Agnostic - scared of dying but can’t be farked going to church
Agnostic: I don’t believe in God, but I’ve taken too many hallucinogens to wipe out the possibility of a spirit world.
Lol sonia kruger.Obviously never heard of Shoko Asahara or the JRA."you never hear of terrorist attacks in Japan".
Agnostic: I don't believe in God, but I've taken too many hallucinogens to wipe out the possibility of a spirit world.
Ever since wankers like Gervais hijacked Atheism, I’ve stopped referring to myself as one.
Agnostic: I don't believe in God, but I've taken too many hallucinogens to wipe out the possibility of a spirit world.Ever since wankers like Gervais hijacked Atheism, I’ve stopped referring to myself as one.
richard dawkins is the biggest wanker of the lot.
QandA is brutal tonight
Agnostic: I don't believe in God, but I've taken too many hallucinogens to wipe out the possibility of a spirit world.Ever since wankers like Gervais hijacked Atheism, I’ve stopped referring to myself as one.
richard dawkins is the biggest wanker of the lot.
Dawkins has basically been deified by his fans. Somewhat Ironic.
And now a 17 year old Afghan refugee has gone nuts on a train in Germany hacking people with an Axe
#PrayForGermany
Agnostic: I don't believe in God, but I've taken too many hallucinogens to wipe out the possibility of a spirit world.Ever since wankers like Gervais hijacked Atheism, I’ve stopped referring to myself as one.
richard dawkins is the biggest wanker of the lot.
Dawkins has basically been deified by his fans. Somewhat Ironic.
Yeah-nah.
He’s just a guy who’s made some good points, same as Jim Jeffries.
You don’t get to tear down people’s world and Not be a ■■■■.
Is he more strident than the Pope? I don’t think so.
Agnostic: I don't believe in God, but I've taken too many hallucinogens to wipe out the possibility of a spirit world.Ever since wankers like Gervais hijacked Atheism, I’ve stopped referring to myself as one.
richard dawkins is the biggest wanker of the lot.
Dawkins has basically been deified by his fans. Somewhat Ironic.
Yeah-nah.
He’s just a guy who’s made some good points, same as Jim Jeffries.
You don’t get to tear down people’s world and Not be a ■■■■.
Is he more strident than the Pope? I don’t think so.
Richard Dawkins is the bloke most recently excommunicated religious types in USA discover and work themselves into a frothing echo chamber over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fBqlyjESg
I can’t even begin to point out what’s wrong with what that woman says. Literally every fact she gave was incorrect. I’m surprised she didn’t say she shat unicorns, is married to Elvis and her first born child is Santa clause
Agnostic: I don't believe in God, but I've taken too many hallucinogens to wipe out the possibility of a spirit world.Ever since wankers like Gervais hijacked Atheism, I’ve stopped referring to myself as one.
richard dawkins is the biggest wanker of the lot.
Dawkins has basically been deified by his fans. Somewhat Ironic.
Yeah-nah.
He’s just a guy who’s made some good points, same as Jim Jeffries.
You don’t get to tear down people’s world and Not be a ■■■■.
Is he more strident than the Pope? I don’t think so.Richard Dawkins is the bloke most recently excommunicated religious types in USA discover and work themselves into a frothing echo chamber over.
So blame the disciples?
It’s a good point. You don’t get to tear down people’s world and not be a ■■■■.
Hitchens was the biggest ■■■■ of the lot, and nobody tore world’s down like him.
I'm sure you can't.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fBqlyjESgI can’t even begin to point out what’s wrong with what that woman says. Literally every fact she gave was incorrect. I’m surprised she didn’t say she shat unicorns, is married to Elvis and her first born child is Santa clause
I'm sure you can't.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7fBqlyjESgI can’t even begin to point out what’s wrong with what that woman says. Literally every fact she gave was incorrect. I’m surprised she didn’t say she shat unicorns, is married to Elvis and her first born child is Santa clause
Where would you like me to start?
From the top?
For starters there is 1.67 billion Muslims in the world not 1.2, she says that intelligence agencies estimate that between 15- 25% of them are radicalised. Our own intelligence agency disagrees, they consider the risk number to be at .006627% why such the gross discrepancy? It’s simple, intelligence agencies do not consider fundamentalist Muslims as radicalised, here figures are based on what ours (and the rest of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA and Interpol) consider fundamentalists not radicalised until they identify alegences to a radical subsection of fundamentalism, like it or not, these are organisations first and formost terrorist organisations, malita if you will. These are quite literally groups set at distroying western civilisation as she puts it.
Fundamentalist Islam is more strict on people being true disciples of the prophet and living by that doctrine. But they are NOT considered to be radicalised.
It’s a pefect example of glossed over hyperbole and ignorance of audience used to create fear. She paints a picture of 300 million terrorist risks when a) by her maths it would be 400mil Lol, and b) the real figure is around 96,000 which is certainly still a figure to be diligent about, no doubt there.
How do I know this?
I’ve recently been deployed to work with humanitarian entrant visa holders and had to undergo extreme levels of screening, training, and briefing by government agencies.
Maybe our guys are wrong? But I will say I have come out of the experience having a new level of feelings of security, safety and confidence that our country is very safe, and on the unbelievably small chance a racial was to find their way to our shores that they would be dealt with as soon as they so much as stole a pack of chewing gum, if they even got in at all.
If fact, they say the level of hysteria being conjured by bullshit is making their job harder than it needs to be, because people are flagging utter nonsense actually ties up resources.
Why isn’t there perfectly normal middle ground in all this? Why are these the only two options?
- Ban all Muslims / You are racist.
- Don’t support banning Muslims / You are a sympathiser.
And worst of all we have this attitude these days where it’s almost shamed upon to change your opinion based on new knowledge or something learnt that changes it.
So much labelling these days. It used to be a trend for the opposite. I’m not that old but left / right wasn’t something that was discussed at all but now it’s leftist this and right wing.
Why does it have to be so?
Why isn't there perfectly normal middle ground in all this? Why are these the only two options?
- Ban all Muslims / You are racist.
- Don’t support banning Muslims / You are a sympathiser.
And worst of all we have this attitude these days where it’s almost shamed upon to change your opinion based on new knowledge or something learnt that changes it.
So much labelling these days. It used to be a trend for the opposite. I’m not that old but left / right wasn’t something that was discussed at all but now it’s leftist this and right wing.
Why does it have to be so?
Human nature sadly
I heard the other day that half of all reports regarding possible radicalisation is coming from school teachers as part of their new reporting requirements.
I work with schools and had no idea. I also don’t know if they are best to do that sort of thing but they are the most likely to spend large amounts of time with young people. Just an FYI