BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:12 PM

By the way, I don't know who these here "atheist evangelists" are. Not me, surely. I don't think I've ever started a thread on religion. I only react. I do love to rattle on about it, I admit. But I never start it. You'd have thought that an evangelical type would be starting thread after thread. And I only argue against believers' concepts of a God that are put up here. I don't know whether there's a God or not (as with every other sentient being on Earth). I only know what I've worked out for myself by way of probabilities and I like to put the case. Tell me your evidence and prove me wrong. I'm all ears.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM

Apart from your assertion that the creator and ruler is above it's laws you have presented no evidence to support your claim ........

other than a dictionary definition.

You claim that your point is valid but have signalled failed to substantiate or corroborate your claim with anything approaching validity.

YOU may believe the your god is above the laws of nature but that does not mean anything. Your argument is totally invalid, it doesn't hold water, there is NO evidence to support any claim you make other than YOUR belief. Trust me on this, that is not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:33 PM

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

It is not a belief. I have reached a conclusion about the probability, based on rational consideration of all factors. It's a variable feast. All I need is new evidence, then I may revise my conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:53 PM

What factors Steve?
We agree there is no evidence either way, so it is just your belief that God is improbable.

Raggy,
Apart from your assertion that the creator and ruler is above it's laws you have presented no evidence to support your claim ........
other than a dictionary definition.

If there is a supreme being who created the universe and its laws, that supreme being is a god.
A god is by definition above the laws of nature.
I showed you the definition supplied by Oxford Dictionaries.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:17 PM

twice steve, you claim that there is no secular record of Jesus at the time. it is hardly surprising if secular authorities take no interest in religious matters, however, with the growth of the Christian faith some secular writers did demonstrate their awareness of Christ.
pliny the younger in correspondence to emperor Trajan ad 112
a Syrian,mara bar-serapion in a letter preserved in the british museum .   between 70 - 150 ad
Suetonius, mentions him in life of claudias ad 120
josephus in antiquities ad 93, not just the disputed passage.
rabbi Eliezer ben hyrcanus ad 95
there are other " facts of history " of which greater time distance between event/person, and writing of them apply, yet when it comes to Jesus greater evidence is demanded !.
the gospel records are rejected despite your own admission that the earliest are only decades after the event. the writings of paul are generally acknowledged as being even earlier. the reason these are rejected is your a priori assumption/ preference that there is no God.
and, I suspect, also the reason you believe ideas that are contrary to the laws of nature/ experimental, observational science.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:34 PM

Keith.

The vast majority of people, including many who call themselves Christian don't believe in God.

Live with it.

Millions do.

Only tonight, a friend said that of course he is Christian. But he is about as religious as I am.

Why, if your delusion has any credence, do you have to falsify and conjure statistics? Surely if the little baby Jesus was more than just a figment of your imagination, he'd not be so quick to make silly claims?

Surely he would not need to justify magic? His magic would be there for us normal well adjusted people to see?

Seriously, you don't need to keep up this nonsense. You believe in fairies same as pete. No need to get precious. So long as you don't expect normal people to share your mental defect,we can all enjoy a pint. Some might take the piss out of your Jesus and some might take the piss out of my Sheffield Wednesday. But no problem for either of us eh?

But let's not either of us assume we can convince others..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 05:39 PM

I said that there are no contemporary references to Jesus. Perhaps, pete, you should borrow that dictionary of Keith's to look up "contemporary". When you think about it, considering that Jesus was supposedly a pain in the neck as far as the Romans were concerned, and it was the Romans who eventually saw him off, it's a bit odd that there isn't the teensiest mention. Those Romans were quite good at writing things down, pete. I'm not demanding greater evidence, pete. I'm asking for SOME evidence. Also, I have no a priori assumption (I've thought about it first) nor preference (why should I have a preference? He's either there or he isn't). As for the gospel records being rejected, well they're interesting documents, no doubt. But, let's face it, they were all written long after the death of Jesus (if he ever lived at all), yet are replete, in places, with direct and lengthy quotations of his. I find that a bit hard to swallow myself. There are plenty of inconsistencies, as even the most ardent theologians are obliged to acknowledge. If you gave me four history books about the second world war that contained loads of contradictions, you wouldn't be asking me to accept all four in full without demur, would you? Yet that's what you appear to be requiring in the case of the gospels. Finally, someone or other chose those four and rejected a number of others for inclusion in the Bible. I wonder why.

