BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:39 AM

It appears that the Beeb have suspended Clarkson. - Again!
The petition to reinstate him currently stands at 165000 votes, running at about 1000 per hour, from most countries in the world.

Most of the votes seem to be in favour of political incorrectness.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:42 AM

Make that 1000 every 15mins.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:44 AM

And accelerating.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:57 AM

Best entertainment online tonight. www.change.org

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:32 AM

The man is a nasty bully and should be locked up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:44 AM

A typical Public Schoolboy showing his contempt for the "plebs"
The guy has no conception of the principle of free speech, simply likes to shock just for the sake of it.....and to raise his "profile" of course.

He and that other waste of space Steven Fry, are "bookends"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:04 AM

Even though I can see, and agree with, a lot of the criticisms of Mr C I still find him entertaining. I will not be signing any petitions, particularly if he did use violence, but it looks once again that he has been tried, found guilty and executed by the internet prior to the facts being known. I am probably completely wrong but I see him as the same sort of harmless idiot as Prince Philip and anyone who takes notice of what anyone in the media tells them is much more of an idiot than either.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

Hmm. I always thought Mudcat people would have a sense of humour. Obviously another case where I'm wrong.

And I thought the principles of free speech means that you are free to speak. Well, Richard and Akenaton, there are now more than 220,000 (as they manage to get on the petition) people who don't agree with you. Must all be wrong, eh?
Would have been more, but the site seemed to crashing/overloading often.
Latvia, Pakistan, The Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, India.....

It is the comments that are most interesting, and the places they are coming in from. Do have a look.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:15 AM

Ake may not care for Stephen Fry; but I can's see what he has to do with the topic of this thread. Opportunist irrelevant random attacks on a personality one happens to find inimical are scarcely cricket in Cat terms, IMO.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:17 AM

As they say gurney, he's a bit like marmite.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM

Jeremy Clarkson is a VERY naughty boy!

... and no more harmful than that ...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:30 AM

Except that marmite isn't racist.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:31 AM

Dave says anyone who takes notice of what anyone in the media tells them is much more of an idiot

So, if you buy a newspaper, listen to the news on the radio or watch it on the television, then you're an idiot?

An opinion, I suppose. But a fairly odd one...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:32 AM

lets hope he pisses off to Latvia.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM

So, if you buy a newspaper, listen to the news on the radio or watch it on the television, then you're an idiot?

No, Ed. How did you derive that? I said if you take notice. In plain English, if you let the media influence or manipulate you. They all have their own agenda. Everything they say should be taken with a very large ladle of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:24 AM

The usua suspect managed to slip Stephen Fry in for no apparent reason, (till you read his usual homophobic bile.)

I wonder if Mudcat has franchised to Hello magazine or other supermarket checkout gossip magazines.

I love watching Top Gear. I am saddened to see that the series looks like being axed.

Anything other than that, including a suspected solicitor on this thread accusing him of an unnamed crime that merits a prison sentence...

Have some on here ever thought of sending their CV to The Daily M*il?

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: OldNicKilby
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:27 AM

Richard is correct. An overpaid Pubic School (correct spelling) twonk He is not worth £14,500,000 a year paid of-shore to avoid the tax

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:29 AM

off shore (correct spelling)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM

Try to keep up with the facts, Mither. And refresh your memory of Clarkson's attempts to block rights of way. And recall his on-screen bullying of little Hamster. On that one the big arse deserved to be thrown down the mountain after the hardtop to the car the Hamster was driving. Clarkson is vile.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:36 AM

And recall his on-screen bullying of little Hamster.

Do you not think that was staged, Richard? I do, but I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

Huge similarities between Clarkson and Fry.....nothing whatever to do with their sexual preferences.

In short, both are ego driven balloons and cynical manipulative bullies, in equal measure.

Don't start me on about Fry, who in his own peculiar way is as crass and creepy as Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:21 AM

There is no such thing as publicity. discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:25 AM

well i think any programme about cars would be a hard sell to me.

but the guy's such a twat. most of us buy cars that he thinks are below his dignity to comment on. yet it would actually be useful to have someone who actually notices the stuff that is important to ordinary people.

availabilty of auto model
price
luggage space.
loading facility.
leg room
ease of moving the seats, putting the back down.
is there alip on the back.
motability terms
diesel or petrol
mpg

instead we have three arseholes buggering about in maseratis. it reminds me of when the PE dept at a school organised a skittles evening. no one else got a look in. the PE teachers monopolised the skittles - the rest of us sat round bored shitless.

Clarkson would have been a good PE teacher. so disinterested in the human condition, as is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM

We don't know yet what he's supposed to have done. I don't like him much and I don't watch Top Gear that often, but he strikes me as being a bit of a parody of himself. And if he earns the Beeb enough to keep me licence fee down...

As for Stephen Fry, well, he's a very intelligent gay man. Hey, Akenaton, why don't you like him? Wouldn't you have thought that absolute opposites in every respect would attract...?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM

Then why watch the bloody programme, Al, for crying out loud, if you hate it so much? It's perfectly optional, you know.

Ake -- I don't think it's just that he is a fairly distant but affable acquaintance, from Cambridge theatre days and later the Groucho Club, which makes me wonder quite what you have against Stephen Fry, & where you see any sort of similarity [even if only polarity-wise] to Clarkson: or indeed any relevance whatsoever on his part to this thread. Seems to me you have sort of determination to intrude him here for the sole purpose of exercising some sort of denunciatory mnemonic bias. Why?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:51 AM

A vile man with vile ideas. A thug with the advantage of a good education and a veneer of blokey "humour". I'd love to see the back of him.
Are all those people who want to reinstate him actually aware of what he is, or are they just happy to watch a know-it-all oik driving a high performance car?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:55 AM

Melodeo -- you too could quite easily "see the back of him" insofar as you pesonally are concerned, by the simple expedient of not switching on to his programme. Why all this censoriousness, FCOL!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:58 AM

Now, now, Michael. Leave poor Ake alone. After all, Clarkson and Fry do both have testicles and relatively deep voices. What more in common do you want!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:17 AM

The man creates excellent free publicity for himself and the programme as a sort of anti hero. Not surprising he is a cult figure. If the Beeb fire him , he'll still back on our screens working for another channel and a new programme or talk show.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:23 AM

Clarkson reminds me of one of those bullies at school who was always on the periphery of the gang of year toughs but wasn't accepted by them. The bully always had a witty admirer under his wing to do his bidding (snitching etc) and give him a sense of importance as the admirer constantly fawned over him.

These bullies would never take on anyone that could beat them, and for folk like me in the lower social/educational strata they made our lives a misery. All the lads and girls in our class who were crap at sports because we were too skinny and weak (me), fat (my mate), weren't very academic, undiagnosed dyslexics, gay, struggled with learning or had any other of the myriad of character/physical traits that drew the ire of this sort of person were constantly and continually bullied through school. Then one day one of these bullies would push someone too far and one of us would hit them and we were left alone . . . until we were caught alone at some point later. We laughed at them for their one-dimensionality and stupidity, but we feared them for sure.

Ultimately people like Clarkson are mediocrities. Outwardly funny, capable of pulling off some good (if rather obvious) pranks but actually a seriously insecure individual whose only way of coping with his issues is by taking it out on others and constantly drawing attention of himself. They actually contribute little to wider society and give the appearance they couldn't care less about it when the rely on it for everything that makes them who they are.

He's one of many of these types in the media and wider establishment (see UKIP/Tories?Labour/LibDems for starters). A boorish, insecure and ultimately one-dimensional mediocrity that constantly seeks approval for his immature and sadly pathetic character.

Top Gear has been utter shite for many, many years.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:42 AM

I obviously enjoy utter shite then.

The BBC reckon that the main show and the franchised ones between them get over a billion viewers per episode.

Looks like my bad taste is a popular affliction...

A rather well known celebrity appears to have acted a bit like a prima donna. And they say there is no such thing as bad publicity? The Top Gear Roadshows taking place from the end of next month were already sold out before this.

I suppose it is a problem when you create a character for the telly and shallow fools talk as if the character exists. Meanwhile, the nutter on the radio today who said paying him out of licence fee money is wrong fails to notice how wrong his jibe is. Jeremy Clarkson brings in millions and millions to subsidise The BBC.

Meanwhile, one of the best programmes worth watching in my opinion has been dropped. A bit of a bugger really.

Back to watching old QI repeats on Dave Sunday night then. (someone said the excellent documentary Stephen Fry did about the stigma of mental health is on one of the other channels this weekend. Worth a re watch.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:50 AM

"Looks like my bad taste is a popular affliction..."

There's safety in numbers. Baaaa!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Megan L
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

Why should we pay the BBC if they want to make programmes let them fight for advertising money like everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:15 AM

Unfair, Stu. Bad taste is not the prerogative of the masses. Just look at some of the works of art by Tracy Emin and Damian Hirst :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:21 AM

So what's the big deal then, that this petition has amassed world wide signatures
from a few hundred thousand fanboy reactionary wannabe 'alpha males'...???

hmmmm... and so many of the signatures from nation's notorious for unenlightened & intolerant attitudes
towards minorities and democratic rights....


Btw... my mrs has absolutely no interest in cars and thinks Clarkson is a complete right wing arsehole,
but she still watches Top Gear because she finds him hilarious...

He's an oafish clown to be laughed at !!!


funny old world....??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:25 AM

It was less a comment on people's taste, more a comment on the sheep mentality of people in general. We live in a world where ignorance and violence is lauded on a daily basis, as the Clarkson debacle shows. He can hit someone far less protected by the BBC than himself and yet nigh on half a million people (and counting) think this kind of bullying is OK. By signing that petition people become complicit in the bullying that's taken place.

It's never fun to be on the receiving end of the consequences of some alpha male dick-swinger's (or the female equivalent) inferiority complex manifesting itself in the vicinity of your own person.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:30 AM

Has he hit someone? I thought no-one had the full details yet. Surely, if he had, he would also be guilty of assault and liable for criminal prosecution? Richard? Until we do know the details I think such speculation is useless.

Punkfolkrocker - Yes :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM

Look on the bright side. The USA has Ann Coulter.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM

Has he hit someone? I thought no-one had the full details yet.
"Allegedly" according to The Times.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM

To best of my recollection I have never watched the guy's programme, and have barely heard of him except as one of those names that crop up every now & again as being in some way newsworthy. But if he is really as inept and ineffectual, or else so bullying and oppressive, to hear some of you tell it, why then, how clever of him to present this terrible, dire, insufferable programme, that would nevertheless appear to have a firm viewer fanbase, excellent ratings, &c &c &c... The guy must surely be doing something right?

≈M≈

Still can't see quite where my distant-ish sort-of-friend Stephen Fry fits into the discourse, mind...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:32 AM

Well M, they are both a certain type of media "celebrity".
One catering for the "yobbish" right, which though only a small section of conservative opinion, is a most voluble one.
Mr Clarkson pretends to champion free speech but only on subjects which he thinks are suitable. In reality he is a silencer of alternative opinions.
Fry on the other hand pretends to represent the whining "liberal" rights orientated, theatrical left, but when cornered into being forced to confront some of the contradictions in his ideology, the beast comes to the surface. In reality he is a silencer of alternative opinions.

"BOOKENDS"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:41 AM

Hmmm, MGM·Lion

You say that you've never watched the guy's programme

and yet are able to consider it a terrible, dire, insufferable programme

How does that work?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:59 AM

The adjectives should perhaps have been put in quotes,Guest Ed; they were meant to represent the implications of the comments made above, not my own opinions, which obviously, as you imply, I do not have regarding this particular manifestation, having never experienced it. They were, if you reread, presented sort of ironically, as antithetical to the programme's undoubted success.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:05 PM

Horrible man, forever advocating bad driving & celebrating aggressiveness as though it were a virtue

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Selby
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

The incident is supposed to have happened a week ago. The BBC has been made to look idiots by this, why have the people involved not been called into the bosses office and given their sides of the story, a decision made as to the punishment, then metered out,
Or as the cynic in me thinks, there is no such thing as bad publicity, with a Top Gear Tour taking place, the longer it stays in the news the more tickets we sell.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:30 PM

Silencers of alternative opinions is, if you had not gathered Michael, code for those who will not put up with some of the things that are said on this forum. Quite how Clarkson, one who says the same type of thing, and Fry, one who will rail against it, get to be lumped together can only be explained as the workings of a deranged mind. In my opinion that is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

165000 votes, running at about 1000 per hour, from most countries in the world.
in the time I listened to the "Media Show", it jumped from 350,000 to 400,000.

