Just saying it's provably fair doesn't make it so. You'll need to check all the info given and make your own mind up (or get someone more knowledgeable to confirm or deny wether it is).

How does that work if Ritz's payments are automatic?

I can too with a watch and by looking out for grey clouds and/or checking the weather report haha.

I don't drink but don't have a problem with anyone who does unless they're trying to mock you for it. I hate the taste of alcohol. Brewing your own beer always interests me though. Creating your own stuff is always very satisfying, just like growing your own homegrown bud  ;)haha.

Haha. Next time drain the water then open it up first to see how it is inside. I actually had some (semi) fresh coconut water the other day for the first time in years. Wasn't perfect but infinitely better than the canned or bottled stuff which is horrid. I'm going to try make some cocunt milk sometime soon (mix the water with the shredded meat of the nut) and see how that tastes.

Not sure about cats but I think some dogs can be trained to sense oncoming epileptic seizures: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure_response_dog

I know exactly what you mean but isn't it like this for anything? If you're good at doing something or have a certain skillset people will just come to you for a free solution most of the time.

The likely explanation for the classic Loch Ness image:

Sounds like a really shit situation on all fronts. Dementia is horrible but even people with their fully functioning mind fall victim to these supposed faith healer charlatans. Probably not gonna do much good but try get her to watch or read something that exposes the faith healer scammers.

Yeah, but long passwords won't mean shit for keyloggers. It's weird then. I can't see how it was a lapse on hotmail's end. There must've been someplace or somehow you slipped up.

Crisps I think. Americans call crisps potato chips. I like both, but also haven't had a crisp sarnie in years. Think I might rectify that tomorrow haha.

You don't like dramas? You're missing out. What about semi black/dark comedies like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under? They're my two favourites.

I enjoyed Captain Phillips. Thought Hanks was ok in it, but the last part after he's in shock almost choked me up haha. Thought he was great in that part. I've still yet to see Cloud Atlas but I'm not looking forward to it as the book was confusing as fuck and people say the same about the film. Hopefully it'll be easier to understand than the novel though.

Haha. He must've thought the guy won, but who would be making this marketing ploy exactly?

You probably shouldn't get into arguments in English then if you can't articulate yourself or understand it properly .

That's one of their more mellower songs. I think Colors is their best album. Really heavy.

Yes you are stupid and yes I have got better things to do than urgently find the time to make my case to you, but I'll do it at my own leisure and choosing. Where do you think arguing with a close-minded religious moron (troll?) who is blatantly allergic to facts or reason is is on my 'To do list'? It's not a priority, but again, what does the duration I take to bother to reply to your crap have to do with the argument at hand? Absolutely nothing. “Without providing proves.” Lol. I have continually 'provided proves' whereas you have yet to provide anything other than your unsourced opinion. Unlike you I actually bother taking the time to get some sources whereas you just keep making one false claim after the other and derail the argument with pettiness and irrelevance to avoid answering the original questions or providing any kind of source for them (almost certainly because you have no argument whatsoever other than just incorrectly saying things are facts when they’re not). So, please take your time and provide me with the evidence I have continually asked for here. Take as long as you want to respond.


All of what you've said is your unbacked opinions. They haven't been 'scientific' at all, but have just been your opinions based on assumptions, fallacies and usually nothing at all. Here's some things you've yet to answer and you haven’t backed up with any sources but just made up to suit your argument:


Prove to me where their stance on religion is clear? It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about and that they're either agnostic or non-believers in god or religion and you haven't provided anything to the contrary. I provided you with some quotes (and more to follow) on how they're not religious at all but you still deny them for some reason.


Can you provide me sources on where he stated his work has 'always had a 'religious inspiration' and what has his Cosmological Constant got to do with anything here?


Who is this biggest figure of all time? Also, where is your proof that half of the worlds prominent scientists are religious? You've seemingly just made that figure up. You provided a list of some, but that doesn't mean 50% are. Give me the evidence and source of the 50%. And if 50% are religious then 50% are also not. Whatever your point is here it's irrelevant anyway.


I haven't changed my reply. My original argument was always there's people in the list that aren't religious:


So no, the whole argument here wasn't 'religion makes people stupid'. Where did I say that? My argument is that you've incorrectly put three non-religious people onto a list of religious people. Einstein, Hawking & Sagan are not religious and never believed in god. It's fud when you include them and continue to keep them on a list of religious people or believers when they're not. You haven't provided me with any facts that proves they are religious or why they should be on the list. Nothing at all. You've actually since admitted that Hawking isn't religious and Sagan is agnostic, but yet you're still arguing about them being included on a list of prominent people who believe in god. Agnostics are not believers in god. No sources, just your own opinion and incorrect assumption.


What facts have you stated? You haven't stated any facts whatsoever. It's become quite clear you don't know the difference between them and opinion. Facts are something shared by all and are without doubt. You need sources to back facts up. You can't just say things and that makes them true. Where are your facts that being Jewish is just a religion and nothing else? You are still fundamentally not understanding the difference between the Jewish religion and the Jewish people. They are not the same but different. Yes, of course you can join the Jewish faith regardless of ethnicity, but that is not the same as being an ethnic Jew. I could convert to Judaism but it doesn’t mean I'm descended from the Jewish people or Hebrews. I could convert to Islam but that wouldn't make me an Arab. Your explanation is just coming from your own misinformed and ignorant opinion and is 100% factually incorrect.

