Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Well XL, in one diatribe of a dozen lines or so, you have covered sexuality, probability, atheism, theoretical cosmology, evolution, geology, palaeontology, politics, ignorance and fear, layered with a thick coating of self righteous smugness and bs. Your superficiality is something to admire.
All of the people you quote have their critics and many of their theories are based on probability, not fact. Theology can't be covered by a few throw away remarks such as converting to atheism by watching a few YouTube clips and people being "frightened to admit to atheism".
As someone who studied geology and made a very good living from mining, I wonder also what you are on about when you write about reading stuff like geological time periods, fossils and strata as part of religious or non religious education. Do you?
As dad often said "bullshit baffles brains".

All of? I only mentioned two - and do watch on YouTube how they argue sensibly with their very mystic critics.

Hawking and his fellow scientists have proven, that all the matter in the Universe was created at 'Big Bang'. They have also scientifically proven, that before Big Bang TIME did not exist. Thus there was no time to do any 'creating'.

Score so far? Creationists 0 Evolutionists 1

Therefore there cannot be a 'creator god'. Therefore there cannot be a 'paradise, a 'heaven' or any other kind of an afterlife. No kind of evidence of any description has ever been found to scientifically prove any kind of after life.

The human ego is a very powerful thing. But at death, the brain dies. With the death of the brain, so too does human conciousness die and thus also, the human ego.

And 'mystic shit' also baffles brains even easier. I think you need to miss a church service or two and get yourself a dose of science proven reality. As I say, the easiest way, is just watch a few YouTube clips.

This fantastic 'god' you seem to believe in' apparently created the whole universe. I find it hilarious how he didn't create some money to run all these many churches and religions with. It's even more hilarious, how it's mostly found from the poor and people who have nothing much other than 'hope' and generally are too 'weak' to stand under their own abilities and resources and are easy prey to cheating religious leaders.

To lighten it up a bit:

".....but he loves you and he needs MONEY"

(over 9m views and counting...)

Thanks for that link E/L I did enjoy it.

What's IT doing now...considering his position 😁

JB the winner of this weeks MoneyAM online stalker award.

Don't be more stupid than normal XL. The big bang is a theory not a fact. Turok has recently claimed that Hawkins maths was wrong. Let them fight it out.
However not all Christians believe in mystic powers, worship statues or believe in a heaven or hell as the scoffers like to portray. To me it is a set of values or guidelines that govern my behaviour. I don't always manage to stay within those guidelines. I have special difficulty with the 6th commandment when I read tosh like yours. You can guarantee it is rubbish when it comes with the Stan seal of approval.

Oh dear...IT degeneration alert.

Thanks Stan but if i was stalking someone they would be more interesting than you,i just have to put out the idiot alert every now and then.

Dear Stanley, your moral compass is such that if you met a poor soul ready to jump off that imaginary bridge of yours, you would urge them to jump. But to be fair, if I noticed that it was you, I would do the same. :)

Some would say " 2 old farts will not make a healthy country" ............


Britain needs future-facing leaders, not nostalgic dinosaurs like Rees-Mogg and Corbyn
Friday 8 September 2017 --- 7:18am Rachel Cunliffe

Jacob Rees-Mogg – committed Brexiteer, potential contender for the Conservative leadership, and devout Roman Catholic – is against abortion and same-sex marriage. Who would have guessed?

Rees-Mogg’s comments on ITV on Wednesday, especially his assertion that a rape victim should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, raised eyebrows among the commentariat.

But really, they should not be a revelation. The “Moggster” has always been about as traditionally conservative (with a small c) as they come. A quick look at his record shows he votes according to his religious moral compass. And while his views may be unpalatable to a modern audience, he has every right to hold them, and in fact deserves respect for being honest about them to the public.

Should he be put forward in a leadership contest, as has been widely hyped over the summer, his fellow MPs and the electorate have the right to know where he stands.

The problem with the prospect of Rees-Mogg as Prime Minister is that he is resoundly – and proudly – old-fashioned: a semi-aristocrat with a Victorian-era attitude, an orthodox view of religion, and a dash of upper-class eccentricity. (He captured the headlines for naming his youngest child Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher, after all.)

None of this makes him ineligible for leadership (although had Sadiq Khan espoused in the name of Islam the same views as Rees-Mogg did in the name of Catholicism, his beliefs would have been condemned by some as at odds with liberal, secularist British values). In fact, his tell-it-like-it-is honesty, when other politicians (such as Tim Farron) would have dodged the question, is part of his appeal for those hoping the backbencher will make a bid for the Tory leadership.

Rees-Mogg’s supporters argue that he is a straight-shooting traditionalist with rock-solid credentials, who isn’t afraid to speak his mind and stick to his principles. Who could argue with that?

The trouble is, you could say the exact same thing about Jeremy Corbyn.

Both Corbyn and Rees-Mogg are anomalies, at extreme ends of the political spectrum. Both put their own principled take on the world – be it Marxist socialism or Bible-based conservatism – above the messy collaboration and compromise of modern politicking. And both are resolutely stuck in the past.

Corbyn’s vision of a state-run society and nationalised workforce is straight out of the 1970s. Rees-Mogg’s era of choice appears to fall somewhere in the late nineteenth century. Neither seem to have much awareness that the world in 2017 has moved on from their nostalgic recollections, nor any particular interest in confronting modern problems with twenty-first century solutions.