An interesting question but - how many votes from Argentina?

Those that live by the sordid, dye (in the wool) by the..........

FWIW he doesn't do irony (as he thinks), he does bombast. As with all these stories, is this just stupidity or is there an engineered agenda to go for higher fees elswhere? Like Sky?
He isn't stupid, but he is capable of stupidity. It is called believing your own hype.
Is it that important? Top Gear can survive without him, should we want it (?). Whether it will make as much money is a moot point.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM

Clarkson is the sole reason the word 'plonker' was invented.
Contrary to quite a few previous posters, I quite like Stephen Fry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM

I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech", whatever other sins they might be guilty of. As for Clarkson's "catering for the 'yobbish right'", well I know a good few lefties who love Top Gear and a few right-wingers who think he's a complete twat. He's doing no such thing. Like all light entertainment telly programme celebs, he's catering for people who like to flop into a chair for half an hour with a cup of tea or glass of beer in hand who want to indulge in a bit of escapism. Harmless fun for the most part, peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. If you don't like it turn it off.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:29 PM

hi michael

<" Still can't see quite where my distant-ish sort-of-friend Stephen Fry fits into the discourse, mind.">

Couldn't agree with you more, and indeed with all the comments in your post.

Regards

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

"peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves"

Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:51 PM

Steve Shaw, you have it exactly. In my opinion.

My reason for starting this thread is to encourage people to read the comments on the petition, and see how many countries are (sort of) represented. Yes, even Argentina.

Not too impressed by the spelling in some of the English entries, though.

The show has spawned clones in America, Germany, and Australia. Anywhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:53 PM

Can Top gear survive without Clarkson ?

Easy - just give the job to Stephen Fry.. or.. Graham Norton, or Alan Carr..

Why not ? they are the hosts of just about every other 'near the knuckle' show on UK telly..

They're all top flight entertainment presenters - why should 'typical' Top Gear fans object to any of them ???

Presumably, at least one of them can drive...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM

Oh, by the way, the Beeb did sack Clarkson from the show once before, the ratings dropped away, and they quietly reinstated him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:05 PM

Richard, Musket claims to be 3 people, so it was only a one in three chance of this one being "Mithers."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM

"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech", whatever other sins they might be guilty of. As for Clarkson's "catering for the 'yobbish right'", well I know a good few lefties who love Top Gear and a few right-wingers who think he's a complete twat. He's doing no such thing. Like all light entertainment telly programme celebs, he's catering for people who like to flop into a chair for half an hour with a cup of tea or glass of beer in hand who want to indulge in a bit of escapism. Harmless fun for the most part, peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. If you don't like it turn it off."

Couldn't agree more, Steve. Spot on. 👍

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

I have watched 'Top Gear', don't like it, don't like Clarkson. He's accused of throwing a punch at a producer. I have had creative disagreements with people that have ended up with someone losing it and lashing out. It's not really that big a thing. I suspect that someone has overreacted because Clarkson is a twat. But he's a twat who brings in loadsamoney, and as such will no doubt be given another chance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:59 PM

For all who agree with Steve's
"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech","

The point which I made and which you failed to comprehend, is that neither of them practice what they preach, they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to, or those who disagree with them ideologically.

One by sneering and bullying, the other by weasel words and the peddling of mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM

The problem for the Beeb is that he was given a final warning for mumbling something unspeakably racist on screen a little while back. On the one hand, management has to stick to HRE policies and procedures so that all staff are treated the same, particularly as an assault on a colleague is a pretty serious offence. On the other, the Beeb now owns all rights to the show since buying Clarkson's share of Top Gear (for £8.4m) a couple of years back. If it all goes belly up then they lose an enormous amount of revenue.

Saturday's show was not filmed, so no doubt some lash-up is being frantically rushed into production right now, and sleb lists scanned for a possible replacement. Finding a mouthy petrol head shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, and no doubt JC will be forgotten history in a matter of weeks. Whether or not he will be given another chance later is anyone's guess as he has annoyed Auntie quite a lot in the past, most notably in the Argentina debacle. Incidentally, I don't think he was fired and then re-hired in the past - I think it was a suspension.

Perhaps it's time for a wholesale replacement of presenters and a break from the tiresome know-it-alls who prattle on about brake horse power and compression ratios. Dara O'Briain and the Mock the Week line-up would be a refreshing change. Or Jo Brand. Or Wallace and Grommit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:22 PM

In places where I have worked an alledged assault on a colleague meant instant suspension (on full pay) pending an enquiry. The only fault on the part of the Beeb was treating Clarkson like they would anybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:31 PM

For all who agree with Steve's
"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech","

The point which I made and which you failed to comprehend, is that neither of them practice what they preach, they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to, or those who disagree with them ideologically.

One by sneering and bullying, the other by weasel words and the peddling of mythology.

Well, whether you agree with any of this post or not, I fail to see what it has to do with restricting anyone's "free speech". Incidentally, I should like to know precisely what this poster thinks Mr Fry or Mr Clarkson are "preaching" about. Any example of such "preaching" would be useful.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:03 PM

I've seen Top Gear and don't like it. I think that Clarkson is a twat. It is alleged that he threw a punch at a producer. I have had artistic differences with people who lost it and lashed out. It's no big deal. Like I say, I think that Clarkson is twat, but he is a twat who brings in loadsamoney, and will no doubt be given another 'last chance'.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM

they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to

Errm, kettle-pan, pan-kettle. Have you met before?

Scuse me while I go and throw up...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:32 PM

So both MGM-Lion and Steve Shaw seem to think that if you don't like Clarkson, then the simple answer is to turn him off. As a licence fee player, I do believe I have a right to have an opinion on his suitability for employment, especially as I imagine my licence fee goes towards paying the wages of those who appear on the BBC!

There is also the issue of his being a role model for younger people. I'm aware that a lot of adolescents - and probably younger children too - watch Top Gear. It's a matter of concern if adolescents end up believing that the kind of ideas and behaviour propagated by Clarkson are acceptable in civilised society. This latter issue has been raised many times with reference to the behaviour of professional footballers. It should apply to anyone that we feel has influence on our young people.

If it is found that he has assaulted a colleague, then he should face the same sanction that I - and the average man in the street - would face, i.e. sacking!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:15 PM

Well I hate Casualty and Holby City and Eastenders and Pointless and Eggheads and Question Of Sport and Call The Midwife and Songs Of Praise and Waterloo Road and Masterchef and Bakeoff and anything about buying houses in the country. Not to speak of the whole content of both Radio 1 and Radio 2 and anything that has Graham bloody Norton in it. I have, as a licence fee payer, the right to have an opinion on all this dross, and I do have. But I love the Beeb, and I love paying my very good value licence fee. I love, for example, watching football, but, in order to watch just four months of top-league footie, much of which I can already get on free channels or on BT Sport, for that alone I'd have to pay as much as for one year of that Beeb licence fee which covers EVERYTHING that the Beeb has on offer. So do continue to be on your high horse apropos of your precious licence fee about ONE programme and ONE bloke you don't like. Consider that you are not alone on this planet, that nothing (not even Wolf Hall) will ever please everybody, and that, if you still don't like it, you can always go and watch all those bloody adverts on ITV!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:32 PM

I'm actually a big supporter of the BBC; (one of the reasons I'd rather Clarkson wasn't involved with it!). I'm also a big supporter of the licence fee. I was making the point that I - like you - have a right to express my opinion on a matter of topical importance that involves the BBC, and that I don't need a clever dick to tell me that I should just turn it off if I don't like it rather than expressing my opinion. The title of this thread may give you a clue as to why I commented on this particular programme rather than others!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:54 PM

i don't watch the programme. but i would appreciate a programme that doesn't treat me as a wimp be cause i am not interested in high performance cars. like everyone else. i buy sensible cars.

the sight of that tosser and his two sycphantic twerpettes is weariness of the flesh - even just scrolling past the channel.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:59 PM

According to rumours, the blustering fat oaf threw a hissy fit,
swung a punch at a hapless minion
and completely missed...

Now that would have been very amusing to witness...

If Clarkson is not sacked he should seen to be willingly doing penance
by being obliged to present a series on road safety & responsible driving,
strategies for preventing road rage, and cycling as a healthier greener option.

.. and be be forced to sit out the next series of Top Gear confined to the studio
presenting items on child seats and cycle racks, affordable driving accessories & novelty nodding head dogs,
whilst cooking all the rest of the cast & crew's dinners...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: vectis
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:58 PM

Top Gear in its present format is a world wide hit because of (not despite) the three presenters and the different characters they have created. It is not real life just three petrolheads having fun and being entertaining. Graham Norton and Alan Carr are merely annoying little ticks, I them turn off.

Top Gear used to be about cars people could afford and sensible tests of them were made. When Tiff Nidell (not sure about the surname)set up his own show on Channel 4 which continued to cover motorsport and affordable cars it sunk quite quickly. People got bored with it in a few seasons. People don't get bored with Top Gear. It is sold all over the World. The American version is not anywhere near as funny (we get both in New Zealand)or as entertaining.
The Beeb will have to stop the show completely - and maybe it has had its day now - or reinstate Clarkson if he just got uppity but didn't actually hit someone. If he did bash a producer the Police should have been called at the time. End of.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:15 PM

Bearing in mind that it is now viewed in 170 countries, and that the BBC is concerned with the loss of revenue that may now occur, the idea that we, the licence fee payers, pay Clarkson's salary is looking a bit silly. It's more likely that the absence of Top Gear and the worldwide income it generates would mean an increase in the TV licence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:19 PM

Sorry, Melodeonboy, for being a bit heavy there !   :-(

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 12:44 AM

There are now several petitions that Mr. J. Clarkson be sacked. Their joint totals stand at less than 8000.
The one petition to reinstate him stands at 642000. And is much more fun to watch. Votes coming in from Bangladesh, Iran, and Iraq....

Makes one wonder just how much the Beeb makes from Top Gear.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM

I confess to watching repeats of Top Gear on the 'Dave' channel. I must have seen some episodes at least twice ... pathetic, I know ... but what else is there to do on a winters evening when you're retired? The only episodes that I actively disapprove of are those featuring that intensely annoying little speccy twerp, Chris Evans! I have no interest in cars, by the way - I don't even drive these days.

Top Gear appears to be in a peculiar position; it has an extremely successful formula which is quite a long way past its 'sell-by-date'. Perhaps this latest Clarkson scandal is part of an elaborate ploy to revamp it (?)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM

Accepted, Steve! Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:35 AM

This says everything that needs to be said, AFAIC.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 06:16 AM

Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:04 AM

"Makes one wonder just how much the Beeb makes from Top Gear....

... His product makes millions and millions that then subsidises the programmes they make nothing out of.
Or at least according to successive annual reports of The BBC Trust and its predecessor."

If I was the kind of person prone to hysterical overstatement I could say something along the lines of....

"Clarkson has become such a powerful and untouchable money magnet cash cow
that he's now to the Beeb
what Saville was to Children's hospitals...???"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM

In short, both are ego driven balloons and cynical manipulative bullies, in equal measure.

Sound very much like the obnoxious clowns on Fux "News"[sic] or Limbaugh & Beck over here across the pond. And thousands of USAsians love THOSE assholes, too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:56 AM

Comparing light entertainment to raping children and vulnerable adults?

Losing the plot PFR?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:04 AM

wellllll.... as I'm sure Clarkson's fervent fanboys might agree..

it's all about the unacceptable limits of transgressive non PC humour.. innit.. ?????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:16 AM

"Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)"

LOL! Can't dispute that, Steve! Didn't see that it was an old article until it was too late - f***ing internet!! 😃

But the fact that it's grown whiskers doesn't detract from its truth AFAIC.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:40 AM

4 years old - so what..

