Metal Reviews

Scroll through their videos, they do tons of fucked up things with food. And I want all of it.

If they don't get Time out soon it will be a lot longer than that.

Just from the comments, I knew what this was. That channel is my favorite thing...ever. Seriously the best thing about my Tuesdays.

For fuck's sake, tried watching the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. Craig gets two minutes into his opener and immediately produces the utterly annoying "objective morals exist. God explains objective morals. Therefore god exists" argument and I turned it off.

Did you see Question Time this week? Salmond was on, utterly crushed Peter Hain.

No, I missed that, anywhere I can find it online?

Should be on the iPlayer...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010j5ck

Found the single clip.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/q ... 458810.stm

Pure ownage. That was brilliant.

He was the best panelist without a doubt, Huhne was a bit disappointing for us, Hain looked a right wally the whole evening, and Michael Howard, well, he's just fucking sinister.

Watching the whole thing now. Jesus, he's on fire.

"It's a cynical bit of politicking and should be condemned as such."

Yasss.

EDIT: Holy shit! On the release of the Lockerbie bomber:

"One thing the Scottish authorities do and always have done is apply the law of Scotland without fear or favour. When he was convicted, he wasn't convicted alone, he was convicted on the act of state-sponsored terrorism. That is what the court decided and agreed with. If the act was one of state-sponsored terrorism, than presumably the ultimate culprit is the head of state: Colonel Gheddafi. And although over the last few years, two British prime ministers have been seen hugging him in desert tents, Britain has been selling him arms material over the years, and incidentally, Michael, some of your prominent colleagues had advocated Scottish government that he be released, not on grounds of law, but on grounds of trade, business and oil. So on these reasons, whether you may agree or disagree with our decisions, which are taken on the basis of what is Scots law, I'm not going to take any lectures from Westminster politicians who are up to their eyes in arms deals and oil and trade and a variety of other dirty deals."

I fail to see any difference between one that denies the existence of god and one that claims that he exists.
Both are fooling themselves, thinking they "know" what the truth really is. And both are generally arrogant, condescending assholes that think they have the answer, when, really they don't, and beyond that cannot prove their case. Both are engaged in giant leaps of faith, only on opposing sides.

Is their anything more futile thatn arguing about the existence of god?

Yeah you're right but the burden of proof usually lies on the person who is claiming something out of nothing rather than on the person who is simply being agnostic to its possibility or claiming it isn't there according to everything we know.

I don't think the debate is limited to whether or not a god exists, but more along the lines of the implications of religion. I mean, if someone's gonna take something at its word without asking for any proof and live their whole lives according to it, I think something like that is worth debating.

Then you're debating not the existence but people's willingness to not question and that issue is not simply relegated to religion.

Once you understand the realm of physics is not a three dimensional phenomenon that we human beings experience, one realizes they know almost nothing about the universe, nor can we even begin to realize it's potential.

Take electricity for example. As a three dimensional physics phenomenon, we can only use self-destroying power, where KVL and KCL take precedent. In a fourth dimension scenario we can harness unlimited free voltage, suspend time itself (a 3D illusion) and use the unlimited current that flows by the conservation of energy in the form of unlimited flux. This does not violate KVL because voltage would be unlimited and the flowing current would be zero, yet in a timeless domain, the current is only limited by the amount of flux and not flowing current. In the 3D world, we need moving current to produce electricity. But in a 4D world, the flux provides current and the atoms that flow from a voltage source stay suspended in an absolute zero state.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

God, I love when Adveser fucks a debate up with analogies coming from nowhere.

So if we can not physically see a property that has an obvious effect, it can be dismissed? There's plenty of evidence and whole book written on the subject. EM Model is very poor and if it doesn't fit even having the specific effect desired, they'll say it isn't true, despite it being right there.

The patent office takes this approach and so does modern science.

I'm glad they weren't so delusional 150 years ago when they discovered electricity without having any idea what an electron was at all. Nowadays the concept electricity would be thrown out completely until we have the physical model, which would never have happened without it's discovery.

Plus one, my thoughts exactly!

I love LastFM recommendations, but seriously now:



"Wat ze fuk iz zis", as we say down here. They really need to improve their system by including TAGS, and not only names.

Edit : And here's another one !!



Hey, wait a minute...