If god is real, what is he, chemically? is he just a conscienceness that floats around in empty space or is he, like us, a combination of carbon and oxygen atoms and other stuff to structure a physical being, that remains, possibly, outside in the ether that surrounds the universe, sort of like a controller, looking into the universe like a man looks inside a goldfish bowl.

That being said, both are impossible. You cant just have a conscienceness floating around without being in danger of radiation and gravity. Maybe he's part of the blackbody spectrum, a frequency of energy that is higher than gamma rays, or lower than radio waves?

Once again, impossible. Energy waves needs a source, and, unless you accept that the Big Bang is real (which denies the existence of god, paradox), the source of such a omniscient thing would be beyond nature. (nature could always surprise us though).

And if it was a energy wave, how in gods name (haha) could it control everything in the universe? I mean EVERYTHING. It would need the brainpower of trillions and trillions and trillions and octillions and even more octillions in order to process, determine, and basically run the universe. Unless you think that our universe is self run, and god just watches, like some sick scientist watching a small experiment.

Well, maybe's he's an actual physical being. Then we turn to, once again, the dangers of being matter in this universe. How would he keep out of danger from exploding stars and black holes? Well he's God, he can just reverse gravity or screw with the laws of physics. But HOW. how how how how how. Thats what i ask. You cant just stroll around changing the very fabric which holds everything in place. Its just plain impossible. (but nature can, once again, surprise us.)

Maybe's hes a physical being outside of the universe? You cant have matter in nothingness. Then it wouldnt be nothingness. It'd be a somethingness. And what that would cause? I have no fuckin idea. But it probably wouldnt be good. Because Nature's a cruel bitch.

Even if god existed, he's one sick bastard. The world's a fucked up place. Admit it. Take a look at the news one day, and you'll see it everywhere. We are obsessed with ourselves, and horrible things are happening all the time. If he's so powerful an mighty, why doesnt he fix all this?

And what about other religions? Was it not the Bible that stated: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." If he really wants this, he'd eradicate any existence of other religions, Or let us to the work for him. Which is working out well so far, it seems.

I really wish there was a definite answer, because all this bickering and killing over religion is really fucking retarded

At 1/3/10 05:38 PM, morefngdbs wrote: So in this case the Omniputent creator, could easily be an entity playing with elements in their lab...And we are the result.
Wouldn't this be a possibility.
Would mean our creator, isn't omniputent... & could very well have no idea we exist , just that this experiment is expanding as planned

I like it. Our universe is just the petri dish on some guy's desk, next to the 3 day old pizza. I like any theory that doesn't present a benevolent being.

Would Dark Matter then be the "evidence" of an outside deity/world? And how would we go about testing that theory?

And what about other religions? Was it not the Bible that stated: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." If he really wants this, he'd eradicate any existence of other religions, Or let us to the work for him. Which is working out well so far, it seems.

Actually, this brings me to a new topic entirely.
This commandment has always fascinated me, because I don't think he says what Christians think he says.

"you shall have no other gods before Me". He's not saying he's the one and only, he's saying he's the best.

And this may be an entirely stupid question, but is the Judeo-Christian God affirming the existence of other (albeit lesser) deities in this commandment? He's denying the right to worship them, but he's not saying the other gods don't exist, right?

Also, how the hell is this supposed to be the loving and merciful God? Here's the text from deuteronomy:

" I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 7you shall have no other gods before* me.
8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9You shall not bow down to them or worship them;for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, 10but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation* of those who love me and keep my commandments. "

He says himself he's a dick. Why do Christians keep trying to convince me he's a nice guy?

At 1/3/10 04:45 PM, Imperator wrote: What would be something "provable/disprovable" that corresponds to the existence of a deity?

I'm asking you. Because I don't know. I don't know what counts as evidence in your book.

Stop playing the clueless jackass to prove your point. You know what a DICK move is? TREATING PORTIONS OF SOMEONE'S POST LIKE THEY NEVER HAPPENED.

"Have you ever been to talkorigins? The place where creationist-provided evidence and theories are dealt with?"