That Coogan link is still a very good relevant read..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:53 AM

I didn't say it wasn't still relevant, did I! As a matter of fact, I agree with a lot of it. Not all of it, but a lot of it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 09:18 AM

I'd read the Coogan bit at the time. Fair comment. He is welcome to my comments too. I haven't met nor been a mate of Clarkson so he has an insight I don't but there again, I don't look for insight, just light entertainment to wash over me.

I enjoy Top Gear, it's a laugh. Most of the pisstaking is at the expense of the presenters by the other presenters and Clarkson in his Top gear magazine articles says how amazed how the more outrageous he gets, the more some people take him at face value.

I have never seen Strictly Come Dancing, Knobenders, Emmerdale Farm, Big Brother, any of the talent shows of recent years, the Voice etc etc, and whilst I admit to keeping quiet and tacitly watching Corrie years ago, the main characters were Albert Tatlock and Ena Sharples the last time I saw it.

Yet amazingly, I don't scream that these shows are a waste of money and that Simon Cowell should be put in a wicker man and burned.

I ain't that selfish for one thing, and let's face it, if everybody had my wisdom, talent, common sense and love of arts, I'd have no peasants to look down on.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM

There is a lot of speculation about what happened. All that has been said officially is that there was a 'fracas' - an unusual choice of words but presumably one which was used deliberately and carefully. If he was alleged to have actually struck someone, why not say so? Those who dislike Clarkson naturally assume the worst, but I suspect the situation is a lot more complex.

Nevertheless it puts the BBC in a difficult position. Violence in the workplace cannot be tolerated, but the show is chiefly built around the personalities of the presenters and the chemistry between them, and of all of them Clarkson would be the hardest to replace. The BBC must have been well aware of this when they bought out his share in the show only a couple of years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 10:05 AM

I don't watch them either, Muskie! Like at least one of you (probably all three!), I actually have a life! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:03 PM

Yeah, that was me. McMusket was swatting flies earlier in the thread though.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:52 PM

Is any of this important?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:56 PM

Probably just as important as Dick Miles and folk music...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 02:10 AM

One or two innocuous banter posts missing.

Presumably The USA has gone from funding the likes of Noraid to shock and awe at the first hint of foreigners showing aggression to each other.

Funny really because the word moderation means a reasoned approach.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 03:33 AM

As ever, the mind of the mod is most mysteriously mind-boggling...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM

The mind of the rocker isn't much clearer...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:15 AM

Yesterday's Matt cartoon in the Telegrope somewhat like this:

"Farrage, Clegg & Milliband. Perfect shoe-in for Top Gear replacement".

Other policians are available..............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:57 AM

LoL Musket ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:58 AM

You must be nearly as old as me to remember Mods & Rockers

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

Oop north we had nebs too. I seem to recall that a neb was a rocker who couldn't afford a motorbike. Or was it scooterless mod....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:32 AM

A quote from the New Statesman-

'If all the signatories (to the petition to reinstate Clarkson) were boiled down for biofuel the world would be a cleaner, better place. We live in a world of stupid and Clarkson is its king'.

It's a point of view I suppose - if a little harsh.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM

Well, that's a violent suggestion which is meant to counter an act of almost infinitely less violence. Not harsh? It's bloody awful.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:45 AM

Not not harsh, harsh. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

My Great Granddad told me all about mods and rockers....

👴

A while ago, The Grauniad had an article that pointed out how the media world looked for Top Gear failures and pounced on them, mainly because no bugger likes runaway success, especially when the success is at the expense of political correctness. Apparently, advertisers prefer readers / listeners who are scared and not capable of forming views. Being BBC, they don't get to influence.

That too was a point of view, and let's face it, the vanilla "light entertainment" attracts the big advertisers, not the insightful documentaries. That said, I find it rather funny that Dave channel can demand more money to advertise half way through an old Top gear that has been repeated to death than something they are showing at prime time for the first time (for them..)

There again, showbiz controllers know that dense people fall for gossip, hence some of the less than intelligent contributions to this thread. I happen to like Top Gear, one of the other Muskets doesn't rate it. But I don't scream for Downton Abbey to be taken down and he doesn't want to deprive me of Top Gear.

(Or Wheeler Dealers, Fifth Gear etc etc. My goggle box needs are few but tasteful.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

Really, be honest now, who hasn't at some time wanted to punch out a TV producer??? Especially when an OB crew turn up at a folk event and make impossible demands of performers.
Luckily, we're all pacifists here....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 08:31 AM

Dunno. I once poured a pint over a journalist at a gig. Mind you, I was in a rock band, not at a folk club.....



His prediction however turned out to be accurate. We didn't last more than a few months...



Still, the beer was flat and I didn't fancy it.



I never did find out, after slagging us off in "New Wave" why he bothered turning up to a second gig? He was lucky to get my pint, the drummer offered to slip him a length.

Dry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM

And now someone at the Beeb is likening Clarkson to Savile.

Whether you are for or against the bloke, it looks like he is being hung out to dry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM

Sorry broken link - Fixed here

I hope.

If not, C&P this instead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11473066/BBC-boss-likens-Jeremy-Clarkson-to-Jimmy-Savile-after-establishment-support.html

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:01 AM

He was compared with Saville earlier on this thread too..

Plus someone with a rudimentary understanding of law said he should be in prison.

Without such stupidity, the celebrity industry would falter through lack of punters I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:32 AM

Careful who you choose to dismiss as stupid...

My earlier sardonic 'comparison' was in regard to any institutions
cynical 'turn a blind eye' dependency on a cash cow celebrity,
to the extent of being in a state of denial of that celeb's 'problematic personal qualities'....

.. of course some folks can only read what they want to read
despite the reality and any other possible interpretations of other folks intended meanings.....???

Saville was an evil predatory rapist paedo
Clarkson is just an entertainingly oafish caricature of a boorish smug upper middle class right wing arsehole..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:41 AM

"the celebrity industry"

Interesting turn of phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:24 AM

It was still an unfair and completely uncalled-for juxtaposition, no matter how carefully you try to explain it away.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:35 AM

I'm an ex miner who has been a disc jockey and lots of voluntary work in hospitals. Yet somehow, I don't think comparing my background to that of Saville is appropriate.

So comparing Clarkson, who's only similarity is being from Yorkshire and appearing on the telly isn't a good idea either.

Rather disappointed really PFR, you don't tend to be so sensationalist.

That said, your description of him as a caricature of what some think he is, is on the button

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:41 AM

what - unfair to Saville ? or Clarkson ...????

As much as I dislike the idea of Clarkson, at least the blustering buffoon has a robust sense of humour...

Apparently more so than some of his over defensive fanboys...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:46 AM

that reply was in response to Steve - didn't see your comment while I typing Musk..

me, sensationalist...??? how outrageous !!! 😜

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 12:50 PM

I read somewhere that Clarkson, May and Hammond's contracts with the BBC expire this year sometime. Perhaps this latest "fracas" has got something to do with 'burning bridges'? After all, JC is supposed to have voluntarily reported the incident to the Beeb management.

Perhaps there's a big, juicy contract, from some other broadcaster, lurking just around the corner (?) I wonder if the 'fracasticated' producer will move with them ? Was it, I wonder, a smart career move, on his part, to pose as a victim ?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 02:45 PM

You should write for astrology magazines. Their readers go in for that sort of stuff.

(PFR - learn from the master. Shimrod gives a master class in sensationalism there....)
😎

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: goatfell
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM

How can anyone like him he's a bully and the quicker we get rid of him.
The better

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

You can get rid of him very quickly by turning the telly off. Why torture yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 03:47 PM

I dont have a television, thank god.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,JHW
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM

seen in car spares store last week

'The only tool left in this vehicle is the driver'

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM

On the number of names on the petition to reinstate the arse,

A chap being interviewed on the subject on BBC radio this morning, said, "Why cant we get 900,000 signatures for something which really matters"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:57 PM

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:16 AM

"Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)"

LOL! Can't dispute that, Steve! Didn't see that it was an old article until it was too late - f***ing internet!! 😃

But the fact that it's grown whiskers doesn't detract from its truth AFAIC.
"Says something about the show's popularity"?
Says a damn sight more about the BBC and their inability to act when one of their Prima Donnas (sorry: "big money spinners") is cited.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM

It's all about money, according to this piece in the Standard, the paper Londoners read on the Tube.
And an account of what (allelgedly) happened in the 'fracas' (good old journalistic word, seldom used other than in newspapers, where it's a nice size for a headline and usefully bland) in the Metro, another Tube paper.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:10 AM

The business of business is business.

Meanwhile. I enjoyed the red arrows documentary. But it wasn't my weekly fix of Top Gear.

I am fascinated by the comment by Goatfell. Who are "we" and what will be "better"?

Millions of people will miss their favourite TV programme and The BBC will lose millions and millions in franchise sales.

I signed the petition. You don't buy a petrol lawnmower then not use it because its noisy.
Clarkson's ironic irreverent waffle and loutish behaviour is a feature, so there is no use having a puppy and blaming it for shitting on the carpet.

More analogies to follow. Unless you ask me nicely not to.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 04:24 AM

"You should write for astrology magazines. Their readers go in for that sort of stuff."

I'm not familiar with astrology magazines, Musket. But as you appear to be, perhaps you could recommend one?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:04 AM

Reminds me of a comic recently bemoaning that a Tory MP said The NHS should use astrology to help predict prognosis.

He said, speaking as a consultant addressing a patient;

"let's see now. It says here you are a cancer. There's a coincidence."









"You've got crabs "

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:49 AM

Funny that, I had an electric band once, and have been a DJ as well. Bugger, too damned like Mither.

It does bother me a bit that success as a "light entertainer" seems to come mainly to arseholes - Ant and Dec, Moyles, Clarkson, Woth, the Sex Insect, Tony Blackburn, Mike Read, Oprah, Kyle, Juicy Brucie, oh, and who was that twerp who was rude to contestants, then drugged and anally raped a straight guy and drowned him in his swimming pool?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 AM

I think his name was Richard Bridge

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM

Michael Barrymore?


----
Back to Clarkson. I've noticed that he was the one that's supposed to have reported the incident to the BBC. Could Clarkson quite wilfully have engineered the whole thing, perhaps leaving the BBC with little option but to suspend him?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

"Could Clarkson quite wilfully have engineered the whole thing, perhaps leaving the BBC with little option but to suspend him?"

See my post of 15-Mar-15 - 12:50 PM, which Musket dismissed with some nonsense about astrology. My post was supposed to be 'tongue-in-cheek' - but the patronising Musket appears to have taken it at face value and can go f**k himself; perhaps too much watching of JC in Top Gear has rubbed off on him?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 10:28 AM

I don't know. I''ve not watched long enough to know if it can have that sort of side effect. Two reasons for this:

1. I've largely lost interest in cars. As a maybe 15 year old, being taken to the Motor Show in Earls Court was a thrill. Seeing the Lambourghinis, getting to look at a Panther (anyone else remember these sort of vintage looking sports cars?) was nice, etc. I used to sort of want to be able to identify every car on the road but, now in my 50's a car is just something that gets you from A to B and without looking at badges, I couldn't tell you what's on the road these days...

2. I've found the bits I've seen of Top Gear irritating and exercise the switch off/change channels/change room options.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 11:51 AM

He's a good entertainer whether you like what he does or not and he's at good at it.

But his behaviour is seemingly of someone who sees themselves as being that important that the world revolves round them. If you keep your helicopter waiting for a couple of hours because you want to stay drinking (I always try to be on time for my helicopter because it's rude not to). If you then take it out on someone because they are not gearing everyone else's world round catering for JC (hmmm... where have I seen those initials before?) then - even if it isn't this time - it is just going to be a matter of time until something else occurs.

If you are THAT self important and give so little thought to others then it usually ends in a bad place. And, thankfully, often a bad place for the self important one. Is that what karma is?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

On balance Shimrod, I suppose I'd rather fuck myself. Unless you are offering of course.

