Re: EveryonePlays: GAME cracks 60,000+ signed petitions (3 years ago)

I read about the PALGN and GAME collaboration in my local paper. Its been years since i've posted on the site, but i just wanted to stop by and congratulate you guys on the initiative! good work, lets hope this petition gets more attention than petitions usually do.

Re: What are you listening to right now? [RULE: SEE page one] (4 years ago)

I havnt been able to find it, looked in JB in Camberwell and the City but no love. This is the documentary isnt it? The one by the director of Stress and we are your friends?

I have been listing to Planisphere 1-4 by justice which make you wonder why they bother to embarrass themselves as Dj's and dont just retire to be producers. Also, Have you seen the Part of the Weekend never dies doco by Soulwax? Its Epic, If you havnt its very highly recommended (the into's by SO_ME is awesome).

Re: Smoking, Drinking and Drugs (4 years ago)

Smoke: No
Drink: Yes
Drugs: Do them? No, make them? Yes, the illegal type? No. Which manufacturer is more evil?

Its funny how the personal philosophical threads eventuate at exam times. I'm almost certain there was an exact same one this time last year, and of course mid semester exam was a vicious religion vs. atheism vs. agnosticism thread/ south park episode. I love this forum. Actually, its funny that this topic does jump up just now since i just had a bioethics exam about people's moral right to take and use illicit/ legal drugs.

I concluded under Mills harm principle firstly that intervention of drug use is justified by the harm that excessive drug use causes third parties. I think that i also said that punishment of individuals who were drug users was not justified under the concept of determinism unless the punishment was an effective means to pressure drug users to modify their behaviour and stop the third party harm to others. Also, prohibition has empirically shown to be infective (currant prohibition of illicit drugs, alcohol in the past). The overall conclusion was that the only way to curb illicit drug use is for it to be deemed unpopular by society.

and so, pretty much my view is that drug use (including the use of alcohol) is not morally justifiable, but neither is the majority of the legal punishment attributed to its use (thats the pessimistic determinist coming out in me). The reason i do/dont do it is becasue I see the benefits of abstinence outweighs the risk of the alternative (the un-calculated genetic risk of dependence)

also, someone who went to my highschool (wasnt 'friends' with them) died approx 3 weeks ago from an OD on Special K (ketamine) and methadone. She was trying to get off heroin apparently (OD on methadone), i didn't realise she was ever into such hard drugs. Interestingly, a few of her direct friends who you would label as token 'druggies' have gone quits, 3 of them even went as far as to go to a Queensland rehab centre. Point: I'm only 19 and i know someone my age who is dead, form drugs; ultimately above all I dont want to be dead, immediate inference: The benifits are too minute to justify the use. simple.

Re: Your newest purchase (4 years ago)

Yeah, I don't think the issue is with the Macbook itself since as you said, its been glossy only for the last two and a half years. Instead, Apple hasnt given the option of a matte screen on the new Macbook Pro, and since these are predominantly computers marketed towards design and photo professionals who demand such a standard, this has caused a huge outcry from these people.

Re: What are you listening to right now? [RULE: SEE page one] (4 years ago)

Typically when the signature of vs. is included between two songs this insinuates that the song is a masshup, i.e. two original songs playing concordantly.

This song you're referring to is indeed:
Klaxons - Atlantis to Interzone (Crystal Castles Remix)
and is a tremendous song from a bit over a year ago. I have much love for CC, if you also like them give lovers who uncover, air war and crimewave a go, a few of the groups most popular songs.

you can get them by subscribing to the the streetparty podcast (google it) as they are a Canadian group (from memory) with strong ties to WOW and previously pogo/ that melbourne music scene.

As for me, currently I'm listening to a few sets from the bloody beetroot's, some 2 many DJ's sets(Soulwax) and specifically ladyhawk - paris is burning (Cut copy remix) as well as older stuff like jean-michael jare - Oxygen (part IV mostly). good music atm.