Look. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TYPE IT INTO GOOGLE. There are tons of examples there where THEISTS provide TESTABLE evidence.

Ok. Fine. I provide a definition:
God is an omnipotent being.

Now the complaint is I'm not allowed to provide a definition that's untestable?

If we're looking for evidence... a definition that's untestable doesn't really help does it.

You seem to have the idea that us skeptics are backpedaling every time we get an answer we supposedly wanted. This is NOT THE CASE.

You want material sent to the lab, but the lab doesn't exist.
You want something testable, but have no test.

TAAAALLKKKK ORRRIIIGGIINNSSSS

There are tons of examples there where THEISTS provide TESTABLE evidence.

I'll play the theist. You tell me what constitutes evidence of God's existence, what proof you would accept, and I'll try to find it.

TAAAALLKKKK ORRRIIIGGIINNSSSS

There are tons of examples there where THEISTS provide TESTABLE evidence.

Calm down there, you just linked to a site, not a specific article, and according to the site it has been hacked repeatidly, even going as far as getting it off of Google, so of course he probably would never have heard of it.

At 1/3/10 03:20 PM, Imperator wrote:

God is omnipotent.

What does that mean and how do you know?

You're asking believers to put evidence in a non-existent system. You're asking believers to send materials to a non-existent lab.

They key things here is that THEY THEMSELVES BELIEVE.
If they can't come up with a way to test it, why do they believe?

It's not up to me to figure out a way to convince myself of their made-up bullshit.

At 1/3/10 11:59 PM, Warforger wrote: Calm down there, you just linked to a site, not a specific article, and according to the site it has been hacked repeatidly, even going as far as getting it off of Google, so of course he probably would never have heard of it.

He can browse from that page though to the main page. As far as the hacking, if you're suggesting that somehow makes the site invalid to Bach's point...well, they seem to make it pretty clear the hacking was more in the realm of disruption then somebody going in and changing the information. Somebody was simply trying to force the site down, so I don't think informational accuracy (in terms of what was up before the hacker attacked) is in doubt.

I think this topic is worn out. There was already two 100+ page threads about it, all of the points to discuss have been discuss. You just might as well unlock the original, and lock this one.

This topic is dead. Sorry guys. It was fun while it lasted, but I think we've overdone this now.

At 1/4/10 09:39 PM, Grizzli wrote: I think this topic is worn out. There was already two 100+ page threads about it, all of the points to discuss have been discuss. You just might as well unlock the original, and lock this one.

This topic is dead. Sorry guys. It was fun while it lasted, but I think we've overdone this now.

And what if someone has a new point? One topic was made on 2007 , the other was made in 2008, this one is 2009, we don't need 5 threads on the same thing.

At 1/3/10 03:20 PM, Imperator wrote: You're asking believers to put evidence in a non-existent system. You're asking believers to send materials to a non-existent lab.

And you're really surprsied they can't do it?

I think part of the issue is that they've drawn some very significant conclusions from the non-existent data sent back from the imaginary lab.

If someone asks "What reason is there to believe," it's not a good counterargument to just say "That's a bullshit question because there can't possibly ever BE any reason to believe"

One time I saw a couple of videos on the youtubes about how to convert an atheist though that took a pretty good crack at answering these questions. In short, things that would be good evidence of the truth of a given religion:

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.
2. Scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time.
3. Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
4. Aliens who believe in the exact same religion.

Then some inconclusive-but-good kinds of evidence:

- A holy book that is genuinely flawless and consistent
- A religion without internal disputes or factions
- A religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

If you're talking about an omnipotent God in the general sense rather than a religion, then it's more difficult if not impossible. However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the question then is no longer "Provide us with evidence," it's more like "Without evidence or even the possibility of such, how is your belief in any way justified?"

If the universe with God and the universe without God are indistinguishable, why is believing in God more reasonable than saying that your observations are inconclusive on the matter?

