Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Shaydawg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What do you mean by "Son Of God"
« on: December 04, 2008, 10:21:45 AM »
You really have to have an understanding of the verbage of that time period to know that it was more of an expression to show diety then it was him actually being a true "son"" in today's language.

Quote
Is Jesus the Son of God? In the Bible, Jesus is often called the Son of God, which means that He is God made manifest in human form (John 1:1, 14). Jesus is the Son of God because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), who is God. In Jesus' time, the phrase son of man was used to signify a human being. In relation to that, Jesus being the Son of God, means that Jesus is God.



Jesus actually claimed to be God. He could not claim to be God and be a true "son" at the same time.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Private Space Flight
« on: November 26, 2008, 09:43:50 AM »
I have been to the space station personally on vacation.


Prove me wrong. The burden of proof lies on you.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Unpowered Space Flight
« on: November 26, 2008, 09:32:11 AM »
Looks like that is another $100,000 NASA will get to pocket from the tax payers to replace another pseudo toolkit.

This conspiracy business really is profitable. Thinking about starting my own.


How about "Waters not really wet"

4
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 26, 2008, 09:23:05 AM »
Wait, so this thread is serious now?

5
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 02:39:17 PM »
In my beliefs animals are not held accountable for sin. They do not play by the same rules that we as humans do. I believe that humans have a soul whereas animals do not.
?

What are you questioning?

Please dont tell me you think the statement I made adheres only to Christianity for justification of your own assumption.
That statement is elitist, you're a bit slow aren't you?
I believe in hunting

I like steak and pork and chicken.
Large Carnivores (lions, killer whales etc) could think the same of humans they have hunted and went I can eat and enjoy this meat, does that make that human victim without a soul?

I dont care if Lions and Whales think that or not.  I can fire a bozooka and end them.  Fuck them if they want to step to me, I'll throw a rocket cap in their ass.


I think it is obvious that humans are the elite species on this planet and rule it how they see fit. You dont see a den of Lions starting their own country.

HUMANS! FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!

6
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 02:07:34 PM »
In my beliefs animals are not held accountable for sin. They do not play by the same rules that we as humans do. I believe that humans have a soul whereas animals do not.
?

What are you questioning?

Please dont tell me you think the statement I made adheres only to Christianity for justification of your own assumption.
That statement is elitist, you're a bit slow aren't you?

lol

You are saying my statement was elitist because I dont believe that animals are equal to humans? Ok sure, Im elitist then, because I dont think they are equal.


I believe in hunting

I like steak and pork and chicken.

More of me being elitist.

LMAO

This is funny.

7
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 02:05:29 PM »
oh no communists!  :o

As for the rest of your drivel I don't care. I got your analogy, I was appalled at how poorly constructed it was. It had no real parallel to the current situation. It was more forced that your girlfriends last orgasm.

I really don't understand where you are going with this, you don't care if gays are married because it'd mean nothing, but you don't want them "married" by a judge is the only distinction your idea has made.

History has plenty of meaning to me. I just simply know history extends more than 6,000 years and includes places with different beliefs than me.

You didnt get it, quit acting like you did.

I dont have a girlfriend I have a wife. Nice assumption though. You sure prove yourself to be one hell of a hypocrite dont you.

And where did I say I dont want homosexuals "married" by a judge?  All I have said is that they can get a civil union license from a judge, just not a marriage license. Same with hetero's.


And you dont know that history extends more than 6000 years. You have know proof of that. All you have is a bunch of biological assumptions. I am not saying that the earth is only 6000 years old, I really dont know. But we can only know actual history from the start of the written word.  Everything else is just speculation without an actual observation.

Socrates proves to be correct again. Man that guy was sexy (not in a homosexual way)

lol i did get it. I actually made no assumption, i used girlfriend in the sense of a girl that is your friend. If you aren't friends with your wife I'm sorry for that.

I know you didn't say you don't want homosexuals "married by a judge" but if you total up the changes you made, that would be the only result, the only real change in what is happening.

That analogy really does suck though, homosexuals aren't trying to claim they are straight, they are trying to marry the person they love. A better analogy would be if you tried to celebrate quanza. Which you could link because it is a cultural thing, and you would be trying to put yourself into a culture you don't belong.

OH my

I know for a fact you did not get my point. My analogy was not that of a homosexual claiming to be straight. It was that of a homosexual claiming to be "married" even though my religious definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman. It offense to us.  Now do you finally get it or do you want to keep assuming you do when you dont?


