JRD7

Ask again after his first mistake next season

Dick Bate Always used to laugh at CM when I saw his name flash up.

Bit worrying Football365.com - MASCH 'HAPPY' BUT UNCERTAIN ON FUTURE - All The News - Football365 News Liverpool midfielder Javier Mascherano has admitted he is unsure whether his long-term future lies at Anfield. As the Reds continue their pursuit of Premier League leaders Manchester United, the Argentina skipper thinks it is possible he could have to move. And while he admits he is happy at Liverpool, the midfielder knows if a club comes in with a tempting offer for his services he may have to move on. But for now he is focused on overhauling United's lead, starting with the clash with Newcastle on Sunday. "For now the main thing is to try to win the league and then I will have to think about what I am going to do but I am good here," he told Sky Sports News. "I can't say anything bad about Liverpool as a city or as a club because they were great with me but obviously you never know what is going to happen because if some club can come here with a good offer and the club say 'ok you have to go' then I will leave - you don't know." With the Red Devils three points clear of Liverpool with a game in hand and time running out fast, Mascherano believes it will be tough for his side to overhaul the leaders but has vowed to keep up the pursuit. "We have chances to win the League but it is not easy (it) depends on United so we have to win all the games while waiting for United to drop some points. "We are in a race but it is difficult now; they are in good form but we know they have some difficult games so maybe they can drop some points. "The most important thing is to try to win all the games for us. If we can win all the games then maybe we have a chance but if we cannot win (them all) then it will be difficult.

It's on Yes in Sopcast mate with sky commentary, it's half time at the mo so there's no picture but it will resume at kick off.

Have PM'd you

Mate you really keep missing the point. Every day we see religion around the world getting a completely free ride. Their leaders can say anything they want without fear of reprisal. It seems like you sort of agree with the opinions but don't like the way they're expressed. The pope can say whatever the fuck he likes, Ayatollahs and Imans regularly curse death upon people, but all of that shit is ok? Well it's not ok with me. All of the brilliant thinkers like Russell, Hume, Kant have addressed religion nicely by only answering the doctrinal points and providing superior arguments. Now hundreds of years late it's getting very tiresome indeed to have the same misconceptions used by the religious time and again. The complete "eye-evolution" fallacy used earlier in this thread is a prime example of what atheists are having to contend with. Pick a point over a hundred years old and ignore all the evidence to counteract it. I'm sorry but I give a shit about this world, really give a shit, and when we have religious people ignoring all of the evidence because of one book written by men 200 years ago, it's very hard to be dispassionate about it. Religions have been fucking the majority of the population over for far too long and they need to be held accountable and disbanded. Like I've said, I have no problems with anyone talking to their own invisible friends, but that's not religion is, is it. The PM example was to show what can happen if we use your "respect" approach to all ideas that people believe in, and how hypocritical you would be as soon as it suited you (like us all - not having a dig at you). If this thread was about those ideas Gordon Brown had, then there is no way you would be in here telling me to treat his beliefs with respect. It's just not an intellectually consistent position to hold mate, unfortunately. Finally, where is the mutual respect in believing people will burn for eternity?

Nothing to do with evolution is the simple answer. That was just a transcendental moment. One thing to remember though, was that the view was there for billions of years before we were. Our species has adapted to the environment we live in, and we are also able to enjoy and consider real beauty. For you it was that beautiful view, but for my Da it's Bach. The birth of a child or waterfalls are also such moments. As humans we are capable of such moments. Even early man appreciated beauty - we've all seen cave drawings or ancient jewellery. What about magpies or birds that love certain colours or objects? It's just the evolution of that function.

Mate that is so wrong it's untrue. For the record, Richard Dawkins has dedicated his life to scientific enquiry. His book "The selfish gene" completely transformed the evolutionary thinking of the time. He's already a very wealthy man. Any idea you could show me some evidence of this after-dinner speech work you mention? Also, just so you know, when he speaks at most educational venues (universities etc) he won't take a fee, if he does, it goes straight to the RD foundation (his own charity) for the advancement of public understanding of science. You know nothing about his work yet feel compelled to trot out some tired old misconceptions. Have you even read the god delusion? He may cut straight to the point but the rest of your post is a list of tired old Dawkins cliche's. RichardDawkins.net Who are the people really trying to make money of RD's back?