Keith, I listed the factors in the post with numbered points. Stop trying to daft-man it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:57 PM

This business of a God being "above" the laws of nature is quite intriguing, I find. Why "above"? Why not "apart from" or "disobeying" or "breaking the laws"? Funny thing, this God notion. O lord above. Ascending to heaven. Do you have faith in God above. Raise your eyes heavenward when praying. Up to heaven and down to hellfire. Heavens above! The stars in heaven are shining bright. Even Stairway To Heaven. It's always up there, above us and all that. Well, I think God breaks the laws of nature. When I steal a frozen chicken from Tesco I break the law of the land. I'm not above the law of the land. "So, I suppose you think you're above the law now, do you?" Even if they're his own laws, I don't think he's above them. He's breaking them, that's all. I think the laws of nature are wonderful. If he made those laws, why are they not good enough for him too? Isn't that what dictators and bankers and priests do, one law for us but another for them? God made us in his own image? T'other way round, I reckon. The God we made isn't very nice really!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 01:53 AM

As I keep saying. My past involvement with a children's hospice makes the Jesus waffle somewhat obscene.

Suffer the children eh? Jesus wants me for a sunbeam?

Funny how people ascribe sick jokes to fitments of the imagination of ancient story tellers.

If there was a god, be buggered if I would want to be associated with the sick bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:12 AM

"If there is a supreme being who created the universe and its laws, that supreme being is a god. A god is by definition above the laws of nature. I showed you the definition supplied by Oxford Dictionaries"

No.

As I and other people have tried to tell you that is a definition and only a definition. It is not EVIDENCE, it is not PROOF. It may cater to YOUR belief but that in itself has no validity.

And as Dave has already stated the definition you copied from the Oxford Dictionary website actually related to a moon god or Vishnu neither of which I suppose you worship, or do you?

Personally I don't care who you choose to worship. My objection to religion as I have previously stated relates to it's impact on my life and the life of other who choose not to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:28 AM

I think that it's highly likely that the Christian God represents a sort of idealised Roman Emperor. After all it was Emperor Constantine (reigned 306 - 337) who adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. It's probable that, by Constantine's day, the empire was getting too big and difficult to control. Then Constantine went and compounded his problem by moving his capital to the shores of the Bosporus on the eastern fringe of the empire (presumably, a typical rich and powerful man's vanity project). Then he - or more likely his brilliant advisers - came up with the idea of using religion as a means of social control. They searched around and discovered an obscure middle eastern cult called Christianity - which, hitherto, they had been persecuting. They realised that this religion had all the elements that they were looking for: it was monotheistic (one God = one Emperor), and contained a lot of a rather peculiar bullshit about 'sin' and 'sacrifice'. The Christian God was wise, all-powerful and all-seeing (which Constantine probably wished that he was) and all of the sin-n-sacrifice stuff served to keep the population on the 'back-foot' and more focussed on the fates of their immortal souls than they were on rebellion.
So I suspect that Christians are still, in effect, submitting to the will of Constantine! Well, lads, you can stop now - he's been dead for 1678 years!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:47 AM

Raggy,
As I and other people have tried to tell you that is a definition and only a definition. It is not EVIDENCE, it is not PROOF

That is correct.
It is just the definition.
I posted it because I was challenged on the definition.
How many more times do you need this explaining Rag?

Steve,
The vast majority of people, including many who call themselves Christian don't believe in God.

Completely untrue and made up.
All Christians, religious or not, believe in God.
The census and numerous surveys clearly show atheists are a minority.

Re your factors, I have plenty as good as those so my view must be not just belief also.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:52 AM

Shimrod, There is no "Christian God."
Jesus was a Jew and worshipped that God, and so do we.
Likewise Islam.

Nice story, but just historical fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 04:20 AM

Who are "we"?

All Christians beleive in God? A hell of a lot of vicars and one celebrated bishop of Durham would take issue with you over that one. As my brother in law pointed when at vicar school, (at Cambridge but under the auspices of Durham University) the job of a vicar is to ensure the congregation do, but not to insult their own intelligence if they cannot handle superstition at the intellectual level.

This is why it was the laity rather than the employees who tried buggering up the women bishop debate the other year. The professionals know that in any company, if it is to succeed commercially, pragmatism is far more important than doctrine and philosophy.

I pointed out, quite reasonably that most people who don't give the church a second thought and don't believe in nonsense still put CofE on forms, because it is as natural as saying what your date of birth is, (star sign anyone??)

