BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:54 PM

More wriggling and squirming from our resident bucket of worms I see.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:13 PM

I think pete is a fine guy. Our beliefs with regard to god and religion are substantially different, but there is no need to be rude when addressing him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:30 PM

"atheists are in a minority in every country"

Another absurd throwaway bit of delusion. Unless you have to have thought about theism, understood the concept and rejected it in order to be officially atheist I suppose. Most people don't give a flying Fuck in any sense.

If however you mean people believing in religious nonsense are a majority, there are very few in this country, and most of them who do believe are Muslims, not your cult.

A few hundred thousand people attend church each week, out of a population of over 65,000,000. Quite a few of those go to keep the peace at home or for a few weeks to get their kids into a particular school. Our local church gets about 30 people a service. They include two bell ringers who go out of courtesy to keep the vicar on board, two mates who keep their wives happy and our cleaner who takes her Mum and it lasts too long to wait in the car.

Yeah, strength in numbers eh?

Any more nonsense?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:03 PM

steve, to ask where an eternal God came from , seems to me ,to be just rephrasing the same illogical question so loved by the new atheists.

I didn't ask where an eternal God care from. Eternal is your dishonourable bolt-on, put there deliberately in order to put God beyond scrutiny. I asked where God comes from. My question is simple and honest. Your attempts to sidestep the question are laughable and disreputable.

I say again, you can deny his existence , by claiming zero evidence of his being

I don't deny his existence. I don't know whether he exists or not. It would serve you well to avoid the sheer dishonesty of putting the words in my mouth that you want to hear. I don't "claim" that there's no evidence for his existence - it's a fact. Unless, of course, you can provide evidence. Have you seen him? Has he spoken to you? Do you have independent witnesses? Millennia of religious fervour have not produced a single Godly apparition which can be verified by proper evidence. Not claims by individuals, or alleged witnesses' say-so. Real evidence.

but as already pointed out the dictionary gives a definition

My word, dictionaries are in vogue today, aren't they? I must say, this is novel. The God-botherers are resorting to dictionaries now for their Godly proofs. To continue:

I suspect there is a dictionary definition for evolution as well,

I'm sure there is, but, unlike some of you theological fellows, you won't find too many scientists resorting to dictionaries to find stuff out.

but I don't argue about that, even though you have not presented a scrap of evidence for the evolutionary myth. that is because I understand that the dictionary merely defines what is understood or believed by a term. but the fact is, it is your evolution story that defies all the laws of nature .   of course, you can say that the god position does too , but, there again, that God creates without the need for any former materials, is but a further description of the biblical God that I believe in. theists generally admit the faith factor, whereas evo atheists generally don't, but claim scientific evidence. but ask them to produce that evidence and all you get is unsupported assertions, and appeal to authority. so, go on steve ......show us some evolution.......
shimrod, some of the above applies to your contribution. not sure if I was not clear enough or you did' nt want to get it , but when I said fossils moved up and down to suit, I was referring to evolutionists who have to rearrange the fossil record , not God !.
as for galilieo, my information is that the church was not on his back till he upset the pope by an allusion to him in a book. it was the other scientists peer review that initially opposed him. and btw, galileo was a biblical creationist, and that was no bar to he and Copernicus being " independent thinkers " !.

I can't argue with any of this. I'd like to tell you that the reason I can't argue with it is that it's all wonderful, fully thought-out, tightly-argued, high-powered stuff. Unfortunately, the true reason I can't argue with it is that it's a pile of unintelligible twaddle.

what do you mean steve by saying that he would have to be more complex than all he has created. certainly not in the sense of composite parts, but certainly in the sense of being beyond his creation.    rather , in a sense he is simple, in that he is spirit, rather than anything materially or physically complex.

