this is much funnier than zeejustin

[aliensyndm]

It depends how you define intelligence. If you practice intelligence tests you get higher marks in them. That shouldn't be the case unless you think that practicing these tests makes you more intelligent.
Although a broad definition of intelligence might be learning ability it has a hole host of things involved. In intelligence tests there is alot of mathematical type things (next number in sequence etc), logic things like which shape is next and these are all quite mathematically orientated. There are also many other elements though that involved playing around with letters, or words, or manipulating shapes etc. Intelligence is all about learning ability and if you are intelligent you can work out how to do it etc.

Also you don't think the fact that Slansky is very good at maths would have anything at all to do with it ? He's hardly likely to pick a subject he is shite at is he ? Wonder why.

Maths is also a subject you can learn parrot fashion and do all sorts of strange things to equations and the like whilst having no real understanding of what you are actually doing or what they mean. Are people that do this intelligent would you say ? That's how alot of people learn maths, I've seen it !


Why doesn't Slansky suggest an intelligence test then ? There's far far more chance he would be easily beaten in something like that rather than a maths test which he is an expert at. Intelligence tests are not the be all end all anyway. How do you measure the intelligence of someone who cannot read or write ? Many people living in rain forests etc may not be able to read or write, does this make them not intelligent ? Far from it !

Also Chris a a large amount of old testament stories are simply to do with descendency and races of people and where they lived and where they moved to and bla la la. Alot of these stories were also touted as nonsense too because there was no "evidence" for them. Entire races of people were said to be complete shite cos there was no archaelogical evidence they ever existed. Hittites are a good example of this. Complete bollox, they don't exist, the bible is talking pish. Oh wait we just found loads of their stuff, I guess they do exist then. The other things though, complete bollox, no evidence etc. Cycle repeats itself over and over.

I agree with Doc that Slanksy is an arrogant dick ! Also amusing re-reading that other thread muze posted up for me where Slansky is totally missing the point but is so arrogant he cannot back down. Loved the quote on you should be familiar with this chapter...you did write it afterall

[Doc]

no religion can explain how god came about .........................thats a massive hole for me in a belief.................Nobody can just be there can they? That doesnt make sense does it....................I just beleive whatever is going on in the universe is completely beyond our understanding, were not able to know.

spot any contradictions here?

[GETT1NLOTS]

Alien - I agree with Slansky on one thing, and that is the 'unfairness' of being sent to Hell if you didn't believe in Jesus Christs resurrection. I have posted up before (to you in other religious threads) that I turned my back on Christianity when I was told this by a speaker in an RE Class (I was 14 or 15 years old at the time). I asked the same thing of the speaker that Slansky seems to be asking.

If a man led a good life, followed all the 10 commandments and never broke them (although not deliberately - he's just a decent man) and then died he will go to Hell if he didn't believe in Jesus Christ? And by the same rationale a man who cheats on his wife and kills his neighbour - but then repents - will go to Heaven if he believes in Jesus Christ towards the end of his life?

I was told YES the 'good man' would go to Hell and the ex-offender would go to Heaven. I said there and then - 'well this isn't a religion I want any part of then'.

Alien I think you totally miss the point when you write

A bad person in who's eyes ? His ? Some other persons' ? The majority of people ? God's ?

Just because he thinks someone maybe a bad person doesn't mean they are.
His bad might be someone else's good. Who is right, the other person or Slansky ? Why are Slansky's ideas of morals any better than anyone elses' ? They aren't.

In my view the real point here is that it's the inflexibility of the Christian view which is the issue here. In other words even if the person was a good man in Gods view he still won't go to Heaven because he denies the possibility of Jesus Christs resurrection. And if you look up the example I give above that is pretty unfair however you want to cut it up.

If you do a search Alien you'll see I have posted this account up before. I'm sure you posted back that I was advised badly by that speaker too - but maybe that wasn't your reply?

Anyway in this regard - the fact that Slansky finds this belief abhorrent (for the reasons I post up in my example above) I agree with.

As for the rest of his theories with regards to Christians being stupid etc - I'm not really interested in.

[aliensyndm]

Well again I would say it's your only opinion that it's unfair. In some places if you are caught stealing you get your hands chopped off. Is this fair ?
Some people might say it is. Others might say it isn't. Some would say it is justice, others would say it's barbaric. In other places if you get caught stealing cars you get sent away on a mechanics' course. Is this fair ? Is this justice ? What is fair and what isn't again are all personal view points.
Basically when you say that something isn't fair you are saying I have my idea of what is fair and what isn't and the entire world/God should operate based on my idea of fair and noone else's as everyone elses' idea of fair is wrong and mine is right. If the world/God doesn't operate in the way that I think is fair then I want nothing to do with him/it. It's a very self-centred view.

I remember a story, I think it was one of Aesop's fable where some animal goes round asking if anyone wants to help him plough the field, harvest the grain etc etc etc. Everyone is like nah don't think so see ya later.
He does it all himself and eventually makes bread and then everyone wants to come and eat the bread. Where were they when he was ploughing the field ? Where were they when he asked them to harvest the field ? Where were they when he asked them to turn the mill stone ? Do you think people should get to enjoy the bread without putting any of the effort into making it ?



I would also say that if this is the point Slansky is trying to get across he isn't doing it very well at all. Perhaps it's my inability to grasp the point but it doesn't come across clearly at all to me. Also as Muze says if his point is that someone who is 95%+ sure about must be dumb cos they leave no possibility for the fact they could be wrong then I believe I can quite fairly call him a blatent hypocrite as in the thread Muze involving a discussion on NL Hod 'em Muze posted a few posts earlier for me Slansky seems unable to comprehend the fact that HE could be wrong about something and just refuses to back down and comes across as terribly arrogant and a twat in general. Is this not the exact same kind of behaviour he might be criticising in others ? Fancy that eh.