Re: Your newest purchase (4 years ago)

yeah I'm buying it with the apple edu discount but thats only saving me $100 becasue it seems apple has reduced the rebate... And as for the ram and HD im getting the upper model Macbook so i can grab the 2.4Ghz processor compared to the 2.0 Ghtz (apparently it will come to use for some of the chemistry drug and protein modelling programs ill use next year). But yes i think thats the smallest amount of ram and HD space i can order.

Just to note: The new Macbook doesnt have a firewire 400 port, something that is pissing a lot of people off (as well as the glossy screen only) but i dont mind glossy and i dont have any firewire accessories. So i thought i might as well bite.

here is a look at the pro and normal version:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/macbook_pro_video_tour.html

and here is the video on apples website that shows some of the manufacturing process - really quite interesting.
http://www.apple.com/au/macbook/the-new-macbook/

Edit: it looks like the rebate has only been reduced on the 2.0 macbook not the 2.4, the 2.4 has a $150 rebate the 2.0 only an $80 one.

Re: Your newest purchase (4 years ago)

I've been umming and arring on whether to get one of these, eagerly anticipating the brand new pain that apple can apply to my bank account.


Although, strictly I haven't purchased it yet, I have transferred the money to mums bank account so that i can purchase it with her credit card tomorrow/the next day.
Specs for those who are wondering:

Intel C2D 2.4Ghz
13.3" LED glossy screen
2GB DDr3 ram
250GB HD
Nvidia 9400M graphics
whole bunch of soft wares
sexy looking everything.

EDIT: Its my first Mac btw. I'm looking forward to exploring a new OS that has been praised for so long by so many people.

Re: HSC hell (final school year exams) (4 years ago)

Note: Assuming that A+ = a mark >95%

Sure, I did Chem, people declare that to be a hard subject, I got an A average over the two exams and got 35 raw marked to 41. Regardless though, you've made quite an obscure point. In VCE, If you obtain an A+ on an exam, that does not mean that you have correctly answered 95% or above of that exam. Instead, it means that of the people enrolled, you did better on the day than 95% of these people. Thus, the subject choice and its respective difficulty is irrelevant, and only the way you perform in relation to the other people doing the subject is a relevant factor.

For example, over the two exam days, at minimum, I did better than 95% of the people who sat that exam. However, my SS result showed that i had not beaten 92% of the people who sat that exam. The variance in the two results were the product of the degree to which my SAC score contributed to my overall SS for that subject. The reason my SAC score contributed less than usual to my SS was becasue the VCAA decided that the A+ SAC score that I achieved was done so relative to students in my class who did worse than the state average on their exam, and so i wasn't deserving of my mark.

This is where hard working, bright or what ever you want to call them students, pay a price for being surrounded by 'turkeys'. Its only that this occurs more often in the public sector than it does in the private that leads to peoples conception that publicly educated students are at a significant disadvantage come results day.

The fact is, any eagle in the education system is only held back by its peers and any turkey is held up by its eagles. In conclusion, it can only be explained that its the degree of eaglism and turkyism that defines the difference between the advantage that the private system has and the disadvantage the public system has.

hehe, eaglism. It must be time for bed.

Re: HSC hell (final school year exams) (4 years ago)

In terms or anecdotes of VCE scaling issues, you wont find many examples as harsh as mine. Its easier to just put it on paper, becasue that how i saw it, and it boy was it a shock.

I went to a public school who's year level ENTER average was 43, I felt pretty ripped. Initially, and still, with an ENTER of (from memory) 81.25, I feel I payed heavily for it. My ENTER however managed to get me into my bottom priority course, allowing me to do science at Monash - A pretty reputable uni. Originally, I was chasing an ENTER of 91-92 so as to do biomedicine at Monash, obviously i wasnt in a place to get into that with my ENTER. Uni life supported my study style a lot more than highschool life did. I quickly noticed that doing work was much easier with similarly minded academic people surrounding you. I reluctantly decided to make a mid semester application to a few different courses since I felt i was doing ok and might be able to broaden my horizons. I applied for biomedicine, comm/law DD, and a small course called BBiotechnology (with honors) where honors + an additional biotechnology company analysis is subsidised in the fourth year by the commonwealth.

