You are not a f*cking DJ. You’re an overpaid, untalented, cake-throwing c*nt.

Android 666

ianuss wrote: »

An example he gave was a caveman who sees a lion. He will naturally run, as he will have heard stories of others being killed by lions. He may never have seen someone being killed. But he's not going to stand there and try and workout if it's a danerous situation or not. He's just going to fookin leg it.

Can I just say that's a bit of a stupid analogy. If you saw a lion for the first time having never known of its existence you'd run like seb coe on speed because the lion has enough signifiers (its body mass, its roar and its great big fookin' teeth) to alert you to the fact that its a threat. You wouldn't need to have heard any stories before hand.

But to answer joker77's original question, many believe that we are hard wired to believe in a god such as this man, Matthew Alper (an atheist) and here is the premise of his book, The God Part of the Brain:

http://www.godpart.com/html/the_premise.html

I think its okay for someone to believe in God. If it brings them comfort in their daily lives why should I object. I also believe though in a fully secular state and against the laws of a country being decided by a religious creed. As with anything (sex, drugs, alcohol) if your religion is practiced with consenting adults and not affecting anybody else then fire ahead.

The problem sometimes is that atheism has nearly reached a fundamentalist state and some people who are advocates of it are as intolerant as the religions they are attacking. Why can't we, like, just all get along man.

joker77

BaZmO* wrote: »

Always find it quite astonishing that so many people think that Dubya was so dumb. He was certainly extremely socially inept at times but one of the smartest tricks he ever pulled off was convincing the American Electorate that he was good ol boy dumb hick. For Christs sake! He was the son of a former President, he was hardly straight out of the swamp. It just suited his agenda to be seen that way.


But can that not be stated as "Cerebrum" and "Cerebellum"
The difference is quite distinct in animals compared to humans.
And to use your analogy, Humans would be more "Head" whereas animals would be more "Gut"

Would have to agree here - George Jr. was no way as thick as most people think.

And about the lion analogy Ian - that's fight or flight surely? Not really the same as believing in fairytales

joker77

Android 666 wrote: »

Why can't we, like, just all get along man.

Indeed.

I've no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. My problem is with organised religion - in all it's forms, it's done more harm than good. Most of them are akin to rackets, with people at the top being acutely aware of this.

Android 666

joker77 wrote: »

Indeed.

I've no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. My problem is with organised religion - in all it's forms, it's done more harm than good. Most of them are akin to rackets, with people at the top being acutely aware of this.

You could just as easily be talking about the top of any government there…

jtsuited

Android 666 wrote: »

The problem sometimes is that atheism has nearly reached a fundamentalist state and some people who are advocates of it are as intolerant as the religions they are attacking. Why can't we, like, just all get along man.

My problem with religions is not their intolerance.

If somebody walked into the room and said 'I'm being controlled by a magic teapot that orbits a planet in a galaxy far away that we can't see', the burden of proof is on them. I do not have to disprove them, they must prove it. If I can see exactly why this person believes this, I'm gonna say it (as would anyone else).

The problem is that once something is in the sphere of socially acceptable religions, there's this idea that you must keep shtum and 'respect' what they believe even if there is no rational basis for it. I fully disgree with this, and because I'm willing to have a go at religion, people often say I'm intolerant of religion. Of course I'm intolerant of it. No rational, sane person is tolerant of it, because it goes against rationale and reason.

If somebody believed the Queen was a lizard, nobody would have any problem slating that person (David Icke is a proper nutjob and nobody really disagrees). But if it's a really old lie from ages ago told in the Middle East, then suddenly you're intolerant if you tell people their beliefs are complete codswallop.

BaZmO*

jtsuited wrote: »

But if it's a really old lie from ages ago told in the Middle East, then suddenly you're intolerant if you tell people their beliefs are complete codswallop.

I was actually talking about this earlier on in the thread (along with most things probably) but I find it funny that places like Lourdes exist just because of their history. It seems that history seems to be the key factor when it comes to belief in religion.
If a guy down the road tells you that he’s having visions, he’s called a nutjob. But a guy down the road in history that had visions and whole town/village/city becomes a shrine to his madness.

joker77

jtsuited wrote: »

My problem with religions is not their intolerance.

If somebody walked into the room and said 'I'm being controlled by a magic teapot that orbits a planet in a galaxy far away that we can't see', the burden of proof is on them. I do not have to disprove them, they must prove it. If I can see exactly why this person believes this, I'm gonna say it (as would anyone else).

The problem is that once something is in the sphere of socially acceptable religions, there's this idea that you must keep shtum and 'respect' what they believe even if there is no rational basis for it. I fully disgree with this, and because I'm willing to have a go at religion, people often say I'm intolerant of religion. Of course I'm intolerant of it. No rational, sane person is tolerant of it, because it goes against rationale and reason.

If somebody believed the Queen was a lizard, nobody would have any problem slating that person (David Icke is a proper nutjob and nobody really disagrees). But if it's a really old lie from ages ago told in the Middle East, then suddenly you're intolerant if you tell people their beliefs are complete codswallop.

