Dude-bro? What if it is in truth some sis?

Betty La Fea wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:

Lucifer wrote:

The day atheists explan to me what/who is the origin of (human) life itself and everything we see around us, I'll become an atheist. So far, it's a bunch of BS "Big Bang Theory" talk that STILL doesn't explain an origin.

"Oh, idk, it just....happened"...."there was nothing and then all of a sudden, there was something"...yeah sure.

For a group of people so hell bent on finding "answers" or "proof", they seem to have none for that question.

But it's all good. To each his/her own.

Even then wouldnt a belief in religion require there being an answer for what was before god?

I mean, if you believe there was always a dude-bro sitting around creating things, then the belief that something just happened isn't too farfetched.

Lol @ "dude-bro"

For the sake of acknowledging your point, at least it gives a deeper explanation than that absolute BS big bang theory nonsense that some scientists have pulled out their arses. Just like the theory of evolution. Both nonsense with no concrete proof behind them(since they want to talk about "proof").

Bottomline for me is, despite my reservations about certain interpretations of Christianity(even the bible or at least parts of the bible where a prophet is spinning their own interpretation of "God's" word is sometimes BS), it's the religion I agree with the most. It's the religion that gives me the moral compass structure my life by.

I call out a lot of nonsense from certain priests, pastors and what have you when I see it. I'm definitely not a blind follower. Use Game of Thrones as an example, Melisandre, Thoros and Kinvara all have their own interpretations of what "the Lord of Light" is saying. Same way a lot of pastors have their own spin on Christianity. For me, that's fine. I find the one I most agree with and take the good parts of it.

If I pick a side(a religion) and die to find out that there was in fact no use for religion then....that's fine. Nothing happens. I still lived a good life with good morals and did good in the world. If I die to find out that I was right all along then....great. I go along with it.

In the end, what do I have to lose, really? Worst thing would be dying and finding out I SHOULD have been following a certain religion. It's really a win-win situation imo.

Blue Barrett wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:
The day atheists explan to me what/who is the origin of (human) life itself and everything we see around us, I'll become an atheist. So far, it's a bunch of BS "Big Bang Theory" talk that STILL doesn't explain an origin.

"Oh, idk, it just....happened"...."there was nothing and then all of a sudden, there was something"...yeah sure.

For a group of people so hell bent on finding "answers" or "proof", they seem to have none for that question.

But it's all good. To each his/her own.

Even then wouldnt a belief in religion require there being an answer for what was before god?

I mean, if you believe there was always a dude-bro sitting around creating things, then the belief that something just happened isn't too farfetched.

Lol @ "dude-bro"

For the sake of acknowledging your point, at least it gives a deeper explanation than that absolute BS big bang theory nonsense that some scientists have pulled out their arses. Just like the theory of evolution. Both nonsense with no concrete proof behind them(since they want to talk about "proof").

Bottomline for me is, despite my reservations about certain interpretations of Christianity(even the bible or at least parts of the bible where a prophet is spinning their own interpretation of "God's" word is sometimes BS), it's the religion I agree with the most. It's the religion that gives me the moral compass structure my life by.

I call out a lot of nonsense from certain priests, pastors and what have you when I see it. I'm definitely not a blind follower. Use Game of Thrones as an example, Melisandre, Thoros and Kinvara all have their own interpretations of what "the Lord of Light" is saying. Same way a lot of pastors have their own spin on Christianity. For me, that's fine. I find the one I most agree with and take the good parts of it.

If I pick a side(a religion) and die to find out that there was in fact no use for religion then....that's fine. Nothing happens. I still lived a good life with good morals and did good in the world. If I die to find out that I was right all along then....great. I go along with it.

In the end, what do I have to lose, really? Worst thing would be dying and finding out I SHOULD have been following a certain religion. It's really a win-win situation imo.

I definitely accept in evolution, but that is neither here nor there.

Your attitude towards religion sounds like Paschal's wager. With so many religions though you have to make sure you pick the right one.

Live your life as a Christian, and you die and find out it was really the Hindus who had it right then a belief in god would still be moot. In the end if religion is not pervasive in your life you really don't lose anything, but only those of us lucky circumstances really have that. And that is not even looking at the different sects. Pick the wrong christianity? Well you lose again. It seems mathematically impossible you could win. Its like the lottery.

That's been my way of looking at it for a long time, too.


In reality all you can hope for is that if there is a God, they judge people on something that actually makes sense. If you made the World a better place or not. Not which religion or lack of religion you got lumped in to by your society/family etc.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:That's been my way of looking at it for a long time, too.


