BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM

How about "thank you. This is lovely tea?"

I don't think it is honest to give her the illusion that you are Christian. Maybe better to stick to the subject at hand.

Words have meaning and they to tend to reinforce ore corrode beliefs. That is why Dawkins wants you tho think of my beliefs as delusion.

On the other hand, if you want religion out of the schools, you can start by removing it from your every day life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:49 AM

It doesn't make any difference what words people use unless you develop an obsessive reaction to it due to some kind of chip on your shoulder, in which case it's not their problem, it's yours.

Everyone means different stuff anyway when they say something like "Oh, my God!" or "Omigod!". One person may be consciously invoking a deity, another may be invoking nothing but a sense of surprise, astonishment, chagrin, pleasure or elation...and you can figure that out easily by their tone of voice and their expression and the general situation, NOT by the specific words they use.

It doesn't matter if they use the word "god" or not, it doesn't hurt you if they do, it's not your business to correct them, and you don't necessarily know why they're doing it anyway. Why not just mind your own damn business for a change, and let other people use expressions that they are comfortable with?

You're not in this world to control and manage everyone else and make them be like you. You're in this world to control and manage yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:00 PM

And I don't think we're in this world to be controlled and managed by religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:29 PM

Smokey, I'm sorry you had to accuse Pete of posting poison. I know him, and though I totally disagree with his angle on evolution, I know he is totally lacking venom. He's a thoroughly decent guy, doing good in his life, influenced by the group he worships with to think that those of us who read and study widely, and so reject the conclusions of those he accepts, have been brainwashed, but incapable of being nasty about it.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:33 PM

We're not in this world to be controlled and managed by anyone but ourselves, Steve. That is my point. I don't follow religions, I study and apply spirituality, and spirituality is a self-governing pursuit.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:34 PM

Another Frank Zappa: (could be seen as relating to Mudcat):

A wise man once said, "never discuss philosophy or politics in a disco environment."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

Ed - BINGO! ;-) Pearls before swine, and all that....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:06 PM

I am for tolerance of beliefs and punishment for those who break the law.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM

Dawkins has maintained that there are no Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim etc. children and they should not be force fed religion by their parents but allowed to make up their own minds. Force feeding religion Dawkins has said is a kind of "child abuse".

I avoid all references to religion in conversations. I have changed "omigod" to "omidog".
"Goodbye" is apparently a contraction of "god be with ye" which has been assimilated into the language to the extent that it is used without thought. I usually say "bye bye".

I like to reframe language whenever I can.

Still, I reiterate that if people want to believe in Santa Claus or in a Flat Earth Society,
that's their choice as long as I don't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM

There are no Republican, Democratic or Communist children either. There are no "white" or "black" or "yellow" children. There are no Canadian, American, Chinese, or Trinidadian children....just children, period. They all start out unbiased by cultural labels.

So why is Dawkins not all worked up about all the other common forms of arbitrary identity that are "forced" upon (planted in) children, usually unwittingly, by their parents? Why does only religious programming concern him? Do I see a gigantic chip resting on Mr Dawkin's shoulder...or is that just a very large parrot or a huge piece of birdshit? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:40 PM

"Well you say that it's gospel,
But I know that it's only church."
— Tom Waits

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

Sorry - there *are* black, white, and mixed-race children. There are also American and Chinese children. You don't get to teach children their nationality or race, only their creed (well, the parents' creed). That is why Squawkins is so up in arms about that one.

If you want to pretend that your child doesn't belong to your racial family, you're welcome to do it, but rational people will likely not join you in that particular delusion.

Right, smokey, that's why I use "very" (or, in your example, thanks).

My swearing has been pertty much eliminated; if I do use "blasphemy" (god, damn,etc) then my kids KNOW I'm royally pissed off and haven't the time to search for a better expostulation.

Punishment for those who break the law is less desirable to me than enforcing reparation to the victims. Punishing the wrong-doers without making reparation smacks of "eye for an eye" which is more judeochrislamic than anything else.

Goodbye is OK since I do want them to have a good departure, or bye.

I am also willing to say For pete's sake, since I believe in peters (small p!), and don't really care about the history of which Peter was originally intended.

But I usually say My word!

I am also willing to say Man oh man, since I believe in men, although that one is sexist and bugs me slightly.

And I use "bloody" a lot, since I also believe in blood. Earlier references to whose blood don't worry me.