At some point, we need to ask whether refighting the battles of the past is helpful or productive.

Corbyn’s flagship economic policies in his leadership campaign were renationalising the railways and reopening the coal mines at taxpayers’ expense. Rees-Mogg has used his newfound platform to espouse turning back the clock on social issues that, whether he likes it or not, were settled in public consensus years ago.

Neither appear to have any smart ideas on how to address the problems of today and tomorrow – or if they do, they’re deprioritising them in favour of their own convictions and policies that play well with their adoring fan bases.

How about a radical new approach to the looming social care crisis? A comprehensive programme to address the housing shortage, whether that’s mass land deregulation, or investment in modular-built or 3D-printed houses? An overhaul of the tax and welfare system that incorporates the gig economy and reflects the changing labour market? Some kind of preparation for the advent of AI and automation that is soon to make thousands of jobs redundant? A business-based strategy for energy and climate issues? A plan to tackle intergenerational inequality and the unsustainable nature of the state pension scheme? Nothing in the Bible or Das Kapital is of much use here.

Unfortunately, the new generation of MPs aren’t exactly sparkling with fresh ideas either. Labour’s upcoming “ones to watch” are mostly Corbyn sympathisers – Rebecca Long-Bailey, Clive Lewis, Richard Burgon.

For the Tories, many Cameroons are still tarred by their Remainer affiliations, while the Brexiteers don’t seem to have the energy for anything else. Theresa May’s cabinet looks tired, while the fates of key players like David Davis and Boris Johnson are inextricably bound to the success of the EU deal.

Maybe there is a secret pool of ambitious upstarts with fresh ideas, who are perhaps biding their time and keeping their heads below the parapet until the Brexit drama cools down a bit. If so, they are staying very quiet.

If the best policymakers the two main parties can come up with are Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the country may not survive contact with the twenty-first century.

Just to refresh my memory:

The 10 Commandments List (Short Form)

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

IT,

Already, I feel you are hinting, that you are religious and so feel you're a 'goodie' and I'm a 'baddie'.

But you get me confused and I'm so sorry you feel you might 'want to murder me' (not actually murder me, I hope) merely for passing my opinion on 'religion' and so briefly arguing my case.

A. Is it your belief or understanding then, that atheists cannot have or do not have a good morality?

B. Is it your belief that religion and good morality go together?

C. Do you believe, that atheists are generally 'bad' people?

iturama as you have mining background there is a Co , AXM who look to use more green methods of extracting metals and such , ie without chemicals so to speak . Now they are working with various ventures towards a process , there is an RNS at 09.52 ave a look and see what you think , could be interesting .Ta .

Hils , wife had two abortions since we've been together but before we were married and we've been married over 25 years. It was not an easy decision but was right in the circumstances and had sod all to do with the Catholic Church or any bloody politician.

I do like JRM's straight talking though.

VIC, I have not heard of Webster or noticed any papers by him. I am not a hydro-metallurgist but do have experience through companies I have managed, of conventional leaching, bio-leaching and pressure leaching using autoclaves. Mainly of copper and gold concentrates, including refractory gold. I am currently heavily invested in Excelsior Mining, which has an advanced in-situ copper leaching project in Arizona.
I haven't worked with Vanadium but the common method is solvent extraction whereby the host mineral is made acid soluble, then the vanadium is taken into solution using the likes of sulphuric acid and/or hydrofluoric, maybe with heat and pressure to speed up the process. The resulting pregnant solution is then passed through an organic material (for gold it is charcoal the best being from coconut shells) which adsorbs the vanadium. The loaded carbon is then stripped of the vanadium, oxidised, precipitated and calcined. That is the common route, with some variants, for most hydro metallurgical recoveries.
The Webster connection seems to be very much at the R&D stage with no clue as to what is being proposed. When, I worked for BP, we funded many R&D projects at universities and private laboratories, few of which were real ground breaking successes. I think there are better places to lose money until more is known. It could take a long time with less than even odds of ever being commercially viable. :)

Although JRM is saying, that for religious reasons he is against abortion, he is also saying that the rules of law make abortion OK in certain circumstances.

He is NOT saying he wants to change the law and is only telling us what his religious beliefs are.

He seems to be quite comfortable with that.

If it were me, I'd want both of my views to coincide. But for me I think they do actually coincide because, being an atheist, I'm down to just ONE belief, namely only the legal one.

Simples. :-)

IT

Did you like the extremely aggressive humour of George Carlin as he castigates 'religion' in my link above?

Thanks a lot It , Axm have a few ongoing JVs in leeching metals , i do keep an eye on them , no knowledge though , Thanks .

Politicians.

None of them can wire a plug.
Pump up a tyre.
Peel a Potato.

Useless individuals.

Something for you Mogg worshippers 😊

http://https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/08/jacob-rees-mogg-conservatives-eton-eccentric?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=242915&subid=23313800&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Bloody hell Stan, you €uroloons must be terrified of the Mogster :-)


Still, heres something you really should be terrified about, the €uro courts overruling national governments, or trying to.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-07/european-court-orders-eu-countries-take-migrants