Dearie me, are you calling God simple? I'm not interested in his composite parts. I'm interested in the fact that he's claimed to have created everything in this incredibly complex universe. Now, whether you regard God as having something equivalent to a brain, only infinitely mightier, I know not and I'm not really interested. But the intellect involved in doing all that creating, not to speak of that needed for him to exercise his mighty powers and to be all-knowing and all-seeing and all-merciful and all-everything else must be utterly beyond all comprehension. Infinitely complex. No wriggle room there I'm afraid. You see, everything I say has an answer, doesn't it, pete? Whatever objection I might put up, you make up something else on the hoof to contradict. Now you appear to be saying that God isn't complex at all. He's just a big, simple spirit. I think that if he's really there, pete, he would prefer you to be a damn sight more honest about him than you are being, frankly.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:06 PM

came from

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:20 PM

I think pete is a fine guy. Our beliefs with regard to god and religion are substantially different, but there is no need to be rude when addressing him.

Pete is one of the rudest people on this board. The smiley-face feel of his posts is hoodwinking you. He never listens to anything that people say. The evidence for that is that he trots out the same nonsense about evolution, Darwin, fossils and so on time and time again, as though no-one here has ever responded to him. He denies science and is offensive to scientists and the great work that scientists do. Pete is not here to debate. Pete is here to provoke us and to further a disreputable agenda that, deep down, he knows is wholly immoral. A fine guy indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:37 PM

"Pete is one of the rudest people on this board."

You maybe aren't reading too many posts then. He is very seldom the first to sling shite. Read back and see where and who starts slinging it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:06 PM

Sorry, mate, but pete slings it freely at science and scientists. I happen to be one such and I am far from alone on this board. As you know, science is, in general, a hardworking and honest discipline that demands high standards of evidence and peer review. I find it perfectly obnoxious that a man who is wilfully ignorant about science comes here and insults, among others, the memory of Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, a mild, measured and honest man if ever there was one. The comments that our friend here constantly makes about Darwin, his work and the scientists who build in his great legacy are an absolute disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:29 PM

build on

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:56 PM

Steve, I can truly see why you would rightly take offence at that. But you mst know that too many people's understanding of Charles Darwin starts and stops with Punch Magazine cartoons. Darwin has seldom been explained well, and there is a great divide between those who do understand the import of Darwin's discoveries/theories/postulations and those who do not. Darwin's intellectual depth was right up there with Newton, Rutherford, Einstein, Feynman--I'll stop there because you know what I mean.

I think any marriage of science and religion is doomed to failure, and present fundamentalists in the general sense have religion-guided science driven by belief. Some people really think that way. They are not bad, merely misguided imo.

When I said pete's a fine man I meant just that. I did not say I agree with his views. In the times we exchanged emails we discussed many things, but never religion. Neither of us brought it up. He has qualities that I find admirable on a personal level.

***********************************

There is altogether too much fighting on this board. There is nothing fighting resolves that can't be resolved in peace. It ain't gonna be a Kodak moment I'm sure, but neither does it have to look like Picasso's Guernica.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:58 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 01:33 AM

Peace is accepting that Top Gear may be fun to me but some don't enjoy it.

War is either me getting Top Gear Day an observed public holiday and trying to make it a criminal offence to be disrespectful to it or those who don't like it trying the opposite.

But like religion, the vast majority of the population don't give a monkeys cunt either way. It doesn't necessarily affect them and is someone else's private fantasy.

Although talking of affecting, I notice the God botherers have won in their attempts to get more shops to shut this Sunday. Meanwhile, buying off the Internet gets the business the shops might have had. Why do normal people have to observe their superstition and ritual? We base holidays on their timetable as it is, whereas spacing them out better would be desirable. Even the Prime Minister, whilst going for the Christian vote acknowledged we have too many bank holidays around Spring.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 01:53 AM

" ... to ask where an eternal God came from , seems to me ,to be just rephrasing the same illogical question so loved by the new atheists."

It's not an "illogical" question. Any question can be asked but, it seems, God botherers can't provide an answer to the question, "where does God come from?" without resorting to a lot of spurious 'hand-waving' about God being unknowable!