Here are some facts with sources on the difference and two meanings:

 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jew

Jew:
1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

“The Jews also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites (Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East. According to Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_American

“American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans, are American citizens of the Jewish faith or Jewish ethnicity”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

“Jewish atheism refers to atheism as practiced by people who are ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish”.

“One recent study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups.”

How can Jews be atheists if being Jewish is just a religion to you? How can Einstein and Sagan be religious Jews when they've both stated they're agnostic and not religious? They either are or they aren't according to you and they've both said they're not, so it's you that's wrong.

Adolf Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish race, not the religion. He viewed Jews as racially impure and inferior and wanted to [/b]ethnically[/b] cleanse them. He didn’t want to kill random people who had just converted to Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

“Anti-Semitism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group”

Here's a quote from Einstein on both his beliefs and the Jewish religion and people:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

“In the letter, he [Einstein] states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

If you continue to argue against this after the above then you're an infinite moron or a pathetic troll. What this has to do with my original argument just goes to show how much you derail the topic with redundancies and irrelevancies in order to escape disproving my actual points.


I find this absolutely astonishing. It's very often not clear what you mean but it is also very clear that you have a hard time comprehending anything I say or are just unwilling to process and accept facts that don't support your arguments, but it's you that has put words in their mouth and taken what they said out of context to  'transform the whole perspective and meaning of the quote' to suit your case. You might be making sense in your own dense head but I guarantee you're not to anybody else. I already provided you with a quote from Sagan himself giving you his explanation of what Einstein meant by Spinoza's god. Has he got it wrong too? Please provide me with a source where Sagan said he is a theist. Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. Well Sagan didn't believe that. Prove to me with sources where he did. This is your opinion yet again. How does him saying atheism is stupid make him a believer or religious? I've explained the meaning of the full quote which you have taken out of context. Why do you ignore the first part of it and just latch on to the last atheism is stupid bit. And saying atheism is stupid proves what exactly? Nothing. The full quote proves his agnosticism. Not denying god does not make you a believer. Agnosticism is admitting you don't know which Sagan was happy to admit, so how can you include him on a list of so called prominent religious people?

Listen to this 7 minute video which is a perfect example of Einstein on God and Spinoza with explanations of the correct context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEK6WtHxNfw (not that you'll be able to comprehend or understand it).


You seem to keep making an argument for something I never questioned or was arguing about. I  don't understand why you keep going back to the rest of the list when it's irrelevant and not the point here; the three I mentioned are the point of discussion, but I guess you haven't got anything else, right? My argument isn’t and never was about the rest of the list or that there aren't intelligent people who are believers in a religion. I never said that. You can still be intelligent and make contributions to science but also have stupid beliefs. Newton believed in alchemy for example. You keep saying it's a fact that more than 50% of scientists are religious, but where's the source for this? I've never heard that. It's not a fact until you can back it up, but again if 50% are then 50% aren’t. I must say though, I find it ironic your list is full of ancient philosophers and old dead scientists and pretty much the only modern day ones on there are the three I've proved shouldn’t be there at all. Most people believed in Christianity back in the old days as well (usually under the punishment of death if they didn't) especially when modern science was still developing and people were first formulating their theories and we didn’t know then what we do now, but you'd be hard pressed to find many modern day pioneers of science who are big believers, especially not 50% of prominent scientists. Most religious people tend to be idiots like yourself, but yeah, you occasionally get some intelligent ones.

Please, if you want to continue this discussion start a thread in the politics section quoting these post and we'll take if from there, but there's no point if you're just going to keep touting your incorrect opinions as facts without a single shred of evidence to back them up.

Tl;dr Einstein, Sagan and Hawkin are not religious. End of.

Seems like your brain is failing . "are your brain capacity fails to do this much?" doesn't make any sense. And 'dismantle anything you say with facts' lol. I definitely know you’re a troll now.

Haha you're truly incredible. You see how you twist points here and someone think you're correct on something that was never even the argument. I've given you plenty of reasons why you're a moron. How can you be correct on an argument we weren’t even discussing (although for some bizarre moronic reason you think we were) and nobody but yourself was involved with? This just proves yet again you cannot comprehend anything I say. I'm nearly done with replying to the other thread, so I suggest you stop replying to this one with your nonsense.

How many times do I need to tell you?  Are you really this moronic or just trolling? My point was you put three non-religious people on a list of religious people, but you quite clearly do not have the mental capacity or intelligence to process this or are just infinitely in denial. It's not a 'fact one' because the three I mentioned are not in any way shape or form religious or believe in god. I can give you a list of prominent atheist scientists but what would that have to do with anything? What would that be proof of in itself? Would it be a fact If I added three Christian scientists to my list of atheist ones? If I was claiming Newton was an atheist that would be incorrect and fud. And "fact two"? Give me the sources that over 50% of the current prominent scientists are religious. Where's this figure come from? But not that it matters or has to do with my argument. If 50% are religious then 50% aren't. I am not nitpicking about anything. My initial argument was there's three people on the list who are not religious. Nothing more. What facts do I need to check? My facts are fine. It's yours that you need to check.