brb joining this church
-
Kyle Hewitt
- something more funny
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: 31 Jul 2005 11:06
-
Zeb Jackson
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2783
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005 12:57
- Location: Boise,Idaho, USA
so wait... if they hate America....why do they live in America??
-Zeb Jackson
http://www.elitefootbag.com
http://www.elitefootbag.com
-
PegLegHolly
- Swashbuckler
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006 17:43
- Location: Cleveland, OH
- Contact:
-
Kyle Hewitt
- something more funny
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: 31 Jul 2005 11:06
Great show because this "church" hits almost all points and areas of why religion on the whole isn't a good idea.. The shit just needs to be phased out.
It's also funny that she said just because Louie said something doesn't make it true. It's as if she can't see the direct hypocrisy. A man told a man that a man being born was god himself and when that man said something it makes it true. Huh?
It's also funny that she said just because Louie said something doesn't make it true. It's as if she can't see the direct hypocrisy. A man told a man that a man being born was god himself and when that man said something it makes it true. Huh?
James Randall
Yeah agreed. It's easy to target the fringe radical religious groups that only a few people follow, but the question people should ask is what makes the fringe groups different to more mainstream religions? The only real difference is the number of people who follow the teachings. All religions believe things because of "faith" instead of evidence - indeed that's the definition of "faith." If people understood logic and reasoning, and understood how easy it is to be wrong about things then churches like this couldn't exist because having "faith" would be considered a bad thing, rather than a good thing.
The only thing that makes these people seem crazy is having beliefs that not many people have. However their beliefs have as much evidence supporting them as any religious belief. If we took a completely objective view we'd have to accept that they're just as likely to be right about the nature of the world as any other religion and they are just as crazy as the people following any other religion.
The only thing that makes these people seem crazy is having beliefs that not many people have. However their beliefs have as much evidence supporting them as any religious belief. If we took a completely objective view we'd have to accept that they're just as likely to be right about the nature of the world as any other religion and they are just as crazy as the people following any other religion.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Uh naw.the question people should ask is what makes the fringe groups different to more mainstream religions? The only real difference is the number of people who follow the teachings.
Haha naw. A lot more things go in to making these people seem crazy. For instance their mutual insanityThe only thing that makes these people seem crazy is having beliefs that not many people have.
The book they claim as the word of God doesn't even back them up... Once again naw. Any theologian amatuer or not could rip these guys apart.However their beliefs have as much evidence supporting them as any religious belief
It could be worse, you could be joining a fringe political group like this one.
http://www.secular.org.au
fake edit: lol
http://www.secular.org.au
fake edit: lol
It's the political equivalent of the holy trinity paradox.We believe in:
Equal opportunity for all children
Universal secular education
Compulsory sex and drug education
Anti-discrimination and anti-homophobia education
Harm minimisation for drug users
Crime prevention, not large prison populations
Proper funding for our health system
Fair wages and conditions
Lower taxes and a broader tax base
Properly funded social security and pensions
A secular republic with an Australian head of state
-
Blue_turnip
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
- Location: Melbourne
I'm implying that increasing expenditure while decreasing income are mutually exclusive. If you want to spend more money you need more money, if you want to have less money you have to spend less money.
While Jeremy certainly believes differently, the world doesn't revolve around him or his fringe opinions.
While Jeremy certainly believes differently, the world doesn't revolve around him or his fringe opinions.
-
Blue_turnip
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
- Location: Melbourne
Yeah increasing net income and decreasing net expenditure are mutually exclusive. But the thing you quoted doesn't talk about that.
Consider my fun example to illustrate:
Bob spends $100 a week on food. He also Spends $200 a week on hookers and blow, cos that's just how he rolls.
He earns $400 a week.
So his net income each week is $100. One day he realises hookers n blow don't make him as happy as he thought, so he decides to turn away from that lifestyle and spend more on food. However he also wants to have more pocket money each week.
By eliminating hookers n blow, he decides to spend $100 a week more on food.
At the end of our story our enlightened friend has a net income of $200 (more than at the start) and spends $200 a week on food (more than the start)
No paradox here.
However if food was all that he spent money on, it would be a contradiction. As I said earlier, saying that there is a paradox suggests that you reckon healthcare and social security is the only thing taxpayer money gets spent on. While i'm sure there's a lot more <insert> they spend it on.
Consider my fun example to illustrate:
Bob spends $100 a week on food. He also Spends $200 a week on hookers and blow, cos that's just how he rolls.
He earns $400 a week.
So his net income each week is $100. One day he realises hookers n blow don't make him as happy as he thought, so he decides to turn away from that lifestyle and spend more on food. However he also wants to have more pocket money each week.
By eliminating hookers n blow, he decides to spend $100 a week more on food.
At the end of our story our enlightened friend has a net income of $200 (more than at the start) and spends $200 a week on food (more than the start)
No paradox here.
However if food was all that he spent money on, it would be a contradiction. As I said earlier, saying that there is a paradox suggests that you reckon healthcare and social security is the only thing taxpayer money gets spent on. While i'm sure there's a lot more <insert> they spend it on.
Oliver Adams
-
Blue_turnip
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
- Location: Melbourne
Yeah thats probs also true. I mean I don't know a whole lot about my own country because i never read the paper or anything about anything, but I'm just saying I really don't think the 'we believe in' thing you quoted was a contradiction.Texta wrote:Very true, but the actual government spending in Australia prioritises health, social welfare and education already.
If Bob earns $400 and he spends $350 on food and $50 on rent, then it's a bit hard for him to increase food spending while decreasing income and having somewhere to live.
Oliver Adams