beigemaster
-
Posts
398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by beigemaster
-
-
feel free to come down and show me how much of a man you are" route. Something tells me that all the cornflakes in the world wont give you the balls. Now please, hush your f**king noise. I was trying to help, even though I think you're a dick.
Maybe this could be the conclusion of the documentary. An "all cornflake diet" vs a more traditional training diet come together in an epic duel of nutritional value. I'd watch it.
-
-
I remember seeing a "Despatches" episode all about the cereal industry. They asked one guy to do the "Special K diet" which meant he had to have one bowl for breakfast, one for lunch and he could have a normal dinner. Think in 2 weeks he only lost .5KG and found his attention span and tolerant/mood levels completely smashed up, which left him feeling pretty crap. Obviously this isn't exactly the same trial as your idea but I would guess you wouldn't loose that much weight but would end up feeling pretty down.
-
I think that vid was cut up from a Discovery Channel programme. The reason why the badger "fell asleep" was because the cobra actually bit the badger. However, being a real man it simply slept off the venom and carried on eating the snake when it woke up. Awesome.
-
When you put the radio on and want to drive your brain out with a screwdriver because you hear another fu*king annoying christmas song.
-
Think they are the only true Northeners in the UK
-
That's absolute bollocks. I could possibly say that Brum used to be like that, but now it's so much more different. I genuinely feel safe walking around Birmingham, and I'd never want to move. It's got everything.
-
most of the people giving you leaflets are people who talk about god and other completly harmless topics.
One person came up to us and asked the classic "have you had an accident, trip or a fall in the last 6 months" to which my friend said "no, not so far" and then while walking away proceeded to deliberately trip over the guys leg and scream out quite loudly. I shouldn't be mean to Brum, I did propose to my wife there so I should at least give it that. Seems to be quite a few vids on youtube recently with BNP members clashing with police and anti BNP protestors in the high street, is this common?
-
Yes it is, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
I love Birmingham, but I really don't like Sheffield, for example.Words can not describe how much I disagree with you on that point. Brum is full of morons who can't talk properly and either shoot you or give you a leaflet if you look at them funny (not sure which is worse). Sheffield is full of people who can't talk properly, but at least have a sense of humour
There is no one more honest in this country than a true Yorkshireman, fact. BTW, I'm not one if you think I'm being biased, I have just lived in Sheffield for the past three years. -
-
-
-
You ever caught a train in Vietnam? Its a lot trickier than it looks being that they don't tend to number them properly.
I assuming though when you went you didn't go with a huge production team with fixers and contacts all along your route? I'm not saying TG isn't entertaining or should be more like 5th gear (if you watch the first ever episodes of new Top Gear they are painful to watch in that they are so boring!) I just think it's better when it's more honest. Take the Brit Car episode, I'm guessing that the vast majority of that section was for real (unless you suggest that they set up Hammond to smash into a Mosler) but it was such a good show because it was entertaining and there was real honest emotion and banter involved. Or the Botswana episode, obviously there was some forward prep but there was no big pre set up stunts or cock ups. If you think about it, not much even happens but it's still so good to watch. I'm not saying the whole thing should be 100% real, but it's just gone too far now to the point where it's just annoying.
In defence of this series, don't know if anyone heard Clarkson on Moyle's show but he admitted that they completely cocked up the filming schedule so they are currently still filming even though the series has started. So what you’re seeing was only thought up and shot maybe 2 weeks before it goes on the air.
-
plus, when driving a car, there is the added bonus that I don't have to worry about ripping my testicals open on the fuel tank if I crash.
-
Yeh that one did make me wet, I've watched it about 7 times.
And the botswana one, and the artic expidition one.
Two of the best right there, Vietnam hmmm, not so sure. It looked amazing and it was obviously an amazing country but just too many set ups (whoops we got the wrong train, what a surprise) and Jezza being a twat and not in a funny way. That said, I am slightly biased in the fact I think James is by far the best presenter, if you want proof then watch this:
-
I thought episode 3 last night was wank as well, what is happening with Top Gear... think they've lost the plot!
IMO (this is someone who is a massive Top Gear Geek) TG got better and better right from season 1 and peaked at season 10. Season 10 had the Botswana episode, Britcar and the London race. Now they just seem to be trying to hard with obvious set up stunts (like in Vietnam and Romania) and just playing OTT caricatures of themselves.