" ... theists generally admit the faith factor,..."

Yes, God botherers have a convenient 'get-out-of-jail-free' card to use when they're in a tight spot!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:38 AM

Raggy,
Professor as I indicated A FACT can be proven, it can be demonstrated to apply.
you replied " Agree Raggy. Here is the proof"
Now which bit are you saying you were lying about.

The "fact" was that a God is by definition above the laws of nature.
I proved that fact with a dictionary definition.

Steve had claimed that the laws of nature preclude a god.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM

Musket, on previous threads I have shown you UK survey results that show a majority believe in a supernatural being.
I forget the exact wording but it can be easily found again.

Steve and Brendan,
The God-botherers are resorting to dictionaries now for their Godly proofs.

No I am not.
You Steve claimed that the laws of nature preclude a god.
I responded that IF a god existed it would by definition be above the laws of nature.
Asked to prove that statement I supplied the dictionary definition.

I was refuting Steve's "evidence" against god not providing any for one.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

You really are thick aren't you. A definition does not "prove" anything at all.

To prove a fact you need tangible evidence, you have to be able to prove a fact is true. Merely defining a concept does not prove its truth.

You cannot prove a god exists, even your particular god not to mention the gods of numerous other faiths.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:58 AM

There you are, at it again Keith. One, the second as it happened, definitions was (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu

The first definition in the same dictionary was (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

So, the god you believe in is not defined as being above the laws of nature while the moon god and Vishu are. Since when have you believed in the god of 'certain other religions'? People can look these things up you know!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM

For God's sake or for pete's sake, I have not said that the laws of nature preclude a God. It's you putting him beyond the laws of nature, not me. I don't put him anywhere. I don't really need to waste energy doing that, do I?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:49 AM

Peace, my whole issue with Pete is that his ignorance is entirely wilful. He's had Darwin explained to him here a dozen different ways. He simply refuses to engage. That is plain rudeness by any measure.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 05:48 AM

Yes, God botherers have a convenient 'get-out-of-jail-free' card to use when they're in a tight spot!

It's worse even than that, Shimrod. They have a stash of white card and a pile of felt-tips so that they can draw their own get-out-of-jail-free cards on the fly whenever they're up against it. Pete did just that yesterday when he claimed that God was quite a simple fellow after all. Just because he created the universe and everything in it, in all its incredible diversity and complexity, it doesn't mean that God has to be complex. Just a big, simple, wispy, spirity sort of chap, really. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM

Steve sez, 03 Apr 15 - 07:36 AM:

"I don't know whether there's a God or not, but, if he really is there, I'm not putting him outside the laws of nature unless HE tells me he is"

But Keith sez, 04 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM:

"You Steve claimed that the laws of nature preclude a god."

Lies, Keith. Absolutely typical. You have a vague, garbled idea of what someone might have said, but you churn it out without going back to check. Exactly the same as what you did to poor Geoffrey Wheatcroft. We can never trust a single word you say, Keith. Tsk.

Or were you just "speaking generally" again...?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:43 AM

No ................ he was lying ............... again

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:04 AM

Keith reckons the vast majority of people are religious so there is no hope for him. If they were, we'd have a bigger mental health funding crisis than we do, and what we have is huge...

All lies and jest
Till a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.

His source by the way is where religions include those who were christened. I might have been, I honestly don't know and I had my boys christened too. It's a tradition. Neither my first wife nor I or indeed our sons believe any of that nonsense but like many, enjoy quaint traditions.

Another source is forms people fill in. The head chaplain at a hospital trust I was involved with told us that he remained constantly amazed at how many people put CofE on the forms because they had always done so but when one of his team visited their bed were told they weren't religious. The power of the church is such that many people think they have an official lable.

My brother in law, a vicar, reckons that if I was christened, I m a Christian like it or lump it. More dangerous fucking nonsense by lunatics.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:19 AM

And I still count as a Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM

"Just a big, simple, wispy, spirity sort of chap, really."