And please dont tell me you meant girl friend as an actual friend. That would make no sense in the context you tried to use it.

Whatever. Im done. There is nothing to be gained by this discussion.

8
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 01:50:51 PM »
In my beliefs animals are not held accountable for sin. They do not play by the same rules that we as humans do. I believe that humans have a soul whereas animals do not.
?

What are you questioning?

Please dont tell me you think the statement I made adheres only to Christianity for justification of your own assumption.

9
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 01:49:40 PM »
oh no communists!  :o

As for the rest of your drivel I don't care. I got your analogy, I was appalled at how poorly constructed it was. It had no real parallel to the current situation. It was more forced that your girlfriends last orgasm.

I really don't understand where you are going with this, you don't care if gays are married because it'd mean nothing, but you don't want them "married" by a judge is the only distinction your idea has made.

History has plenty of meaning to me. I just simply know history extends more than 6,000 years and includes places with different beliefs than me.

You didnt get it, quit acting like you did.

I dont have a girlfriend I have a wife. Nice assumption though. You sure prove yourself to be one hell of a hypocrite dont you.

And where did I say I dont want homosexuals "married" by a judge?  All I have said is that they can get a civil union license from a judge, just not a marriage license. Same with hetero's.


And you dont know that history extends more than 6000 years. You have know proof of that. All you have is a bunch of biological assumptions. I am not saying that the earth is only 6000 years old, I really dont know. But we can only know actual history from the start of the written word.  Everything else is just speculation without an actual observation.

Socrates proves to be correct again. Man that guy was sexy (not in a homosexual way)

10
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 01:42:43 PM »
Because to most Americans "marriage" is a religious conotation. The majority of the religions in our country dont believe that homosexuality is a natural act.

So by taking the word marriage out and calling all marriages civil unions you remove the problem.

Let me give you a scenario that may be easier to understand. I am white. What if I started telling every one that I was African American. What if I started filling out job resume's and survey's saying that I was black. Do you think the African American community may take issue with me doing that?  I think they would.


And my arguments are not based solely on me not being gay. My religious beliefs clearly state that homosexual sex is a sin. However, it does not say that a man can not love another man.

As for your comments about some societies just having marriages for reproduction. What does that matter?  Bottom line is that they are using intercourse for its naturally intended purpose. I take no issue with it, but I do disagree with it from my own religious perspective.  Just as I dont take personal issue with homosexuality I just disagree with it based on my own personal tenets,
Do you agree with non human gay sex? As there have been animals having same sex relationships since well before we humans appeared.

In my beliefs animals are not held accountable for sin. They do not play by the same rules that we as humans do. I believe that humans have a soul whereas animals do not. So the comparison means nothing to me really.

Obviously that is going to be a difference in religious belief for most people and not really worth debating.
Ah the good old elitist bullshitism of Christianity weeping out there.

I always love this answer.  It just shows the complete ignorance and elitism the person who makes it has. Not what is actually stated.

So because I have a religious belief (which I have never said was Christianity, you just assumed) then that means that my point of view is "elitist"

Ok, yeah that makes sense.  It is always the religious intollerant that always claim to be the tollerant ones.

Never fails

11
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 01:33:03 PM »
Because to most Americans "marriage" is a religious conotation. The majority of the religions in our country dont believe that homosexuality is a natural act.
doesn't matter due to the seperation of church and state, marriage is a secular institution regulated by law. Not a religious event.
So by taking the word marriage out and calling all marriages civil unions you remove the problem.
Yet what does this accomplish? Except to change the name of something that has been around forever. It is just a dumb idea pandering to religious idiots.
Let me give you a scenario that may be easier to understand. I am white. What if I started telling every one that I was African American. What if I started filling out job resume's and survey's saying that I was black. Do you think the African American community may take issue with me doing that?  I think they would.
Claiming you are african american is perfectly legal and can be defended, scientists say that humans started in africa, this would mean we are all of African descent, but you would be ignoring the intent of the question and just answering it to the letter which is a rather idiotic thing to do. The problem with this analogy is the homosexuals aren't claiming to be straight, they are just getting married.

And my arguments are not based solely on me not being gay. My religious beliefs clearly state that homosexual sex is a sin. However, it does not say that a man can not love another man.
Your religious views are in no way effected by two men being married. Unless you are one of these men, if you are scared that you would succumb to temptation and marry a guy, then I could understand your fear due to religion.