Like those who don't like Top Gear, you could always keep your eyes shut. Although I guarantee I'll make the buggers water.

Tuesday. You'll meet a tall bald stranger. You'll be grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

..perhaps the only way Clarkson's true believers would be happy to see him exit the show
would be in a ball of flame head on collision
with a National Express coach full of lefty hippy anti car ownership / pro public transport campaigners...???

Makes you wonder how the 1970s movie "Death Race 2000"
has never been optioned as an international syndicated reality show ?

Clarkson would be the perfect host !!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM

When I first saw this story I assumed, naively, that it was a professional disagreement and I think violent reaction in a situation where one feels passionate is not difficult to understand. It now transpires that Clarkson punched someone in the mouth for failing to ensure there was a hot meal ready for him as soon as he arrived (two hours late). That is the behaviour of a lout. It is sad that some people's response is to effectively say, 'Yeah, he may have been out of order but he entertains me and so should be allowed to carry on'.
Standards fall when they are subject to equivocation. Clarkson treated another human being as no more than a thing which he could abuse at will. I can see no reason not to make him pay heavily for that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:33 PM

'oafish caricature of a boorish, smug, upper middle class arsehole' i enjoyed this description. nice one - pfr

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:01 PM

Pay heavily? My licence fee pays for Songs Of Praise, Thought For The Day, Beyond Belief, Choral Evensong and God knows what at Christmas and Easter. I pay heavily for all that. And it's all propagated by Christian bigots. Give me Clarkson any day. He's a million times more harmless.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:34 PM

Pay heavily for what? Did I miss a court case?

No wonder reactionary newspapers make money.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,bigot
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:35 PM

I like this defintion of bigot.

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:37 PM

There was a case a few years ago in a Dublin court where a man was brought in for punching his wife because his hot dinner wasn't on the table in time.
"If I see you back here again," the judge said, "I'll send you to a place where your dinner will be on the table in time every day."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:21 PM

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"

Obstinacy and opinionated do not apply to bigotry. Intolerance would apply only if applied in opposition to reasonable, measured views. Prejudices, fine. If I were you I'd pay far more careful attention as to where you get your definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,bigot
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:31 PM

And I wish people would look in the mirror before using my name.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:07 PM

We don't know your name, pillock. At least you know mine, don't you? Anyway, would you care to modify your rickety definition of bigotry? Or, at the very least, tell us where you got the definition you like so much?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 PM

If people are starting to call each other pillocks, I'm getting out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:18 PM

Heheh. You haven't been around long, have you, Thompson? Stick around. I apologise. I have been trying harder lately, but I'm a human being and I find some people even more trying.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 08:07 PM

Oh, I've been around a while, Steve. Don't worry; learning the essential human skill of taking a deep breath, stepping back and waiting till your heartbeat slows takes time and dedication.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 08:33 PM

Great. So stick round, pillock!

Only joking, tha knows...!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 02:43 AM

I obstinately cling to my view that everybody has an equal stake and there should be no barriers to opportunity that others enjoy, given access to the same education and chances society offers.

Presumably then my dim view of bigotry makes me a bigot?

I'll accept it makes me a pillock, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:15 AM

Yes, pillock sounds about right.

I don't watch Top Gear as a matter of requirement, but if it is on, carry on watching it. It is good banter, occasionally witty and allows us to laugh at, not with absurdity.

I still chuckle at Clarkson's comments when reviewing the first Audi with the "fairy lights LED set around the headlights. He said it was like a council house at Christmas. Or listening to the engine of one particular supercar, said it sounded like Tom Jones experiencing man love for the first time.

If we lose it, where else are we to rage against the machine?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 05:33 AM

In reply to Guest, nothing has 'transpired'. There have been plenty of leaks and rumours, which those who don't like Clarkson are more than happy to believe, and the BBC seems to be briefing against him, albeit on an unattributed basis. The two protagonists have remained silent. We won't know the truth until the enquiry.

What we do know is that something happened resulting in a 'fracas' and that it was sufficiently serious for Clarkson to report it himself.

As for the outcome, who knows? It is not a court of law and may be less interested in abstract justice than in finding a solution which protects the careers of both individuals, not to mention the future of the BBC's biggest cash cow.

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

poor steve !...his license fee spent on stuff he don't want. I wonder if he is representative of the rest of us that pay. we all have dislikes.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:26 PM

Yeah pete. I like the programmes about the origins of the universe and science. I also like the programmes that take the piss out of loonies who would have children believe creationist claptrap.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 06:43 PM

I don't like it and I pay heavily for it but I don't watch it and I don't particularly object to the fact it's on. There is a lack of balance, however, in that the trueness of religion is arrogantly assumed to be the default position. Religion is false, therefore should have to struggle for its status, not bathe in the luxury of protected privilege. But don't worry, pete. My licence fee pays for loads of other stuff I don't want, such as tennis, rugby, soap operas and mindless quiz programmes, reality TV and game shows. But I can't possibly "want" everything my licence fee pays for in any case and I'm more than happy that stuff is on that isn't to my taste. I love paying my fee and regard it as exceptional value.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 06:50 PM

" I love paying my fee"

hey, why not enjoy twice the love.. and pay for mine as well !!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 06:52 PM

Because I can only watch one telly at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 09:47 AM

yeh, musket, your religious ideas get more air time than theist religion.   of course, if you can demonstrate your ideas are scientific...........

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 11:48 AM

"of course, if you can demonstrate your ideas are scientific..."

Do you mean as scientific as you, pete? Someone who, if I remember from a previous thread, didn't know that gas is a form of matter and who labelled those of us who do know that elementary scientific fact as being "gas pedants"!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Agnostic
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

This tangential thread drift raises an interesting and very relevant question.
Is Jeremy Clarkson a christian, or actually Satan incarnate on Earth ???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 12:21 PM

Satan in car, mate!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 01:21 PM

LoL, SS - ;-}

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

Clarkson claims to be irreligious. A term I actually like and can be comfortable with.

Meanwhile, pete either knows something about my faith in Sheffield Wednesday or he is confusing me with someone of feeble mind when he rattles on about me having a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 04:39 AM

pete? pete? Where are you, pete?

You burst on to this thread spouting about "science", then, as soon as you are reminded that, on previous form, you know nothing about science - pfftt! - you disappear! What's the matter, pete? Surely you're not intimidated by a few of us crusty old "gas pedants", are you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 05:13 AM

James May and Clarkson's other appendage Hammond both refused to present Top Gear without the Chipping Norton gobshite and the Beeb was forced to drop it, so they did us all a favour.

Is it time for Eggheads yet?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM

Didn't do me a favour. Don't confuse my superior intellect and need for mental stimulus with your televisual Mogadon fix me old love.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 09:30 AM

How many times did "Blue Peter" change it's entire presenting team ?
yet we all emerged from childhood relatively intact with the minimum of emotional anguish
and long term trauma...

We even survived the deaths of top team members Petra and Shep, and still continued watching....

In the greater scheme of life - Clarkson is expendable !!!

mind you, I preferred "Magpie" and "Playaway"...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 11:20 AM

Almost as many times as other shows, Top Gear for instance.

Mind you, if you want Noel Edmunds back presenting it, you are on your own. Although getting Vicki Butler Henderson back?

Game on
😎

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 11:31 AM

"Don't confuse my superior intellect and need for mental stimulus with your televisual Mogadon fix me old love."

No worries about that. It must be hard for you old establishment types to change with the times (after years of fucking the world up for those that come after you). You ageing 'petrol heads' might enjoy watching some middle aged white posho wannabes pissing about with cars and taking the piss out of johnny foreigner just like the good old days, and who should deny you such a simple pleasure in your dotage?

Better make the most of it though old chaps. The writing's on the wall for right-wing old duffers like the muskets.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 11:49 AM

Tell you what, Stu. Let us know what YOU like so we can take the piss out of that eh? If not yet being in your dotage means that you can mock peoples tastes, preferences and age, then I am more than happy in my dotage.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM

... if it was up to me, Top Gear could easily be replaced with a similar format show
'road testing' electric guitars, amps, and fuzz boxes....😎

..trouble is most of the potential presenters who work in guitar shops
and present youtube gear review channels
are complete dickheads....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:14 PM

Good riddance....its not as if he was a genuine conservative.
He just acted the part and took the piss...just like his alter ego on the left Fry, that's why I mentioned him at the start of this thread.....about as left as my right foot and smells ten times worse.

Clarkson blusters and Fry whines!........and blusters :0(

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:23 PM

and of course Fry is a homosexual which was the real reason for mentioning him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:30 PM

"Let us know what YOU like so we can take the piss out of that eh?"

Hold on, this a thread about Top bloody Gear! What else am I supposed to take the piss out of? It's not my fault you've gone all sensitive because someone takes the rip out of your simian, toff-arse-licking, boorish lummox of a hero and his two . No wonder the kippers have got so far in this country; they hate people taking the piss out of them too.

As for being old, I have the greatest respect for old folk (I'm certainly no spring chicken myself!), however if taking the piss out of foreigners is OK for the likes of witless xenophobes like Clarkson then doing the same for old dotards like the musket triplets is also fair game. I mean, it doesn't hurt anyone does it?

Here's a list of things on TV I like:

Channel Four News
Repeats of Fools and Horses
Tiswas (much missed)
The Daily Politics (despite Andrew Neil)
Masterchef ("buttery biscuit base!")
Things with actual science in
Jools Holland's live show
Music documentaries like the one about the 80's that was on the other night
Deal or No Deal ("he's gone for the guvnor!")
Rock School
Feature films

Go get 'em tiger!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 02:32 PM

Here it is!! Fry being considered as Clarkson Successor

And as the Daily Mail is considered a reliable source of information by Jim Carroll (When it suits him) - I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The programme I can take or leave, but one of the earlier "Stigs" was right - without Clarkson it just wouldn't work, well done May & Hammond.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 02:35 PM

You know I am far too nice to take the piss out of any of those, Stu. Apart to say that most of them are made by idiots for idiots. Seriously, it is just a matter of taste of course and no persons tastes can be said to be any better than another. Which is what you seem to be implying.

What I can ask is how you arrived at because someone takes the rip out of your simian, toff-arse-licking, boorish lummox of a hero and his two when I only said "I still find him entertaining". Look it up if you don't believe me. How that makes him a hero is beyond me. If you want to know who my heroes really are you do not have to go much further than the threads on here.

What's up anyway? Out of sorts? Can I suggest syrup of figs - really helps to get the shit out without pouring it on here :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 04:01 PM

does anyone care apart from dave the gnome, i am more interested in the riots in frankfurt

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 04:30 PM

Why single me out, Dick? There are dozens of contributors here, all potentially interested.. Could it be that you are incapable of seeing further back than the last post or are you simply being your usual argumentative self? I don't really care one way or another, as I said, I find him entertaining but celebrity culture has no attraction to me. I haven't heard anything about the riots in Frankfurt. Are they a rock band? Are you supporting them?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 04:31 PM

Or, if I may put it more bluntly, if you are not interested in this subject, why don't you just fuck off?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM

How many times did "Blue Peter" change it's entire presenting team ?
yet we all emerged from childhood relatively intact with the minimum of emotional anguish
and long term trauma...

And how many times did Dr Who change its lead role then?

What's that? Never?

Ok, How many times has it changed its lead actor? . . .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 07:19 PM

I'm right wing eh?

Often wondered what it meant. If it is an insult, then Stu is right wing. If it is a withering term, I notice a right winger or two have waded in.

Mind you, I'm certainly a petrol head. Although my day to day buggy is diesel. Just to split hairs. If it feeds your shoulder chip Stu, I also have a Merc SLK AMG and Mrs Musket and I swap between that and the oil burner BMW, and I have a Stag in bits being slowly restored to its V8 glory, if British Leyland ever has glory in the first place. (Been made an offer as it stands and am tempted. Got my eyes on an old Jenson..)

Mm. Stephen Fry mentioned again. I wonder why? Dave seems to be on the button.