But avoiding god, damn, heaven and hell avoids perpetuating the myth that there are real deity and afterlives, and that you can get deity to send people to the "bad" afterlife.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM

>>Punishing the wrong-doers without making reparation smacks of "eye for an eye" which is more judeochrislamic than anything else.<<

Hmmm I am not suggesting for example that rapists should be raped or indeed that reparation is even possible for that crime and many others.

Who do you make reparations to for a crime where no one is hurt?

I'm saying that a person's beliefs and how they raise their children as long as it is legal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM

Mrzzy, children don't know that they are White, Black, Asian, American, British, Somali, or anything else like that until older people tell them that they are! That's when the programming begins. And that was my point.

Everything you model to your children in terms of cultural behaviour and belief is shaping whom they will become, and there's no way of getting around that. Race doesn't matter. It's an arbitrary idea, because we are all human. Children know that at a very early age, because they're still innocent, but the adults soon pass on their race consciousness to the children, and that's where the trouble starts.

You seem to want to continue believing in every form of human brainwashing except religion, it seems to me, and so you are carrying that giant parrot of prejudice on your shoulder too, just like Dawkins is. Religion is the monster that haunts your anxiety closet. That's not religion's problem. It's your problem.

You have no basis for believing there is no deity, anymore than someone else has a basis for believing there is one. You just want it that way because you're hung up on the subject for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM

LH I disagree. Dawkins is not prejudiced because he denies the possibility of religious
behavior. He accepts that religious habits prevail and has mentioned in his book that he
will give a kind of benediction or social words of a religious nature when in an environment where he doesn't want to be confrontational. Your assessment of him is grossly unfair.

He doesn't believe in these words but out of courtesy he will offer them as a custom at a particular function. He understands the ritual.

There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has
successfully proved that there is one. We don't believe that gravity can be repealed.
We don't believe in a flat earth or Copernican view of cosmology. (Although there are those who do).

The reason that people get hung up on the subject of religion is because so often these ideas are forced down the throat of society and one is expected to accept them.

Dawkins is basically a scientist in a particular field, not a political activist. He is concerned with the education of science and how it has been corrupted by religion.


There is no correlation between one's racial characteristics which are not really that scientific as there is overlap between racial groups, and religious training which is generally force fed to children. Racial characteristics are interpreted by those without a real understanding of physical anthropology. Racial characteristics are often confused with cultural traits which are not specifically biologically determined in DNA.

The reason that this thread is so long is that people today are questioning the authoritarian views of religion that have permeated contemporary society. These are pernicious and need to be addressed. Dawkins is at the forefront of this (for lack of a better term) "battle". Perhaps a better term would be an appeal for reason in the face of delusion.

The accusation that he is intolerant is unfounded and is specifically an opinionated
assessment. I suggest that the intolerance comes from those unwilling to hear his point of view and evaluate it rationally.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM

Okay, Stringsinger, maybe I have misjudged Dawkins.

I also question the authoritarian views of religion. I've always questioned them and have always rejected them. I reject ALL forms of authoritarianism.

Now let's have a look at this paragraph you posted:

"There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has successfully proved that there is one. We don't believe that gravity can be repealed. We don't believe in a flat earth or Copernican view of cosmology. (Although there are those who do)."

To have a firm belief in the NON-existence of something, because no one has proven it exists is illogical. It may still exist regardless. All you can do is express probabilities about it. All you can say is, "We have no proof that it does exist thus far."

Now...how exactly would one go about proving that something which isn't physical and doesn't manifest here in the physical universe as we know it exists???? There is no way of proving or disproving such a concept...because we cannot STEP outside of this universe as we know it. If a "God" exists, then he, she or it is either:

1) in some completely different dimension of reality from our physical universe...

or...

2) is omnipresent.

And I tend to feel that what people are really reaching for in their minds when they speak of "God" is something omnipresent.

If it's omnipresewnt, then it's part and parcel of everything, contained implicity in everything, therefore is not separate from the observer, therefore cannot be observed.

You have to stand apart from something to observe it. If you can't get apart from it, you can't see it. Therefore, if "God" is omnipresent (as is asserted in many religious beliefs at the more advanced level) then God is unobservable...not separate from anything...not possible to define or measure in any way.

Such a presence cannot be proven or disproven, it can only remain a mystery. You can believe in it if you are inclined to, and no one can disprove it. You can ignore it if you want, and it won't matter.

You seem to imagine a concept of a God that makes God separate from people...therefore provable or not provable. I don't. I don't see "God" (the Spirit of Life) as separate from anything. The Spirit of Life is just as present in Mr Dawkins, for example, as in anyone else, but he can't see it, because he cannot make himself separate in order to observe it. He's PART of it.

