Ex-Nazi, Kiddie Fiddling Apologist's Tour of Britain

[The Nal]

I don't mind people not agreeing with people who believe in God (any sort of God that is - within organised religion or otherwise), but to say that you're sure there isn't a God and to belittle people for believing there is amazingly arrogant - 'just how the f**k do you know?' one wonders, but to do it with the militancy that some do makes them a f**king cock.

I'm as sceptical as they come on these issues, but the way some people go on is pathetic.

[eFestivals]

eh, because you're asking me whether i believe in something that i can physically go and check to confirm whether this is true or false. the same can't be done for something that is to have happened 2000 years ago.

Completely wrong.

You can physically look for fairies and you can physically look for god. On an identical basis, not finding anything doesn't prove either's non-existence, it only proves that you've failed to find anything.

someone who claims something to be 100% true or false despite having no way of backing this up, is an arrogant tit!

Yet you rule out (or as good as rule out) the possibility of fairies at the bottom of the garden with no way of backing that up.

And so get to prove the inconsistency of the intellectual approach you're taking. You have a different take for each, despite there being no difference at all in the basis of either.

[Cardboard Box City]

I don't think rallying against oragnisations whose policies causes millions of deaths is pathetic.

[ampersand]

why would I need to go back 2000 years to prove wether or not someone can come back from the dead, walk on water, part the red sea, and create an entire planet in 7 days? You can call me an arrogant dick as much as you like, you will never convince me that there is a god, or a jesus (as described in the bible) based upon the evidence of the last 650 million years. Religion is a method of controlling people and maintaining the status quo.

[jump]

Why do people say they're atheist when they are agnostic, if you are an atheist just say you a nihilist and then people can't be bothered to argue with you about.

[t8yman]

eh, because you're asking me whether i believe in something that i can physically go and check to confirm whether this is true or false. the same can't be done for something that is to have happened 2000 years ago.

someone who claims something to be 100% true or false despite having no way of backing this up, is an arrogant tit!

and you'll notice, i'm saying this on the other side of the coin, so not taking sides.

[ampersand]

Completely wrong.

You can physically look for fairies and you can physically look for god. On an identical basis, not finding anything doesn't prove either's non-existence, it only proves that you've failed to find anything.

Yet you rule out (or as good as rule out) the possibility of fairies at the bottom of the garden with no way of backing that up.

And so get to prove the inconsistency of the intellectual approach you're taking. You have a different take for each, despite there being no difference at all in the basis of either.

[t8yman]

because jesus wasn't meant to be like you or me. he was meant to be the son of god. so i think he was allowed special privilages innit?

i'm not trying to convince you, i'm just saying you are very arrogant. is arrogance a trait that you like?

[sifi]

Not taking my point. I've not specifically mentioned any organisation, I've mentioned God, full stop. It was more in response to those who like to describe God as 'an invisible friend' or a 'fairy tale' etc, or the militancy of Richard Dawkins et al against a believe in God.

[Cardboard Box City]

Why can't i have a conviction that there is no god?

[Cardboard Box City]

Although I see Hawkins has come out say that the universe wasn't created by such a being.

[sifi]

I hate to drag up the oldest atheist argument in the book, but how old is the earth according to christians? I understand about 4000 years is the average claim.

[eFestivals]

no difference? you are asking me if i believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden right now. if you were asking me whether i believe their were faeries in my garden 2000 years ago, then you may have a point.

and i would answer you with, probably not. cos i believe that there weren't, but can't be 100% sure.

I'm asking you about fairies now because if the god stories are true then god exists now.

"2000 years ago" has f**k all to do with anything. Both are stories without supporting evidence, to be believed or not believed.

A person can chose to believe or not stories they are told. People believe a story without supporting evidence only if they're susceptible for some reason to that story's content.

So the whole basis of any god belief comes down to nothing more than susceptibility. Given that a person brought up in a particular religious environment will most likely gain a belief in that particular religion and not another religion, that susceptibility can easily be identified as being caused by cultural things - propaganda - and nothing else.

[sifi]

Jim Hawkins? I thought he was a literary character? Ask him how Barbecue is doing if you see him about.

[eFestivals]

You can, but would you go around belittling those who do believe that there is?

given that those with god beliefs believe it's right to go around belittling those without god beliefs, a bit of equality is fine.

Hitler killed millions, Stalin killed millions - ideology is dangerous but some claim there is still a need for it, it just depends on how far you feel you need to take it.

And Churchill also killed millions. Your point is what?

[ampersand]

I'm asking you about fairies now because if the god stories are true then god exists now.

"2000 years ago" has f**k all to do with anything. Both are stories without supporting evidence, to be believed or not believed.

A person can chose to believe or not stories they are told. People believe a story without supporting evidence only if they're susceptible for some reason to that story's content.

So the whole basis of any god belief comes down to nothing more than susceptibility. Given that a person brought up in a particular religious environment will most likely gain a belief in that particular religion and not another religion, that susceptibility can easily be identified as being caused by cultural things - propaganda - and nothing else.

[oafc0000]

The problem with these "debates" is you are all over the place...

Issues of if there is a creator, the catholic church, the pope, Christianity and wider religion are all being mixed up when each of them deserve to be discusses individually on there own merits...

The one issue I really get annoyed at is how the Catholic Church is blamed for the spread of aids... If their followers had followed the very religion that is being blamed for the spread of aids from the start then the actual spread of aids would of certainly been much less. Now we are in a situation where following the rules of that religion wont offer much protection. That is not the fault of the Catholic Church, that is the fault of the followers. I think with the exception of Africa, the rules of the Catholic Church work very well at protecting people from aids IF people followed the rules laid down.

Seriously, what are the chance of catching aids if you choose a partner, marry them and then have sex. Aids can only be an issue if you where unlucky enough to catch it via a blood transfusion etc, and the likely hood is it would of surely come up in conversation byt the point you actually get int bed ?

I think this one issue shows that micro analyzing a religion is just silly. The Catholic Church offers a total solution on how to live your life. If you choose to exercise the no contraception rule but ignore the no sex before marriage rule then how is that the fault of the church ? Surely that is a failure in the person ?

Edited September 17, 2010 by oafc0000

[sifi]

right, but god is meant to be in heaven. can you give me directions please so i can get there as easily as i can get to the bottom of my garden?

[Cardboard Box City]

given that those with god beliefs believe it's right to go around belittling those without god beliefs, a bit of equality is fine.

[eFestivals]

right, but god is meant to be in heaven. can you give me directions please so i can get there as easily as i can get to the bottom of my garden?

it doesn't matter.

You travel to the bottom of your garden to investigate if there's fairies and find nothing.

God is meant to be everywhere, not just in heaven. You can travel to the ends of the earth to investigate if there's god or not and find nothing.

The point is that you find nothing for either - they are 100% identical.

Yet you don't treat them as they are. The difference is in your head, nowhere else.

your fairy point is not a level playing field. it's ridiculous

Yes it is. They are both *ONLY* stories you've been told.

[ampersand]

I think this one issue shows that micro analyzing a religion is just silly. The Catholic Church offers a total solution on how to live your life. If you choose to exercise the no contraception rule but ignore the no sex before marriage rule then how is that the fault of the church ? Surely that is a failure in the person ?

[eFestivals]

Issues of if there is a creator, the catholic church, the pope, Christianity and wider religion are all being mixed up when each of them deserve to be discusses individually on there own merits...

None of them have merits.

Job done.

[ampersand]

it doesn't matter.

You travel to the bottom of your garden to investigate if there's fairies and find nothing.

God is meant to be everywhere, not just in heaven. You can travel to the ends of the earth to investigate if there's god or not and find nothing.

The point is that you find nothing for either - they are 100% identical.

Yet you don't treat them as they are. The difference is in your head, nowhere else.

Yes it is. They are both *ONLY* stories you've been told.

[eFestivals]

well at least my arrogant tit point still stands...

you don't think your different approach to each despite them being 100% the same, and refusal to recognise that different approach, is no less arrogant then....?

[ampersand]

you don't think your different approach to each despite them being 100% the same, and refusal to recognise that different approach, is no less arrogant then....?