Not for the conservative Christian..

[jimbo12345]

Really, don't read if your a god squad nut.

After a drunken discussion with some old Chinese men, i brought up religion. The old wrinkly man suggested that it's all based on someone's perception thousands of years ago, and you either need to adopt that perception, or don't. Bright words from a senile old git reeking of vodka. He said for religion to work, perception needs to change. As in his eyes, every fable has 2 very different perceived themes. His example is as follows:

"Take the whole virgin Mary situation. What if, using what i know of man and woman,i told you that this angelic wife married to this working class guy who worked long hours away got pregnant, couldn't explain it to her husband, admitted an affair, out of shame they moved away and made up some mental star and men-with-gifts story.

So gullable/bored/desperate are people to believe in something or someone to lead then out of the crap, this story spreads round Bethlehem. Several people suggest they are lying. They decide to check out the story in Nazareth with some traders they buy ice off. Alas, all people from Nazareth were slaughtered by Herod. This confirms to the already believers that "Virgin"Mary and the child must have been saved from Herod by some magical spirit. Others here on the grapevine that actually Herod is the father, and killed all in the town he feared were hiding Mary and killed all the children out of jealousy.

Or these three wise men were actually well-off middle eastern traders, sent by the Sultan she'd been shagging to pay her off with expensive crap.

Now...i don't agree with that statement. But, if it's true, that means Christianity is based on all it isn't supposed to be, Mary caused mass-slaughter and higher pensionable age. Herod, a man seen as the devil, fathered Jesus. Joseph was a jaffa. The bible is straight out of Readers Housewives.

Also, if Joseph was a carpenter, why didn't he build themselves a portable shed? Maybe even their own manger? Why didn't God introduce Josepth and Noah in a dream and make the whole ark building thing a little easier?

Just a thought.

[bigboab]

Too long drawn out to be a sales pitch, so we will stick with;

No in at the womb followed by no womb at the inn.:)

[jimbo12345]

i guess she had a womb. I'm calling her a slut, not a transgender. Thar would be blasphomy or something.

unless Jesus was a robot. Or jedi.

[j2k4]

i guess she had a womb. I'm calling her a slut, not a transgender. Thar would be blasphomy or something.

unless Jesus was a robot. Or jedi.

Quite right.

I suggest you clean up the wrinkled, senile, vodka-soaked wretch, firm up your scenario, start a religion, and make a fortune.

It's been done before.

BTW-

If he made so much sense to you, why do you describe him as senile?

Do you suppose others might reach the same conclusion?

[Biggles]

Any scholarly investigation into the roots of Christianity will show that the version we have now evolved over several centuries and was only firmed up and codified during Constantines rule - perhaps proving Seneca's point that ordinary people find religion to be true, wise men find it false and rulers find it useful.

I think we could all, given a jar or two, come up with a less scholarly hypothesis - possibly involving aliens and magical glasses :)

[jimbo12345]

\
I think we could all, given a jar or two, come up with a less scholarly hypothesis - possibly involving aliens and magical glasses :)


And we can all believe in the holy spirit and his 2 friends without alcohol. They could be pixies/aliens also. At least alcohol is the reason for thinking that. Whats a christians reasoning? Other than the "belief" bullcrap.

[Ava Estelle]

Is this an anti-religion thread?

Can I play? :)

[jimbo12345]

i guess she had a womb. I'm calling her a slut, not a transgender. Thar would be blasphomy or something.

unless Jesus was a robot. Or jedi.

Quite right.

I suggest you clean up the wrinkled, senile, vodka-soaked wretch, firm up your scenario, start a religion, and make a fortune.

It's been done before.

BTW-

If he made so much sense to you, why do you describe him as senile?

Do you suppose others might reach the same conclusion?


Apologies, when i say senile, i was just settting the scene. Storytelling, if you will. He probably wasn't senile. Also, he was drinking baijiu, a rice-based spirit, 22-75% proof.

As for my own religion, i'll consider this. China's desperate for a figure head. I could be the new Ghandi (with shoes). Fancy joining J2k4? Youcould be a disciple. No cruxifiction or other nasty shit like that. And virgins for all!