To my surprise, i got three HD's and a distinction in my first sem and was invited to choose my pick of the courses i had applied for. Im now doing the BBiotechmology with hons, which i think is a definitive testament to the degree of accuracy that an ENTER can tell about a persons ability to perform in a course.

So, dont worry too much come exams and particularly results, its true that once you get a foot hole you will have the opportunity to get where you want. Speaking of, now i have to pass CHM2, BIO2, bioethics and stats... living the dream, living the dream. haha! Good luck everyone for HSC/VCE/UNI/everything else exams!

Re: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (4 years ago)

Strike me down as a buyer too.

I haven't been reading into the hype of games as of late, i just keep an open mind until I play it. Maybe that's why when i downloaded the demo i loved it. It could also explain why the only way that gametrailers review influenced my thought was by making me want to stop what im doing and go play the demo again.

That said, it might have been my ridiculously high midichlorian count influencing my decision. Oh, and my love of all things Starwars...

Re: Your newest purchase (4 years ago)

Just Paid for my flight to Phuket, Bankok and home in which i also paid for 22 nights of accommodation split into 1 night in KL Malaysia, 16 nights in Phuket (and associated areas) and 5 nights in Bankok. I'm leaving on the 5th of Jan 09 and am going with 12 friends, its gonna be ammaazzaaazzzzzing! cant wait.

Re: Updated Australian Release List - 5/9/08 (4 years ago)

Mercenaries 2: World in Flames 11/9/2008
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 17/09/2008
Saints Row 2 16/10/2008
Fable 2 23/10/2008
Far Cry 2 29/10/2008
Fallout 3 31/10/2008
Gears of War 2 7/11/2008
Mirror's Edge 13/11/2008
Prince of Persia 1/12/2008

Such quality, thank god I have a job!

Re: Your newest purchase (4 years ago)

Got a Job at Target about 4 weeks ago, been saving for this ever since.

I'm pretty sure a few of the board members have this number.
Its the Dell 2408WFP Ultrasharp for those playing at home. I just ordered it for $629.10 which i thought it was a great price. Im planing of putting my 360, PC and and a HD STB on it.

Re: Summer Music Festivals (4 years ago)

Worked at BDO 2006, went to 2007 and Parklife (2007) - also Daft was pretty much a mini festival (so diverse).

Park life was awesome last year, so many big names awesome weather - maybe a little bit too hot. But, This year $150/ $125 for pre-sale tickets is a fucking rip even if Soulwax and too many DJ's are playing. For those going i did hear that not as many tickets are being sold this year (so security can control the crowds) and hope for those going there wont be as many drug fucked losers there this time (justice tent - see youtube). Still, if your rich enough to be going, have a great time as there is much fun to be had at music festivals.

Re: PlayTV (4 years ago)

Im interested in whether or not it will work on a 24" with at standard 56Hz picture minimum (almost all monitors have this). Pal TV format is at 50Htz, while NTSC is at 60Htz. This is why in Australia at least, you cant whack a HD Set top box into the HDMI of a monitor and watch HD TV bypassing the need to have a computer PCI-E tuner, something iv been wanting to do for a while. Since TV's sold as in Australia all have at least a 50Htz interface minimum, PlayTV will work on any HD TV with a tuner. If it somehow works on a 56Hz monitor, then ill buy it and a playstation 3 to boot.

EDIT(Random): Out of interest, has anyone who has a DELL 2408WFP ever tried or know if its possible to plug a HD STB into it via HDMI or component, or DVI?

Re: Guitar Hero: Aerosmith Review (4 years ago)

Thanks guys, im going now to pick up GH3:LOR on xbox. Called up EB and they told me with peripheral $169 so Im going to Target and jb-hi fi hoping for a better deal.