With a big, white, wispy beard and a big sort of conjurer's hat with stars (like wot he created) on it!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM

Steve, you said,
" The proposition is for a infinitely complex being whose very existence trumps every law of nature "

I took that to be an argument against the existence of God.
That is why I said that any god, IF he exists, is above those laws.

My statement was challenged so I showed that god is by definition above those laws.

Musket,
Keith reckons the vast majority of people are religious

Not true.
Keith says that UK surveys prove atheists are a minority.
They show that a SMALL majority believe in a supreme supernatural being.

Dave, the god Christians believe in IS above the laws of nature.
How can you deny that?
It is a fact of their belief.
All gods are by definition of what a god is.

What I did to wheatcroft was to quote him verbatim.
He supported my views on WW1.

Raggy,
You really are thick aren't you. A definition does not "prove" anything at all.

I am not that thick.
Of course it proves nothing but the definition.
I was challenged on the definition I gave so I proved it using a dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:06 AM

From the Professor

"I am not that thick. Of course it proves nothing but the definition.
I was challenged on the definition I gave so I proved it using a dictionary"

You were not challenged on the definition, you were challenged on your belief that because there is a definition it proves the existence of a god.

You stated:

"Here is the proof.www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God
2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes;

There is no superstition in my statement. It is a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created. That is inherent in the concept and definition of God as I have just shown with the help of OED"

I'll say it again in the vain hope it might just seep into your pitiable brain a definition does NOT prove the existence of a god.

As usual you try to dissemble in order to hide the inadequacies of your argument. As usual you are lying. The only person who seems unable to grasp that fact is yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:42 AM

God: Do you like my big, pointy, conjurer's hat with stars on it? I made it meself out of nuffink!

Me: Errrrrr ...

God: Of course, you shouldn't really be looking at me, because I'm unknowable.

Me: Can't I just look at your hat?

God: Oooooh?!! Theologically speaking, that's a bit iffy!

Me: Well, how can I tell you if I like your hat, or not, then?

God: Oh, alright, just a quick glance.

Me (backing away): Your hat is very nice!

God: Thank you very much! Why are you backing away? I'm all merciful and I'm in the Bible, you know!

Me (backing away even further and even faster): Oh, you know, things to do, people to see!

God (raising his voice a bit): I've been taking lessons in holy bullshit from pete and Keith. Actually, I created them too! They turned out well, didn't they?

Me (from quite a distance away): Errrrr ... I suppose so ... must dash, I'm late already!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:47 AM

There is a world of difference between "precludes" and "argument against the existence of." As you appear to be resorting to dictionaries currently, Keith, why don't you clarify those two things for yourself? I have said it so any times: I do not know whether there is a God or not. Neither do you. We will have different takes on the probability of his existence, of course, as I seek evidence whereas you sit back on faith and "deeper truths". But I would be obliged if both you and pete could refrain from your usual stunt of putting words in my mouth as a prelude to your latest Aunt Sally.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:18 AM

Raggy,
you were challenged on your belief that because there is a definition it proves the existence of a god.

That is not my belief and I have never claimed any such nonsense.

it might just seep into your pitiable brain a definition does NOT prove the existence of a god.

Of course it does not, and of course no-one ever claimed such rubbish, least of all me.


Steve, if that was an argument against the existence of God, I was right to refute it by saying that God, if one exists, is above those laws of nature you invoked in that specious argument.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:21 AM

What was the religious make up of England and Wales in the 2011 census?
Christian:   33.2m    (59%, down 12% from 2001)
Muslim:       2.7m    (5%, up 2% from 2001
No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)

Of those who claim to be Christian just 2.5 million could be bothered to go a service at Christmas (presumably the most important Christian festival) Less than EIGHT percent.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for religious belief within the country.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:29 AM

Dave, the god Christians believe in IS above the laws of nature.
How can you deny that?