Of course - if someone spouts bullsh*t of any nature you're perfectly entitled to call it, imo.

I can't recall ever, in my adult life, anyone trying to 'convert' me to their religion, or even preach to me about it or God or whatever. Does this happen to people here often? I'm genuinely interested to know, and I'm not talking about random Jehovahs on the street or knocking on your door, I'm talking people you know or come into contact with socially, through work etc.

It just doesn't really happen to me.

Android 666

BaZmO* wrote: »

I was actually talking about this earlier on in the thread (along with most things probably) but I find it funny that places like Lourdes exist just because of their history. It seems that history seems to be the key factor when it comes to belief in religion.
If a guy down the road tells you that he’s having visions, he’s called a nutjob. But a guy down the road in history that had visions and whole town/village/city becomes a shrine to his madness.

Ahem…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8143015.stm

They only reason they don't want to advertise these places is because of the amount of travellers they attract. If they think there's a holy relic around there'll be 100 caravans there before you can say 'John Joe McDonagh'.

joker77

Did you see An Idiod Abroad last week. He was in Israel then Palestine - there was a bit where the guide in Bethlehem took him to the 'actual rock on which the baby Jesus was born'. Broke my boll*cks laughing at that now.

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

If somebody walked into the room and said 'I'm being controlled by a magic teapot that orbits a planet in a galaxy far away that we can't see', the burden of proof is on them. I do not have to disprove them, they must prove it. If I can see exactly why this person believes this, I'm gonna say it (as would anyone else).

So you're saying you're not controlled by the all seeing magical tea receptacle of Ursula major?































Weirdo…

BaZmO*

Android 666 wrote: »

Ahem…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8143015.stm

They only reason they don't want to advertise these places is because of the amount of travellers they attract. If they think there's a holy relic around there'll be 100 caravans there before you can say 'John Joe McDonagh'.

That's not the reason, the reason is that people can generally see it for what it is now, a croc-a-sh1t.

Just look at how the Catholic Church dismiss that looney from Ballyfermot when he said he was seeing visions in Knock. But sure isn't the reason for Knock's very existence the fact that somebody once saw visions there? What's the difference? 100 years. Very difficult to disprove someone's testimony from that long ago.

Android 666

BaZmO* wrote: »

That's not the reason, the reason is that people can generally see it for what it is now, a croc-a-sh1t.

Just look at how the Catholic Church dismiss that looney from Ballyfermot when he said he was seeing visions in Knock. But sure isn't the reason for Knock's very existence the fact that somebody once saw visions there? What's the difference? 100 years. Very difficult to disprove someone's testimony from that long ago.

Was just joking. it only be 75 caravans…

Plenty of people turned up to Knock though on the same day as your man and plenty claimed they saw things happening in the sun. Mind you if I was staring straight into the sun for 15 minutes I'd be seeing things too…

People go on about organised religion but its the people on the fringes that are the strange ones. Almost as strange as the people who frequent the conspiracy theory forum on boards.

But like I said, if they don't bother me or anyone else, let them off.

ianuss

BaZmO* wrote: »

Always find it quite astonishing that so many people think that Dubya was so dumb. He was certainly extremely socially inept at times but one of the smartest tricks he ever pulled off was convincing the American Electorate that he was good ol boy dumb hick. For Christs sake! He was the son of a former President, he was hardly straight out of the swamp. It just suited his agenda to be seen that way.

Are you trying to tell me he's smart enough to act stupid?????

ianuss

BaZmO* wrote: »

But can that not be stated as "Cerebrum" and "Cerebellum"
The difference is quite distinct in animals compared to humans.
And to use your analogy, Humans would be more "Head" whereas animals would be more "Gut"

That was just one quick example I gave. The book obviously has a lot more content to it and goes into far more detail on a wider range of issues. I was just using that to explain the possible link between stories and human behaviour.

ianuss

Android 666 wrote: »

Can I just say that's a bit of a stupid analogy. If you saw a lion for the first time having never known of its existence you'd run like seb coe on speed because the lion has enough signifiers (its body mass, its roar and its great big fookin' teeth) to alert you to the fact that its a threat. You wouldn't need to have heard any stories before hand.

Couple of points. If you're close enough to see a lions teeth, you're dead! And also, since the lion is a predator, and quietly stalks its prey, chances are, you wouldn't see it's large body mass or hear it roar. I would imagine that more than a few of the first human v lion interactions may not have had many surviving humans.

ianuss

joker77 wrote: »

And about the lion analogy Ian - that's fight or flight surely? Not really the same as believing in fairytales

The same argument goes for eating poisonous fruit/fungus/berries or whatever.