What Dawkins is questioning is organized religion. I question it too, but I am not its enemy. I just don't follow it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:36 PM

If no one is hurt, why is whatever you're talking about a crime?

Of course children know what color their skin is. They don't CARE, sure, until someone makes them, but they do know, it's right there on their bodies. I remember my kids calling people by the color of their clothes, as in, look at that white guy (about anybody wearing white, no matter how dark their skin).

You don't have the choice of growing up without a skin color.

And what country they "belong to" is also not a matter of opinion, but also of fact. Even if their parents don't indoctrinate them with patriotISM, when they get a passport they will know what country is on it. (Anchor babies are for another thread.)

You don't have the choice of growing up without a country (stateless doesn't exist anymore).

Religious upbringing, in contrast, is not fact-based. And it's possible to grow up without religion. That is the choice that is so often taken off the table by the judeochrislamic near-monopoly on thought.

I just invented the word judeochrislamic. I kind of like it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:43 PM

>>If no one is hurt, why is whatever you're talking about a crime?<<

Drunk driving?
Speeding?

Lots of things are crimes because someone MIGHT get hurt.

If you attempt suicide to whom do you pay reparations.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM

Jack -

How about "thank you. This is lovely tea?" I don't think it is honest to give her the illusion that you are Christian.

I was brought up in a Christian household in a Christian society, with what Christians call 'Christian moral values'. Culturally speaking I am a christian, I just never believed in the supernatural side of it, even as a child. To the best of my knowledge, I have never deceived anyone on that score, and my conscience is clearer than a great many believers' from what I can see, up to and including the Pope. To question my honesty over what I regard, in this instance as an insignificant point seems to me to be unnecessarily confrontational.

Little Hawk -

It doesn't make any difference what words people use unless you develop an obsessive reaction to it due to some kind of chip on your shoulder, in which case it's not their problem, it's yours. (etc.)

You appear to have a commendable and all-too-rare understanding of what I call Dumptyism, LH. It's a shame more don't understand it, because it's there whether or not one agrees with it..

Penny S. -

Smokey, I'm sorry you had to accuse Pete of posting poison ...... incapable of being nasty about it.

Okay, I believe you. I shouldn't have implied he was purposely or personally being malicious and I'm apt to be tetchy about such things around Armistice Day. Sorry Pete, although I still think you are very misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM

So why is Dawkins not all worked up about all the other common forms of arbitrary identity that are "forced" upon (planted in) children, usually unwittingly, by their parents? Why does only religious programming concern him? Do I see a gigantic chip resting on Mr Dawkin's shoulder...or is that just a very large parrot or a huge piece of birdshit? ;-D

To echo Stringsinger. Dawkins comes from a scientific background in genetics and evolution. He sees the attack by religion, as exemplified by the groundswell anti-evolution and pro-creationist movement in the US, and his riposte to that derives from his specialism (and, of course, his own atheism). It ill behoves anyone to criticise him for not blasting out at every other kind of related injustice. You don't criticise Beethoven for not writing rock and roll and you don't criticise Bob Marley for not writing string trios. Critics of Dawkins should actually read the book (and watch his documentaries and YouTube forays even). You'll find a man who is cool, measured and reasoned in his approach, even if you still end up violently disagreeing with him. Don't fall into the trap that commonly ensnares religious people who are confronted with argument, that those who disagree have chips on their shoulders or are rabid, militant ex-Christians. It's tiresome and it's pretty lame. And usually not true.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:10 PM

To have a firm belief in the NON-existence of something, because no one has proven it exists is illogical. It may still exist regardless. All you can do is express probabilities about it. All you can say is, "We have no proof that it does exist thus far."

Several things. No atheist worth his or her salt requires believers to prove that God exists. Atheists require evidence for the existence of God, not proof. Likewise, atheists acknowledge that God cannot be disproved. Yes, God may exist, as you say, regardless. But when you say "all we can say..." etc., you're wrong. We can say much more than that we have "no proof it exists thus far." We can say that the probability of the existence of a being who breaks all the laws of physics, and who has to be, in order to explain all the things he's been invented to explain, so huge and complex and inexplicable in himself, is infinitesimally small. And we can cheerily cite the total lack of evidence for him to support our point of view. God can never be disproved, but the chances of his existence are so remote (we reckon), applying whatever logic you like, that we (atheists) can easily afford to completely disregard him. That's atheism. Well, that's my atheism anyway. If I hear any atheist rabbiting on about requiring proof, etc., I promise to put him right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:22 PM

Drunk drivers should work for MADD, not go to jail.