Meanwhile, God botherers jump on the statistic to make them look relevant. My view is that they lie about how many delusioned people there are because they are ashamed at the intellectual level and get comfort in numbers. After all, you can't point and laugh the the little boy who has shat himself if your own underpants are lumpy.

No Keith. Not all people calling themselves Christians beleive in God. Stop treating intelligent people as if they are at your level. If you come out with bullshit don't complain when people laugh at you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 04:41 AM

"When I said pete's a fine man I meant just that"

Peace, pete has repeatedly called me and my colleagues liars and manipulators of information who are working to some mysterious agenda. I take exception to this because it's not only far from the truth it's bloody rude. His posts are riddled with falsehoods and fallacies and it's impossible to know where to start with him sometimes.

I don't diss pete's fundamental beliefs (I don't care what they or anyone else's are), but if he's going to repeatedly be unpleasant and misrepresentative of honest, hardworking science folk and the work they do for no other reason than discovering the truth, then I'm going to rail against his arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 04:45 AM

"Shimrod, There is no "Christian God.""

Whatever! And it's not "fiction", it's speculation - look up those words in your dictionary!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:06 AM

What is it then? A Mickey Mouse God?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Robin Twatt
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:25 AM

This thread seems to have deviated from its orignal purpose.
So, back on track -
CLARKSON'S A PATHETIC, BOORISH TWAT AND I'M GLAD HE'S GONE!

Happy easter to all our readers x

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM

Has the pathetic boorish twat gone?

He hasn't posted since 06.25AM (in wherever the Mudcat time is, somewhere abroad obviously.)

Happy Easter to all indeed. Whether you be in the pub or nailed to a tree, enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 08:20 AM

Keith said "All Christians, religious or not, believe in God."

Nope. I am by definition a Catholic Christian: the Catholic definition, the census definition and possibly your definition. However, I have become an atheist. I haven't been a Christian for years. Nor have I ever been religious.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 09:06 AM

His statement is not only silly, but fits with Cameron' divisive shit today that we are a Christian country. If you apply both fools and their statements, you piss yourself laughing.

If however you are a member of a different religion, you feel alienated in your own country. Normal people can laugh it off,but religious people are by definition gullible and weak minded and such nasty talk is aimed at them as much as at rational people.

Cameron sinks low yet again. There again, his tactics work whilst ever the likes of Keith have a vote. Superstitious people will be impressed with the speech I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 09:07 AM

Jeremy Clarkson is part of the Holy Trinity of middle class not-quite-alpha-male dickswingers though, so the religious stuff is relevant.

Clarkson - Mother Mary/God
Hammond - the baby Jesus who needs to stay latched to Clarkson's tit for his career to survive.
May - the holy ghost and is utterly transparent too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 09:27 AM

Sorry #, but you are not a Christian or a Catholic.
You are an ex-Christian.

Musket,
All Christians beleive (sic)in God? A hell of a lot of vicars and one celebrated bishop of Durham would take issue with you over that one.

No they would not.
All Christians do believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM

Stu, I have never received any vitriol from pete. Pete knows where I stand on 'religious' matters and I know where he stands and years ago we agreed to disagree. We've never had a cross word because it's very difficult to dislike someone who chooses not to be rude.

In areas of belief and science there are two camps. I'm in the science camp, but I don't perceive those people in the belief camp to be my enemies. I think they are misguided, something I figure they also think of me. C'est la vie.

As to name-calling, there is altogether too much of that on this site. Just because I think someone is foolish doesn't give me license to call that person a fool. How people think they can further discussion or debate with bad manners is beyond me, but a read through the god/no/god/Darwin part of this thread will show that there's enough blame to give most of us a doggie bag of remarks as keepsakes.

Someone always hits someone else first. Both the religious and scientific people here should be able to see that.

If the topic is Gregor Mendel, there will necessarily be mention of both his religious bent and his studies that laid down the foundation for our understanding of heredity. Similar

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:15 AM

Crap. I clicked something I shouldn't have. To continue very briefly:

Similarly, Mendeleev's work on the Periodic Table represents (to me) a brilliant creation from a keen mind. If someone chooses to say god designed it, ok. I choose to give credit to Dmitri Mendeleev. No skin off my nose if someone thinks I'm wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:25 AM

Keith said, "Sorry #, but you are not a Christian or a Catholic.
You are an ex-Christian."

Tell that to the Catholic church. I'm already convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:31 AM

Fast typing on a phone with spellchecker off and not proof reading..