SuprSi

Has anyone tried Shazam on their phones - the app that listens to a tune and gives you the name of it? For a free app, it's the best thing I've come across on the iPhone especially when you hear something on the radio that you like the sound of. I've been particularly amazed at how it can even recognise dance music and link me to the associated Youtube page. Great stuff.

jimi_t2

Bit OT, but would highly HIGHLY recommend this on any 'to-read' list if you're hitting up Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0330481746/ref=nosim?tag=clivejamescom-21&linkCode=sb1&camp=2378&creative=8430

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

I know it's cheesy to say, but we do need a Third Way. Many people sneer at the humanities and social sciences but tbh I feel they're more important now than ever as we try to figure out how to get the best from all these 'different but valid in their own way' ideologies.

Thank you Jt, i really enjoyed reading the entirety of that post, your talents are wasted, may i add to your post with this,

Socialism & Communism did fail in the past but must be noted that it was with the hand of Capatalism ensuring it did in any way possible, equally on the other hand the forces within Communism were hard at work to bring about the fall of capatalism, each totally opposed & defiant of each other.

Whatever third alternative that can be agreed must ultimatley have at its core the dignity of man, as long as we accept within ourselves that personal accumulation of wealth & materials is paramount this will never be acheived. Because we have the ability to recognise when the suffering of another human is as a result of the systems we choose to live by, we can choose to either ignore it for our own personal gain & feather our own nest or rise above the instinctive greed you outlined we have & alter the system to allow dignity to all men, women & children.

I can honestly say that i do not want masses of wealth, a flash or new car, big house, tailored clothes or to live in opulence in any way. I simply want to live comfortably & in such a way as it doesnt cause any indignity or suffering to anyone else or lessen anyone else's quality of life.

scott.s

SuprSi wrote: »

Has anyone tried Shazam on their phones

I use SoundHound instead, purely because a friend said it was better than Shazam. I presume they provide pretty much the same service though

BaZmO*

SuprSi wrote: »

Has anyone tried Shazam on their phones - the app that listens to a tune and gives you the name of it? For a free app, it's the best thing I've come across on the iPhone especially when you hear something on the radio that you like the sound of. I've been particularly amazed at how it can even recognise dance music and link me to the associated Youtube page. Great stuff.

Shazam is a deadly little program, or moreso the software behind it is. It's around a good while though. I had something similar on the Samsung Tocco but it was nowhere near as good as Shazam on the iPhone. Once you've tagged a track you have a list of choices to check out the video on youtube or buy/listen to it on itunes. When you think how far along mobile phones have come along in just 10 years, it's truly staggering.

jimi_t2

BaZmO* wrote: »

Shazam is a deadly little program, or moreso the software behind it is. It's around a good while though. I had something similar on the Samsung Tocco but it was nowhere near as good as Shazam on the iPhone. Once you've tagged a track you have a list of choices to check out the video on youtube or buy/listen to it on itunes. When you think how far along mobile phones have come along in just 10 years, it's truly staggering.

iPhones have completely destroyed table quizzes though...

BaZmO*

jimi_t2 wrote: »

iPhones have completely destroyed table quizzes though...

Haha. What a quote!

jtsuited

jimi_t2 wrote: »

iPhones have completely destroyed table quizzes though...

agreed. I used to be a hired gun round pub quizzes (only due to my primary school team quiz glory days), and now I've been replaced by that feckin thing!

BaZmO*

jtsuited wrote: »

agreed. I used to be a hired gun round pub quizzes (only due to my primary school team quiz glory days), and now I've been replaced by that feckin thing!

Replaced by a phone. Kinda like Bands being replaced by DJs. No sympathy for ya at all

Android 666

BaZmO* wrote: »

Replaced by a phone. Kinda like Bands being replaced by DJs. No sympathy for ya at all

And a phone won't laugh at me for my creationist viewpoint on bananas!

jtsuited

BaZmO* wrote: »

Replaced by a phone. Kinda like Bands being replaced by DJs. No sympathy for ya at all

I made far more money being in bands than I ever did out of djing.

jtsuited

Android 666 wrote: »

And a phone won't laugh at me for my creationist viewpoint on bananas!

BaZmO*

Funny you mention quizzes though. I was out for a few midweek pints with a mate last week and there was a quiz on in the pub. Nothing fancy, just the locals. Now I'd fairly fancy myself when it comes to general knowledge but didn't bother taking part as my mate wasn't into it. Anyway, the questions were just ridiculously hard, final 2 of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. There was a group of men sitting across from us that seemed to know there stuff. But did they win? Did they fvck. A group of spotter teenagers won. Obviously had a little help from technology cos there was no way they knew enough of the answers to win. The men weren't too pleased.

jtsuited

haha, I'd say so.

It's a funny one round my area. There are a couple of guys (about 2 teams of 5) that are at every table quiz going and they are damn good at it. I was once on their table and didn't contribute 1 unique answer.

The really depressing thing is that the guys are total alcoholics and at least half of them are terminally unemployable. The amazing thing is a good few of them are technologically illiterate so everything they know, they have learnt outside the internet. Can you imagine what they'd be like if they were our wiki-devouring generation?