of it is a really pathetic way to go and actually plays against them if your aim is to actually limit abortion rates. Like I say, the attitude of some catholics against abortion and condoms is just nuts to me. Likewise, the attitude of some pro-lifers dead against abortion being legal neglects the fact that illegality is not correlated with abortion rate and it overshadows something more likely to help the problem. Both cases of particular dogmas neglecting what I'd consider very important issues. But then I've got my own personal dogma or lack of opposition (or lack of compassion, to some people) to abortion on a whole. When running a government and forming a law, it's my opinion that neither mine nor a pro-lifers attitudes towards the issue should be taken and the other neglected. Overall, to me data and studies should be the focus of policy making, but that's secondary to some as to whatever moral position you happen to take on the issue.

Wow.. old thread. Anyway I'm not against it. It's never moved me to uptake the pro-life position. The interesting thing aside from the moral issues involved is that making it illegal will not stop it from occuring. Far from it, actually. Contraception seems to be the best way to stop it. http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/200 ... ate.91.pdf Key stats and observations: 42 million abortions occured worldwide in 2003 down from 46 million in 1995. 6.6 million of these occured in developed countries while 35 million occured in developing countries, the biggest decline of the two was from developed countries (down from 10 million in 1995 while developing countries are only down from 35.5 million in 1995). Abortion rate in 2003 was 29 per 1000 (for women ages 15-44 years) down from 35 per 1000 in 1995. Abortion rates in developed countries where abortion is predominantly safe (6.1 of the 6.6 million abortions are safe) were 26 per 1000 in 2003, below the world average. Abortion rates in developing countries where abortion is mostly unsafe (19.2 of the 35 million abortions are unsafe) were 29 per 1000 in 2003, at the world average. The sharpest decline in abortion rates worldwide from 1995 to 2003 was in eastern Europe where it lowered from 90 per 1000 to 44 per 1000. Almost half of all abortions in 2003 were unsafe (19.7 million from 41.6 million). Speaks for itself really - blindly bashing dogma and protesting for illegality isn't the way to go, no matter whose ideology it is. It's really.. interesting the attitude of some catholics on this issue - against abortion vehemently yet also against condoms? :-k

I realise how middle eastern does not mean Muslim and yeah, guilty as charged by quoting BlueLancer talking about middle easterners and then going on to talk about Muslims myself but I thought it might have been of some relevance. I just think that people who assume you are Muslim and treat you how they percieve Muslims based on your appearance (which is pretty much how it happens in Aus and how it seems you've been treated) is the epitome of ignorance, full stop. I don't really know how else you could look at the issue. It's not your fault that they don't know that you're not a Muslim and it's not your fault that they may very well misrepresent a Muslim with their perceptions of Muslims in general. It's their problem and they run the risk of being wrong by not getting to know the person behind the appearance or the person behind the faith, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, it happens a bit in Australia too, although probably not as much as in the U.S. or UK. I'd say it's wholly born out by ignorance. You see some instances in the media of ignorant fools thinking that Muslims are shady terrorists or something. I mean, you get some people who say things like 'yes, we just want them to integrate into our culture' yet then they protest whenever a Mosque is proposed for their residential area. Can't have it both ways. I suppose Muslim-Anglo relations aren't helped by people like Sheik Taj El-Din Hilaly, former Sheik of Australian Muslims. The guy was a walking headline - he basically blamed scantily clad women for getting raped becuse it's like showing uncovered meat to dogs and saying Muslims had more rights to be in Australia because the Anglo descendants of this place came here as convicts. Add some Holocaust denial and calling Israel a cancer and yeah... you get the picture. Anyway he's no longer Sheik so I suppose that's a plus.

Yeah, best comics ever... :uhh: Some of these are so freaking stupid as to be funny solely because of how stupid they are. Link

I want the 4 seconds of my life back please.

