BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence

Subject: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 06:31 PM

Does osessive arguing about the merits/benefits of religion and atheism build you up, just to let you (it) down?

Are you constantly on chat line "podiums" cb eating your chest on strong views "the cause",ignoring your "manly" or "womanly" duties to your partner?

Do you spend more time talking with the enemy, those disagreeing with your views than with your spouse/partner?

Is this becoming the only thing that "get's you up" (it's your ego, stupid).

If so, the only cure is to stop it now "cold turkey" (no, I am not suggesting this is what your wife now calls it). There are others like you and programs to help you "stop doing it" to help you gradually move back "to doing it again" with your partner.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:18 PM

Steroid ferret

The picture on the right is my Facebook profile picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: michaelr
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 01:20 AM

Who are the editors here?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 06:34 AM

Correct response. I often ask this in the endless ping-pong religious disputes. Thus this theory emerged. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:32 AM

LOL!!!

Good theory, Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:43 AM

I am experiencing absolutely no troubles.

But then I have been not been talking about religion. I am talking about people who are rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:45 AM

And this "debate" ain't no buttercup.



Sure is interesting, all right.   Mr. Shaw, for instance, has posted at least 12 times since my complimenting him on his calm evenhanded approach and willingness to just let the argument rest.    This was obviously a desperate--and brillantly successful-- attempt to prove me wrong.   I have no idea what was in those 12 posts, but I can guess.    Maybe if I run out of things to do, I'll read them.   Or maybe not.

But I've learned my lesson. I'll know better than to compliment him on his calm, mature approach.


Gee, I wonder what his home life is like.    He sounds like a good candidate for this thread.

I can't imagine how posting as many times as some of our stalwart atheists do on this topic can assume as high a priority in their lives as it evidently does. Maybe they need to read some soothing literature--the Bible for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: olddude
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:50 AM

Dawkins is the editor

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:56 AM

It's sort of like wanking, to use the British term, only you can do it in public all day long and people won't be shocked...just bored.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 11:17 AM

I humbly disagree. This issue is a relevant one to today since many are questioning the value of their faiths and I believe that a decent non-judgmental conversation can be had about it without everyone getting offended and self-righteous.

The fact that it is shedding more heat than light obviates its importance in contemporary dialogue. It's established that religion causes wars, angry, vituperative and violent
reactions shows how important a reasonable discussion of this topic is.

You can run away from it if you want to but this issue is not going away soon. It has ramifications on everything from civil rights to foreign policy. When it enters politics as it has in America by promoting prayer breakfasts in Washington, not allowing those non-believers who want to enter public office, persecution of high school students for forming secular after school activities, pronouncements of a religious piety by political public leaders, the suppression of women's rights defended by biblical injunction, and general ad hominem attacks by religious zealots, homophobia which is church-based such as crazy Phelps who claims to represent Christianity, mosque burning, violent reactions by relgious zealots over the world, then I think there should be a reasonable discussion about it without character assassinations and mud-slinging.

The editor here is doing a real service by allowing statements to be made that will not be shown on main street media or in the pulpit.

I find that actions speak louder than recriminations and there are groups who have a religious base that are doing important social actions quietly without thumping the bible and calling names. The American Friends Service Committee is doing this as an example.

I may not agree with the Quaker's religious premise but I respect their actions and the way they go about talking to people. I respect their principle of non-violence and humility.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 11:41 AM

"Dawkins is the editor "

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 11:48 AM

"I find that actions speak louder than recriminations and there are groups who have a religious base that are doing important social actions quietly without thumping the bible and calling names. The American Friends Service Committee is doing this as an example.

I may not agree with the Quaker's religious premise but I respect their actions and the way they go about talking to people. I respect their principle of non-violence and humility. "

Let me get this clear. You believe what is quoted above, but do you also believe that their bringing up their children as Quakers and teaching them their "principle of non-violence and humility", which the Quakers say has biblical roots, is child abuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 11:59 AM

So, Stringsinger, do I detect that your vote on my theory is a no? I can't deciper it from what you post?

Keep in mund that I put alot of thought and observation into this theory, and it is not just a "shot in the dark, put forward by someone like An(n) Elk ;)

To put it in clear nautical terms, is the jig up or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 12:06 PM

GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 11:59 AM

Ed T?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 12:10 PM

It's sort of like wanking, to use the British term,

So what do the Canadians call it, LH? A Meaningful Auto-erotic Knowing of the True Self, I suppose?

Reminds me of LH's old Has traditional wanking had its day? thread from 2010 when I used to post here as Suibhne O'Poibaireachd. Anyhoo, here's the lyrics for Three Tenses Onanism which I couldn't find back then:

Frank sang a song began
"some guy clobbering a gong"
and further
"J. Arthur" (Rank)
"slang for wank"
(jack off)

Then slack will tense
and gong connect
(to arms!)
hands called will hence
incline to commence

Sun brass arising
some guy lies --
a raft, as flat
(mast down) as that

And a link to YouTube of the song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8J_WP5taog

...which I still find rather as spiffing as I did when the album first came out back in March 1977 (the same day as Never Mind the Bollocks if I remember right ).

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 01:27 PM

"It's established that religion causes wars..."

"I may not agree with the Quaker's religious premise but I respect their actions and the way they go about talking to people."

So... it's not religion that causes wars, etc... but people who do odd & negative things with their religion.