Funny how entertainment brings out the mad, sad and bad. Getting animated over celebrity nonsense. Musket said and I agree. Mudcat seems to be the sister magazine for Hello at times.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 07:41 PM

I prefer this, dave the gnome singing is better than dave the gnome telling people to fuck off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOtCJvmVZA

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 07:54 PM

Dave, I think you owe me an apology .....considering Teribus's link.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:50 AM

A newspaper speculates replacements for Clarkson and as a result, Akenaton feels vindicated for random hate comments of famous people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Fascinating. Truly fascinating.

You think you deserve an apology? You are an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 03:57 AM

Silly boy, I was ridiculed for even mentioning piss taker Clarkson and creepy Fry in the same post.

It's clear that as Mr Galloway famously said. "They're two cheeks of the one arse" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:13 AM

for the benefit of the uninformed dave polshaw.riots in germanyGermany riot targets new ECB headquarters in Frankfurt
Jump media player
Media player help
Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Fires were lit as protesters gathered for the Frankfurt rally, as Jenny Hill reports
Continue reading the main story        
Related Stories

    Frankfurt fires near new ECB site Watch
    Why has the ECB punished Greece?
    Greek PM brings forward Putin talks

Dozens of people have been hurt and some 350 people arrested as anti-austerity demonstrators clashed with police in the German city of Frankfurt.

Police cars were set alight and stones were thrown in a protest against the opening of a new base for the European Central Bank (ECB).

Violence broke out close to the city's Alte Oper concert hall hours before the ECB building's official opening.

"Blockupy" activists are expected to attend a rally later on Wednesday.

In earlier disturbances, police in riot gear used water cannon to clear hundreds of anti-capitalist protesters from the streets around the new ECB headquarters.
Riot police carry away an activist during a demonstration organized by the Blockupy movement to protest against the policies of the European Central Bank (18 March 2015)
An activist at a demonstration organized by the Blockupy movement to protest against the policies of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt (18 March 2015)

Organisers were bringing a left-wing alliance of protesters from across Germany and the rest of Europe to voice their anger at the ECB's role in austerity measures in EU member states, most recently Greece.

The bank, in charge of managing the euro, is also responsible for framing eurozone policy and, along with the IMF and European Commission is part of a troika which has set conditions for bailouts in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.

A spokesman for the Blockupy movement said the troika was responsible for austerity measures which have pushed many into poverty.

Police set up a cordon of barbed wire outside the bank's new 185m (600ft) double-tower skyscraper, next to the River Main.

But hopes of a peaceful rally were dashed as clashes began early on Wednesday.

Tyres and rubbish bins were set alight and police responded with water cannon as firefighters complained they were unable to get to the fires to put them out. One fire engine appeared to have had its windscreen broken.
Protester in Frankfurt (18 March) Rubbish bins were set alight some distance from the new ECB building (background)
German police cars set on fire by anti-capitalist protesters Among the first targets for protesters were police cars

Activists said many protesters had been hurt by police batons, water cannon and by pepper spray.

Police said as many as 80 of their officers had been affected by pepper spray or an acidic liquid. Eight suffered injuries from stone-throwing protesters.

Police spokeswoman Claudia Rogalski spoke of an "aggressive atmosphere" and the Frankfurt force tweeted images of a police van being attacked. They were braced for further violence as increasing numbers of activists arrived for the rally.

Blockupy accused police of using kettling tactics to cordon off hundreds of protesters and appealed for supporters to press for their release.
line

What is Blockupy?

    Europe-wide alliance of left-wing parties, unions and movements
    Vehemently against austerity polices of European Commission, ECB and IMF
    First Frankfurt protest attracted thousands in 2012
    Activists from Greece's radical left governing party Syriza and Spain's anti-corruption Podemos are joining the rally
    Also includes Germany's Die Linke and Occupy Frankfurt
    Rallying call: "They want capitalism without democracy, we want democracy without capitalism"

line

As the number of protesters grew in the streets away from the new ECB building, the bank's president, Mario Draghi, gave a speech marking its inauguration.

Mr Draghi said that the it "may not be a fair charge" to label the ECB as the main perpetrator of unpopular austerity in Europe.

"Our action has been aimed precisely at cushioning the shocks suffered by the economy," he said.

"But as the central bank of the whole euro area, we must listen very carefully to what all our citizens are saying."

The new headquarters, which had been due to open years earlier, cost an estimated €1.3bn (£930m; $1.4bn) to build and is the new home for thousands of central bankers.

Blockupy activists said on their website that there was nothing to celebrate about the politics of austerity and increasing poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:17 AM

Yeah but after 5 secs of footage of the riots I got bored. Nothing like as entertaining as Top Gear or Wheeler Dealers.

Might be entertainment to you Dick, but some of us prefer the wit and wisdom of petrol heads.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM

Yes, pete, and Clarkson is probably an "evolutionist" and a "gas pedant" as well! He should be locked up!

You know, "gas pedant" is my favourite phrase of 2014. A mate of mine is a chemist and when I told him about it he spilled his pint, he was laughing so hard! We now call our little Friday night pub session "The Gas Pedantry Society".

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:42 AM

Walked. Even managed to chew bubbly gum whilst doing so.

Perhaps pete, Clarkson should join the clergy then. Religious leaders tend to make sure vile and disgusting people who work for "Jesus" are protected from facing charges when seeking sexual gratification.

A bloke told me Clarkson was an SS officer, that he organised Pol Pot's killing fields and abused altar boys. He should face charges etc etc zzzzzz

(Mind you, he used to take the piss out of my Jag. Not my actual one I had at the time but it was crushing and I went into a depression. Just because get couldn't get it round the Nurburgring in less than 10 mins.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:57 AM

GSS.....I take your point, but isn't the decimation of society by the media, not a little important?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

So, ake, you think you need an apology because you believe that Clarkson and Fry are the same and then the Daily Heil publishes a piece stating they think that Fry could take over from Clarkson? Have I got that right? You agree with the Daily Heil so you believe you must be right? You need to get a grip on reality. I thought you may get better now that you no longer spend your days falling of ladders and cracking roof tiles with your forehead but it seems the damage is lasting.

Dick - I am not interested in Clarkson but I do find him amusing. I am not interested in riots in Frankfurt and I find long cut and pastes tedious. Guess what this thread is about. Thanks for the plug anyway but my comment still stands :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Dave, the story is carried by many publications, like "Business Weekly".

I never really thought you had it in you to apologise.

You are simply consumed.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 05:46 AM

I have nothing to apologise for. Dunno about consumed. I would say you are confused but that is probably too kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 06:22 AM

A different take on this, from the Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 06:52 AM

Awww, C'mon PeterL. Give Pete something to believe in that may actually be true... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:22 AM

Clarkson has been sacked by BBC,
To quote the words he said on the TV,
"I'm $%^#&% &%^$#% and &%^$#
But the *^&%$ %^&$%# &%^$#@$,
And the &%^$# %$#&%" so said he.

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

Meanwhile, whilst Clarkson used the term in a charity auction, in order to get his story back in the headlines, and succeeding...

The report to the director general doesn't get there till next week, and the recommendations will be in it.

Some people believe and repeat anything that agrees with their petty prejudice.

Eyup pete! Any chance of you offering a prayer up for him? Isn't that what you Christians do when someone is being attacked when nobody knows the facts?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:36 AM

Notwithstanding I doubt any of the Muskets and especially not me has ever watched Sky News.

So... Is she worth cracking one out over, anonymous guest with limited imagination?

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:58 AM

"Some people believe and repeat anything that agrees with their petty prejudice."

You certainly do Musktwat, although in your case it normally centres around dramatic misrepresentations and myths depicted by a bunch of left-wing, politically motivated "Luvvies" who brought us such entertainment as, OWALW, Blackadder, a handful of Poets, politicians eagre to polish their egos and deflect attention away from their past actions by denigrating the efforts of men unable to defend themselves.

What I believe and what I repeat, I can back up and substantiate - pity the same cannot be said for all three of you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 11:11 AM

Latest twist.

Must be one of the biggest publicity stunts dreamed up by the BBC ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

Mm. Backing up and substantiating. Sounds impressive. 😋

Until you put it in the arena of debate where you go on to form views from respecting others. Or at least, normal people do.

Piss off eh? Oh and take your mates with you. I don't call red top tabloids a source if its all the same to you. They might pander to your distaste and they might frighten the likes of Akenaton into treating others with lack of respect, but many of those on Mudcat are too intelligent, sophisticated and well balanced to take bullshit at face value.

I'm sure Hello magazine must have a forum for those who believe what journalists want them to.

Still giving good value eh Terribulus?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 01:26 PM

The moderators, in their clumsy wisdom, have merged two threads. Doing so they omitted the OP of the second thread, posted by 7star Pete. My response to him, Date: 20 Mar 15 - 06:22 AM, has become meaningless by this action/omission and may as well be removed.

---

It wasn't from Pete. -Mod

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:25 PM

"OWALW"

ER, wot's that then Tezza old chum?

Yes the Musket trinity, you do certainly seem quite right-wing. But then people get more so as they age, and despite your oft-lauded collective credentials appear to have acquired the ego of the successful aspirational middle class. But then I'm a pompous twat who's full of shit, so who cares?

Although I find cars bloody boring objects that I can't work up much enthusiasm for, I do like the sound of a V8 engine. Our next door neighbour had a Stag when I was growing up and I really liked it. If I could choose one car though, it would be a Morris Minor Traveller. Great motor, and a real antidote to the characterless, dull clones on the road these days.

I think old fatboy Clarkson is planning to take his two talentless arse limpets and start a new show of their own and leave the Beeb. Then they can flog it at great profit across the world and no-one will give a big end what they say as it won't be on our dollar.

Yay!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:29 PM

"OWALW"
Oh What A Lovely War.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:36 PM

If mudcat clones had run the BBC,
Clarkson wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 03:07 PM

I am glad Dave the gnome likes the clip of himself singing, we can all live happily ever after

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 03:52 PM

I've got two wings and fly high with the buggers.

I'm not what you refer to as right wing though. Call me a kiddie fiddler, banjo player or mass murderer but for fucks sake, don't align my views to that of Terribulus or Keith A Hole of Hertford.

Getting off your arse ain't making a statement. It's being yourself.

I have a second engine for the Stag by the way. It will fit many rear wheel drive cars without much modification to the mountings or gear coupling. Yours for £800. Just don't listen to those bastards who reckon its two Allegro engines welded together. (It comes with the conversion kit to stop it overheating,)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:07 PM

I once had an Allegro. They had a serious problem with the rear stub axles in that the wheel used to shear off! Happened to me on the way to the lakes with the kids on board. I can honestly say that I saw the wheel overtake me before the car fell over. Odd experience. My mate Mike reckoned that they were so named because when the wheel falls off, a leg grows...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:30 PM

Thanks Keith. No t a film I've seen.

800 quid for a car engine? No way hose. That's a whole heap of PhD fees right there (well, most of one payment).

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:46 PM

i'm confused , peter laban, as I have never been an opening poster, and I don't know which post you refer to. but having read your link, it certainly seems Clarkson is a bit of a loose cannon, but whether he deserves sacking by the beebs slack standards, I wouldn't know. I did have my last post disappear...or maybe fail...,but that was a reply to shimrod .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 01:30 AM

"My mate Mike reckoned that they were so named because when the wheel falls off, a leg grows..."

Nah Dave, it's because the bloody things were All Aggro...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 01:42 AM

Clarkson said (this is a thread about Clarkson, remember?) that when some students put one in a wind tunnel to try out a theory, they were right about the Allegro. It was slightly more aerodynamic in reverse than going forward with a similar drag coefficient.

Yeah Stu, you can get a far better engine for £50 but its a bit like when I paid a tenner to see Martin Carthy last week. You are also paying for the heritage and provenance.