-
I don't know how it works with a college, but I'm at uni and also share a flat with my Mrs (who's also a student) and I applied for some extra finance from the university and they gave us a contribution. It really does sound like you should be entitled to student finance though, maybe you should give them a call and arrange a meeting with your local government body to have a chat about it. Hope that helps.
-
The thing is with being Jewish is that it is an ethnic religion which you are born into. It's not something you really choose, in its strictest sense. So Jesus was jewish in this sense. I'm unsure how this might be a contradiction for Christians? Jesus obviously didn't follow the Jewish religion although what he said was often wrapped up in the terms of the prevalent religion of his time and place.
Regarding the chaps argument for God based on certain complexities we find in life (human eye, motors, etc.). This is a fair one, on the level of reasoning, I think. Yes, evolution is a way of describing the changes that occur between environment and life but it doesn't explain why there is a potential for life (and eyes and the motors that life can build) present in existence (matter/space-time, etc.) prior to the actual being of life. Nothing explains this with any evidence. Explanations are made but they are all forms of reasoning and to be fair the often have sound logic, although each has assumptions. The point is, nobody actually has a clue why there is a potential for life. We're all basically making noises and in that regard, there isn't much point in getting arsey over the different noises of somebody else. Especially when you realise there's a complete irony when part of the motivation for atheistic noise is the recognition of theist (in the sense of God as an entity only) noise. "Although we both make noises with no definite reference to reality, I claim my noises less like noise, than your noise!"
Also, nobody seems to be able to even consider alternative interpretations of the Bible. Literal and non-literal are both equally treated with suspicion and not each judged on their own merits. However, having read some of what Jesus said and relating it to my own practices in Buddhism/Yoga/Mysiticism (all of which are Godless in the sense of God as an entity), I can tell you the experiences I have had are in line with what some of Jesus has said. I can't comment on all because I have't read all. The point is, this interpretation is open to investigation and confirmation or otherwise. Consequently the non-literal interpretation carries with it room for aspects of scientific investigation. In that sense, people (especially those who incorrectly claim science as an argument against religion) should hold their tongues until they've actually taken the time to properly investigate.
A second irony is that many people who talk of science often don't realise that they do so in a religious way. Science often carries with it a myth that overextends what it does or can say. Science, quite simply, cannot comprehend all of life/existence. Yet the belief exists that it will explain all, thus debunking or illuminating all practices that are not science. Thus we find science as omnipotent and omniscient, just like the typical God as an entity. This simply isn't true and science has its limits.
In your time Ben you have said a number of wise comments/ideas. This one is (IMO) one of the best pieces of text I've read on here and this is coming from someone who has a different world point from you. I hope atheists and Christians (note not "creationists" as a lot of people would like to bundle together, a bit like saying all atheists believe the world is flat because some “scientists” said so) take note of their own limits and intentions.
-
Just needs to grow a beard and you could be on to something there!
-
Obviously I will write a longer post once I have the time to read and take in what people have discussed. Honestly, drop out of this thread for a little while and it could be anywhere!
-
Ok here something for you to think about. Lets say God is everything. The whole Universe is God. It created us. It destroys us. It is all powerful. Maybe there is a consciousness of the Universe, maybe not. Every person pretty much knows right from wrong and what is fair. There's no need to follow the rules of 1000's of years ago to the T to have some kind of faith.
I really can't see there being a heaven and hell.
I've got no problem with people believing there is a God its all the bullshit Religion that gets on my tits. Its like dickheads talking who's football team is the best.
That is an excellent point/thought and I promise I will address it properly in time. However, I have an exam in the morning and need to be cracking on with that for now.
-
How did god come to be then?
Scientists are open to new suggestions. Are you open to believe that there might not be a God?
Well to be honest, that's a bit of a pointless question because the very nature and definition of God is a necessary being that does not need a cause. To put simply, if God had a cause then he wouldn't be God.
I agree that scientists are very open to new suggestions (but only within the context of science), I am open to the belief that there may not be a God, if I had absolute concrete proof that there was one then I'd be quite famous by now. I think dogmatism is a negative characteristic that should be avoided by both believers and non believers.
My own personal intellectual journey so far had lead me to the conclusion that there is a God. Is this belief concrete? Well, by it's own definition it can't be. If the theistic God exists then (due to free well and independent thought) there is always the possibility that something may happen which will lead me to reject the idea that God exists. A real all loving God would not impose a system whereby I HAD to believe in him. If that makes sense?