As for your comments about some societies just having marriages for reproduction. What does that matter?  Bottom line is that they are using intercourse for its naturally intended purpose. I take no issue with it, but I do disagree with it from my own religious perspective.  Just as I dont take personal issue with homosexuality I just disagree with it based on my own personal tenets,
Why should your personal tenets be enforced on others? They are personal. Intercourse may have a "natural purpose" that very word is funny to anyone who really knows biology. Life does not have a purpose, to paraphrase someone "it does what it must because it can."

again. No. You do not understand it. Quit trying to make decisions on things you know nothing about.

Funny that you say for me to quit talking about things I know nothing about when you yourself know nothing about it.

You missed my point on about 3 of the responses you answered. Especially the one about me claiming to be "BLACK" not just African American.  My point was about homosexuals claiming they have the right to "marry" even though they have no historical data to back up this right.

Religious idiots? LMAO. What a douche bag you have to be to even say something like that. I love how people on this board constantly claim their vast knowledge on so many subjects with no viable proof for anything they say. Saying that religious people are idiots because they believe in practice a religion show just how ignorant you are.

Where did I say that my religious views were affected?  I never even came close to saying that.  But it does insult my religion by using a term from my religion to define something that my religion does not agree with.  Whereas a civil union does not offend me one bit.

How do you know that life does not have a purpose? You dont. You are just talking out of your ass again. I dont agree with Atheism but in no way am I ever going to say something as stupid as "I can prove God doesnt exist". If you actually knew how to think openly and honestly you would not make such ridiculous pseudo intellectual claims.

Quoting the words of Socrates in Plato's Apology

Quote
So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. In either know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.


I believe in god. Please don't assume things. Also christianity did not start marriage, please do not claim ownership of something older than you. I called some people religious idiots. I guess I'll change it to intolerant bigots, at least that one you can't debate. There also used to be homosexual marriage in some countries. The past is not the correct measuring stick for the rights we should give some one. Oppression being tradition does not make it right for the future.

Your idea would kill marriage anyways. Once the government gives up sanctioning marriages it is up for churches. So how long til a gay church starts up and starts marrying people?


Yet this would still discriminate. Atheists. Where would they go for a marriage. Their only option is a church, because marriage is now a religious institution.

You'll come back with something else claiming I am attacking you and ignorant, so I'm done responding. I've blown through most of your points or ignored ones that really didn't make sense, (claiming to be black does not equal marrying a dude, sorry, that analogy made me seriously want to self harm) so feel free to come back with what you will. It's fun to watch you make assumptions.

You are funny. On one hand you said I dont think you believe in God, which I never said. On the other you tell me not to assume shit. Where did I say anything about Christianity or it being the basis for marriage? I didnt. You just made yourself look stupid again.  For someone who hates assumptions you sure do make a lot of them. I have had to correct your assumptions in every single post.

I love how you still missed my point about claiming to be black. I give up, you will never see what I was saying.

And why would Atheists have to go to a church to get "married".  Why cant they just go infornt of a judge like people do now. You do know that many many people get married by judges right? Not just by the church.

And if homosexuals want to start a church just so they can call their civil union a marriage then go right ahead. Seems like a pretty lame idea just so you could use the term.  I personally could care less if they did, not like it would have any significant meaning with any historical value to it. Oh thats right, it means nothing to you, this history we talk about.


Other countries believe in communism. Well I guess we should turn into a communist society so we can be like all these other countries. Dumb

12
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 01:15:32 PM »
Because to most Americans "marriage" is a religious conotation. The majority of the religions in our country dont believe that homosexuality is a natural act.

So by taking the word marriage out and calling all marriages civil unions you remove the problem.

Let me give you a scenario that may be easier to understand. I am white. What if I started telling every one that I was African American. What if I started filling out job resume's and survey's saying that I was black. Do you think the African American community may take issue with me doing that?  I think they would.


And my arguments are not based solely on me not being gay. My religious beliefs clearly state that homosexual sex is a sin. However, it does not say that a man can not love another man.

As for your comments about some societies just having marriages for reproduction. What does that matter?  Bottom line is that they are using intercourse for its naturally intended purpose. I take no issue with it, but I do disagree with it from my own religious perspective.  Just as I dont take personal issue with homosexuality I just disagree with it based on my own personal tenets,
Do you agree with non human gay sex? As there have been animals having same sex relationships since well before we humans appeared.

In my beliefs animals are not held accountable for sin. They do not play by the same rules that we as humans do. I believe that humans have a soul whereas animals do not. So the comparison means nothing to me really.

Obviously that is going to be a difference in religious belief for most people and not really worth debating.

13
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 01:11:30 PM »
Because to most Americans "marriage" is a religious conotation. The majority of the religions in our country dont believe that homosexuality is a natural act.
doesn't matter due to the seperation of church and state, marriage is a secular institution regulated by law. Not a religious event.
So by taking the word marriage out and calling all marriages civil unions you remove the problem.
Yet what does this accomplish? Except to change the name of something that has been around forever. It is just a dumb idea pandering to religious idiots.
Let me give you a scenario that may be easier to understand. I am white. What if I started telling every one that I was African American. What if I started filling out job resume's and survey's saying that I was black. Do you think the African American community may take issue with me doing that?  I think they would.
Claiming you are african american is perfectly legal and can be defended, scientists say that humans started in africa, this would mean we are all of African descent, but you would be ignoring the intent of the question and just answering it to the letter which is a rather idiotic thing to do. The problem with this analogy is the homosexuals aren't claiming to be straight, they are just getting married.

And my arguments are not based solely on me not being gay. My religious beliefs clearly state that homosexual sex is a sin. However, it does not say that a man can not love another man.
Your religious views are in no way effected by two men being married. Unless you are one of these men, if you are scared that you would succumb to temptation and marry a guy, then I could understand your fear due to religion.

As for your comments about some societies just having marriages for reproduction. What does that matter?  Bottom line is that they are using intercourse for its naturally intended purpose. I take no issue with it, but I do disagree with it from my own religious perspective.  Just as I dont take personal issue with homosexuality I just disagree with it based on my own personal tenets,
Why should your personal tenets be enforced on others? They are personal. Intercourse may have a "natural purpose" that very word is funny to anyone who really knows biology. Life does not have a purpose, to paraphrase someone "it does what it must because it can."

again. No. You do not understand it. Quit trying to make decisions on things you know nothing about.

Funny that you say for me to quit talking about things I know nothing about when you yourself know nothing about it.

You missed my point on about 3 of the responses you answered. Especially the one about me claiming to be "BLACK" not just African American.  My point was about homosexuals claiming they have the right to "marry" even though they have no historical data to back up this right.

Religious idiots? LMAO. What a douche bag you have to be to even say something like that. I love how people on this board constantly claim their vast knowledge on so many subjects with no viable proof for anything they say. Saying that religious people are idiots because they believe in practice a religion show just how ignorant you are.

Where did I say that my religious views were affected?  I never even came close to saying that.  But it does insult my religion by using a term from my religion to define something that my religion does not agree with.  Whereas a civil union does not offend me one bit.

How do you know that life does not have a purpose? You dont. You are just talking out of your ass again. I dont agree with Atheism but in no way am I ever going to say something as stupid as "I can prove God doesnt exist". If you actually knew how to think openly and honestly you would not make such ridiculous pseudo intellectual claims.

Quoting the words of Socrates in Plato's Apology

Quote
So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. In either know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.

14
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 12:51:02 PM »
Because to most Americans "marriage" is a religious conotation. The majority of the religions in our country dont believe that homosexuality is a natural act.

So by taking the word marriage out and calling all marriages civil unions you remove the problem.

Let me give you a scenario that may be easier to understand. I am white. What if I started telling every one that I was African American. What if I started filling out job resume's and survey's saying that I was black. Do you think the African American community may take issue with me doing that?  I think they would.


And my arguments are not based solely on me not being gay. My religious beliefs clearly state that homosexual sex is a sin. However, it does not say that a man can not love another man.

As for your comments about some societies just having marriages for reproduction. What does that matter?  Bottom line is that they are using intercourse for its naturally intended purpose. I take no issue with it, but I do disagree with it from my own religious perspective.  Just as I dont take personal issue with homosexuality I just disagree with it based on my own personal tenets,

15
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 12:29:25 PM »
I dont have a stance yet.

I have no idea what it is.

That hardly prevented you from forming one on gay marriage.

How the fuck would you know that>

I never gave one single reason for my stance. I just stated what it was.

Can you be anymore disingenous than that?

Exactly. You are not gay, yet you for some reason care whether they marry or not. You know nothing about being gay, you don't know the cause, you just have a built in opinion.

I love how you just assume shit.  I said I had no problem with the civil union. What else do you want me to say.


Im not a woman does that mean I dont know what makes women women?  I guess that since I am not a woman there is no way I could ever understand how a tampon is inserted and why. 

Lame argument

No. You may understand how it is inserted, but you know nothing about stomach cramps, hell if you are claiming you know women, you are ten steps ahead of every guy here.

