While the cause of the helicopter crash that killed NBA star Kobe Bryant has yet to be determined, newly released information shows the pilot appears to be have been disoriented by the weather conditions, even telling air traffic control he was climbing in altitude when he was actually descending
Since you asked, prima facie looks like pilot error. I guess no one on board enough faith, or the right kind perhaps?
Rubbish, if ever there was a demonstrable erroneous claim in the bible that one is a howler.
Willful ignorance is a prerequisite of faith.
Rubbish, what an asinine lie. It’s been my experience that the sheeple who extol the vapid efficacy of faith are just as likely to look for traffic before crossing the road as heathens like myself, and for fucking obvious reasons.
And for reading dictionary definitions it seems, you’re talking through your arse chum.
Bollocks. For the believer,there can be no risk, because the believer KNOWS he’s right. Possibly why so many believers earn Darwin award
My favourite awardee right now is a true believer who went to a forbidden island to take Christianity to the natives.They killed him as soon as he went ashore.
Not at all, why would you think your vapid rhetoric would “get my goat”? My response was a factual observation, that the bible contains errant nonsense. You seem to prefer empty hand waving, rather than honestly addressing the fact, quelle surprise.
Another vapid cliche in place if honest response, try addressing what was said rather than waving it away.
Have another go, I’m a patient man, and I’m sure if you make a supreme effort you can offer something substantive, or at least more substantive than that puerile rhetoric.
Did she not know faith was the answer to everything? I mean if you knew her you could have warned her after all.
You’re not really this stupid are you? Do you seriously think fact based safety precautions can guarantee anyone’s safety, or that abandoning all rational precautions in favour of vapid blind faith makes one safer?
Wrong yet again. Both the old testament and the New are anthologies, consisting of many books. EG Christians still cherry pick their way through the pentateuch,IE the books of: Genesis, Exodus Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
Objectively true to those who are capable of abstract thought and understand the concept of empirical evidence.
The Old testament is the mythology of Judaism. Finally written down around 700 bce, it had been an oral history for centuries. It’s about what one could expect from a tribe of bronze age nomadic sheep herders. Their lives were nasty,brutish and short, so of course their god was going to be a total arsehole. Plus,YHWH began as a tribal war god, another reason for him to be a prick.
The new testament is even worse. From what I’ve been reading recently, it’s beginning to look as if Jesus never actually existed. IE they made him up,just as they made up the entire new testament.
It has been my position for a couple of decades that an historic Jesus is irrelevant to the religion which came to be called Christianity
Very true, many theist, like yourself, try to interpretate it in a dishonest and subjective way to justify an irrational belief in an unevidenced and archaic superstition. Whereas atheists start with the word’s commonly understood dictionary definition.
Let me ask a question about your asinine claim that “we all” use faith when we cross the road.
Imagine the first person crossing a very busy dangerous road pays careful attention before starting to cross, and looks and listens intently for traffic as they cross.
Now imagine a second person approaching the same busy and dangerous road, and they put on a blindfold and ear protectors, and trusting faith they pray for a safe crossing as they stride into traffic.
Now my question is, let’s say we tested 100000 examples of each method.
In your opinion which demographic, the faith example or the example using empirical data gathered carefully, would incur the highest number of road traffic accidents?
Do take your time with this one, but I’d advise against using faith to determine your answer.
Not a Darwin award, but a favourite, from the newspaper, some time ago.
A group of Mormon missionaries, in Bangkok, doing some sight seeing. They were in front of the massive statue of the reclining Buddha. One of them had the brilliant idea of having hopping onto the Buddha for a photo. They were all promptly arrested, for sacrilege.
The Thai’s can be very touchy about the religion–and even more so about their king,who has no power, but who is revered.
Just did some looking.‘Some time ago’ was actually 1972. It is known as the Sukhothai incident. Prison was involved.,
BANGKOK, Thailand, July 14 (Reuters)—A court in central Thailand has sentenced a young American Mormon missionary and a friend to six months’ imprisonment each for sacrilege, official provincial sources announced today.
They said that the district court at the provincial capital of Nakhon Sawan yesterday sentenced Joseph K. Wall, the Mormon, and his American friend Kimball Larsen to a year’s imprisonment each, but reduced the sentences when they admitted committing sacrilege.
Mr. Larsen photographed Mr. Wall sitting on the head of a statue of Buddha in northern Sukhothai Province, the court was told. Buddhists, who make up 90 per cent of Thailand’s population, consider touching the head of an image of Buddha with any part of the human body as sacrilege.
Sorry but I did not claim to believe in a deity. the reason it may seem that I don’t answer questions are two fold.
1: I have very little social media time available to offer.
2: I have tried responding to other questions only to get some message that I can’t and must start a new thread or post (something along those lines) after spending so much time attempting to respond
Interesting. Yet it seems you do not identify as an atheist.
Are you being disingenuous? ‘Are you an atheist?’ isn’t a trick question. Not usually a question one asks a stranger in Australia. However, you have joined an atheist forum,so that question is reasonable. It is also reasonable to expect a simple, direct answer to that binary question.
There is only one of two possible answers; Yes or No. One either believes in god(s) or one does not. There is no middle ground.
Claiming to be agnostic (if that is your claim) is not a compromise. Atheism is simply a lack of about BELIEF. Agnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE , they are not the same thing.
Since you set the rules in how to answer that question, I am not entitled to respond in the way I would have. Perhaps you might want to backtrack on previous posts to see my response to someone else. Unfortunately your rules have bound me not to respond without breaking them.