Not as bad as your sins though Keith...

No. Not all people comfortable with being called Christians believe in God. You can't have it all ways.

This was rather telling..

So much for Keith's assertion

#. pete is exceedingly rude. Dishonesty and peddling lies, brainwashing children and calling science wrong when he doesn't even understand the subject aren't exactly civil words. Christ on a bike, if you can't see that, stop assuming everybody being rude back at him are name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:48 AM

Keith said, "All Christians do believe in God.."

Nope. Christians believe Christ IS God. There is a difference.

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

Musket, you wrote, 'stop assuming everybody being rude back at him [pete] are name calling',

I don't assume people are name calling. But I agree with you on the rude part.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 11:09 AM

"We've never had a cross word because it's very difficult to dislike someone who chooses not to be rude."

Well, I'm chuffed that pete isn't rude to you, but he has been to me and I assert my right to defend my position. I care a lot about what I do, and it matters.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 11:26 AM

Thank you, Stu.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 12:15 PM

Guest.#, are you the person who once told us that pete was "sincere"?

Like several others above, I think that pete is very rude too. He doesn't listen and he pontificates and lectures us about things that he obviously doesn't understand.He wilfully refuses to acknowledge the difference between 'belief' and 'evidence' for a start! As Stu put it so aptly above:

" ... pete has repeatedly called me and my colleagues liars and manipulators of information who are working to some mysterious agenda... His posts are riddled with falsehoods and fallacies and it's impossible to know where to start with him sometimes."

It would also appear that he is often just mindlessly re-gurgitating stuff that he's read on some creationist website and it is quite obvious, from the rubbish that he spouts over and over again, that he has allowed himself to be brainwashed by these fools, knaves and charlatans.

I have to admit that I've never come across anyone quite so ignorant, rude and obtuse - and I've met some plonkers in my time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 12:21 PM

Steve,
The vast majority of people, including many who call themselves Christian don't believe in God.

Completely untrue and made up.

Well, whoever "made it up", it wasn't me. Why don't you be a bit more careful, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 01:21 PM

Sorry Steve.
That should have been to Musket of course.

Musket, your link is to a survey by atheist humanists.
They twist the findings by counting people who say they are "not religious" as atheists even if they believe in God.

People who believe in God are a majority in this country and every other as independent surveys all show.
Disbelievers are a minority.
As Steve said, "live with it."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:03 PM

As the late Prof C E M Joad would have said, Keith, it depends what you mean by these "People who believe in God" whom you claim to be a majority. I suspect most of them neither believe nor disbelieve all the time, & that the majority of this majority only 'believe in God' because they really can't be bothered not to.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:07 PM

...& I, the obsessive taxonomist and 'legendary pedant' would still love to know where bloody Clarkson has gone, and what this thread is really supposed to be on about anyway -- as if we hadn't been thru all this stuff ∞ to the power of n times already......

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:36 PM

Any pedant will tell you that ∞ to the power of n is still just ∞.

Whatever you think about their belief, they tell the pollsters that they do believe in God.
That makes them believers not atheists, and they are a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:40 PM

Not 'any pedant': only an exceptionally boring one...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:00 PM

This'll solve it for serious infinity seekers.

Infinity's too short to miss a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:02 PM

Atheist humanists? I thought such polls found people at random.

Assuming they are alive, gave their opinions recently and are eminent..

😹

Read the article again. It was complaining about loaded questions that presume in the census. Further polls were in order to see the reality.

The reality is that the majority of people are rational, not deluded and don't need comfort blankets nor feel the need for sanctimonious "my shit doesn't stink as badly as yours.". Most people had reasonable science teachers at school and the RE nonsense just slipped away. Most people leave superstition to their granny.

On another thread, you are bemoaning the callous indifference to human life by religious people. Hypocritical lunatic.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:21 PM

All Christians, religious or not, believe in God.

No they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM

I didn't say "live with it" either. Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM

On easter sunday 2013 just 1.3 million of the supposed 33.2 million christians in the UK attended a service at their church.

Just 4% of so called Christians could be bothered to get out of bed to venerate their god. By my calculations that means 96% of christians are not very christian.