I also say you shouldn't have an opinion on whether gays could marry or not. How can we decide that a whole section of society, should have to hide the person they love. Imagine if you were in their place. You loved a girl but it wasn't accepted in society. She is your world your everything, but if your family finds out, they'll disown you. People tell you you are going to hell when they see you two hold hands. People say you decided to love her, (I find this ridiculous I never chose to like girls, they just have this habit of forcing me to fall for them) and they say because you chose to like women, you can't marry her. You two can have something else, a civil union for your disgusting affair.

I say you don't know what it's like to live the life of a gay person. I say I don't know what it's like to be gay. So i have no right to tell them they can't get married.

And could you tell me what I assumed? I know you are ok with civil unions, that is bullshit. You and I both know it. It would lead to decades of discrimination, and segregation, because simply by using one term or the other the government could make laws only apply to gay or straight couples.

As for your argument, that is hilariously tragic. Next time a girl is angry because she has her period, tell her you know how she feels, you know where a tampon goes after all.

I think I clearly agreed that civil unions would be used to define ALL marriages not just Gay marriages like you keep implying. If that was the case then we would all be equal under the law. And the term marriage is something individuals could have definded by their own beliefs or have recognized by their churches.

And I am not saying that I completely understand women but there is enough research out there which defines what makes us different. I have the intellectual capacity to read that material and come to my own understanding of women.

As for your scenario of me loving a woman and being told I cant by society, well that is about as lame as it gets.  The NUMBER 1 purpose of sexual intercourse if for reproduction. When man on man sex can produce children then I might change my stance.  No one is saying that a man cant love another man, I just disagree that they were born to have sex with each other in orfacies that are not natural or used for reproduction. I cant make any logical sense out of why people cant understand that.

Again, I have no hard feelings towards gay men and women. I dont wish any ill will on them. They have the right to chose how they want to live their life as long as it is not hurting others just as I do. I shoudl not have to surender my religious beliefs because they dont share the same beliefs right?

16
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 20, 2008, 12:12:08 PM »
I dont have a stance yet.

I have no idea what it is.

That hardly prevented you from forming one on gay marriage.

How the fuck would you know that>

I never gave one single reason for my stance. I just stated what it was.

Can you be anymore disingenous than that?

Exactly. You are not gay, yet you for some reason care whether they marry or not. You know nothing about being gay, you don't know the cause, you just have a built in opinion.

I love how you just assume shit.  I said I had no problem with the civil union. What else do you want me to say.


Because Im not a woman does that mean I dont know what makes women women?  I guess that since I am not a woman there is no way I could ever understand how a tampon is inserted and why. 

Lame argument

17
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 14, 2008, 02:13:56 PM »
I dont have a stance yet.

I have no idea what it is.

That hardly prevented you from forming one on gay marriage.

How the fuck would you know that>

I never gave one single reason for my stance. I just stated what it was.

Can you be anymore disingenous than that?

18
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 14, 2008, 12:37:51 PM »
I dont have a stance yet.

I have no idea what it is.

19
The Lounge / Re: Proposition 8
« on: November 14, 2008, 12:33:35 PM »
If marriage is defined as part of a religion, then enacting a law that expands or restricts it would be a first amendment violation.  What I am suggesting is if they define all relationships as a domestic partnership, gay or strait, and let the label of married be up to the churches their would be no discrimination.

I do believe that Gays should have the same rights, and they should not be "separate but equal" like what was done to the blacks.

So if Joe and Jane are together, and they get married in a church, and receive their license from the state.  Then according to the state they are not married but in a domestic partnership.  Which has all the benefits of marriage today in law.  Then simply allow the gays to do the same thing with the state.

Only in the eyes of the church they are part of would Joe and Jane be married.

The difference is the church has the right to choose who is a member and who isn't, and they get to choose who they marry as it is defined as a religious ritual or symbol. 

Therefore in the eyes of the law, there would be no distinction, it's all domestic partnerships. However in the eyes of the church there would be a distinction.  And your status as husband and wife would only be official in your church.  (though people could still call you that).

I voted "No" simply because the question was fairly vague. This post right here is what I believe. I have no problem with state domestic partnership licenses. It is the marriage aspect that turns me off.  I in no way think that gay couples should be denied rights that straight couples are granted by being married.

And I oppose homosexuality. This goes beyond personal beliefs however. Just because I dont believe people are born gay does not mean that their choice of lifestyle, which is hurting no one, should be restricted from the freedoms of other Americans.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why Jesus & Not Others!?
« on: October 22, 2008, 08:17:02 AM »
God in the flesh is referred to as The Son of God. Though they are the same person. Just as the Holy Spirit is God.

The Trinity is hard enough to explain and I think the best way for God to explain it was to call Jesus his son and for Jesus to call himself the son.


Jesus actually claiming to be Yahweh refutes all other claims that he was just the son.  If Jesus would have never made this claim then I could see where the confusion would lie.

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why Jesus & Not Others!?
« on: October 22, 2008, 07:58:06 AM »
I did not read all this thread. I do know that Jesus himself actually claimed to be God.


Now whether or not you believe him is another question.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Did the Chinese fake their recent spacewalk?
« on: October 21, 2008, 07:38:01 AM »
If China can fake the age of a 14 year old gymnist and get her the Gold I dont think faking something as simple as a spacewalk is going to be a problem.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiritory Conspiracy
« on: October 21, 2008, 07:34:57 AM »
I can't remember who peer reviewed "Earth Not a Globe". Maybe Tom can tell us?

After Rowbotham published ENAG there was a monthly journal published called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which peer reviewed Rowbotham's claims.

Really? A monthly journal you say? Strange, this is news to me. And news to Google too.

Can you provide evidence that it existed, and that it was peer reviewed? I think we've been through this before Tom, and you've been found to be smoking from the pipe of rainbow dreams.

Much of NASA's work is peer reviewed. It's very nature, a government organisation providing a service of scientific exploration makes this largely necessary. Government and/or investors wouldn't hand over money if they couldn't assess whether the money was being well spent.

Here's a copy of NASA's project management doc NPR 7120.5C

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005C_
Quote
Independent reviews are conducted by independent panels composed of management, technical, and budget experts from organizations outside of the advocacy chain of the program/project being reviewed. To the extent possible, continuity of review panel membership is maintained from review to review and throughout the life cycle of a project.

I suspect you've been shown this before Tom.

Classic

I cant wait to hear his comeback for this one.  Tom is the epitomy of reading one book by one kook and then believing everything he said to be true.  This contrary to popular physics of course and would entail the large body of conspirators ever imagined.  The hush money itself would exceed any profits NASA planned on making.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Hell
« on: October 21, 2008, 07:25:43 AM »
I just mean, if you went to hell, you fucked up your life somewhere. Maybe hell is reliving your life over and over. What if your life is about to go really south? What if you had to relive the worst part of your life over and over. You can't change it, because you are you. Sometimes you get a quick glimpse of what you are doing, deja vu. Perhaps at the end you are even told or it is revealed to you that you have to live this life again, and you realize it's a loop.

I was just thinking.

Sounds very much like Hinduism to me. The Hari Krishna's to be more exact.

26
Im on board, lets start a website.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: astronaughts
« on: October 16, 2008, 01:49:28 PM »
I saw Apollo 13

Tom Hanks would never lie thus the earth is round.

28
So basically Tom Bishop is a conspiracy himself

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Catholic VS Christian
« on: October 16, 2008, 12:41:34 PM »
The first pope?

I have never even seen it mentioned in the bible. Can you please show me the scripture that gives us this answer.

I am assuming you are talking about Peter.

Boy, you're sure barking up the wrong tree on that one with me, buddy.

Saint Peter (Greek Πετρος, Rock)[1] (c.164 AD) was one of the Twelve Apostles, chosen by Jesus as one of his first disciples. His life is prominently featured in the New Testament Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Peter was a Galilean fisherman assigned a leadership role by Jesus.[citation needed] He was with Jesus during events witnessed by only a few apostles, such as the Transfiguration.[2] Early Christian writers provided more details about his life. Tradition describes him as the first bishop of Rome, author of two canonical epistles, and a martyr under Nero, crucified head down and buried in Rome.[2] His memoirs are traditionally cited as the source of the Gospel of Mark.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_peter

How am I barking up the wrong tree?  I asked you to give me scriptures and you quoted Wikipedia.

I know some people have a deep affection for the truth that is Wiki, but I had no idea it was now considered Scripture.

And "tradition" describes him?  Who is tradition and what are his credentials.


Bottom line is that the new testament scriptures do not name Peter as a pope or bishop. So my original sentiment that Christianity preceded Catholocism still stands.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Catholic VS Christian
« on: October 16, 2008, 12:32:46 PM »
It goes against all my instincts but I'm agreeing with Shaydawg on this.

Did your fingers sting while typing this?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8