I was making more of a comment about the media and how they will react if this happens. Our games with Barca will be forgotten whilst they wank themselves stupid over such a "master-stroke". I agree he's a good manager.

You just know he will be hailed as a fucking genius if Messi isn't ripping shit up in his usual style tonight. Why? Because he's using the Benitez method of playing a right back against him. Of course, our two fairly recent games will be forgotten and Hiddink will be credited with coming up with such an ingenious plan, I can just just hear Robbie Earle saying in his pottery-fuelled, nasal whine "maybe teams will start to look at this now as a way to stop him." As you were.

240 is my best so far

Mate this is fucking brilliant. Anyone fancy a cheeky 18?

Most people not professing belief in god throughout history wouldn't have lived very long. People have common misconceptions about atheism and beliefs. If you've got a spare 3 hours I strongly recommend these documentaries. Look up Jonathan Millers "rough history of disbelief" on google video, it's a 3 part documentary (55 minutes each) that explains atheism really well.

I'm sorry but you've ignored the point. Because someone believes something, it doesn't in any way make it credible. Why should people who spend their whole lives working for the advancement of our species give special dispensation to religious people. It really doesn't make any sense. On one side, we have people who believe in talking snakes, magic stories, paedophile prophets, raising of the dead, and on the other we have people who work their arses off to try and prove their own theories wrong, before sending out to all people who work in the same field to see if they can prove them wrong, too. I gave an example of what would happen if the PM got involved in your logic, which you've just ignored and trotted out the same "respect" argument. When theists bring some evidence to the table, then we can look at it, but all of these beliefs are derived from a collection of texts from bronze age Palestine. A part of the world that is still fucking nuts 2000 years later. Theism was wrong about the beginning of the world, they were wrong about it being built on foundations and flat, they were wrong about us being the centre of the universe, they've offered nothing to the advancement of our species. You're not looking at the whole picture here, religion believes that everyone that doesn't believe in the same magic stories is wrong and will burn for eternity. Why is that respectful?, yet because they're now being asked to explain their nonsense suddenly everyone else is offensive and need to pay them extra respect. Scientists spend their whole lives looking at evidence, evaluating and re-evaluating the data. Science and Religion are competing theories for our existence, yet religion has a book with all the answers. Truly bizarre and intellectually dishonest. And in relation to Richard Dawkins, how can deriding is competitors harm is own argument? His argument is his argument, and if his attitude puts anyone of looking at the information he's providing (His work spans back decades and isn't just the GD), then that shows an inherent bias. The pope can say all the nuts stuff he likes about science, homo's and atheists, but atheists, who've been tortured and burned for about 1500 of the last 2000 years, need to afford their oppressors extra special respect? That's just stockholm syndrome gone mad

Does he ride hippos and is the mechanic a back kissing champion, perchance?

The point I was trying to make was that in the arena of political discourse and/or a general forum for ideas nobody either asks for is offered any additional respect because either, A) they honestly believe what they say and genuinely think it will help the country, or, B) They may be offended if you point out the gaping holes in their arguments. If for example the PM said he wanted to tackle the financial crisis be exporting halal meat to Israel and Tikka-masala to Bangladesh, because, not only did he believe it to be true, but he'd had a personal visit from angel Gabriel/lady of Lourdes/lady of Fatima (Delete as applicable), then what would you think? What would the religious people think? I was just trying to highlight the different standards people hold their own beliefs in when they compare them to the belief of others. I think it was Dawkins who said we are atheists to most gods, and we're atheists because the same refutations that religious people hold to any other religion holds just as true to the others. Until people are forced to think objectively about what and why they believe in magic stories, then we'll all be dictated to by dogma forever. We've been far too soft for far too long. We need to remove religion from the public arena if we're to have any chance of saving ourselves and the planet. Keep an eye on the woman over his shoulder. [YOUTUBE]_7h08RDYA5E[/YOUTUBE] I'm sorry, but if people can prove me wrong I am happy to follow the evidence and change my opinion. I've asked both Tom and G. Richards for further evidence of the existence in Jesus, which they both claimed was in abundance (if I remember rightly). Whether you, me, the Pope or Arch Bishop of Cunterbury like it or not, the myth (that's my belief and I'll be offended if you disagree) of Jesus is a copy of numerous other god myths from hundreds of years and millennia prior to the arrival of Jesus. That is an indisputable fact. I've done a mountain of research into religion for outside study I'm involved in, and it's a fucking pain in the arse to watch "The West" verus "The Miidle East" involved in some supernatural, cosmic battle between good and evil to decide who has the best skydaddy. It's tedious and tiresome. We live in society where Tony and george believe they've got the go ahead from the great cloud dweller to go and illegally invade Iraq. Unfortunately for relgion is the fact we can't get to the fundamentalists whilst there are so many moderates saying wishy-washy things about the same god. Finally, a couple of vids for the "eye deniers" amongst us. [YOUTUBE]rUOpaFVgKPw[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]sb2fjftZrkE&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Alright mate, you still coming to the Klan meeting tonight? Always difficult knowing what to wear, so I'm going for an all white number. Don't forget to bring a crucifix. Can't wait to see your swastika tatoo that you've covered your back with. That'll compliment your ss and Hitler tatoo's perfectly. The grand wizard will love them. Meet on Blackfriar road. Actually forget that, I'd feel dirty. Meet on Whitelands road