Re: Guitar Hero: Aerosmith Review (4 years ago)

This may be a good place to ask, I recently started playing guitar hero 3 in the mac shop at my uni and got seriously addicted in the time span of 10 minutes. I think Im going to buy a guitar hero game this w/e but not sure which one. I heard the peripheral on no. 3 is the best, but i really like the track list of number 2, perhaps more so then no. 3.

Which one should i buy? (for 360) how much does no.3 cost with the guitar, can you buy no.2 without the guitar or by DLC, how much does that cost? any one know?

Re: Scientology debate! (4 years ago)

Re: Sunrise or The Today Show (4 years ago)

They've always had him.

For the Record: Id prefer to watch Sunrise over the Today show like id prefer to be killed by a high velocity bullet than by drowning in my own vomit and faecal matter.

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

Its really refreshing to hear and see things like this. Sadly it is true that you're the type of religious follower that is in a clear minority. But none the less, congratulations on being a credit to your religion. I'm glad and envious you can reap the rewards of religion while being in a place where you can make your own decisions and interpret biblical text metaphorically while not hindering the progression of techniques that will ultimately save and help more than it 'destroys'. Great stuff.

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

And that's why agnostic athiests like Richard Dawkins behave the way they do. As a 'science' more specifically biotechnology student, I can empathise extremely easily with the frustration that morel decisions derived from Christianity and Catholicism have on people like Richard Dawkins life, becasue these same things are highly influential on my life.

for example I should just confirm that genetic engineering, my passion in science, was declared wholeheartedly as a mortal sin by the pope. nice. Ironically, being 'obscenely rich' was also included as a new mortal sin. If the pope doesn't qualify for that sin, them I'm not sure who does.

http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/pope-declares-genetic-engineering-a-mortal-sin/

As I study the industry, especially that of the area of therapeutic application of stem cell technology, I see directly, through the law, the direct implications that these two schools of belief have influenced the existent scientific boundary.

If you want to get into specifics, most Christians or Catholics couldn't actually tell you what was 'religiously injunct' about what they call and I quote '3mt' "Stem Cell research". You know why, because they are told and do not understand, until they do their own research, what exactly is so immoral about therapeutic cloning.

As benza stated before, religion really does promote closed minded thinking. For example, such people as 3mt have absolutely no idea why their own religion states that 'Stem Cell research' is immoral and also why Islam and Judaism would support such technology, I will teach you. Lets let the scientist for a second, teach you about your own religion.

Firstly, you may be wondering why exactly I'm so sure that you, 3mt, have absolutely no idea as to why your religion, and you, state that "stem cell research" is considered sin. That's because when referring to stem cell research as sin, you neglected to refer to the right thing.

lesson 1: "stem cell research" comprises of adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. Catholicism, Christianity, society and the law have no bone to pick (prise for recognising the pun) with adult stem cell research and therapeutic application (eg: bone marrow transplant in leukaemia victims)

lesson 2: You, they, Christians, Catholics, and thus the law do have certain problems with human, not animal, embryonic stem cell research and therapeutics ONLY. Why? you may ask, well that's because therapeutic cloning and research requires the death of one of those things a women's body destroys once per month on average, as well as the 'insides' of one of the thousands upon thousands of skin cells you shed every day, or sometimes one of those flagellated cells that is present in male ejaculate, sperm.