All other wannabe worshipers, send me a PM, and let filesharingtalk.com be our Mount Siani....You'll never take our freedom!!!:01:


Is this an anti-religion thread?

Can I play? :)


Sorry, converts only. If your not a worshipper, you are not coming in. Unless your a virgin...then we'll be needing you...:shifty:

[Biggles]

\
I think we could all, given a jar or two, come up with a less scholarly hypothesis - possibly involving aliens and magical glasses :)


And we can all believe in the holy spirit and his 2 friends without alcohol. They could be pixies/aliens also. At least alcohol is the reason for thinking that. Whats a christians reasoning? Other than the "belief" bullcrap.

While I can see that one could argue that belief/faith is something of a take it or leave sort of argument in favour of any religion I think equally one might say that "belief bullcrap" lacks the Socratean dialectic touch with regards debate :lol:

[jimbo12345]

And we can all believe in the holy spirit and his 2 friends without alcohol. They could be pixies/aliens also. At least alcohol is the reason for thinking that. Whats a christians reasoning? Other than the "belief" bullcrap.

While I can see that one could argue that belief/faith is something of a take it or leave sort of argument in favour of any religion I think equally one might say that "belief bullcrap" lacks the Socratean dialectic touch with regards debate :lol:


The word "belief" has been used as a weak answer and shield for too many things. To the point of blind stupidity. "That poisonous snake may bite you" "No it won't, i believe in God." What they really mean is "i'm brainwashed/scared/don't know". Either one, not a good promotion of religion.

It's like someone saying "HI, what's your name?", and you answer 'yes". It's non-sensical.

Granted, religion brings relief. Kinda like having an invisible friend with you. The thing is, if you admit to having an invisble buddy for too long, you'd be given medication and labeled mental.

Don't get me started on the whole Mohammed falicy. What? So you want me to believe not in the bastard child, but in someone i can't even see a picture of? So no evidence he even existed, ever. I mean, come on, every religion needs a icon to focus their mutterings towards. Good for marketing purposes also. Think of all the merchandise you've missed out on. A better business plan was needed. If it was nowadays, HSBC would have laughed at you and we'd all be wearing Bhuddha slippers.

and the "belief bullcrap" remark was me just "keeping it street". I'm well-educated and i don't smell.

And Biggles, why bring Socrates into this? Should the world listen to philosophers from a country who's main export has become kebab vendors? And that's the educated ones.

And Socrates probably never existed. None of his work exists, his ideas were only passed on by his "pupils" (Plato and such). Kinda like god. Made up. As a focus point.

And living by your principles, as Socrates apparetly did, is one thing. Dying because of them is another . Man needs to adapt to environment, or die. He is not a good example.

[j2k4]

Man needs to adapt to environment, or die. He is not a good example.

Exactly.

Like a caveman, huh?

Perhaps you should tell us what's really on your mind, rather than obscuring your purpose by dismissing religion and Socrates as mere mouse-farts in your view of larger and more important subjects.

Provocation for it's own sake is frowned upon here, so, as the "well-educated" person you are, enlighten us, please.

[Biggles]

While I can see that one could argue that belief/faith is something of a take it or leave sort of argument in favour of any religion I think equally one might say that "belief bullcrap" lacks the Socratean dialectic touch with regards debate :lol:


The word "belief" has been used as a weak answer and shield for too many things. To the point of blind stupidity. "That poisonous snake may bite you" "No it won't, i believe in God." What they really mean is "i'm brainwashed/scared/don't know". Either one, not a good promotion of religion.

It's like someone saying "HI, what's your name?", and you answer 'yes". It's non-sensical.

Granted, religion brings relief. Kinda like having an invisible friend with you. The thing is, if you admit to having an invisble buddy for too long, you'd be given medication and labeled mental.

Don't get me started on the whole Mohammed falicy. What? So you want me to believe not in the bastard child, but in someone i can't even see a picture of? So no evidence he even existed, ever. I mean, come on, every religion needs a icon to focus their mutterings towards. Good for marketing purposes also. Think of all the merchandise you've missed out on. A better business plan was needed. If it was nowadays, HSBC would have laughed at you and we'd all be wearing Bhuddha slippers.

and the "belief bullcrap" remark was me just "keeping it street". I'm well-educated and i don't smell.