Errr, I am not denying anything. Your quoted dictionary definition says nothing about the christian god being above the laws of nature but the gods of some other religions are. Did you not notice that or are you just wriggling again?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:29 AM

Steve,
We will have different takes on the probability of his existence, of course, as I seek evidence whereas you sit back on faith and "deeper truths"

What "deeper truths?"
What "evidence?"   There is none either way.

I do not know whether there is a God or not. Neither do you.

I agree.
We do not know, and we choose to believe what we believe.
The only difference is that my belief gets ridiculed here, and yours does not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM

Professor you stated " My statement was challenged so I showed that god is by definition above those laws"

I know you are not very intelligent so I will type this S L O W L Y.

How can you show that god is above those laws if you don't accept his existence.

Certainly a definition of god does not prove his existence but you claim he is by definition above the laws of nature.

You cannot have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:38 AM

Dave, I am not wriggling.
I said that if God exists He would be above the laws of nature.
That is inherent in the definition of God.
I only provided the dictionary definition because I was challenged.

I do not know why I was challenged over that, or what point you are trying to make about it now.

Raggy,

I did not claim a ringing endorsement.
I did claim that atheists are a minority which you have just confirmed for me.
No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)

Thank you.
Got that Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:44 AM

I doubt if Steve's beliefs will result in the day to day running of this, and every other country, being interrupted by an almost constant stream if religious bigotry, I doubt if his beliefs will result in countless millions being killed (often by people of the same belief)century after century.

As for your beliefs Professor you are fully entitled to hold them, I object only when they impinge on my everyday life which they do to an unprecedented amount. Which school I could go to, when shops could open, what I can watch on television, bombings .............. need I go on.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:45 AM

Raggy,

How can you show that god is above those laws if you don't accept his existence.

I can not, and never tried to.

I did say that IF a god exists he WOULD BE above those laws because that is inherent in the definition of a god, refuting Steve's argument.

Did I type that slowly enough for you Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Do apprise me of the specious aspect of my argument.

My argument against the existence of God has several aspects. But all I ever do is take the believer viewpoint and tease out what's wrong with it. I have no personal concept of God at all. I wouldn't have really, would I? Of course, like all good atheists, I harbour the tiniest scintilla of doubt that I may be wrong. As with Dawkins, I'm at 6.9 on the seven-point scale, where 7.0 means that God certainly does not exist. 1. No-one has ever had a meeting with God that he can corroborate. 2. The only claims for God arise from ancient stories written by advocates of Jesus, or, going back a bit further, of God himself, or by uncorroborated witnesses, or from tradition, or from edicts, or from ceremony. 3. There is not a single reference to Jesus in any contemporary secular source, even though such potential sources are abundant. All we have are early Christian writings from people who dearly wanted a Jesus. 4. Believers (not me, Keith) place God entirely at odds with every law of nature and, more suspiciously, beyond the reach of scientific scrutiny, by making him eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing and the creator of everything. As a rational sort of chap (at least, that's my aspiration), I tend to adhere slightly better to concepts that work within those laws. I'm aware that our understanding of nature is imperfect, but at least we do know something about the kinds of things that will never fit. 6. Much of what God is supposed to have achieved puts him at odds with the overwhelming evidence provided by honest science. For example, the myth of creation is completely incompatible with evolution, which we know to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:56 AM

Cheers, Raggytash, but I don't really regard myself as having beliefs in the fields of religion or science. I can't cope without evidence. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 11:04 AM

I agree all that Steve.
Not sure why you posted it really.

There is no hard evidence either way.
We choose to believe what we believe.

