Search results

The formatting and punctuation make this difficult to read. Good effort, though.

Re: Australia and South Africa finalists to build world's most powerful space telesco And I'm so thrilled about this. I took part in the project that did a lot of the backround work for this (Students Exploring Australia's Radio Frequency Environment aka SEARFE - google it and you'll see a...

Re: Australia and South Africa finalists to build world's most powerful space telesco Uh, dude, that's the whole point. It has to be built in the middle of nowhere to avoid radio noise from cities. It's a big boost to our "scientific economy".

Well, "what is sin? Why have sin? Why rely on this abstract, flawed concept to explain things, when really all it does is begs the question?" for a few.

Erm, no it's not. It's conceded we may never find an answer, but that doesn't stop scientists from, say, building telescopes to look deeper into the past to maybe one day find out what caused the Big Bang. Is it really? And no, it's not arrogance to believe that science will find an answer...

Again, cite source.

Oh sure. Of course, the perspective of science is to keep looking, as we'll find the answer anyway. It isn't a coincidence as to why we're here - why? Because we're here. The perspective of you? "Oh, God did it, let's leave it at that." Pathetic. No it doesn't, not at all, because it assumes...

Like what? The Santa Claus myth was at least based on a plausibly real person who did plausibly real things that, as time went on and as happens with legends, gradually gained in supernaturality.

Hmm, straw man. His point was that God has about as much proof of existence as does Santa Claus/the tooth fairy/etc, that is, none. Belief in a God is just as logical as belief in them, that is, not at all. It was certainly not an argument without substance, just one that wasn't very well...

Why? He's got a point, and a good one too. Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate it.

I didn't smite you :( Did I?

Gillard is an insult to snakes. But that's beside the point.

Yes, dude, I do know what entails being clinically psychopathic. And perhaps you lack understanding about military needs for infantry (we're not talking about elite SAS/SEAL/sharpshooter etc units here, which are a totally different ballgame, and what I think you're actually talking about)...

He was raised Roman Catholic and is a practicing Anglican (though I think that's more his wife's influence). EDIT: A pretty telling comment from him in an essay he wrote in The Monthly:

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense, nor does it explain anything. Perfection? Sin? It's all a bit specious.

And that's why you rely on the citations which, I believe, I pointed out.

What has that got to do with the price of fish? I'm talking about persecution of individuals for "offending" religious sensibilities (Salman Rushdie anyone?), which is totally different from parochial altrusim that prompts war.

The people who have the power to change these laws are all dictated by what their churches tell them (Kevin Rudd, anyone?). Consistent polls show the majority of the electorate wish for gay marriage to be legal.

Oh, sure. The Church/es have the right to decide whom it marries and under what circumstances. But it has no right to dictate who can marry under what circumstances when it comes to the state and the law, which is what it is currently doing now.