And Biggles, why bring Socrates into this? Should the world listen to philosophers from a country who's main export has become kebab vendors? And that's the educated ones.

And Socrates probably never existed. None of his work exists, his ideas were only passed on by his "pupils" (Plato and such). Kinda like god. Made up. As a focus point.

And living by your principles, as Socrates apparetly did, is one thing. Dying because of them is another . Man needs to adapt to environment, or die. He is not a good example.

I mentioned Socrates because of his sophisticated debating techinque - or if you prefer, Plato's sophisticated debating technique which he selflessly ascribed to his teacher Socrates. Socrates was just a man with no claim to divinity I see no reason to doubt Plato's claim to have been taught by him. There were many Greek philosophers - some with a written body of work others with none or at least none surviving.

Socrates died not because he refused to evolve but rather because he refused to submit to irrational religious belief (he stood accused of blasphemy) - unless you are arguing that submitting to irrational religious belief is an evolutionary step forward ..... which I am guessing seems unlikely. :unsure:

[Bucktoof]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

[j2k4]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

Well stated.

Some people must denigrate others in order that they may "coexist".

Oddly enough those who are not at all religious (those on this board, at least), seem to be the ones disposed to do this, instead of the other way around.

Curious, eh? :)

[Biggles]

Bucktoof

I appreciate that the point of view that there are no such things as luck and coincidence is an accepted one in some Christian circles but to have all of destiny micro managed to such a degree begs questions regarding as to why the fall occurred at all, why angels rebelled and why some are saved and others damned. There is a degree of Calvinistic pre-determiniation about such an understanding which leaves one wondering what is the point of it all. We are but bit players in a script we haven't seen.

On a separate point, quotations may be taken out of context but it may be argued that that has never stopped Christians. The reason why there are so many denominations is because somebody somewhere placed a different emphasis on certain texts over others.

That said I would not take the extreme position of say a Dawkins that all religion is harmful. I think some do find strength and comfort from religion (of whatever flavour) and that it is beneficial to them. My only concern is when they are convinced that their God(s) are wrathful and feel compelled to give him/her/them a helping hand.

[bigboab]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

Well stated.

Some people must denigrate others in order that they may "coexist".

Oddly enough those who are not at all religious (those on this board, at least), seem to be the ones disposed to do this, instead of the other way around.

Curious, eh? :)

Sorry I dont know what you are implying here. Are you classing all non religious members in the same category as the one you are dispute with? There are probably more decent non religious members than there are decent religious members on this board.

[jimbo12345]

So is the original argument or debate about christianity the way we perceive history?

I personally am a christian, wasn't born into a christian family (father non-practicing lutheran and mom a non-practicing shintoist/buddhist). I became a christian on my own after 2 years of being involved under my own free will with some tutoring and summer camps run by a nearby church. This is just so you know where I'm coming from :p

Anyways, back on topic. I have lots of non-christian friends, very close ones, and the reason why we're all still good friends is because we don't argue all the time about religion. Sure we once in a while have a spirited debate about it since one of my friends is the definition of an atheist, but why do we bother with this still? For me, religion makes me a better person, my religious and non-religious friends have all noticed (not to say I was a bad person before) and so has my family.

A lot of non-christians think the comeback "this is a test of faith" is BS - that's fine if you think that but I think it's very true. Is it wrong to say that you are never to be tested in your faith, whatever it may be? And since some non-christians take most things from the bible out of context, I think it's better if we refrain from using quotes.

I have heard the same argument that "senile chinese man" from the first post said before. I know of very real examples of what I would consider God's miracles and His wrath that I could give, which in my opinion helps to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in coincidences or luck, there are no such things - everything happens for a reason, whether we know what the reason is or not. There is a higher understanding that exists, one beyond human perception.

But that's my opinion - if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, well fine too.

Good post, and, like i said originally, no insult was meant, nor was it reflecting my opinion.

I would contst that your point on miracles and wrath could be also, just as my belief is, long-odds and bad luck.

Also, i will ask this question to you. Do you still feel in the 21st century, in a time of gay marriages, homosexual foster parents, female priests, test tube/designer babes and a political correctness craze, that refering to god as "Him" "the Lord" "the Father" or "the son"is outdated?

Granted, the alternatives of "person", "Chairperson", The "biological parent of all who choose to be", or the " holy child of non-descript sex".

I would also go as far as to say to ban nativity plays, as i blame this for my countries massive teenage birth rate and ever-burdeoned social fund. Letting kids see us condone a woman who brought a kid into a world, getting free furnished housing and a free ride thrown into the deal (granted, it was only a donkey....most workng parents only get a ox to move on) seems to be the wrong message to send.

What we should promote is Mary working until the last minute, Joseph actually did what wood workers do, and make his son a cot....were there no trees/bushes on the long walk to Bethlehem? Then, have the kid, get a job in motels that were full, as they'll need more staff since thre so busy and the plagues and Herod have been screwing things up. Then. Christianity stepped in, filled out a few forms, now Mary is a nursery nurse, Joseph is on a retraining scheme to become a ice-cream engineer ang Jesus has his loin cloth and flint paid for Bethlehem University Fund, not roaming the streets, in the burning sun, harrassing people and evntually getting nailed one of Josephs attempted curtain rail he screwed up making.

[Biggles]

Is it just me or did the last post start off ok and then take a sharp turn somewhere along the line? :unsure:

[jimbo12345]

Is it just me or did the last post start off ok and then take a sharp turn somewhere along the line? :unsure:


Depends. If you read the post as offering a few diffrent angles on a tired subject from a person interested in other opinions of his own, then it didn't.

Focus. You may believe you are Biggles, and your role here is to shoot down threads as they dont follow the usual theme you have had installed in you somwhere along your (slightly OCD) 4,258 posts, ut theres more opinion out there, be it below a level you deem acceptable.

[Biggles]

Is it just me or did the last post start off ok and then take a sharp turn somewhere along the line? :unsure:


Depends. If you read the post as offering a few diffrent angles on a tired subject from a person interested in other opinions of his own, then it didn't.

Fair enough - must have been me.

I'm not of the Christian persuasion so I was trying to put myself into that frame of mind and thought it perhaps a trifle edgy to go from "no offence" to dodgy "curtain rails". However, as I said, it is probably just me :)

[jimbo12345]

Depends. If you read the post as offering a few diffrent angles on a tired subject from a person interested in other opinions of his own, then it didn't.

Fair enough - must have been me.

I'm not of the Christian persuasion so I was trying to put myself into that frame of mind and thought it perhaps a trifle edgy to go from "no offence" to dodgy "curtain rails". However, as I said, it is probably just me :)


It is. I forgive. Howevr, i still havent heard your thoughts on the use of Him/He etc,,,,care to share?

[Biggles]

Can't see Christians dropping "he" anytime soon. The cost of removing the beards from stained glassed windows would in itself be prohibitive.

Hindu's already have female and male dieties, as do Pagans. Buddhists I am not sure about - but I doubt it is a major issue for them and Muslims would, I'm guessing, be in the "don't go there" territory although I think the Sufis have a concept of the feminine Divine.

[bigboab]

Can't see Christians dropping "he" anytime soon. The cost of removing the beards from stained glassed windows would in itself be prohibitive.

Hindu's already have female and male dieties, as do Pagans. Buddhists I am not sure about - but I doubt it is a major issue for them and Muslims would, I'm guessing, be in the "don't go there" territory although I think the Sufis have a concept of the feminine Divine.

It would not be required in a place not far from your abode.:lol:

[j2k4]

Well stated.

Some people must denigrate others in order that they may "coexist".

Oddly enough those who are not at all religious (those on this board, at least), seem to be the ones disposed to do this, instead of the other way around.

Curious, eh? :)

Sorry I dont know what you are implying here. Are you classing all non religious members in the same category as the one you are dispute with? There are probably more decent non religious members than there are decent religious members on this board.

No, not at all, Boab.

I am referring to the fact (and I'm sure you will agree) that there are more non-believing than believing members who wish to pick fights over religion.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I am referring to the fact (and I'm sure you will agree) that there are more non-believing than believing members who wish to pick fights over religion.



There's not that many.

[j2k4]

I am referring to the fact (and I'm sure you will agree) that there are more non-believing than believing members who wish to pick fights over religion.



There are not that many.

There are more of the former than the latter, no matter how many of either there are, was the point.

Fixed, BTW.

[GepperRankins]

Like most atheists HardCaseOwnsYou is an atheist because the dedication to strict logical accuracy required to be agnostic is too great. Atheists claim knowledge of something unknowable in the same way christians and muslims claim knowledge of something unknowable. And similarly, like christians and muslims. Atheists cannot read between the lines of religious texts, and must take everything literally and not see its inherent esoteric nature. This proves they are in fact retards.




http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/HardCaseOwnsYou



:pinch:

[vidcc]

Define "picking a fight" on a discussion forum.

By definition debate on any given topic would require opposing views. Sure religion and politics are hot topics that will more often than not bring "hotter posts" but why does it have to be defined as "picking a fight"

Are those of christian faith that post threads designed to be critical of islam picking a fight or are they just trying to convey their opinion.

Are the evangelicals that come to my house wishing to "convert me" picking a fight? (I bet if I was to knock on many of their doors and try to convince them god doesn't exist I would not be received warmly)

[bigboab]

Define "picking a fight" on a discussion forum.

By definition debate on any given topic would require opposing views. Sure religion and politics are hot topics that will more often than not bring "hotter posts" but why does it have to be defined as "picking a fight"

Are those of christian faith that post threads designed to be critical of islam picking a fight or are they just trying to convey their opinion.

Are the evangelicals that come to my house wishing to "convert me" picking a fight? (I bet if I was to knock on many of their doors and try to convince them god doesn't exist I would not be received warmly)

Good post.:)

A couple of years ago I did a survey for the local council. I had the honour of knocking on the door of a Jehovah's Witness.:) Out off over a thousand homes they were one of the nicest couples I visited. They were what you imagine an ideal couple should be. Not one mention of Religion after the initial introduction.

What they thought of me, I don't want to know.





Sorry I dont know what you are implying here. Are you classing all non religious members in the same category as the one you are dispute with? There are probably more decent non religious members than there are decent religious members on this board.

No, not at all, Boab.

I am referring to the fact (and I'm sure you will agree) that there are more non-believing than believing members who wish to pick fights over religion.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

No I can't agree. You are sitting in your garden counting the arrows coming over the wall. I use them to hold up the runner beans.:)

[macking]

OMFG BLASPHEMY

Get the burning torches and pitchforks this is 2000 years overdue!

[Biggles]

OMFG BLASPHEMY

Get the burning torches and pitchforks this is 2000 years overdue!

That is a bit ambigious - who is going to get toasted. :shifty:

[j2k4]

Good post.:)

A couple of years ago I did a survey for the local council. I had the honour of knocking on the door of a Jehovah's Witness.:) Out off over a thousand homes they were one of the nicest couples I visited. They were what you imagine an ideal couple should be. Not one mention of Religion after the initial introduction.

What they thought of me, I don't want to know.





Sorry I dont know what you are implying here. Are you classing all non religious members in the same category as the one you are dispute with? There are probably more decent non religious members than there are decent religious members on this board.

No, not at all, Boab.

I am referring to the fact (and I'm sure you will agree) that there are more non-believing than believing members who wish to pick fights over religion.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

No I can't agree. You are sitting in your garden counting the arrows coming over the wall. I use them to hold up the runner beans.:)

Fair enough.

I've had my fill, frankly.

[Biggles]

There are not that many.

There are more of the former than the latter, no matter how many of either there are, was the point.

Fixed, BTW.

Manny used to post the occasional piece of pro-religious standpoint designed to "stimulate debate" but other than that I don't think there have been many pro-religion posters on the board. There has been a spat or to between Rafi and Bawa which might count as religious (but more probably political).

J2 and JP will defend their religious standpoints against the dafter trolling, which has occurred from time to time. Billy is anti religion and so it would appear is Jimbo. However, most of the Board is fairly lighthearted in its atheism including Boab, as are those of other alternative points of view :)

Like JP I would say the numbers involved in this topic are small but would agree that the composition of the Board leans towards the anti as opposed the pro. This is not really surprising as many of the Board are European and we are secular rascals :whistling

[macking]

OMFG BLASPHEMY

Get the burning torches and pitchforks this is 2000 years overdue!

That is a bit ambigious - who is going to get toasted. :shifty:


eenie meenie miney mo..

[Biggles]

That is a bit ambigious - who is going to get toasted. :shifty:


eenie meenie miney mo..

:unsure: Well I suppose that is at least fair.

[Barbarossa]

It's not really fair on Mo :ermm:

[Chip Monk]

There are not that many.

There are more of the former than the latter, no matter how many of either there are, was the point.

Fixed, BTW.

I'm suggesting that there are far fewer Atheist members keen to pick fights over religion than there may at first appear.

Americans :noes:

[j2k4]

There are more of the former than the latter, no matter how many of either there are, was the point.

Fixed, BTW.

I'm suggesting that there are far fewer Atheist members keen to pick fights over religion than there may at first appear.

Americans :noes:

I'll concede the point, and gladly.

[jimbo12345]

I think we can all be a little bit religious occassionally, especially when it suits us. Usually when it really hits the fan, or something major happens.

Biggles, i'm not anti-religious, i woulld be stupid and naive to say there isn't a god. I don't know.

But, i also feel people who would confirm there is a god are naive, and in some cases stupid.

I prefer to stand on the fence on :frusty: issues, and throw my opinions both sides, desperately hoping one i hear will sway me one way or another.

[bigboab]

I think we can all be a little bit religious occassionally, especially when it suits us. Usually when it really hits the fan, or something major happens.

Biggles, i'm not anti-religious, i woulld be stupid and naive to say there isn't a god. I don't know.

But, i also feel people who would confirm there is a god are naive, and in some cases stupid.

I prefer to stand on the fence on :frusty: issues, and throw my opinions both sides, desperately hoping one i hear will sway me one way or another.

I am a bit like that myself. The trouble with sitting on the fence, however, is that it is only the hot air that rises toward you.

I honestly cant understand people who have not a mind of their own. You can hear them stating; 'My Dad voted Right/Left all his life and so will I'. ' Born a 'religion' always a 'religion''.

P.S. in my course of testing out all the religions I have not got past the one with numerous Vestal Virgins on hand.:)

[j2k4]

I prefer to stand on the fence on :frusty: issues, and throw my opinions both sides, desperately hoping one i hear will sway me one way or another.

I guess the fence amounts to a "third" possible position, but (it seems to me) to defend it as a position defies all conventional advocacy, and demands (too often) argument for it's own sake.

I have yet to witness anyone who willfully straddles a fence climb down gracefully or be coerced from it by sheer force of logical debate or reasoned discourse.

After all, we've been doing this for going on five years, and I don't recall any incidents of stunned enlightenment in that entire time.

[Biggles]

I prefer to stand on the fence on :frusty: issues, and throw my opinions both sides, desperately hoping one i hear will sway me one way or another.

I guess the fence amounts to a "third" possible position, but (it seems to me) to defend it as a position defies all conventional advocacy, and demands (too often) argument for it's own sake.

I have yet to witness anyone who willfully straddles a fence climb down gracefully or be coerced from it by sheer force of logical debate or reasoned discourse.

After all, we've been doing this for going on five years, and I don't recall any incidents of stunned enlightenment in that entire time.

I think it fair to say that most traffic I have observed is to the fence rather than from the fence. So much so that it is high time decent seats were fitted.

Jimbo - I withdraw my comment it was stuff about dodgy curtain rails that had me fooled. :)

[jimbo12345]

quote]I am a bit like that myself. The trouble with sitting on the fence, however, is that it is only the hot air that rises toward you.

I honestly cant understand people who have not a mind of their own. You can hear them stating; 'My Dad voted Right/Left all his life and so will I'. ' Born a 'religion' always a 'religion''.