Anyway, I only paid £150 for it and spent about £100 on it. But being a dirty rotten stinking capitalist and knowing there are plenty out there willing to feed my craving, you never know. (It didn't reach its reserve last year.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 02:01 AM

So what was your reply to my last post, pete? I can hardly wait! I hope that you didn't compare me to the arch-villan, Jeremy Clarkson!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM

Hey Backwoodsman! As Good Soldier pasted a clip of his favourite Dave track, can we ask you to put up a link to your favourite Dick Miles track? I'm sure there are many to choose from 😋

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 03:17 AM

Never heard of him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 05:51 AM

🙊🙉🙈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM

There are indeed "many to choose from."
First page of hits,


Dick Miles - One April Morning - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 4:10
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yjf4nSeWc
7 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by SwindonFolksingers
Dick Miles - One April Morning Recorded live at the Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13.
Dick Miles - Little Birdie - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 3:21
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UAWc1yJm9I
6 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by Allan Allsopp
Dick Miles - Little Birdie from his live performance at the Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13.
Dick Miles - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEuLjJGPevMbRip0HQVUdlg
A traditional English folk song sung by folk singer and storyteller Pete Castle. (www.petecastle.co.uk ) Pete says "I recorded this on a cassette for VFM records ...
Dick Miles - Willy of the Winsbury - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 4:27
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE4J5P8g-fw
6 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by Allan Allsopp
Dick Miles - Willy of the Winsbury Live at Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13.
Marc Jones Australian Vocalist Sings -The Coffee Song by ...
Video for dick miles▶ 3:29
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQijtF4wKbU
8 Apr 2014 - Uploaded by glennmach
Marc Jones Sings The Coffee Song by Bob Hilliard & Dick Miles. Copyrights Protected. "The Johnny Mandel ...
Dick Miles and the Whitby Whaler. - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 2:59
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9k0HmPElec
21 Sep 2011 - Uploaded by shaneis777
Dick Miles of Ballydehob, Co.Cork singing 'Whitby Whaler' in Schull, Co.Cork. August 1992.
Dick Miles - The Touch Of Her Hand - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 2:23
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSuJwl7QwYQ
6 Aug 2013 - Uploaded by randall hamm
Dick Miles - The Touch Of Her Hand. randall hamm. SubscribeSubscribedUnsubscribe 503. Subscription ...
Dick Miles -The Last Goodbye.wmv - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 2:55
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNf8XjB0Ep8
20 Jun 2010 - Uploaded by scot1759
Looked like Utube was short this great old song so I cleared the dust from my brain and learned Windows ...
Seeds of Love - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 3:25
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCTeQdBFP8
14 Jan 2011 - Uploaded by dickmilesmusic
Hi Dick.....flattered that you visited my site. I have spent a while ... Dick Miles ... Thanks Dick , great song well ...
Dick Miles - Adieu Sweet Nancy - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 4:54
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCNq7ZOOU0
6 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by SwindonFolksingers
Dick Miles - Adieu Sweet Nancy Recorded live at the Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13. Category ...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 03:16 PM

Now, about Jeremy Clarkson, The main online petition about reinstating him was delivered to the Beeb, -there's a clip online,- by the purported Stig mounted in a TANK. A million signatures.

About the Allegro. I never had one, but a workmate did. He was involved in one of those enormous nose-to-tail-in-the-fog-Birmingham-to Coventry-pileups, and when the rescuers got there, there were four motorist sitting in the Allegro. It was the only car around with working doors.
A neighbour had an Allegro. When I asked him why, he pointed out that he was a fireman/rescuer and had to cut people out of cars as a matter of course. He said he bought the car for his family.

How did Allegros get into this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 04:07 PM

I think, shimrod, I posted something like.....I don't mind being pulled up on a mistake, and I don't claim to be a scientist and therefore try to stick to the simpler arguments. But I seem to remember, that in a previous thread, you had confessed....albeit under pressure....that your science had nothing to say on the subject of evolution.   So I guess you got nothing to shout about either!.    However, if you got something more than devoted ness to the ruling paradigm...........?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 05:24 PM

"I don't claim to be a scientist ..."

No, but you insist on commenting on scientific subjects which you obviously don't understand. And though I have never studied evolution (and neither have you!) I can still follow a scientific argument and understand that evidence always trumps stuff like belief and 'faith'.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Jeremy Clarkson. We have hi-jacked this thread - and, yes, it's all my fault!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 05:41 PM

Have you noticed how some people get ever more like the fictional characters you mentally link them to?

I liken one person on here to Major Misunderstanding (from Viz comic) and bugger me if he hasn't completely borrowed from the character in a post a few above this one..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM

Fictional characters?
I would prefer not to bugger anyone, but i have nothing against those that wish to do so, providing they are not doing it to underage children,
Any further news on Leon Brittam losing files on child sexual interference, or the alleged disappearance of youths from Heaths yacht.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 08:40 AM

"I don't claim to be a scientist"

That's because you have no idea what a scientist is, or what is involved with being one. Your plumbers, builders and other tradesmen mud really get pissed off with you pete. Do you tell them they're doing wrong, that the entire foundation of their training is based on error? Do you do the same with car mechanics, computer designers, airline pilots, folk musicians, engineers, your dentist etc etc?

Back int he real world . . . My mum used to have a bright lime green Allego estate. It was easy to spot her when she was out and about as it was the only one for miles. It had that funny lip on the roof at the back of the estate version, presumably for downforce.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 11:58 AM

Sounds like bluff and bluster to me s and s.   My plumber could tell me how things work, unlike you evolutionists. Jeremy clarkson could explain the workings of an engine...you can't explain the workings of Darwinism, other than infer that it happened by your own philosophical preference of how you interpret the data.   Also, I doubt there is much variation between how plumbers interpret their trade, or how mechanics understand engines. That is far from the case with evolutionists....even leaving out scientists who reject Darwinist dogma.   Now if you really want to just talk about clarkson?........

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM

I don't claim to be a scientist and therefore try to stick to the simpler arguments

Don't sell yourself short, pete - you stick to nonsence, myth and bullshit, and very good you are at it, too!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 12:57 PM

Oh no!! I'm a gas pedant who's been duped by the Ruling Paradigm!! Ahhhh!!!

The scales have fallen from my eyes (hallelujah!!!). Now I know that I should have been taking the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of a bunch of Bronze-age, Middle Eastern goat herds literally rather than being convinced by around 150 years of careful scientific observation. How could I have been so blind? Those pesky Ruling Paradigms have a lot to answer for!

Oh yes, and please note that, previously, I freely admitted that I have no background in evolutionary biology ... just as you have no backgound in evolutionary biology, pete ...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 01:17 PM

Well shimrod, I guess that puts us on an even footing with our arguments, except that ,other than appealing to consensus, you have not exactly presented any arguments that I can recall.......other than mockery ,like your fellow believer, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 01:28 PM

.. so how would the theory of evolution account for Jeremy Clarkson...???

Because if God's to blame for creating him,
the big old fella upstairs has certainly worked in very mysterious ways ???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 01:53 PM

" ... except that ,other than appealing to consensus, you have not exactly presented any arguments that I can recall..."

Because all of the evidence is out there in thousands of publications - both popular and technical - and if you must insist on pontificating on evolutionary biology, it's your responsibility to familiarise yourself with that literature; otherwise you have no credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM

infer that it happened by your own philosophical preference of how you interpret the data.

Pete, you've had plenty of people explain to you the difference between "evidence" and "belief." Yet you continue to dismiss evidence. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue, and you really ought to move along discourse-wise. But then, so should we all. There is no changing Pete's mind, the best thing to do is ignore the nonsense and carry on with the topic at hand.

Now back to the topic (whoever Clarkson is).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM

"Jeremy clarkson could explain the workings of an engine"

Really? The physics of it, the chemistry, the role of each individual part? He could tell you how the engine management system works down to the reason for the existence of each part of a printed circuit, every component, the manufacturing process involved in each of those components? He can tell us all, in understandable terms why electrons flow through the circuits the way they do, how many of them there might be? He could explain how we see the visible light from the indicators? How that is generated? Who discovered the principles behind all of the countless applications and processes involved making something as irreducibly complex as a modern car?

You could, of course find all these things out, but not off Clarkson. He just drives cars, is a TV presenter and insults foreigners. You Pete, might say the car is evidence of god (if you choose to believe it is), but if you got off your arse and put the time in to find out you'd see people have discovered the scientific principles that make a car work and used that knowledge to manufacture it.

But you won't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 03:00 PM

You're absolutely right, SRS, but pete's endless wilful confusion of evidence and belief is peculiarly provoking and infuriating (although it has caused me to think deeply about the nature of both evidence and belief).

We should, though, stick to the topic. Jeremy Clarkson is a British TV presenter - of a BBC motoring programme called Top Gear - who has a very abrasive style which is very polarising; some people love him for his 'robust' sense of humour whilst other people hate him. Top Gear, though, is a broadcasting phenomenon and is popular in many countries throughout the world. Clarkson is notorious for his indiscretions and bad behaviour. In the incident that provoked this thread, it is alleged that he punched a producer, after a day's filming, because a hot dinner was not available to him at a hotel at which he and the production team were staying. The BBC have suspended him and are not broadcasting the last three episodes of Top Gear in the present series. Clarkson, though, is now very rich and famous and has made the BBC an enormous amount of money ... so what happens next is anyone's guess!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM

I agree with Shimrod, tho' I don't get angry.
I find pete's stance very interesting and thought provoking and like Shim,"it has caused me to think deeply about the nature of both evidence and belief."

I think pete is trying to show us all a deeper truth than "science" can provide?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 07:08 PM

I hope you're not going all 'spiritual-on-our-ass', Ake!

pete has been (has allowed himself to be?) brainwashed by religious fundamentalists.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 02:35 AM

"A deeper truth than science can provide." in all seriousness, what the flying fuck does that mean? Not having the answers means just that. It doesn't mean God did it.

Stu points out that Clarkson is not an engineer. Correct, he is a journalist who presents TV shows. pete's faith in Clarkson's ability to explain car engines is touching really. Like Preachers, Clarkson tends to explain with a big hammer.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:08 AM

Does nobody look inside themselves any longer?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:28 AM

"Does nobody look inside themselves any longer?"

Do you think science and spirituality are mutually exclusive?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:56 AM

"Does nobody look inside themselves any longer?"

You mean like a sort of auto-colonoscopy?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM

Takes two mirrors and the sort of bending I could do before the advent of my beer belly.

If Akenaton looks inside himself, I wonder if he can'grasp and understand what others see? If you look inside yourself, surely you then try to lose the bigotry and hatred?

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

pete's stance very ... thought provoking

Contradiction in terms. pete's "stance" is the antithesis of thought.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: mayomick
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 11:37 AM

 Pedro Lopez ,the Spanish waiter who served Jeremy Clarkson, on what really happened the night Clarkson punched his producer:

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/interview-with-waiter-who-served-jeremy-clarkson-the-night-he-punched-his-producer/

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 01:19 PM

HILARIOUS, I am glad someone has a sense of humour, the whole thing is very funny. Clakson will be laughing to the bank too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: mayomick
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 01:57 PM

It may or mat not have been a spoof - very funny either way.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:02 PM

http://www.buzzfeed.com/deannye/funny-parody-interview-with-clarkson-waiter#.ly78kaYyA

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

When you come to think of it, it's quite healthy that we see these pedestalised* superstars with their pants down every now and again. I get fed up with seeing these knobheads who make their millions from entertaining us pontificating about stuff that they know nothing about. John Lennon springs immediately to mind. This week, the world's two greatest footballers, Steven Gerrard and Martin Skrtel, have demonstrated to the planet that they are just very talented dickheads. I think Clarkson is cut from the same cloth. The sooner these arrogant guys learn that they are just like everyone else except in the very limited sphere in which they achieved success, whether it be pop music, footie or making programmes about cars, the better.


*I think I've made up a new word.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 09:29 AM

Someone beat you to it, Steve. But it has the American spelling. Good post, btw.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM

Bono would be my nominee in the celebrity dickhead dept..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:09 AM

How dare you speak of God in those terms! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:13 AM

Sorry if I took his name in vain, but he a bit of a prat.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM

Hi Steve

<" This week, the world's two greatest footballers, Steven Gerrard and Martin Skrtel,">

Hmmmmm !!! Maybe Stephen Gerrard ....just maybe..!!!