Every week we see Prime Ministers question time, with both sides going at it using various methods to make their points. I don't remember anyone begging for the other side to be a bit "nicer" because they aren't helping their own argument. I'm strongly of the persuasion that if we keep pointing out how nuts, the 3 main monotheistic beliefs are, then sooner or late it has to start sinking in.

It is unimportant whether Socrates existed though, it has no bearing in history. What matters are the works left behind. It is widely accepted that Homer probably didn't exist. Again, it just doesn't matter. Saying we know about Jesus because of the Gospels is poor reasoning to say the least. The interesting thing is that Paul produces the first of them, and all he knew was that the Christ was born, died and resurrected. Nothing about virgin births, mangers etc. I don't know off any non-theologically-biased historians that would claim that the gospels portray an accurate account of history. What about Lazarus for starters?

It's either that or they blow shit up. That's just the way they roll.

A bit too simplistic unfortunately, that presupposes that cancer does not evolve. The life cycle of germs, harmful bacteria, viruses etc has a much faster turn around so cancer will exist unless it can be eradicated at the source. To do this geneticists, and other interested scientific parties will 100% be using the theory of evolution to underpin their work. Without the "theory" then they would be fighting in the dark. Tom, it is a myth that Darwin recanted in later life. There were no death bed confessions either. He insisted his daughter, Emma stayed with him to the last to prevent these myths from spreading. She wrote about this later in her life. To deny evolution is to put yourself in the same bracket as young earth creationists. You have to suspend reality in order to protect god from the truth. It's truly bizarre, all the new drugs we use come about because of evolution. vaccination for Mumps - Yep, that's because of evolution too. The "problems with evolution...." you have provided are so simple to refute, with real evidence but you choose to ignore or "not believe" it, that just shows ignorance and lack of understanding. That said, I hope you'll post that paper when you're done with as I'd be very keen on doing a full review.

So if it is "en vogue" to try and eliminate Jeebus from history, why is there hardly a scholar around who'd even deny he existed? Which is it? You can't have your biblical virgins and rape them. Which high profile figures do we need to take out of history then? There were many Busts made of Cesar from his own time, they even evolve as he ages. Initially when he was younger, they show him with hair. As he got older and his hair receded, the busts switched to showing him with his crown of leaves thingy. Who was making making these myths up? Both Yours and Toms historical figures analogies are flawed for numerous reasons. There are people in history that it doesn't really matter whether or not they existed. Jesus, unfortunately for you both, is not one of them. Whether someone like Socrates really existed or not, is an irrelevance as the works are the important thing. But you are comparing the religiously proclaimed "son of man" with ancient dictators. Although to me seems like a very apt comparison, I feel in order to try and score points you're downplaying the potential importance of CHrist. If Cesar didn't exist (he did, by the way), then someone else did in his place. We know this because we have multiple source accounts of what the Romans were up to. So whether it was Julius Cesar, as we know of him today, or Bigus Dickus, someone lead that life. Please show me the evidence that Jeebus existed. And remember not to bear false witness.

Not sure, but Lisa Riley's taking singing lessons. Make of that what you will.

more like Jade - Pig in the ground/oven* * delete as applicable