At 1/5/10 11:02 AM, Elfer wrote: Then some inconclusive-but-good kinds of evidence:
- A holy book that is genuinely flawless and consistent
- A religion without internal disputes or factions
- A religion whose followers have never taken part in atrocities

The argument is theism v atheism, religion shouldn't be brought into it (except to show the conflicting understanding of what "God" is, e.g. polytheism v monotheism). The only good organised religions do is charitable (and this is totally unrelated to religion except when they go out of their way to help for the sole purpose of converting), and I stretch this to include the church-like atmosphere, the support structure and such. I don't see those as being very related to theism though - sure, in church (I'm mainly talking about Catholicism here) they help people through God, for example through confession someone can relieve themselves of their worries and through this cleanse their relationship with God, but the latter part is unnecessary - if there was no religion in the world, there could still be a similar sort of service (and there is.. counselling, amongst other things, though this isn't as .. 'public' or accessible).

Anyway, in terms of theism, it's incredibly hard to argue the atheism argument because it is a matter of faith and you don't need evidence to believe in something, in fact it helps to have absolutely no grounds to base your faith on. Some people say they feel they have a close relationship with God, that they believe God listens to their prayers and even answers them, giving them strength to do particular things. If they were atheist they'd probably be able to do these same things, but perhaps having faith in God will give you hope and make you more determined somehow.. or maybe you'll just think you could only do what you did (or.. whatever) because of God, which would it really hard to stop believing.

It's impossible to convert a believer to atheism - it has to be a personal choice. Realisation doesn't come through others, though they can hold your hand and show you the way..

At 1/3/10 07:21 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Look. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TYPE IT INTO GOOGLE. There are tons of examples there where THEISTS provide TESTABLE evidence.

...thats about as relevant as bringing up the big bang to disprove evolution.

At 1/4/10 09:39 PM, Grizzli wrote: This topic is dead. Sorry guys. It was fun while it lasted, but I think we've overdone this now.

Hence why it has four pages right?

Seriously kids, stop making posts like this. They're spam, they're stupid, and I'm going to start deleting them. If you don't want to play, then don't play. But four pages over what, five days? That indicates some people DO want to keep discussing this issue.

At 1/5/10 11:02 AM, Elfer wrote: If you're talking about an omnipotent God in the general sense rather than a religion, then it's more difficult if not impossible. However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the question then is no longer "Provide us with evidence," it's more like "Without evidence or even the possibility of such, how is your belief in any way justified?"

;;;
I think Elfer it might be in the way humans in general are wired (how we perceive & how individuals think)
To step away from God for a second.
So i can try to explain.
I have noticed in my dealing with others at height. For example there are some of us who can walk to the edge of a platform underconstruction 15, 20 whatever amount of feet above the ground & as long as we are on something stable, even if there is a little movement (scaffold systems for example have some give to them & they move.) we're good... we can pull up more gear with a rope& keep building,or drop shit down whatever is going on.

Now I have observed guy's who have been up 20 ,30, 50 feet & as long as there are handrails they'll walk right over to the edge, they won't lean on the rail, but going to the edge pulling something up with a rope...no problem.
BUT
Take that handrail away... & they won't go near the edge, I know a couple of guy's who won't even go out on a platform unless it has all its rails in place. For them it's all about them going to fall !
They ,for some reason believe to go to the same edge of the platform they were just at with handrails, somehow,they believe they will fall without them.

Can you see my point here ?
Their perception is "danger...I'm going to fall/die/get hurt."
They are prefectly comfortable, as long as they 'preceive' that they are safe, & a thin little metal rod is all it takes.

Take this to the idea of God, & I believe for many people, they need that comfort zone...they need to think that if i'm a pretty good person, I don't have to even be rigidly religious...just a good person & god will see that & I won't go to hell for all eternity .As per the threats of my religion

If the universe with God and the universe without God are indistinguishable, why is believing in God more reasonable than saying that your observations are inconclusive on the matter?

;;;
The reason I believe they think that (many religious folks) need the god ideal in their minds.
It is a safety/comfort level that they have come to depend on, from how they were brought up. I aked my mother a similar question recently & her answer about 'not knowing' & how she was' brought up' was in every other sentence in our conversation.
WHich in my mom's case for sure , you can't argue against those points, you can't get someone to go & lean over the 'edge' without that 'safety rail' ...