Speeders pay fines, that IS reparation; the fines go to pay for the highways being destroyed by overuse.

Suicide attempters should be cured, not punished. After all, successfully committing suicide is hardly a crime.

And atheists *do not have a firm belief in the nonexistence" of deity. They simply have no belief, firm or otherwise, in its existence.

And given the myriad things that *used* to be attributed to deity, like weather, climate, gravity, etc., and which are now known, not theorized but known, to have natural, not supernatural, causes, it is illogical to continue to posit the possibility of deity as an explanation for anything natural.

Given that there is no reason to posit its possibility, why believe in it? Because you have *faith* - ie. belief in the absence of evidence.

Are we there yet?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:27 PM

I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.

I also don't see it as confrontational. I just see it is as interesting that you pretend to little old ladies that there is a God while you argue here that it isn't. And I don't see what is compelling you to say "God Bless."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:37 PM

"If I hear any atheist rabbiting on about requiring proof, etc., I promise to put him right."

See below:

From: Stringsinger - PM
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM

"There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has successfully proved that there is one".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:50 PM

I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.

Saying nice things to little old ladies is scarcely a matter of propagating "lies." Potential outcomes are what we should regard as being at the heart of the matter, not the beaming smiles that will be the very most one could expect to come out of these trivial, friendly exchanges. Your average little old lady (I'm getting fed up with myself for using that unhelpful expression) is exceptionally unlikely to be further indoctrinated by such pleasantries, let's face it. But children in schools and religious households are an entirely different matter. They are subjected to a constant barrage over many years of myths-as-truth, and, well, I won't go on about it all over again... Suffice to say there there is a difference, though black-and-white Jacko might not discern it even if it reared up and bit him on the cock.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM

"If I hear any atheist rabbiting on about requiring proof, etc., I promise to put him right."

See below:

From: Stringsinger - PM
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM

"There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has successfully proved that there is one".

Oh lordy, Ed. There you go again. Stringsinger did not say that he required proof. He said that there was no proof and that that is a perfectly good reason for not believing. Well of course it is. For millennia people have been trying to force God on other people but, despite the passing eons, they have never provided one scintilla of evidence for his existence. The problem that religion has, of its own making, is that it speaks in rock-solid certainties about its God. He art in heaven, not maybe he art in heaven. If you want to deal in certainties then you really ought to have proof. But atheists, including Stringsinger (if he is one), will not ask for proof, and, in return, we don't expect to be asked for negative proof either. It's a conversation that traditionally gets no-one anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:17 PM

Two posts ago, "that there is," not "there there is." There there, Jack. That's what must have subliminally brought that on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:26 PM

I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.

I can't see how I'm spreading anything by saying "Gor bless yer, missus" in gratitude to an old lady who already believes in God anyway. How on earth d'you work that one out? Incidentally, I'm pretty careful about what I say in front of children, mine and others'.

I also don't see it as confrontational.

You would if I questioned your honesty, and if I did, it would be.

I just see it is as interesting that you pretend to little old ladies that there is a God while you argue here that it isn't.

I'm not pretending there's a God to them though, just using a familiar and comforting expression which may mean more to them than it does to me. If there is any pretence involved, it has already been done by the church and the clergy. I suppose it could be said that I am pretending to go along with that pretence, but as I said, in those circumstances I regard that as insignificant, as I suspect would the little old lady upon being rigorously interrogated. (It's no good being too soft on 'em.)

And I don't see what is compelling you to say "God Bless."

It's not a compulsion, sorry to disappoint you.. I'm just as likely to say 'Thank you very much', or 'ta, me duck', or 'what about some biscuits you mean old bitch'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 10:23 PM

Smokey, it is interesting to me that you, an avowed atheist, would even think of saying 'God bless you', much less actually say it. I, a more wishy-washy middle-of-the-roader never use it. Partly because, I guess, if I spoke their language they then would feel justified or even compelled to conjecture whether I was one of 'them'. And then they would decide that I cannot be; after all I have been seen in places or doing or saying things of which they disapprove. (There aren't many more judg(e)mental people than Christians, in my experience.)

I have family - very conservative, very religious - to whom I never say anything of the sort. Even when I somewhat agree with what they are saying. Because I know it very likely would be misunderstood.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:32 PM

>>I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.<<

Its a lie to tell someone something that isn't true. If you are saying God Bless you. You are telling her that you wish God to bless her. Because you know that is not possible, you are telling her a lie. In my opinion that is what is happening. You have another point of view. God Bless you. But it is certainly not the first time you and I have disagreed on the usage of a word.