Lesson 3: The issue: In a process named Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) a sperm cell (in the case of reproductive cloning) or a fibroblastic skin cell - type of somatic cell (in the case of therapeutic research or medicine) is placed inside a women's oocyte (egg cell) zapt with a tiny electric current, and left in culture to divide - this meiotically dividing cell, too small to see with the eye, is now equal to you or I, according to Christianity this invisible thing, is a human being. After roughly 75 hours of meiotic division this 'thing' is now classified as a blastocyst. Isolation of the embryonic stem cells from this blastocys results in destruction of the embryo, sorry human being. So its considered immoral. Funnily enough, the law also states that if by some miraculous chance (lets call it a miracle - hehe), you isolate these embryonic cells without destroying the egg or embryo, YOU HAVE TO THROW IT OUT ANYWAY - stupid? Also stupid, as of prior to recently, in the process of In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) Women would typically have 8 of their eggs taken, frozen and fertilised with their partners sperm, if they fell pregnant from the first implantation, by law in Victoria - not sure about other states, scientists HAD to destroy the 7 other embryo's - thus killing 7 'human beings' :O. Now though, the woman can choose to donate her eggs to another couple or to research. Another law interestingly states that these 8 embryos before they are placed in the mothers womb have to be genetically screened for a number of degenerative genetic diseases. Haemophilia, huntington's, Cystic fibrosis and tri-somy 21 (downs syndrome) being a few - if such diseases, of which, very little is known about are detected by law once again these embryos MUST be destroyed and cannot be donated to researchers do research the developmental stages of such diseases (which may lead to better treatment - even cues of such diseases).

So, why doesn't the teaching of Judaism or Islam state that such embryonic stem cell research is immoral? Simply, because they decided that life begins once born, and not at conception ie. when cells go from n=23 to n=46.

It should also be pointed out the benefit of techniques evolved from therapeutic research and as experimentally demonstrated in mice, fly's and other non human organisms, have the potential to cure spinal injury (cant be done atm) cure certain cancers (cant be done atm) cure blindness (saw this on digg the other day actually, - not sure how reputable the source was tho) amongst a huge amount of other things (go look it up at wiki if you're interested).

And just to demonstrate exactly how the law does not always reflect religious ideology, but only does when religion can forcibly increase close mindedness from miss direction of education. I present:
foetus at 3360 hours post conception, legal age to destroy:


Blastocyst, not yet developed into a foetus, 75 hours post conception.

illegal to destroy if out of your body, legal if inside it.
Note: mountain peak like bodies = Embryonic Stem cells.

And, now maybe you can see why scientists are so hostile to an overwhelming population of people being of Christian or Catholic faith. Hopefully you can see why I see religion as humanly damaging and not 'harmless' because 'it doesn't directly effect me' because - it does, and it effects you too.

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

Done a quick read through of peoples views, a few of them really concern me.

So I thought id point out a few things that have 'ticked me off'.

I may be agnostic and say that you cant dis-prove god, but you can disprove the fuck out of many aspects of fundamental religion. Creationism and the age of the earth being 2 of them.

Note: fundamentalism being not only a disease the many Americans suffer, but more commonly known as taking the bible as a book of literal truths.

1.If you for one second try to 'prove' anything using the bible, then i have no respect for your 'evidence', its not a piece of text based off empirical thought or experimentation, so its not a primary source of evidence.

2. If your a creationist, then you need to do some reading - and learning. For the record you cant 'believe' in evolution any more that you can 'believe' that you're reading this, evolution exists pure and simple. That's becasue, you guessed it, there is evidence that states that it exists as well as evidence that states it cant not exist.

In fact religion has no problem with evolution, its impossible for it to deny that it exists. The problem that religion or creationism has with evolution is the mechanism that regulates evolution. Its proven that evolution or 'speciation' occurs by the mechanism of natural selection and not directly by the sorcery of an omnipotent being.

And this, my friends, is why when I sit on the fence of agnosticism I turn my back on religion. So many things concerned with bible like texts are wrong, why should the rest of it be right?

Also, while thinking i made this. Its my thoughts on proof.
I'll leave you with one more thing:

LOL1

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

We really should make a new thread about this stuff, its very interesting and seems to get peoples opinions in to writing. Sure helped me grasp an understanding of where I'm at, even though it came at the cost of getting almost no work done today.

Exam time = distraction time, that ticks me off.

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

FUCK, WHY DID I CHECK!
But you don't believe in nothing, you "have not seen any evidence of a higher power, therefore [you] do not believe in such a thing." - you believe god doesn't exist.

And since you refuse to provide evidence for reason of why "an omnipotent being" can with absolute certainty not exist and argue that the inverse of such a task is the responsibility of "those claiming an omnipotent being to provide some evidence", you exert pure arrogance thus demonstrating my very point that an atheistic zealot is no better than a religious one.

You simply don't, or refuse to understand. From this reasoning there is no 'support' of any belief; that is a characteristic of neutral agnosticism - YOU SIT RIGHT ON THE FENCE. views on such things as unicorns, fairies, goblins are simply beliefs and attach no link to evidence. Beliefs are not characterised by evidence, proof is.

I'm an agnostic who believes in atheism but that's its not due to any evidence against an omnipotent being, its purely a choice. 'Believe' what you want Spanca, just don't tell anyone that your belief is justified because of the absence of evidence, because it's not.

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

In your own profession, isnt the role of the lawyer defending the defendant to find evidence that refutes the belief that defendant may be guilty.

if evidence or 'proof' isn't what's needed to change a belief in something, then what is?


And from a scientific back ground, such a 'feeling' is wrong, things still exist without proof i.e Speciation by natural selection 'existed' long before it was proven with evidence.

The guilt of an individual 'existed' before it was proven. Fact of the matter, things are believed in before they are proven. The individual may have been believed to be innocent, but evidence shows they weren't. Hence people are believed to be innocent until proven guilty and not proven to be innocent until proven guilty, as this would be contradictory.

you say actively acknowledge that you don't believe in god becasue there is no evidence that god exists.

There is also no evidence that he doesn't exist, so why don't you believe that he does exist?

Is the absence of evidence from one theory more meaningful than the absence of evidence from another theory? Of course not.

Theory - God does exist.
evidence: none

Theory - God doesn't exist.
evidence: none

Inference:
God may/ may not exist.

You're Inference:
God doesn't exist becasue there is no evidence to support his existence.
Flaw:
You don't acknowledge that for god to not exist, there must be no evidence for his existence as well as absolute evidence that he doesn't exist. Since there is no absolute evidence that higher power doesn't exists there is a chance, based on evidence that god may exists.

Do you see the fundamental flaw and difference in inference?

EDIT: And I'm done, i have way too many chemistry problems to worry about with an exam on Monday than worrying about this. Plus we are amazingly off topic... sorry doesn't that just tick you off.

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

I agree with you Obs. I think that at the moment, science driven by humans, due to our own limitations, can neither prove or disprove the existence of a 'god'. That's not to say that it cant be done in the future.

I mean if by some way we as society figure a way to treat each other 'humanly' and introduce some form of selection pressure, genetically we may alter our brain so that this and quantum mechanics actually make some sense haha.

What ever that branch of agnosticism is, I think I belong to it also. However, i do encourage the idea of atheism as it moves to oppose modern day religion, something I believe and cannot prove to be incorrect. So i cant really tell what i believe, maybe ill call myself agnostic weighted towards atheism due to 'evedence' problems with fundamental religion.

@James
Sounds really interesting i think im experiencing abit of these memetics myself... lol, I'll definitely keep an eye out for those books.


EDIT:
It appears that Dawkin proclaims himself to be agnostic, at the level where he correlates the probability of the existence of god with that of the existence of a "fairy or a unicorn".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md2QmME7s_g

I think I'm of a similar belief of god as he is. I knew he had to have a level of agnosticism in him, he doesn't make sense otherwise.

Re: Theology (4 years ago)

Yes exactly, If your a self confessed atheist you believe that there is no chance in hell (pun intended) that a god or higher power exists, if you believe this because of scientific evidence then you are ignorant, because there is no scientific evidence that completely out rules the possibility of a 'god'. hence people who use scientific evidence as reason for being atheist are wrong and piss me off.

essentially, when you say your atheist you refuse the possibility of the existence of a 'god'.

when you say your an agnostic, depending on your level of agnosticism, you are essentially saying there is a chance however significant or insignificant that a 'god' may exist. Its a more open minded approach

In order for you to 'believe' that no god exists based on evidence two thing must be true;
1. as you stated "I have not seen any evidence of a higher power" - there must not be any evidence for such a power.