(No, it's not the same as "guns don't kill people"... religion's main purpose is not to hurt, combat and control other people, even though many use it that way.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 01:51 PM

So what do the Canadians call it?

There are plenty of slang terms. Wanking is not one of them.

Canadians also do not drives lorries to the loo when they do what they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 02:18 PM

do not drive lorries

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 02:39 PM

"brilliantly"

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 03:14 PM

...an 'oldie but goodie'..but very applicable!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 04:00 PM

I'm not really sure what the most popular Canadian expression is for masturbation these day. It's hard to tell, because our social and broadcast media are so awash with info from the USA that we hardly know how to sort out what's "Canadian" anymore...aside from a few rock solid traditional things like Don Cherry and the Big Nickel.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 04:03 PM

Oiling and working the Canadian pipeline??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 04:42 PM

Don Cherry? Oh - I see that Don Cherry (as oppose to the Don Cherry...)

People say similar things in England - but I reckon anything that happens on English soil is English by default. Time was it was all ice anyway so whatever, you know?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:41 AM

Presumably involving imagery of big bear lumberjacks or tattooed sailors?

To claim a British actor, the term used most frequently in my local drinking pit to describe self abuse rather than term of abuse would be "taking Capt Pickard up to warp speed" or similar describer.

Look on the bright side. There is a way of enjoying it without feeling guilty. Dawkinism. You know it makes sense. You may even say it exists. But you'd have to be a prospective or serving wanker...

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:28 AM

" You believe what is quoted above, but do you also believe that their bringing up their children as Quakers and teaching them their "principle of non-violence and humility", which the Quakers say has biblical roots, is child abuse?"

Let me clarify this for you. You can't automatically become a Quaker. There are many who have been brought up by Quaker families that aren't Quaker, Richard Nixon for one.
To become a "Friend" you have to be accepted by the Quakers as being one of them.
Children do not automatically apply. They don't indoctrinate. They have their principles of non-violence, and many don't believe in Christ. Many Quakers would disown the idea of "biblical roots" and this is one reason they were persecuted by Puritans. You couldn't become a Quaker (Friend) just because you wanted to.

"Child abuse"occurs when a child is subjected to forcible training without the intellectual development to make a choice as to what he would believe or not believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:30 AM

The only real impotence that I can see is the intellectual impotence of bigotry and accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:47 PM

""Child abuse"occurs when a child is subjected to forcible training without the intellectual development to make a choice as to what he would believe or not believe. "

So it is ok to teach religion as long as the children do not have to be tied down?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:18 PM

It's OK to teach religion to a child when he/she is intellectually developed enough to make a decision as to whether to accept it or not. Otherwise, it becomes force feeding.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:37 PM

Actually, if a decent discussion on this topic could take place, we could all learn something important.

As it stands now, it has become a silly war with the barricades being manned by epithets
and brickbats, and I for one would like to see that end and be substituted by rational thought and ideas.

I really am interested in what people think, when they do. Why has this subject become such a heated issue with bruised feelings rather than points of view discussed in an adult manner?

Blandiver and Jim Carroll have presented rational ideas and Steve Shaw, generally.

"So... it's not religion that causes wars, etc... but people who do odd & negative things with their religion."

I see it differently. Religion in itself tends to make the believer dogmatic to the point of going after those who are outsiders. (Non-believers). Analogy, if there were less guns, there would be less killing therefore guns do kill people. Less religion, less attacks on non-believers such as Professor Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:15 PM

Stringsinger - have you considered that you "may have" (through your approach) contributed to some of the disfunction in the religious-athiest thread discussions?

If you really are interested in a meaningful discussion, you may wish to first make an "objective" (non emotional) review of this question, rather than make a rash response. It is not a response I suggest - it is reflection.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:26 PM

Less religion, less attacks on non-believers such as Professor Dawkins

Rational ideas? eh?

How about, No attack by Dawkins on religion. No criticizing of Dawkins for attacking religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 09:11 AM

It's OK to teach religion to a child when he/she is intellectually developed enough to make a decision as to whether to accept it or not.

I think it's OK, indeed desirable, to teach children about religion in ways which sensible teachers can graduate according to the children's age and abilities, as with other "subjects". What is wrong is to tell children (anyone, really, but it's much worse in the case of children) what to believe, and to reinforce that with hymns and prayers and rituals full of certainties. Wrong not to tell them explicitly that what they are expected to believe has no evidence for it. Wrong not to tell them that people should be perfectly free to believe or not believe, penalty-free. Wrong not to tell them that we're telling you about this particular version of God because you happen to have been born in this country, and there are different versions of God (and non-God) which just might have equal merit with our one. In other areas of education you give children the skills to be critical, to seek information from many sources and to not accept information without evidence. Religion gets a bye in these matters, as it does in several other walks of life, but this is by far the worst. I don't think abuse is too strong a term.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 12:28 PM

I was going to post to this thread but you know what? It's Friday. I'm off for a beer. See you there.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 01:32 PM

I'm cutting beer drastically because of my eye problem. Have one for me!

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 01:54 PM

Cheers, I did. Yours was a Jaipur IPA from Thornbridge Brewery in Derby. Very nice it was too, so thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religion/Atheism and Impotence
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 05:40 AM

Sounds awesome. I really enjoy IPA.