At 1/5/10 12:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/3/10 07:21 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Look. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TYPE IT INTO GOOGLE. There are tons of examples there where THEISTS provide TESTABLE evidence.

...thats about as relevant as bringing up the big bang to disprove evolution.

Imperator is claiming that skeptics don't qualify what testable evidence is. Talkorigins.org is a database full of examples of testable evidence. A large portion of that evidence is provided by Christians.

Did I miss something?

At 1/5/10 01:27 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/5/10 12:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/3/10 07:21 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Look. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TYPE IT INTO GOOGLE. There are tons of examples there where THEISTS provide TESTABLE evidence.

Imperator is claiming that skeptics don't qualify what testable evidence is. Talkorigins.org is a database full of examples of testable evidence. A large portion of that evidence is provided by Christians.

;;;
Talk Origins ????
Clergy letter- No site
Panda thumb- No site
Evidence for evolution...seems to be lots of evidence that evolution is true & also a theory.
Intelligent design -no page, no site

Sorry man but the link you've supplied has more broken links than i've had broken bones...& i've broken at least a dozen of mine !

At 1/5/10 12:56 PM, liam wrote:

you don't need evidence to believe in something,

Unless you live in the real world.

in fact it helps to have absolutely no grounds to base your faith on.

If you're completely insane, maybe.
brb space bunny demands I catch an invisible tyrannosaurus in the gold fountains of Arlax.

It's impossible to convert a believer to atheism

It's plenty possible.
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

At 1/5/10 01:20 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

I think Elfer it might be in the way humans in general are wired (how we perceive & how individuals think)

Yeah usually it takes a while for people to figure out the whole burden of proof thing.
It's not innate in us.

They ,for some reason believe to go to the same edge of the platform they were just at with handrails, somehow,they believe they will fall without them.

Yeah cause you can grab onto them.
Mystery solved!

they need that comfort zone

Nah I think that's bullshit.
I often hear that, that some people just NEED to believe otherwise their existence would be ruined and they'd kill themselves... but... if that's true of anyone, it's really only of the most die-hard, fanatical people.

People are highly adaptable. Maybe they'll be depressed for like 2 weeks if you remove religion from them but they'll get over it pretty damn fast. People get over horrible tragedies like having their face burned with acid or their entire families die in a car crash and they endure.

And some other people kill themselves because they have bad grades in chemistry... So yeah you wouldn't say that person needs good grades in chemistry, you'd say they need some mental help.

At 1/5/10 02:00 PM, poxpower wrote:

They ,for some reason believe to go to the same edge of the platform they were just at with handrails, somehow,they believe they will fall without them.

Yeah cause you can grab onto them.
Mystery solved!

;;;
No Pox, most people hanging by one hand or two wearing a tool belt,boots, hardhat etc. when they fall, they fall !

they need that comfort zone

Nah I think that's bullshit.
I often hear that, that some people just NEED to believe otherwise their existence would be ruined and they'd kill themselves... but... if that's true of anyone, it's really only of the most die-hard, fanatical people.

;;;
I don't believe you can prove its only die hard fanatics...I believe its way more religious people than just the fanatics !

People are highly adaptable. Maybe they'll be depressed for like 2 weeks if you remove religion from them but they'll get over it pretty damn fast. People get over horrible tragedies like having their face burned with acid or their entire families die in a car crash and they endure.

Sure they endure...but they're not happy.
THey often become bitter, shut themselves away from the world.

Adaptable to something like members of your family dying, in my experience pushes people toward their god/religious belief's even more, if they can't get answers ...they get reassurance that their "family member" is at peace now...or is with god now...every funeral I've ever been to, has those types of words spoken by memebers of the faithful & always by members of the clergy ! ! ! !
Every Single Time, safe in god's loving arms....in a 'better' place now...no longer suffering... safe with the lord etc. etc. etc.

At 1/5/10 01:55 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Evidence for evolution...seems to be lots of evidence that evolution is true & also a theory.

