Inadmissable
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2015, 11:56 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 09:05 PM)Fireball Wrote:  
(25-11-2015 07:25 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  I've been reading it too!

What are the odds that two people out of seven billion are reading the same book?

Laugh out load

Hug

Hmmm, 2/7,000,000,000= (pulls out slide rule, does a little estimation to get the cursor right) 2.86E-10...and don't rub you e-face on me old man, you'll get whisker burn! Laugh out load

NO! NO! THAT'S NOT DOING MATH RIGHT!

You have to account for the fact that certain books are more popular than others at any given time! Also, that people sometimes read more than one book concurrently! And you'd have to specify whether it's two specific people, or any two out of the crowd! And then you have to...

*froths at mouth, gnaws on mathematician's shield*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
26-11-2015, 12:48 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 07:43 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Fuck that shit bro, I’d just as soon believe in Joe Pesci.

At least Joe Pesci has the advantage of having an evidently verifiable existence.

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheMrBillShow's post
26-11-2015, 01:49 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 07:43 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Fuck that shit bro, I’d just as soon believe in Joe Pesci.

Joe gets shit done.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
26-11-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 11:56 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(25-11-2015 09:05 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Hmmm, 2/7,000,000,000= (pulls out slide rule, does a little estimation to get the cursor right) 2.86E-10...and don't rub you e-face on me old man, you'll get whisker burn! Laugh out load

NO! NO! THAT'S NOT DOING MATH RIGHT!

You have to account for the fact that certain books are more popular than others at any given time! Also, that people sometimes read more than one book concurrently! And you'd have to specify whether it's two specific people, or any two out of the crowd! And then you have to...

*froths at mouth, gnaws on mathematician's shield*

Gasp MATH BERSERKER! RUN!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
30-11-2015, 01:03 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 05:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-11-2015 02:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I dunno. I would think swearing fealty to a sovereign who can put you in Hell is a good motivation for telling truth.

Of course, the problem atheists have when they remove the ten commandments isn't only removing God-oaths but the commands to tell the truth, not adultery and not murder! Good job. Drinking Beverage

I swear on the truth of the Bible, Robby, that if you trust in what Jesus Christ did for us in a horrible death by torture on the cross and His resurrection, that you will inherit eternal life! Don't perish, don't fall short of the grace of God, but trust Him today! God bless you.

Do you really claim that there could be no other source for not killing, not raping, and not lying? Facepalm Fuck, you are an idiot.

Of course not. I'm pointing to the lunacy of throwing out "Don't murder!" with "Don't worship other Gods than Jehovah!"

If YOU are sure some of the moral imperatives of the commands are indeed moral imperatives, why not ask for some of the ten commandments, not all, to be removed from a public place? Or why not ask that the commandments be replaced with a statement of moral imperatives and the reasoning behind such imperatives?

Oh right--it wouldn't look as good to post in a public place how "Evolutionary psychology informs us of the irreparable harm that may be done to a society by killing some of its members..."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(30-11-2015 01:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-11-2015 05:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you really claim that there could be no other source for not killing, not raping, and not lying? Facepalm Fuck, you are an idiot.

Of course not. I'm pointing to the lunacy of throwing out "Don't murder!" with "Don't worship other Gods than Jehovah!"

We already have civil laws. Those can be posted.

Quote:If YOU are sure some of the moral imperatives of the commands are indeed moral imperatives, why not ask for some of the ten commandments, not all, to be removed from a public place? Or why not ask that the commandments be replaced with a statement of moral imperatives and the reasoning behind such imperatives?

Oh right--it wouldn't look as good to post in a public place how "Evolutionary psychology informs us of the irreparable harm that may be done to a society by killing some of its members..."

Do you not understand that posting something specific to a religion, any religion, on government property is unconstitutional? Are you really that unaware? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-11-2015, 06:52 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(30-11-2015 01:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  why not ask for some of the ten commandments, not all, to be removed from a public place?

Because a big sign that reads, "Kindly do not Murder, Rape or Steal" is only useful as a To-Do list for sociopaths.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
01-12-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 02:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-11-2015 07:50 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Kind of makes the notion of swearing on the Bible before giving testimony in court even more ludicrous, doesn't it?

I dunno. I would think swearing fealty to a sovereign who can put you in Hell is a good motivation for telling truth.