Skrtel is a whole-hearted player who gives his all ..but World Class...don't think so.

Next you'll be saying Ballotelli is World class !! LOL

I was at Anfield and saw a very physical hard-fought game. Great to watch, especially to Man United Suppporters like me !!!

Gerrard's action was totally out of character but Skrtel for once got caught for his one of his many reckless tackles.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:34 AM

Help, mods!! Troll red alert!!! There's a Man U fan about!!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

(Blimey, Mike, I shouldn't have done that, should I. You know how these yanks can take you literally....)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM

Oh do I really have to say it again!?

OK then ----

U P   T H E   G U N N E R S

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 12:50 PM

At least Jeremy Clarkson doesn't (often) talk about f***ing football!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 01:17 PM

well, I reckon, that if football can get in here, I can carry on responding to the evolution believers. oops...stilly don't like that term, and seems to think I am misusing it. however, stilly does not say what the evidence for her belief is, and shimrod merely asserts that it is evidenced. however, the scientists have the same evidence, whatever their position on origins. and as I have said before, I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda than shimrod has read creationist.....who is the blinkered one !!    stu, you have a point so far, except that no scientist knows it all either. in fact, does any evolutionist know how it, supposedly ,works,as in the details you demand of the inner science of engines.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM

There's a bit of creationist theory which always bemuses me. I have to admit know little of it. However if Adam and Eve had sons named Cain Abel and Seth and other sons and daughters in order for the next generation to come along there must have been a bit of incest which is against the teachings of every church I can think off. Do creationists believe we are all descended from incestuous relationships.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:06 PM

"Do creationists believe we are all descended from incestuous relationships"

... welllll.. that might explain Jeremy Clarkson's fan base...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM

Hi Steve

You will have me shot !!!! LOL

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM

Hi Michael

Yes RIGHT up the Gunners....!!!

Seriously though I think they will finish up 2nd in the Premier League this time.

Mind you they still have to come to Old Trafford....!!!!????

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 03:14 PM

"stu, you have a point so far, except that no scientist knows it all either"

You've missed the point pete. Just because no one person knows all there is to know about the theories, processes, physics, chemistry etc etc that means a modern car can be designed, manufactured and assembled by a single human, doesn't mean the car doesn't exist or won't work. It a massive collaborative effort, with thousands of people contributing to the accumulated knowledge over the years that means we can build these cars.

No one scientist knows it all, but when you have hundreds of thousands of scientists working for centuries then eventually we can begin to understand the world and universe we live in. Evolution is a result of THAT accumulated knowledge (as is the car).

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 04:32 PM

"New Rule: Stop asking Miss USA contestants if they believe in evolution. It's not their field. It's like asking Stephen Hawking if he believes in hair scrunchies. Here's what they know about: spray tans, fake boobs and baton twirling. Here's what they don't know about: everything else. If I cared about the uninformed opinions of some ditsy beauty queen, I'd join the Tea Party."

Bill Maher

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (in gas pedant mode)
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 07:00 PM

" ... I can carry on responding to the evolution believers ..."

You're confusing 'belief' and 'evidence' again, pete.

"I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda ..."

Give us some titles then, pete. Hit us with some references, 'creation boy'!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM

If it helps, Clarkson said that whilst everybody was complaining about his comments on Mexico, a priest said the comments could influence children and that is dangerous.

Clarkson merrily tweeted links to this priest arguing for creationism to be taught as a science.

Just pulling the tangent round. 😎

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM

That criminally barmy loathsome street preacher from Taunton
might fit in quite comfortably here at mudcat...!!!???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-32017649


... actually he's gobby and old enough to be a candidate for hosting Top Gear...
well at least it might keep him off the streets....?????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:42 AM

It looks like ole Jezza might be for the high jump. Shame. What's the world come too when you can't twat your fellow employees and minions with impunity?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

stu, methinks I did not. your car is the result of accumulative knowledge, and a car is the result. it is operative, testable, observable, repeatable science/engineering.
evolutionism is the result of accumulative philosophically driven interpretations of the same evidence and data that all scientists have, whatever their views on origins. and the result of all that Darwin dogma is nothing tangible at all.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 08:56 AM

"evolutionism is the result of accumulative philosophically driven interpretations of the same evidence and data that all scientists have"

You are utterly, totally wrong and I suspect you know that in your heart of hearts. The principles are exactly the same, both utilise the scientific method and both are still developing. To say otherwise is just not correct and pretty insulting to all of us that are scientists and work with honesty and integrity to discover the nature of things.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:08 AM

You don't need science if you have faith, Stu. You should know that by now. I believe that Pete is an utter knobhead. No need for proof. My faith sustains me...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:14 AM

Pete, you still haven't responded to my query

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM

The Beeb dropped Carlson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:17 AM

LOL. Make that Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM

One less wart on the arse of the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:29 AM

They dropped Carlson too. Some time in 1937, I believe. He ran a Home Service programme featuring souped-up Model Ts called "Top Double Declutch". Got in trouble for punching the bloke with the red flag.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:19 AM

Raggy, why not that a few extra partners were quietly created, or that genetic diversity was implanted?

Not much of a question.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:51 AM

"I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda ..."

You still haven't cited any references, pete.

Let's, though, examine that word "propaganda". In my dictionary it means:

"Information, ideas or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation etc."

So who, exactly, is spreading information, ideas or rumours about evolutionary biology? And how, exactly, do they benefit from this activity? Further, as it is now virtually impossible to untangle evolutionary biology from the rest of modern science, is modern science one gigantic (anti-religious?) conspiracy? If it is, are you seriously suggesting that governments and organisations, throughout the world, routinely spend billions of their currency units on a vast conspiracy? Who would benefit from such madness?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:55 AM

Good save, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 01:40 PM

Clarkson dropped!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:09 PM

Keith, Pete

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that other people were dropped into the equation.

As I have already stated my knowledge is very limited.

But if people believe the Bible to be a TRUE and HONEST account of the development of humankind surely some incest must have taken place?

Over to you ................

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:15 PM

Evolution vs creation from the great film Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

sorry raggy, since posting earlier I have been obligated elsewhere. you are correct that adam and eve had 3 named sons, and elsewhere it reads that they had other sons and daughters. yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed. there was no restriction on near relatives marrying until the law of moses, so I wonder whether the term " incest" with its moral overtones is applicable in the beginning of humanity. bear in mind also, that adam and eve were told to " be fruitful and multiply " . that is gen 1v 28. as v 27 is more generic , ie male and female, not only the first pair. how was the command to multiply be carried out, if the later prohibition was applicable in the beginning. as keith suggested, some suggest some other human creations, but theologically that runs into problems, since the bible teaches universal descent from, and identification with, adam. I hope that, at least explains my reading of scripture . regards pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:48 PM

beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !. as to insulting scientists, I note that there is no problem with that from the usual suspects, if those scientists don't toe the evolutionary line.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:12 PM

and lastly, shimrod. I have read many if not most of the links provided in past discussions. I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins, and it only evidenced natural selection, which is part of the creation model anyway, as I suggested, that is probably more than you have looked at creationist material. as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely, but none the less, I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming. and I reject the notion that evolutionary belief is crucially interconnected to observational science, though it has often hindered it !. care to name any scientific invention that required Darwinist imput ?. rejection of evolutionism does nothing to hinder science...quite the reverse.    as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Bandiver (Astray)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:34 PM

So how come if they've sacked him, his is the first face I see when I switch on TV tonight???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

There is little or no benefit in evolutionism. I refer you to this simple article which even you may understand, Pete. Although I doubt it vet much. In case it is too much I draw your attention to the line "In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy."

After you have read and probably dismissed that maybe you can answer a similar question. What is the benefit of religion? Other than an excuse by the religious leaders to control the masses and gain themselves power and riches beyond most peoples dreams?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:02 PM

" ... yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed."

Hhhhmmm?? Very ... sort of ... vaguely ... technical sounding ... but complete and utter bullshit!! What the f***k does it mean??

"I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins ..."

Oh, so you're very well versed in the literature of evolutionary biology then! I should have a go at quantum physics next - I'm sure you'll be able to find a good video on U-tube!

" ... as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely ..."

You mean, you didn't actually know what it meant until I told you? But you thought that it sounded bad so using it might put "evolutionism" in a bad light?

"I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming."

At this point I am struggling to find anything meaningful to say about that load of deranged gibberish. Help! Evolutionists have stolen my wheely bin and cause cancer! Help!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:28 PM

"Genetic Entropy is the theory that genetic mutations are accumulating to an eventual extinction of all species. The theory was originally proposed by Joseph Muller in 1932 and named Muller's Ratchet[1], he imagined it as a means by which selection forced asexual populations to evolve sexual reproduction. The geneticist John C. Sanford has further expanded on the theory in a more realistic framework from the Biblical worldview, and published the work in a book titled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[2]"

from

http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_entropy

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:41 PM

Sounds like a bloody fun read.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 07:40 PM

LOLOL

Best laugh of the day. Many thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:53 AM

the Mystery of the Genome

Nothing mysterious about us, mate, but you need to learn to spell.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:05 AM

And another thing, pete. You keep banging on about:

"as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past."

And you use it like a drowning man clinging to a life raft.

But, surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible either! If you can, please tell us how ...??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM

Why limit yourself to the Bible? You can always find ways to accommodate Polynesian religions or scientology in observable facts?

What makes Jesus so bloody special?

Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:21 AM

"Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday."

One of the saddest comments I've ever read. :0(

I think we really do need to dismantle society and start again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:41 AM

Are the comments here serious? Do people really, actually, seriously believe that evolution is not a fact?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:01 AM

"you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !"

Of course you can. Don't be ridiculous. Why would I say otherwise if it were not true?

"beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method."

You are wrong. You obviously have no idea how cross-disciplinary the earth and life sciences are.


"as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him."

And there it is. Fine if you believe that, you might even be right, but stop pretending you know anything about science or it's methods and processes; also you can't assume to know the motivations of those of us who are scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:53 AM

Evolution is certainly a fact (you know me - I'd go even further but I find Snail scary). The theory that attempts to explain it is just that, a scientific attempt (meaning that the evidence used to construct the theory must be obtained by the scientific process). It's a very good one, though, because the evidence makes evolution incontrovertible. Only a fool would deny that. Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Hi

Sorry must have pressed the button twice.

Anyway in reply to all this scientific stuff....

Clarkson is a lout...My wife says so.....and she's ALWAYS Right.    LOL

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:19 AM

"Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science."

Exactly, Steve. But I suspect that that is what really sticks in the craw of religious fundamentalists; their fervent faith has been rendered redundant, meaningless and irrelevant!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:54 AM

Evolution does not challenge anyone's faith.
Almost all Christians accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM

Pete doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

Pete, again I am confused I do not know of any reference in the Law of Moses to incest. Murder, dishonesty, theft even leprosy but no mention of incest.

So my question then becomes is incest against the law of God or against the law of man, and if the latter who gave them to right to make such a law.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 07:54 AM

Ok.. this is definitely worth a listen

BBC Radio 4 Media Show Wed 26/03/15

including an interview with the bellend who stared the petition

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

Raggy, why are you people so obsessive about challenging a view held by only one poster?
What is the connection between creationism and Clarkson?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:02 PM

was that really you , keith ?. either way. I read raggy as asking, not challenging.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

Ah! There you are, pete!

Just a little reminder:

... surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible ... If you can, please tell us how ...??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM

so gnome, what was the wiki article supposed to prove ? it is just an exercise in thinly disguised appeal to authority. try finding some evidence for evolutionism.    benefits of religion ?. that's a big subject, but suffice it to say that as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance, and many have testified to dramatic conversions and transformed lives. many beneficial and charitable institutions were birthed in the church. suppose you list some humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism ?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:28 PM

evolutionism

There is no such thing, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:38 PM

.. isn't it interesting that science and technology are evolving
whereas religion and Jeremy Clarkson are ... ermmmm... wellll... ummmm....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

Evolution does not challenge anyone's faith.
Almost all Christians accept it.