I think that usage is important and has consequences, for instance I would never say that someone I was talking to was suffering from a delusion of any kind unless I was deliberately trying to see if they would get angry.

I have gathered that you and Shaw feel differently and see a whole clever range of delusional states and don't see the need to differentiate between them.

It is kind of like lies, fibs, white lies and things you just say to old ladies.

I guess I am glad you watch what you say around kids but that makes it all the more puzzling that you are willing to say things that you don't believe around old ladies. My experience is that old ladies are pretty sharp. They can tell if someone is being sincere or not. So if I were to say something I thought they wanted to hear just to please them, I think they would pick up on that. So I don't. I always try to say the most pleasing thing that I can that I believe to be true. Your mileage may vary.

I may seem to be belaboring this point but that is because I think it sheds light on something that I thought all of the Atheist on this thread knew, but apparently some don't.

In the battle for hearts and mind, for most people the little incidental gestures and words are many times more potent than the Big Arguments. People put up there shield up to protect themselves from the big statements like "There is no God because there is no scientific proof!" but the little "God Bless You's" and "Hail Mary's" and such soothe the heart and build up that shield.

If you or Dawkins want to build the case for Atheism, I think your time would be much better spent going out and showing your love for your neighbours without invoking God than arguing with people who are ready for your arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:34 PM

'Atheist' is a label of your choosing, not mine - let's be clear about that, although I've usually no particular objection to someone else calling me that or an agnostic. Call me anything as long as it's not early. I just don't have any belief in the supernatural. I regularly use the word 'god' inadvertently in conversation, God knows why; just common usage, I suppose. I don't see there's any harm in it. Maybe attitudes aren't the same here as they are there? There are judgemental atheists as well as Christians - they both irritate me, as does anyone (including me, at times) who is overly judgemental.

I used to have an Atheist acquaintance, the religious sort, who felt compelled to lecture me at great length at every available opportunity despite my established lack of belief. Upon receiving the long awaited and hard earned cup of tea, I would say "May God Bless Your Immortal Soul" just to watch the silly bugger wince.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:37 PM

My last post referred to Ebbie's.. hadn't seen yours Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:49 PM

>>I would say "May God Bless Your Immortal Soul" just to watch the silly bugger wince. <<

LOL!!
IMHO That is a very appropriate use of the phrase for a non-believer.

Pardon Me Smokey, if you are talking to me about the word Atheist, but all I really know about your beliefs is that you have said that you agreed with pretty much everything Steve Shaw said up to the point I stopped reading his posts. In my opinion, that puts you pretty squarely in the Atheist camp. Shaw has been very stridently and clearly not just an Atheist but IMHO he has been the religious sort, like your friend. I wonder how long you would have to wait for tea in his house.

Cheers mate. You seem to be a good man, and funny too.

BTW true story, one of the most embarrassing days of my life was when my Grandfather told me what "bugger" meant because I had said it in front of him. The irony, if it had been one of Carlin's seven, I would have known.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:51 PM

If you are saying God Bless you. You are telling her that you wish God to bless her.

Well, if anything, I suppose I'm telling her that I want her to feel blessed by the god that she believes in. With respect, your opinion is irrelevant in a transaction between me and a little old lady. I get on fine with them, and yes, they are often very sharp indeed and seem to know my intentions are sincere. Words are just words; anybody can say words. Actions speak.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:44 AM

I wonder how long you would have to wait for tea in his house.

Trust me Jack, there's no similarity between Steve and the bloke I'm talking about. I'd stake my life on that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:29 AM

Jack. your legalistic fault-finding isn't doing you any favors. It just sounds like you're attacking the way people use words because you can't come up with a decent response to what they're actually saying.

Our society culturally Christian. It really shouldn't surprise you -- or bother you -- if people use common phrases in social situations. I'm almost afraid to tell you this, but Christmas is my favorite holiday.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:06 AM

It's that common usage I've been trying to avoid for about 15 years now... and still the first swear words I think of involve deity!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:15 AM

Desperado Jacko continues his pursuit of the trivial, I see. I must take his advice and extirpate all mention of deities and their hangers-on from my vocabulary. Why, I've even discovered that "bloody" comes from "By Our Lady!" So that's another swear-word gone fer Christ's sake. Oops, for heaven's sake. No, no, I mean.... Jaysus, Mary and Joseph, what do I mean...? I mean...