Of course, the problem atheists have when they remove the ten commandments isn't only removing God-oaths but the commands to tell the truth, not adultery and not murder! Good job. Drinking Beverage

I swear on the truth of the Bible, Robby, that if you trust in what Jesus Christ did for us in a horrible death by torture on the cross and His resurrection, that you will inherit eternal life! Don't perish, don't fall short of the grace of God, but trust Him today! God bless you.

As has been said elsewhere in this forum if you need the threat o being burned forever to keep you from committing adultery etc.. hang tight to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: Inadmissable
My personal favorite:

HIPPOGRIFF, n. An animal (now extinct) which was half horse and half
griffin. The griffin was itself a compound creature, half lion and
half eagle. The hippogriff was actually, therefore, a one-quarter
eagle, which is two dollars and fifty cents in gold. The study of
zoology is full of surprises.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
01-12-2015, 07:59 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(30-11-2015 01:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Of course not. I'm pointing to the lunacy of throwing out "Don't murder!" with "Don't worship other Gods than Jehovah!"

If YOU are sure some of the moral imperatives of the commands are indeed moral imperatives, why not ask for some of the ten commandments, not all, to be removed from a public place? Or why not ask that the commandments be replaced with a statement of moral imperatives and the reasoning behind such imperatives?

Carlin said it best.

"I have a problem with the Ten Commandments. Here it is: Why are there ten? We don't need that many. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's clearly a padded list.

Here's how it happened: About five thousand years ago, a bunch of reli­gious and political hustlers got together to figure out how they could control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so these guys announced that God— God personally—had given one of them a list of Ten Commandments that he wanted everyone to follow. They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when no one else was around.

But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent makin' all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine, or eleven? I'll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They knew if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say, "What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the fuck outta here!"

But ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted; the ten best-dressed. So deciding on Ten Commandments was clearly a marketing decision. And it's obviously a bullshit list. In truth, it's a politic; document, artificially inflated to sell better.

I'm going to show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a bit more logical and realistic. We'll start with the first three, and I'll use the Roman Catholic version because those are the ones I was fed as a little boy.

• I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE
GODS BEFORE ME.

• THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN
VAIN.

• THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH.

Okay, right off the bat, the first three commandments—pure bullshit "Sabbath day," "Lord's name," "strange gods." Spooky language. Spooky language designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious mumbo jumbo like this apply to the lives of intelligent, civilized human in the twenty-first century. You throw out the first three commandments, and you're down to seven.

•HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER.

This commandment is about obedience and respect for authority; in other words it's simply a device for controlling people. The truth is, obedience and respect should not be granted automatically. They should be earned. They should be based on the parents' (or the authority figure's) performance. Some parents deserve respect. Most of them don't. Period. We're down to six.

Now, in the interest of logic—something religion has a really hard time with—I'm going to skip around the list a little bit:

• THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

• THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

Stealing and lying. Actually, when you think about it, these two com­mandments cover the same sort of behavior: dishonesty. Stealing and lying. So we don't need two of them. Instead, we combine these two and call it "Thou shalt not be dishonest." Suddenly we're down to five.

And as long as we're combining commandments I have two others that be­long together:

• THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.

• THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.

Once again, these two prohibit the same sort of behavior; in this case, mar­ital infidelity. The difference between them is that coveting takes place in the mind. And I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife, otherwise what's a guy gonna think about when he's flogging his dong?

But marital fidelity is a good idea, so I suggest we keep the idea and call this commandment "Thou shalt not be unfaithful." Suddenly we're down to four.

And when you think about it further, honesty and fidelity are actually parts of the same overall value. So, in truth, we could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments, and, using positive lan­guage instead of negative, call the whole thing "Thou shalt always be honest and faithful." And now we're down to three.

•THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.

This one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going: Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful," you want to get one, too. Coveting creates jobs. Leave it alone.

You throw out coveting and you're down to two now: the big, combined honesty/fidelity commandment, and the one we haven't mentioned yet:

•THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Murder. The Fifth Commandment. But, if you give it a little thought, you realize that religion has never really had a problem with murder. Not really. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

To cite a few examples, just think about Irish history, the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, our own abortion-doctor killings and, yes, the World Trade Center to see how seriously religious people take Thou Shalt Not Kill. Apparently, to religious folks—especially the truly devout—murder is ne­gotiable. It just depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed.

And so, with all of this in mind, folks, I offer you my revised list of the Two Commandments:

First:

•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY
TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.

And second:

•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS,
OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE AVENGER
THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.

Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in his courthouse lobby. As long he in­cluded one additional commandment:

•THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!!”

From George Carlin – When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops (2004)

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: