was the wife having an affair prior to him getting shot, or did she hook up after?My pick she was already having the affair.
Quote from: BerG;1331872
Spoiler :
Surely she was before. Hell, you wouldn't start that $#@! a week after your husband was *supposedly* zombified.
Spoiler :
It seemed pretty clear to me that the affair started afterwards - some time after Shane told Lori that Rick had died in hospital (I think this is explained in like Ep4). The question for me is this: how long was he in a coma in hospital for? It seems to me that - in the normal, expected sequence of events - Rick would either be in a coma that was short enough he didn't become fatally dehydrated and atrophied, but which wasn't long enough for Lori to move on to his mate (who also lost his missus), or he'd be in a coma for long enough that Lori and Shane were able to move on with each other, but which left Rick too dehydrated and atrophied to move. Does that make sense to anyone?
You all associate my position on anything with my Christian beliefs, which isn't fair but understandable.
Still, I stand by my ACTUAL point: whether you agree with someone or not, whether you think they are ridiculous or not, you shouldn't be a twat when telling them they are wrong. Thats just a bad character trait, and it goes for people on both sides of any argument (I think Brian Tamaki is a twat when he shares his beliefs, for example).
personal freedom would include sharing your option and being a dick about it
Doesn't personal freedom also include some understanding that one should respect others' opinions?
By the way, my frame of reference is the interview he did on TV1 with Mark Sainsbury, during which the topic of atheism came up, and Dawkins just came across as arrogant. I have no doubt his talk would have been good, and as I say, I respect his opinion and understand that he is incredibly knowledgeable in a number of areas. I also think that anyone challenging him on a topic that was not on the agenda should have been removed.
A trait shared by anyone who feels strongly enough about their world view that they have to insist others are wrong. Fortunately they put a cross on top of most of the buildings where this happens to warn people. Unfortunately Dawkins falls outside this warning system.
Why is this accepted though? Whats wrong with just sharing your opinion without being a complete dick about it? If people don't agree with your world view, thats their right.
I saw him on the news and he seemed like a bit of a twat, to be honest. I respect his viewpoint and everything, but he just comes across like an aggressive, entitled prick.
Turns out not - the verse he is referring to is actually from Proverbs. In fact Jesus wants us to obey the law ("pay unto Caesar what is Caesars" etc), and in the case of NZ the law states that hitting anyone with an alkathene pipe is assault. Thus, Jesus would say "Don't hit your son with an alkathene pipe", which is the opposite of your post.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.
Seriously though, we get it - people who believe in a god use that belief to justify some pretty messed up stuff. I think we all agree on this now and can stop posting every time it pops up.
I thought the Blues did alright - Wellington just did a better job of pacing themselves, so they had more juice in the tank in the second half (22 unanswered points is testament to that).
The Canes look dangerous though. They'll be right in the mix.
They are seeking donations to run the "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" ads on busses here. Would be great to see that happen, if only to have Bishop Brian whine about it on the news.
On the one hand this bothers me.
Doing this "only to have Bishop Brian whine about it on the news" seems to me to be a bit petty.
Also, I'm not sure that the back of a bus is the kind of place to be advertising any kind of definitive spiritual statement; whether you believe me or not, I would have the same problem with claiming God was real on the back of a bus. Why not just stick to tampon ads?!
Not only that, but the idea of a god, any god, brings hope to a lot of people; is it really necessary to take away or undermine that hope just because some self-righteous, thinks-hes-right know-it-all git can afford a bus ad?
Just got this in a press release from Shock Records:
Quote
The Prodigy
The Prodigy – “Invaders Must Die” Special Edition in store now!Touring February 2010 with Does It Offend You Yeah? + Special Guests
Future Entertainment is pleased to announce that legends of the early underground rave scene and big beat icons, The Prodigy, will be bringing the legendary noise, colour and excitement of their explosive LIVE performance to New Zealand in February 2010.
Since emerging from the UK’s underground rave scene in the early 1990s, The Prodigy have established themselves as one of the most dominant, dynamic and revered electronic acts of all time. Pioneers of the big beat genre, their unique mixture of Rave, Hardcore, Industrial and Breakbeat sounds, has seen them consistently captivate the planet’s electronic faithful and, in turn, sell more albums than any other dance music artist in history. From giving birth to iconic tracks like ‘Firestarter’, ‘Voodoo People’, ‘Smack My Bitch Up’ and ‘Breathe’ to forging chart-topping albums like ‘Music For The Jilted Generation’, ‘Fat Of The Land’ and 2009’s ‘Invaders Must Die’; The Prodigy are an explosive sonic voice for an entire generation of clubbers, ravers, punks and rockers worldwide whose live shows are the stuff of legend.
UK’s group “Does It Offend You Yeah?” are not your average cup of Earl Grey! The quartet has enjoyed a meteoric rise on the back of their debut album ‘You Don’t Know What You’re Getting Yourself Into’. Touted by Rolling Stone as “an obnoxious, dizzying, perfectly-of-the-moment blend of Daft Punk, Justice and Rage Against the Machine” DIOYY are renowned for their notoriously rowdy live shows and are set to cause a rawkus when they hit the stage in support of The Prodigy!
When: Thu 25 Feb, 8:00pm
Where: The Trusts Stadium Arena, 65-67 Central Park Dr, Henderson
Ok guys, time for me to ask a serious question: Without getting into bashing any particular religions or faiths - just referring plainly to believing in the existence of God - what are your thoughts on Pascal's Wager?
Quote
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
Surely, the wisest option is to believe that God exists. If He doesn't exist, you have lost nothing by believing. If He does exist, you will save yourself from the damnation of non-believers and enjoy an eternity of heavenly bliss.
I'm interested purely in knowing your own thoughts on this argument. I came across it today, incidentally as an exercise about dissecting argument from my Critical Thinking textbook.
)