The only difference is that your (minority)belief does not get ridiculed here, and mine does.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:20 PM

My belief can't be ridiculed because it isn't a belief. How many times do I have to say it? And why did you insert "minority"? Do you think I care? And there is no evidence at all for God, let alone hard evidence. There can't be "hard" evidence for not-God now, can there? I can't produce "hard" evidence that there are no seven-legged blue men living on Saturn's inner rings either. But I can put forward a strong rational and intellectual case against them, just as I can against God, as I just have done. Only blind faith and irrationality can be set against that case, unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:22 PM

steve thinks he and Darwin is being dissed simply because I don't agree with him. when he asks for evidence for God , he sets the bar high enough that he wont have to consider it. there is imo, nothing that will convince the atheist evangelists here. and I am sorry to say that his replys to my points have been largely as non sensible as he accuses me of being. not only that, but he is evasive too. I say again, what he believes to be true....ie the general theory of evolution....is against the laws of nature, and has not explained how it could have happened, despite any claims to the contrary. in short, the evolutionist presents a miracle without a miracle maker.
probably not time for any more posting tonight.   and thanks #

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:25 PM

I only provided the dictionary definition because I was challenged.

But your dictionary definition did not say anything about the christian god being above the laws of nature. It said the gods of some other religions were. Your point was invalid.

Anyway - It's chocolate holiday again tomorrow and, seeing as I am not really into chocolate, the Mrs bought me one of these. Not sure if I should be having an 11% beer for breakfast so I will probably wait until lunchtime. Must be the only time I can say I will enjoy having even more Jesus :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:27 PM

Pete, I know speaking in tongues is a facet of your faith but you need to understand that no sane person understands it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:49 PM

"... there is imo, nothing that will convince the atheist evangelists here."

There is nothing that will convince those of us with a scientific background that your God exists, pete ... except, that is, if you could see your way clear to providing us with some convincing evidence for His existence. I'm not sure what an "atheist evangelist" is - another one of your made up terms, perhaps?

" ... the general theory of evolution....is against the laws of nature,..."

But you have demonstrated, time and time again, that you don't understand the "laws of nature", pete! So who are you to judge whether a particular scientific theory is in accordance with those laws or not?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 01:16 PM

Dave, the Christians DO believe in a God that is above the laws of nature, so my point WAS valid and YOU have failed to make one.

Steve you say the existence of God is very unlikely.
In the absence of any evidence, that is just your belief.

We both agree that there is no evidence either way.
We choose what we believe.

Your belief does not get ridiculed and mocked here.
Mine does, by people who share your belief, and with no evidence for it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:07 PM

Dave, the Christians DO believe in a God that is above the laws of nature

So, show us the dictionary definition that proves it then.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:14 PM

Your belief does not get ridiculed and mocked here.
Mine does, by people who share your belief, and with no evidence for it.

No it doesn't. It is you who get ridiculed.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:51 PM

Religious belief, especially Christianity, is mocked and ridiculed by you and your friends all the time Dave.

From the source I gave, Oxford Dictionary,

God
Pronunciation: /ɡɒd/
Definition of God in English:
noun

1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

The creator and ruler of the universe is above its laws Dave.
My point is valid.
You have failed to make one.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:55 PM

when he [Steve] asks for evidence for God , he sets the bar high enough that he wont have to consider it.

Well, present your evidence and we'll see. As I always say, however, it has to be fair evidence, though. Like you'd get in a court of law. No claims from uncorroborated witnesses, OK? Do you think I should believe the likes of St Bernadette, for example? If I insist on independent witnesses for her alleged vision, am I setting the bar too high? No relying just on the written word, OK? You can't expect me to believe that something written with a scratchy feather on a tatty piece of hide is really the word of God, can you? Especially when the accounts thereon are full of inconsistencies in any case, and, worse, they were used very selectively by the compilers of the Bible? And that no biblical account of Jesus was written down until at least 40 years after his death? And that there is not a single record of Jesus in any secular writing of the time?   Setting the bar too high, am I? Am I supposed to believe the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra? Would you? Or the ayatollah? Am I supposed to be fazed into believing by pomp, ceremony and grand religious buildings and works of art? If you think I set the bar too high in resisting those things, let me know. Then give me what you believe to be fair evidence. I always listen, honest.