Source BBC Website

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:51 PM

Please read a bit more carefully Steve. My post did not claim the quotes were at the same time as Christs life, but that with the spread of the faith, secular sources made mention of him. I am agreeing that there is not at present secular record of him, but IMO, the quotes a few decades after , confirm his existence and increasing influence, so as to then warrant mention from the secular and political angle.      As to the gospels giving different versions, first you need to demonstrate that the details can,t be harmonised . In fact there have been several harmonies of the gospels. Secondly, if they were in total detailed agreement you would claim collusion. Thirdly, most any event, would be remembered in different detail by different people. Fourthly, the Pauline letters are even earlier than the gospels. Fifth, were it not for the a priori rejection of miracle and supernatural, they would be in the same ball park of historical record as any other historical writing. The beginning of Luke, for example, makes it clear that he was setting out to outline carefully from witnesses the details of his life.                               The usual suspects claiming that I refuse to differentiate between belief and evidence , need only demonstrate that the data can only support their position, to prove that their position is not a belief. Shimrod, has already confessed that he can not do this, as he is not a biologist, and his own field is irrelevant to evolution. ( in fact, other than evolution itself, all of science can get along just fine without that storytelling ) they attempt to intimidate me by their science credentials, but appeal to authority...theirs or others....is irrelevant. What matters is the validity of the argument........always assuming an argument is made.....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:53 PM

The lack of contemporary references to Jesus may not mean much either way. It could be that it was politically expedient to write him out of history and that the gospels are like a first century Wikileaks.

On the other hand giving Pontius Pilate a namecheck in the Nicene creed, to give a link to recorded history, could be good bit of creative writing at a time when they were picking and choosing which bits to put in the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:58 PM

Crossed with Pete, that last post was thoughts provoked reading Steve Shaw's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:23 PM

Yes, but relevant additions. Which reminded me of another point I missed. The choosing of what to accept and what to leave out, was largely a question of what was the church at the time accepting as authoritative. There was some debate though, and I think Constantine acted a bit like an umpire !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:31 PM

"Shimrod, has already confessed that he can not do this, as he is not a biologist, and his own field is irrelevant to evolution."

I have not "confessed" to anything!! I have stated as a FACT that I am not a biologist (although I am an amateur botanist - how many flowering plants, ferns, mosses and liverworts can you recognise and name, pete?). That is NOT a "confession" or an "admission", it is a plain statement of FACT. It is also a FACT that I have a scientific background and can follow a scientific argument. I also have a sceptical and enquiring mind and can recognise bullshit when I encounter it!

You, on the other hand, pete, seem to have saddled yourself with a pretty weird and rigid belief system, based on the rather chaotic and equivocal ramblings in an old book and it is quite obvious, in everything you post, that you know NOTHING about ANY scientific subject, let alone biology!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 07:32 PM

Gosh, one does have to be patient. Of course there were references to Jesus well after he was supposed to have lived. The early Christian proselytisers were scrawling their tendentious stuff all over the place and that was going to be picked up in subsequent centuries by all and sundry. Robin Hood didn't exist but that doesn't stop people getting all romanticated about him as the centuries unroll. The point is that no-one outside those early Christian circles ever gave Jesus even the teensiest mention. Either the thousands of contemporary writers were all part of a big conspiracy, or else the case for the existence of Jesus is thereby seriously weakened. Take your pick.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 03:13 AM

"Either the thousands of contemporary writers were all part of a big conspiracy, or else the case for the existence of Jesus is thereby seriously weakened."

Or they had never heard of a minor, local, cult that did not make ground until a few decades later. After people had been travelling around spreading a tale in places where no-one would have read about it in any case.

A minor cult that may have taken advantage of written histories being less common that now to make up a few things.

Not that written histories prevent myths gaining ground.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 03:36 AM

I hope my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandson doesn't worship at the church of Bilbo the father, Frodo the son and Gandalf the holy ghost!

If you don't eat your greens the orcs will take you to Mordor!

Although judging by history, it's either that or the temple of Justin Beiber.

If you look at how the Christian cult is dropping off here, and how education is the best way to combat superstition and the atrocities done in its name in all cults, I reckon we are two generations from recalling when people actually believed fairy stories, and in backwaters of Dumbfuckistan. the middle east and Africa still do.

It would be a pity because a comfort blanket is a comfort blanket but their interference in the lives of others is totally out of step with reality.

Mrs Musket told me she counted 37 filling the local pews from her vantage point in the ringing chamber. Seven up on normally. Must be Easter....

Perhaps normal people would be less dismissive if they took a leaf out of the Maori book. I was delighted to have a guide at one of their cultural centres keep saying "we traditionally believe" rather than assert nonsense as something more than dreamt up fairy stories.