Actually, Jack, as you're in pin-down mode on the vocab front, perhaps you'd care to edit that tirade of loose pejoratives that accumulated earlier, the one in which I listed all your insults. You know, the one in which you were kind enough to analyse my mental health. Some rewording there would be apposite...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM

Please don't feel attacked. I realize that your morals are different from mine. I'm not saying better or worse, especially for you. Just different.

I am, very interested by the way something that would cause huge internal conflict for me, seems insignificant to you. I am much more interested in that aspect of your spirituality (sorry about the choice of word, I could not think of a better one) than I am in repeating arguments that I decided were unprovable when I was making them more than 30 years ago in my late teens.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:51 AM

Why the FLIP don't youse people get a life, eh?

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM

George you smug bastard, surely you have better things to do than dressing up in metaphorical costume and passing judgment on others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:01 PM

believing in GOD, Surely is believing in the spirit of goodness.
clearly people have different ideas of what is God.
THE JEHOVAHS WINESSES God is quite different from the God that the Quakers believe in.
personally I believe God exists, I have no idea how the world started, but i can believe in God[ or the spirit of goodness], without believing or disbelieving the creationist theory.
Humanists dont believe in GOD AS A PERSON, but they share the same principles as myself ,they just choose to call them by a different name.
it does not matter what a person chooses to call them selves, atheist humanist, christian, what matters is how they behave.
there are christians who do not behave in a christian manner. is the church investing in stocks and shares christian? it doesnt seem to correspond with jesus christ oveturning the money lenders tables does it?
God was a great harp player, the problem was he had to keep nipping down below because lucifer had all the best tunes

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:32 PM

God has the best tunes.

Lucifer's are just easier to dance to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:51 PM

If God is omnipresent, then Lucifer is either a part of God...or is just an illusion in the minds of those who have imagined Lucifer. If God isn't omnipresent, then God is limited. Would that make any sense?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM

And how many Lucifers could dance on the head of a pin assuming that they are all infinitely slender and nimble?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM

Seriously, belief in deity is not belief in goodness, spiritual or otherwise. It is belief in the supernatural. Atheists, agnostics, humanists, whatever the nonbelievers choose to call themselves, they don't believe in deity, that is all. It says nothing at all about what else they believe in or anything about goodness, spirituality or anything else. They, we, youse guys, whatever, don't believe in deity, that's all.

Why would Lucifer be slender and nimble? Isn't gluttony a sin, so he should be fat, no? Couch-potato reflexes? Fat, lazy, and horny, my favorite state of sin! (Well, I like gluttony, even if not its results...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:04 PM

An infinite number, Jack.

Mrzzy - "The Supernatural" is generally an expression people use for natural stuff that they don't understand yet. Another expression they use for natural stuff they don't understand yet is "magic", and another is "a miracle". If something exists, it's natural. If you don't understand it yet, you just don't understand it, that's all. A deity is a symbol people use for a whole bunch of stuff they don't understand yet, and a whole bunch of questions they can't answer yet. If they start to believe a lot of strange stuff ABOUT that deity, and that causes them to behave destructively...THEN it's a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

>>"The Supernatural" is generally an expression people use for natural stuff that they don't understand yet.<<

It is also an expression for crap that people make up.

If you believe in everything then you believe in nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM

Mrzzy - "The Supernatural" is generally an expression people use for natural stuff that they don't understand yet. Another expression they use for natural stuff they don't understand yet is "magic", and another is "a miracle". - BINGO! Another word is deity, too!

If something exists, it's natural. Are you saying that unnatural and supernatural are equivalent? I don't agree. There are unnatural things that exist, we humans make them every day, don't we?

And can't something be natural but not exist? How about my grandchildren?

If you don't understand it yet, you just don't understand it, that's all. A deity is a symbol people use for a whole bunch of stuff they don't understand yet, and a whole bunch of questions they can't answer yet. If they start to believe a lot of strange stuff ABOUT that deity, and that causes them to behave destructively...THEN it's a problem. Bingo again - that is exactly the problem with believing that deity is *real* - instead of a tentative explanation.

And another issue is that there isn't anything left, really, that can't be understood without deity. So why cling to the supernatural to explain anything at all?

Even more important, why cling to the supernatural when it doesn't explain anything even to the believer?

Especially when that belief leads to all that nastiness you were talking about, from people thinking they know the mind of their supernatural explanation or security blanket - and then telling other believers what to believe, and how to behave, based on that superstition?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:11 PM

2000