-
To which I would respond with this (from a Forum of people with a lot more intelligence than us!)
Origin of the Natural UniverseI warned against atheists rationalizing complexity by introducing more complexity, yet in proposing an origin for the universe, you offer atheist Stephen Hawking’s theory “allowing the existence of infinite numbers of parallel universes.” You struggle to explain the origin of our universe without contradicting basic laws of science, and so you take on the same task for, say, 42 billion universes.
I said that there were only three options for the origins of the universe, and that you cannot logically identify a fourth. Either the natural universe was always here, or it popped into existence by itself from nothing, or a supernatural creator made it. Eschewing the third, you went with a combination of, I don’t know / but “there is evidence… that the universe could very likely (greater than 95% probability) have come into being without external agency or cause.” Appearing from nothing smacks into the well-tested physical law that states that matter cannot be created (First Law) nor destroyed (but it can be transformed from or into energy). Atheists choose to contradict this most fundamental law of science because they just cannot find a fourth alternative for the origination of the universe. And you can not find a fourth alternative, not because you just haven’t found it yet, but because there is no logical possibility of a fourth alternative. It has either always been here, has popped up, or has been made. So, while you cannot even find words to describe a fourth alternative, I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong.
A scientist can study the properties of a cure-all, and disprove a salesman’s claim that it will heal cancer: “It is only sugar water, don’t believe the claims.” (BA3) The theist applies the most well-tested and fundamental laws of science to eliminate the possibility that the universe has always been here, and that it has come from nothing, and then logic forces us to the only remaining alternative: creation. Contrariwise, the atheist hopes against the most confirmed science that something can come from nothing: blind faith. You wrote that Hawking’s theory: “implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause.” Sure, why not. From nothing. 42 billion times. Typically, with humanoids. (After all, how could Captain Kirk encounter so many life forms unless they were likely?)
Excuse me for indulging myself, but I just have to quote the rest of your paragraph. I won’t comment. I’ll just revel in the words: “Hawking’s theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.”
Your next paragraph contradicts your point that “the universe could… have come into being without external agency or cause.” For then you quote Quentin Smith explaining Hawking’s theory that a pre-existing hypersphere less than “10^-33 centimeters in radius… explodes in a Big Bang…” If the cosmos preexisted, even though “smaller than the nucleus of an atom,” it still pre-existed and did not “come into being.” Thus, you are trying to have it both ways, it popped into existence from nothing, and it was always here. Were you aware that both you and Quentin have adopted this doublespeak from Hawking himself? Let me quote his “Origin of the Universe:”
“This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe… expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe.”
What universe? Hawking was speaking of the event that “produced a universe.” And he draws the energy for that event “from the gravitational energy of the universe.” Sorry. Hawkings is wrong.
Besides, without a mind to make a decision as to when to do something, natural forces mindlessly move forward. And the physical forces that would bring about Hawking’s Big Bang would have expressed themselves infinitely further into the past than he needs them to. So then he’s stuck in an embarrassing perpetual motion machine (Second Law).
Although I don't fully understand the whole point (I'm not pretending to be a quantum physicist) the basic idea is that in order for Science to explain the origins of the universe, it completely contradicts its own fundamental laws. Materialism's most fundamental principle is that every event must have a physical cause (the whole structure of scientific theory is based on this assumption), I find it very strange that Hawkin effectively smashes this principle in order to go about a scientific account of the origin of the universe. It's a bit like saying "I can prove that all swans are white by building a theory on this black one".
But, maybe I have completely missed the point. To plagiarise McCoy, "Dammit I'm a philosopher not a quantum physicist"
-
Where's your proof for this then?
Well can you think of any physical phenomena that DOESN'T have a cause? It's within the materialistic thesis which is what science it self is based on. In fact, that is the very purpose of science, to explain the physical cause to every physical event. If anything existed without a physical cause then materialism would be null and void.
Rage Against The Machine For Christmas No1
in Chit Chat
Posted
If you are part of this group and you have already bought the single, let them know on the discussion board (NOT the wall) under the title "If you've bought this song since midnight Saturday confirm here". It will give them an idea of how many people in the group actually buy the tune. 1237 so far.