P.S. in my course of testing out all the religions I have not got past the one with numerous Vestal Virgins on hand.:)[/quote]

I feel there are not enough Vestal Virgins at present, and more should be made available.

Give me a religion that offers me a good life after and before i die, without any other sacrafice than behaving myself on most occassions, i'd consider. With free virgins.

All church needs to do is change service time to a non-hangover time and introduce tequila/bloody mary's as the blood of Christ, or cranberry juice for the fattys and infested. and christianity will swell. Also, programs such as Father Ted help advertise also.

[vidcc]

I have yet to witness anyone who willfully straddles a fence climb down gracefully or be coerced from it by sheer force of logical debate or reasoned discourse.

After all, we've been doing this for going on five years, and I don't recall any incidents of stunned enlightenment in that entire time.

I'm not sure that verbal arguments could change many minds, people tend to convert one way or the other because of some personal event. This is why religion is instilled in our minds as children, before we are able to make informed choices ourselves.

Pretty much everyone that comes here has already made the choice which side to sit on, you having yet to see anyone that claims to sit on the fence fall off onto one or the other side could be for numerous reasons.
examples:-

1. Nobody has come up with a argument that makes sense to them. You may think your view is logical, reasoned or persuasive, however that doesn't mean others do.

2. With the "I can't decide because it can't be proven one way or the other" stance then they are only sitting on the fence with making a yes or no choice. They are not sitting on the fence as to if it can be proven one way or the other, they have chosen it can't.


I used to believe in god (after all as children we were taught he exists) then I doubted his existence, then didn't care, then I decided there is no god.

[bigboab]

It's a pity you cant have an Independent Political Party. We can have an independent religion though. I suppose some of us will just have to remain Mugwumpers.:)

[jimbo12345]

It's a pity you cant have an Independent Political Party. We can have an independent religion though. I suppose some of us will just have to remain Mugwumpers.:)


Speak for yourself. I'm claiming Jedi citizenship.

Britain has "independent" parties, noticably UKIP (UK Indep. Party). They are useless.

The rest generally focus on foreigners, and ways of killing and/or removing them from the country. And they are becoming more popular.

[bigboab]

It's a pity you cant have an Independent Political Party. We can have an independent religion though. I suppose some of us will just have to remain Mugwumpers.:)


Speak for yourself. I'm claiming Jedi citizenship.

Britain has "independent" parties, noticably UKIP (UK Indep. Party). They are useless.

The rest generally focus on foreigners, and ways of killing and/or removing them from the country. And they are becoming more popular.

You can't be independent if you belong to a party. A bit like you cant have an Anarchist party as it defeats the purpose.:)

[Biggles]

Speak for yourself. I'm claiming Jedi citizenship.

Britain has "independent" parties, noticably UKIP (UK Indep. Party). They are useless.

The rest generally focus on foreigners, and ways of killing and/or removing them from the country. And they are becoming more popular.

You can't be independent if you belong to a party. A bit like you cant have an Anarchist party as it defeats the purpose.:)

Although the Monster Raving Loony Party makes a fair stab at it. I might consider voting for them if they had a candidate in my area :) in lieu I think I might go SNP as New Labour has scunnered me.

[bigboab]

You can't be independent if you belong to a party. A bit like you cant have an Anarchist party as it defeats the purpose.:)

Although the Monster Raving Loony Party makes a fair stab at it. I might consider voting for them if they had a candidate in my area :) in lieu I think I might go SNP as New Labour has scunnered me.

Yes I think election night will be Salmond Echanted Evening.
Sorry about that. I have my coat. I will go shopping.:(

[JPaul]

Jack McConnell was on the Talksport Football Phone-in last night. The more I see and hear him the more I like him. He strikes me as a guy I could go for a few beers with, and enjoy it.

[Biggles]

Jack McConnell was on the Talksport Football Phone-in last night. The more I see and hear him the more I like him. He strikes me as a guy I could go for a few beers with, and enjoy it.

Can't argue with that - if only he would stay away from politics, it turns him into a Woodentop.

[JPaul]

Beer and talking football mate. No interest in the politics thing.

He is a self confessed bhoy, btw.