PeterB

Good one Darius. I liked the finishing touch :D

But if the Bible really is true, SHOULD it not matter what you believe??? That depends. If Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Asatro were true as well, we'd be having a bit of selecting to do. And it's not impossible. Nothing is to the gods and all that. if you see it as a contradiction it's simply because the human mind is feeble and not able to understand the grander things of Gods and Godesses.

Amazing, I actually agree with Pelosi on something. Winter has been unusually warm too. What's going on here?

Hey my first line was a question. And seriously, if you post about dolphins and then talk about their intelligence, you're setting yourself up for the anthromorph trap and the questions that come with that. As I said, wildlife protection is good. Dolphins have many champions; ugly dumb brutes of creatures we cannot relate to have very few. The easy route is to focus on the human-esque ones. The true animal lovers put their focus where it's needed. Good to hear you're one of them.

Are you protecting ugly, dumb and dangerous animals too? Or does your compassion stop at cute smart ones? What about some species of crab that are so heavily over-crabbed (can't say overfished since they ain't fish) that they're practically extinct in some parts of the world. What's your criteria for establishing what's worthy of protection? From your selection of dolphins, I deduce: 1) Intelligence 2) Degree of anthromorphism (fine word for assigning human emotions and behaviour to other creatures). I don't disagree we gotta take better care of dolphins. Just think the same can be said about ugly dumb animals that have very little in common with humans.

Ok pet peeve of mine. Why do otherwise educated and intelligent people keep on misusing the term agnosticism? Agnosticism is not indicative of belief or non belief in god or gods. It's simply a belief in whether knowledge of whether such deities can be had. As such you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities — is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable - from Wikipeda. Lots of discussions follow this pattern: A) I am not a theist. B) But I am not an atheist. C) Therefore I am an agnostic. The flaw being that A + B = C is that C is tangential to A and B. C is a property that can be attached to A and B without modifying the inherent nature of A and B. I know agnostic theists (a minority) and I know agnostic atheists (the majority of them). Now I am oversimplifying things a bit here since there are various variants of agnosticism itself but the heart of the matter is that agnosticism is *not* necessarily absence of belief but merely belief in whether definite knowledge of the existence of gods can be attained.

Looks like someone read/watched the Da Vinci code and saw an opportunity to get rich. Not a bad idea, money wise.

Ever paid for a massage?

How many are ya gonna adopt?

This thread took a predictable turn. From whether morals exist outside religion to whether Christianity is The Bomb. As far as I can understand, local (in both time and location) religious practises usually validate the morals of the time and day. Or is it the other way around?

Seven times for fights. Once for being loud. Then for being quiet (didn't respond to anything Da Man said to me). Selling stolen booze from my locker, twice. Same with cigarettes. Numerous warnings for direspectful behavior. I was a bit strange back then but nowadays I've learned to hide it better. Pretty amazing I went on and got a higher education. That was definitely a lot easier than elementary school for me. Elementary school is teh sucks!!!11OMG. Uni was more fun.

Gotta second the dude you're quoting. Beautiful - yeah, dpeending on the person. Sexy - nope, doesn't turn me on in any way or form. If you think about it that's not so weird. You see the whole, nature's course so to speak. Not just random hotness that's more or less cultivated to give that impression. And incidentally I don't share the beauty ideals of the ancients. Nothing to do with immaturity either but I guess it's pretty easy to just stick a label with those who disagreee with your personal taste. Women don't have to be sexy *all the time* C'mon give yourselves some room to breathe. It's OK to look less than perfect and in the case of being pregnancy the loss in sexiness is repalced by something with infinitely more meaning. Kinda cool.

6 jumpers and a pilot on some hop n' pops.

I knew it. Margaret Thatcher was really a man!

Then again Windcatcher, you probably object to someone wanking in public, right? A natural act but one we frown upon if it happens in public. Same with tender lovemaking or raw fucking. Natural things again. Loud burps and farts is something that offends some people. My point is that what we consider gross or inapproriate is set arbitrarily and sure it can be a result of immaturity but it can also come from a wide range of other things, rational or irrational. I don't like watching other people feed. Ain't interested in the least in watching someone wank or fuck. Don't care about burps or farts. Babies feeding from their mothers teat isn't something I find appealing or beautiful but it's ok as long as I ain't eating or trying to sleep. Those are my arbitrary values and I don't really care whether someone finds them lacking.

I bet recreational activities that depend on fossil fuel are gonna be some of the things that are hit first, too. Oh well, there's always BASE.

The problem with your argument of murder is that it's a secular legal definition that is rather arbitrary and varies widely with culture and time. It was not technically illegal to kill prisoners of war in some cultures or to sacrifice kidnapped 'enemies'. The moral argument then comes more down to 'is killing alright' and yeah seems it is but under wat circumstances depend on what time period and culture you look at. You should maybe find another line of argument. The murder one isn't the best. With most points of human behavior a likely explanation usually goes along the lines of us being flock animals and with that comes a set of either informal or formal rules that govern behavior. Think wolves. Humans are just a bit more sophisticated but it's the same general principles at play.