In reality all you can hope for is that if there is a God, they judge people on something that actually makes sense. If you made the World a better place or not. Not which religion or lack of religion you got lumped in to by your society/family etc.

Agreed

Asfor something different... I just stumbled over this article from the BBC.co.uk:

BBC.co.uk wrote:There have been 93 US gun-related deaths in 72 hours, not including Orlando

A mass shooting at the Pulse club in Orlando left 49 people dead.

Omar Mateen also wounded 53 clubbers before being shot dead by police.

Now Gavin Newsom, Lt Gov of California and former mayor of San Francisco, is reminding people of the 93 other people who have died in the US in the last 72 hours in separate "gun violence" incidents.

He doesn't cite his source but the figure matches with reports from the Gun Violence Archive.

One of those deaths was that of MMA fighter Ivan Cole.

The 25-year-old is thought to have been been playing Russian Roulette when he shot himself.

Five people died in a mass shooting in Roswell, New Mexico. Four of those were girls aged between three and 14.

Juan David Villegas-Hernandez, 34, is now charged with murder.

He is accused of killing his 34-year-old wife Cynthia Villegas and their four daughters - Yamilen, Cynthia Janeth, Abby and Ida.

In one mass shooting in Panorama City, California, two teenage girls and a man aged 20 died. Another woman was injured.

Mass shooting is defined by the Gun Violence Archive as a situation where four or more people are shot and/or killed in a single incident, at the same general time and location. The shooter is not included in this number.

Other records in the archive from the last 72 hours show deaths during burglaries, robberies, drive-by shootings and domestic violence.

These figures don't account for suicides where a gun was involved.

Full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36527250/there-have-been-93-us-gun-related-deaths-in-72-hours-not-including-orlando

What is wrong with American society? Is it an educational problem? I just don't get how is it possible, so many shootings in such short periods of time.

Guns are allowed in some European countries too, but you never hear of any incidents.

The conclusions can be formed quite easily and they are not showing the USA in a good light.

Is it possible to buy a semi automatic rifle somewhere in Europe in such a simple way as it is in the USA? Because there is a huge difference between automatic weapon and a regular pistol. I think it is ridiculous how easy it is to get your hands on a weapon of war in America. Automatic rifles belong only to the time of war.

The whole point is to have weapons of war, because the main point of owning guns in America is in anticipation of an internal war, basically

Not trying to annoy anyone but it's just tiring seeing people complain about the TYPE of guns as if that's totally unreasonable.

It makes perfect sense if your agenda is to be prepared for a fight against government. Wouldn't want to be conducting a war with just some pissy little handguns.

Yeah OK on the off chance a derranged openly evil USA government wages war on humanity, guns will be a great asset.

But until then, all you have is a bunch of mentally deranged idiots who have access to weapons that can help you slaughter groups of people with even the most basic of practice.


On the plus side, won't have to worry about overthrowing a future government regime because most of the would be officials will have been gunned down in school before actually coming in to power.



And if tens of millions of citizens had semi automatic pistols you could still easily revolt with the numbers game. That is, those of the citizens who don't get wiped out via drones in their bases of operations in this scenario.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

So this is pretty interesting, I had the same "assault weapon" misconception

Besides assault weapons being an empty term, what did you guys find interesting about it? Did you think that automatic weapons weren't banned?

Anywho, I read an article (LINK) about the interpretation of the second amendment that I've never come across before. Anyone got more info on it?

After reading the above linked article by elitedam, I thought I might link another article that I found very saddening when I read it shortly ago:

- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mother-posts-photo-of-3-year-old-girl-practising-mass-shooting-lockdown-drill-by-standing-on-toilet-a7094721.html

Anyone know if any funerals took place? I find it odd that many deaths happen yet I personally didn't hear or see of any actual funeral, which you'd expect to get a lot of coverage with people out and supporting them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36570323/angels-protect-orlando-funeral-from-anti-gay-westboro-protesters

westboro church truly has no shame

elitedam wrote:Besides assault weapons being an empty term, what did you guys find interesting about it? Did you think that automatic weapons weren't banned?

Anywho, I read an article (LINK) about the interpretation of the second amendment that I've never come across before. Anyone got more info on it?

Yeah that assault rifles are already banned, that the AR 15 is not actually a war weapon, that less than 1% of gun deaths come from rifles, that magazine reduction seemed to have no effect at all on deaths and was easily worked around.

Back home in Orlando, this asshat decided to do this the evening after we left Orlando that morning for London and the Euros. Had no idea what was going on until some friends hit me up when we arrived in Gatwick.