2. there must be absolute evidence such a power could not exist.

So, You've seen no evidence for the existence of a higher power, and this is the cause of your belief, but have you seen any evidence that a higher power could never exist?

The answer is no, no evidence exists that refutes the possibility of a 'god', so why don't you believe that a god could exist? - evidence also suggests this is a possibility.

For example a hypothetical sort of thing; When i think about it, life is the interaction of matter, specifically atoms, and more importantly electrons. Essentially all matter on earth is a derivative of hydrogen where all elements naturally occurring are created by our sun, we know this there is scientific evidence for such a thing. What cant be explained is why the interaction between hydrogens proton and its electron is of a force of a magnitude of what it is. It is possible, perhaps not probable, that a higher power specified this force and being really smart envisioned that these physical and chemical interactions would one day create the earth and life as we know it.

If you can prove with scientific evidence that the 'higher power' does not exist then by all means I will be an atheist and you have the right, by your 'evidence' definition to be one too, but the fact is this cant be done at the moment, so i will call myself agnostic and you should too as you cant refuse the possibility, based on evidence (the medium you use to justify your current belief), that a higher power can exist.

EDIT: Yep still in science, well biotechnology now crest, hows your degree going btw.

EDIT @ James: Admittedly I haven't read much of Dawkins work, however i find he attacks aspects of 'fundamental' religion that scientific evidence is defiantly disproves. i.e creationism vs. speciation by the mechanism of natural selection. And really fights these fundamental views (readings of texts as literal truths) due to the harm they inflict on the development of science. However, I dont agree with many of the things he says for example this section of a review on his book 'The god delusion' pretty clearly states what I mean.

longest post in the history of posts by me.

Theology (4 years ago)

Bar despising every religion almost equally, what really pisses me of, as an agnostic, is people who say they are an atheist because they believe in science (i was once one of these). These people are just as ignorant as religious people defending their religion using 'religious evidence'.

What I mean is, If you ask a person the question: do believe a higher power exists who has at some point in time influenced life?

If they say yes, they are religious, and have no scientific evidence.

If they say no, they are atheist, and also have no scientific evidence.

If they say, there is a unit of probability however discrete that such a power could exist - however, many aspects of fundamental belief in modern and past religion is scientifically flawed by evidence (creationism for example), then they are agnostic.

Strong agnostics like myself argue that based on scientific evidence available at the moment, its impossible to rule out the possibility of a higher power influencing life however improbable such an idea exists.

And to demonstrate how improbable I believe such a higher power to exist I will correlate this probability with the probability that a person can run through a wall (as Richard Dawkins has done in the past).

What he and I mean by that is, your body is made of atoms, the wall is made of atoms, the majority of atoms are free space, there is a unit of probability that is not = 0 that you can navigate your atoms protons, neutrons and electrons through the free space in the atoms in the wall. Its simple quantum mechanics, and as crazy as that sounds one physicists actually tried it. haha ouch!

so summing up, there is no more scientific evidence for a belief that a higher power exists who has at some point in time influenced life, than there is for a belief that such a power does not exists. Scientifically at this point in time, atheism is no more supported than religion.

/end rant.

Re: Little things that make you happy. (4 years ago)

Also, along with the rain ect. that everyone mentioned, I just remembered two thinks that make me feel stupidly happy:

-new socks

-when you feel that you are too hot in bed and you turn your pillow or dooner over to the other much cooler side, makes me sleep like a baby.

Re: Little things that make you happy. (4 years ago)

Finishing exams. Too much excitement to be healthy.

EDIT: Or to make sense, apparently.