Here.

Yes. The website is geared toward debunking creationist claims. Many of those claims are TESTABLE.

I've spent a lot of time on talk origins in the past, and found much of the "evidence" there either misleading, or ignoring other facts.

I love the article about the giants where the only evidence what so ever is a mention in a book, and a photograph that can't be authenticated.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.h tml

But anyways, I wouldn't actually count them as credible.

But if you want to go ahead and point out a few instances where there was some real testing done, feel free to link them specifically, not the entire site.

At 1/5/10 02:59 PM, ReiperX wrote: But anyways, I wouldn't actually count them as credible.

Irrelevant. How is no one getting this? I'm not trying to prove evolution or creationism. I'm trying to prove that it's not impossible for a theist to figure out what "testable evidence" is nor are skeptics are scientists particularly tight lipped about what "testable evidence" is.

But if you want to go ahead and point out a few instances where there was some real testing done, feel free to link them specifically, not the entire site.

Here you go.

At 1/5/10 02:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote: No Pox, most people hanging by one hand or two

Right. Because the only time anyone might fall off the side of a building is when they're already hanging from the clock hands. Handrails are useless!

At 1/5/10 03:07 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/5/10 02:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote: No Pox, most people hanging by one hand or two

Right. Because the only time anyone might fall off the side of a building is when they're already hanging from the clock hands. Handrails are useless!

;;;
Actually they will bend fairly easily...I know there's no way I would trust my weight on them.
THis is of course on standard scaffold, with alround or a surelock type systems, the ledgers (horizontal members) are what's used as handrails & they are schedual 40 galvanized steel & We actually tie down to them . or clip in during the build. I feel way safer withthem ,than i do say...in Jesus's hands ;)

At 1/5/10 02:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

I don't believe you can prove its only die hard fanatics...I believe its way more religious people than just the fanatics !

I can't prove anyone kills themselves because they "lose" their religion.
I don't know how you'd prove people need religion anyway. Hundreds of millions don't have any and they're biologically the same as everyone else.

It's perfectly obvious that it's possible to be happy and live well without it, what exactly makes some people need it? And why does it seem they "need" religion in an extremely wide range of types.

Like how can someone NEED to be Christian and someone else NEED to just be a deist?
How can someone need something as specific as astrology or homeopathy?

It's way more likely that everyone has mechanism that tell them to not change their beliefs so they make up excuses like "I need it".

Sure they endure...but they're not happy.
THey often become bitter, shut themselves away from the world.

Like who?
??

At 1/5/10 03:18 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Actually they will bend fairly easily...I know there's no way I would trust my weight on them.

Doesn't matter if they're bendy. Unless you're some kind of ape man, standard scaffolding should hold your weight just fine. But then... who's barreling full force into the rail?

We went from "hanging on by one or two hands" to "putting your weight on them." What's the next step away from hyperbole eh?

We actually tie down to them . or clip in during the build. I feel way safer withthem ,than i do say...in Jesus's hands ;)

Why? If all you're hanging on by is one or maybe two hands... etc. etc.

At 1/5/10 02:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Unless you live in the real world.

The whole point of faith is that you believe it despite all odds. How can you say you need evidence to believe in something? As an atheist I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for his existence, but there are millions of people willing to believe in him despite this - they do not need evidence, and will completely ignore any claims there is no evidence for him. Often with a comment about having faith. It may also help that there is no evidence that a God doesn't exist (I don't think this is provable).

If you're completely insane, maybe.
brb space bunny demands I catch an invisible tyrannosaurus in the gold fountains of Arlax.

If you're completely insane maybe you will believe in something that you just made up, but completely normal people are willing to believe in a God because their parents do, because the priest talks to them every Sunday about God and the deeds done by people who believe in him. This is not evidence, and this lack of evidence allows people to make up their own minds about what God is - based on an ideal presented to them by their community, family, media.. whatever.