I think this topic (namely the recent discussion about alcohol) needs some studies and stats: From these stats and the fact that these studies regard uni student alcohol consumption which is suggested to be more vigorous than the average person, I'd have to say most people don't excede sensible drinking levels in the UK. Source: http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... -ETAL-2000 10% + 20% = 30% therefore at least (perhaps some of these people could have long and short term risk with their drinking) 70% of Aussies (note the general population, not uni students this time) don't drink at levels that are considered harmful long or short term. source: http://www.aihw.gov.au/riskfactors/alcohol.cfm Australian Gov't See the graph also. In 2004, roughly 5% of drinkers were heavy drinkers and 15% binge drinkers. I'd have to say at this point Schmoozle bought into the media hype. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/index.htm CDC, U.S Gov't Younger people - the more likely to break reccomended drinking levels - had 48% men and 39% of women break those reccomendations for moderate drinking levels. Source: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-dat ... gland-2006 Department of Health, UK Gov't Most people would be moderate drinkers.

Yeah, right. Climate change is something that has occured throughout the life of our planet. There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. One of the main reasons for climate change is the way the earth moves around the sun. Around every 20,000 years the earth moves from a circular to an oval orbit causing longer winters and colder temperatures. During an Ice Age sea levels drop dramatically as the thickness of ice caps and ice sheets increase. The extra 'white' of snow and ice causes more radiation and heat to be reflected, resulting in a vicious cycle of decreasing temperature. When Mount St. Helens erupted it released more carbon monoxide than the human race has produced in its time on the planet. Conservation is important because of the need to conserve resources, decrease pollution, and protect rainforests etc, not to prevent climate change, which is utterly inevitable. GF Al Gore.

From verses like those you presented, BlueLancer, I suppose the question is would these religions have spread the way they did if these verses weren't present in their holy books? Did they give the believers of old (and Muslim extremists of now) credence to do the horrific things they did/do? I think that's an obvious yes. Thank god the social Zeitgeist has moved on from past times and people can actually look at their holy books (for the most part) and realise stoning the unbelievers or killing your disobediant children isn't acceptable any more, because the holy books sure as hell aint' gonna change.

What do you mean? It's complicated, but here's an example. To a Christian, Yahweh is "real." To a Muslim, Allah is "real." To an atheist, the lack of a god is just as "real" as the existence of a god is as "real" to a theist. Out of the 28 or so pages of this thread, this would be the only one I can rememebr that really attmepts to answer the question of the thread directly... I think I understand, but of course not everyone's 'reality' is true. Case in point is that two monotheisms existing can't be true. Everyone has their own perception (which they consider 'real') of god, but only one can be true, if theism is true.

3:18 -> Headbang = win. Pretty cool. =D> Oh and your rhythm guitarist plays with a similar posture to me. Haha. I'm a bit of a 'high pants harry' when playing guitar.

I've already got eveything I want... Although I might treat myself to a new phone with a radio in it. My old one got caught on a door knob (the headphones, that is) and broke. It's an old phone and the screen and camera are basically buggered so I figure I'll go a new one.

Yeah, it would by no means be accurate but the accuracy of the human genome is getting way better and the technology getting cheaper because genomics is just booming right now. I'd suspect in the future it shouldn't be too much of a chore to sequence our entire genome with a pin [puncture] to the finger tip and a computer. I'd be with you on the eugenics issue. If it did come in I'd just draw the line at using it for disease and nothing else. It's a bit of a difficult issue because it's prone to abuse and attracts elitists, racists and classists.

Yes. I'd be greatly interested to see what my genes say about what diseases I might get. I think I'd do it more for the interest factor because genetics is part of what I study at uni.

We have the baby bonus to add to our growing economy. A restriction on the bonus would halter that plan and would probably be pretty significant for where Australia is currently heading and how we're growing both population wise and economy wise.

:shame: Yeah, sounds fishy, but I was more talking about the concerns with getting cancer.

Great minds think alike - I'm already reading through some biology texts like novels haha. :wink: Hopefully it helps me with something next year.