It's plenty possible.
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

Those are letters/notes about people who have converted to atheism themselves, with the help of an atheist or otherwise - that is my point exactly. If you're trying to disprove my point (I see no idea why you would want to, it was a perfectly valid point), then please don't post something that actually helps my point :/

A quote from the page, from Douglas Adams, on converting to Atheism:

I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe, and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker, and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place.

So he was a (I assume) Catholic, but was doubtful about the faith, but didn't bother pursuing his doubts much until he read Dawkins books and decided to convert to atheism.

You can't convert someone who has faith in God, you can just point them in the right direction and let them decide for themselves. If they have doubts, they may be 'converted', but they're not going to just say "Oh yeah, there is no proof of God. I guess I gotta be atheist now."

At 1/5/10 02:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 1/5/10 02:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Yeah cause you can grab onto them.
Mystery solved!

;;;
No Pox, most people hanging by one hand or two wearing a tool belt,boots, hardhat etc. when they fall, they fall !

If you're starting to fall forward, you can use a handrail to steady yourself and not fall at all. On a sheer edge, there's nothing to grab onto or steady yourself with, unless you have the reflexes to drop, spin and grab for the ledge, which is a dangerous move in any circumstances. Not all falls are caused by people flying through the air and having to grab onto something to stop the fall. Obviously if you're driving a truck around up on a ledge, you're not going to be able to ram into it and be just dandy, but a couple hundred pounds of meat and tools shouldn't break the rail by leaning on it.

Maybe the reason those workers don't like going near un-railed edges is because falls are the number one cause of workplace injuries and deaths, and even seasoned professionals have fallen to their death for want of a handrail.

At 1/5/10 03:50 PM, liam wrote: The whole point of faith is that you believe it despite all odds.

So what the hell is all this?

At 1/5/10 03:28 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/5/10 02:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I don't believe you can prove its only die hard fanatics...I believe its way more religious people than just the fanatics !

I can't prove anyone kills themselves because they "lose" their religion.
I don't know how you'd prove people need religion anyway. Hundreds of millions don't have any and they're biologically the same as everyone else.

;;;
That's true...but if it was a democracy, we'd lose, because there are several BIllion people who do have religious beliefs !

It's perfectly obvious that it's possible to be happy and live well without it, what exactly makes some people need it? And why does it seem they "need" religion in an extremely wide range of types.

Like how can someone NEED to be Christian and someone else NEED to just be a deist?
How can someone need something as specific as astrology or homeopathy?

It's way more likely that everyone has mechanism that tell them to not change their beliefs so they make up excuses like "I need it".

I haven't got an inkling of what your point was there ?!?!?!?

Sure they endure...but they're not happy.
THey often become bitter, shut themselves away from the world.

Like who?

My aunt Francis...when her husband, my uncle, died.
My grandfathers grief when my Grandmother died of cancer , he never left the house in over a year !
My mothers best friend still grieving & wouldn't even leave the house this christmas because her mom passed away unexpectedly, this past summer
John James a drug dealer i know in British Columbia... die hard Catholic, when he got caught & went to prison, the shame of what that did to his mom, how he let down his faith caused him to attempt suicide etc.

Or were you perhaps expecting me to go online & get you some examples you could shit all over ?

At 1/5/10 03:33 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Why? If all you're hanging on by is one or maybe two hands... etc. etc.

;;;
I've got my saety lanyard clipped on with a hook called a scaffold hook (for some strange reason) it clips easily over any tube 2 & 1/2 inches or smaller. But a Standard scaffold handrail is about an inch wide & it's wall thickness is about a 1/16 of an inch... not something i would clip to !

At 1/5/10 04:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I've got my [...]

No. You misunderstood.

If we're going to deduce that handrails don't actually do anything by looking solely at a case in which the hand rail has already failed (that is a case in which you are already on the wrong side of the rail), then we should also deduce that tethering doesn't actually do anything by looking solely at a case in which the tether has already failed (that is a case in which you only have your hands to use to hang on).

Also. See Elfer's post.

And can we stop with the "omg its so flimsy" talk? If your scaffolding is to code then you're fine. Metal IS thin. Are you afraid to walk up stairs built on metal stringers?