Er, not exactly. Evolution negates the whole story of Genesis. If you believe in a creator of everything, you can't be accepting evolutionary theory. In my experience, those valiant Christians who try to embrace evolution still want God to have kick-started the process and to have some kind of oversight of it. If you don't agree that evolution has no trajectory, no end points, no goals, plenty of blind endings and no-one kicking it off, you don't accept the theory. It's a big ask and a stiff test and it requires a degree of honesty from people of religious conviction that you seldom see. It also requires a proper understanding of the theory. The prime anti-evolution mover on this forum wilfully refuses to educate himself. He has nothing serious to say and never has had.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

So, pete from the seven stars, or seeing as we are into abbreviating names, ars.

as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance

Are those the ones that were burned by the christian faith? Or the kids that were buggered by christian priests? Or the millions who have been killed in Christian wars?

Tell you what, ars. To save you trying to think, which you are obviously incapable of, I will tell you who has found personal peace and assurance. Me. I was brought up Russian Orthodox and then Roman catholic. As soon as I ditched my imaginary friend things became a lot clearer. Now, fuck off and stop bothering normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

Hi, Pete. Trust things are good with you.

When you said "humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism", it seemed to me you presuppose that atheism is organized when in fact it's not on any grand scale. For this discussion I'd prefer to see it stated "humanitarian efforts atheists contribute to". YMMV

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:01 PM

having answered your question, shimrod, how's about you tell us what creationist material you have read. judging by how you are not even able to defend your evolution beliefs, probably nothing. I reckon it is you, not me, clinging on to a sinking raft. I just like to hold your feet to the fire, as they say. and I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, however it works a whole lot better with observable science than Darwinist notions.
raggy, Leviticus 20 deals with prohibited sexual unions. I would think that secular law against incest derived from biblical laws originally, at least in the christianized societies.
that's right, Thompson, I don't believe it a fact, and if you do, do you know why, other than blind acceptance ?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:27 PM

ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?. I don't remember nye being able answer that, so maybe you can help him out !. have you got a time machine ?!.    steve as usual making assertions based on consensus without the benefit of any other reasoned argument. go on steve, show us some evolution !.
point taken #, but in fact atheists are increasingly organizing themselves, and even doing conferences. and I don't think organizing charitable concerns are high on the agenda, though granted individuals may well be involved in such. regards to you too.
greg...yes there is, and you are a classic case of one its adherents.
steve does at least have it right ,that evolutionism is an attack on the bible, but he wilfully refuses to examine the evidence ,or even offer evidence for his own belief, other than assertions and appeal to consensus.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:46 PM

Evolution is most decidedly not an attack on the Bible. Science can't concern itself with religion as its whole basis is incompatible with religion's predication on faith.The fact of evolution negates Genesis tangentially, not because Darwin et al. set out to attack religion. They were doing science, and there is no scientific way of attacking religion. There's reason, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:45 PM

Steve Shaw, your pontificating on Christian belief is more than a little misplaced. It is true that there are fundamentalist Christians who meet with the sort of levels of belief that you describe but there are many more who do not. We know what the church requires of us but we do not necessarily accept it blindly.   Yeah, I know, pic-n-mix Christian blah, blah, blah.   The thing is, an awful lot of Christians draw guidance from much of the teachings of Jesus without needing the Old Testament, which is an interesting series of myth, dubious history and fable. I have no trouble accepting evolution, I have trouble with people who don't. There are those who would tell me that I am no kind of Christian, well, they can go and copulate with themselves. I define what I am, not any fundamentalist Christian, not Steve Shaw and not any number of other posters who pride themselves on their atheism. I respect your views and I don't expect you to respect mine, because you know that I am stupid, right? But the fact is my life has meaning for me. I am fascinated by science even though my understanding is limited. I love music, theatre and many other things I cannot be bothered to list. I suppose what I am saying you don't know who or what I am. You only know who you are. So please, stop pontificating about what I think or believe or don't believe, because you don't know shit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

I am not proud of my atheism. It's simply where I've got to. In fact, I have plenty of doubts, as it happens. And I do not think that people of religion are stupid. I do think that they carry certain delusions in that aspect of their lives, but I have those too (I support Liverpool, fer chrissake, and I won't hear a word said against Carly Simon). Musket's even worse as he supports Sheffield Wednesday. I haven't a clue as to what you do or don't believe unless you tell me. But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution, even if they say they do, because the two are entirely incompatible. Evolution can't work with someone guiding it or starting it off. The theory, which you'll agree is a very good explanation of evolution, shows us that the process can have no goals or underlying driving force bar natural selection. There are boundless mistakes, over-production of offspring, blind endings and bad moves which do not compute with the God notion, unless you want to give God a major refit. You praised me for being forthright yet not abrasive in the other thread. Perhaps you'll give me cause to return the compliment, but it won't be as a result of this post of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:30 PM

Coming back after a day or two, I find we are back with that old bloody evolution·v·whevs bit again.

Yawwwwnnnnn!

Relevance?

How did that happen?

Out of interest -- where has Clarkson got to?


≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:13 PM

"I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, ..."

But you (spuriously) critise evolutionary biologists for not being able to do "repeatable science" on the past. What's the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:27 PM

Repeatable applies to experimentation. It does not apply to a good deal of what we might call observational evidence and evidence obtained by interpretation, reasoning and fair extrapolation. If I find a dinosaur femur in the cliff over the beach, it may be subjected to dating methods, interpretation of the context of its site, comparative anatomy and its context within the geographical area (etcetera - I'm no Stu). I may never find another specimen, so it's not "repeatable", but it is evidence and, given correct application of the scientific process to it, it's perfectly good scientific evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:03 PM

" Jesus H-come-dancing-Christ" this thread is so trivial and boring - basically who gives a fuck. I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:09 PM

Good to see you distancing yourself from sentient human beings. Saves us doing it. Surely only the faintly mad visit threads they find so tedious. Might I recommend abstinence therefrom?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:43 PM

Shaw - your basic English comprehension skills need polishing.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:50 PM

Really? Lessee:

[Teribus]: "I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't."

"I doesn't"? And you think MY skills are lacking? Heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:20 AM

"ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?"

This isn't even a sentence. Were I to go into the endless detail about how multiple scientific disciplines arrive at their conclusions you'd still come up with some claptrap and ignore that wot I wrote.

So I'll save myself the bother and get on with the science.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:34 AM

But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution,

But we do Steve.
You show your ignorance.
Do you not know any Christians?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:48 AM

I know a christian - my brother in law...

He's an evangelical minister.

He's a very intelligent, decent, witty, keenly sarcastic bloke,
good company on the odd occasions we meet at family gatherings..

yet he believes and preaches we were all created about 4000 years ago..

oh well...

Dunno what he thinks about Jeremy Clarkson though...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM

If I take "Christian" literally, a follower of Christ, then I suppose it's possible to be a Christian who does not believe in a creator of everything. In my experience, Christians in general do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. This is completely incompatible with evolution. No living organism has ever been created in the religious sense of the term. If you don't get that, Keith, I'm afraid that your understanding of evolutionary theory is just as poor as your understanding of history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:16 AM

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.

Is this most Christians that are alive, eminent, not politically inclined and have been published? Or just most Christians in Hertford?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:18 AM

"You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices"

Exquisitely ironic!.....congratulations Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:57 AM

"It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God."
.,,.

It is a fact that, in this particular, most Christians are excellent personifications of a creation of one of their most distinguished writers, John Bunyan: Mr Face-Both-Ways.

I still don't see by what infractuous ways we got here from a supposed discussion of the egregious Clarkson! Are we ever going to get back to the putative topic of this thread?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

Michael - To some, Clarkson IS god!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM

And they are just as deluded as the Christians being berated here! 👍😄

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:58 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.

This post is just a pile of unsupported assertions. At least I did you the honour of explaining my point of view. Now, Keith, it's perfectly clear that whatever understanding you have of evolution is shaky. If you're telling me that your creator God created inanimate matter but has had nothing to do with the origin and evolution of life on Earth, that would be one thing, but it would sound a little as though you were rewriting God. The thing is, you can't even say that God put the stuff in place then let evolution get on with it. The concept of an intelligent driving force involved anywhere in the process is completely at odds with the crucial notions that evolution has no planned trajectory, no goals, no endpoint and no striving (for perfection or otherwise). Tangentially, I suspect that God wouldn't be too happy about the mistakes, the flaws, the evolutionary dead ends and the vast over-production of offspring with its concomitant mass death and disease, essential to evolution. Now you can rewrite God if you like to keep him out of it (please yourself, I'm not bothered), or you can rewrite evolutionary theory (careful now...). But you can't have it both ways. I actually applaud Christians who do want it both ways, because at least they're not brainless fundamentalists like pete, but, sadly, their argument is, er, fundamentally flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:11 AM

"...concept of an intelligent driving force" --- esp as it's peculiarly unintelligent. They once, not long since, remember?, tried to con us with the idea of calling their deity by some such cognomen as "Intelligent Designer". Bloody Unintelligent Designer, I always reckoned him/it/whevs. What intelligent designer would have organised the horrors of childbirth the way it is? Always been happy to be exempt from that bit of design --- ppphhheeewww! & as to the boring & often peculiarly inconvenient necessity to keep on having to interrupt whatever one is busy with to piss or shit! If ever I employed someone supposedly to design something for me who couldn't manage better design than those examples, then his bill would go in the bin as soon as he submitted it & he could whistle [or fart!] for his payment!

≈M≈

Still don't know what all this to do with ole Jeremy Wotzit, mind... But liked your suggestion even so, DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM

And, worse than that, Michael, God put the recreational area right next to the bloody sewage works!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM

Funnily enough, errrmm.. according to certain internet sites..

A large proportion of young American hetero sexual males now seem to lust after that
as the primary recreational area...???

strange old world....??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:47 AM

This thread is taking more twists and turns than some of the contributors arguments :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM

Yes, many posts back silly pete burst on to this thread spouting some claptrap about 'science' (of which he obviously has no understanding whatsoever). His interjections are like the proverbial 'red-rag-to-a-bull' to those of us with a scientific background. I suppose that we should really ignore the ignorant fool but then, perhaps, we have a duty to counter unreason whenever the opportunity presents itself (?) We should really stick to the thread topic though - go away and boil your silly head, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Indeed, Steve ---

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

W B Yeats: Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Well, the thread topic is yesterday's news now, Shimrod. Let's just have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:43 PM

The guy to whom Clarkson gave a knuckle-sandwich has said that he doesn't wish to press for charges.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM

Oisin Tymon is one of the producers on the show, and has been for some years. Clarkson apparently (according to newspaper reports) screamed at him for quite a while because his hot dinner wasn't on the table when he arrived back very late, and then punched him.
Tymon did nothing about it; he turned away and went to the A&E (ER in American) and got himself checked out, as you always should in case of concussion if you have a blow in the face.
Clarkson then tried many times to contact him and apologise, and then went and reported what he had done to his bosses.
He was on his last warning, and so was suspended while there were discussions, and then his contract was terminated.
Oisin Tymon behaved perfectly, doing nothing to make the situation worse, making no report of the assault; he is now refusing to press charges.
It says something about Clarkson's fan base that Tymon is now getting death threats and being mocked on Twitter.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

Shimrod, I see evades the challenges by inferring that I introduced the evolution topic. He is mistaken, but I plead guilty to rising to the challenge when the usual suspects can't help themselves itching for a fight !.   Stu also evading the challenge of how he proposes to do repeatable science on the long gone past by claiming to be above debating me. Bye for now then , stu ?. At least Steve gets that part of it. All he needs to do now is evidence his evolutionary claims, after admitting these are not subject to the scientific method, as just discussed.    Punkfolkrocker, I suspect you mean 6000 yr ago, but glad you speak highly of a brother Christian. Give him my thumbs up if you think about it ,next time you speak.       Shimrod".....repeatable science on bible....evolutionary....what's the difference..."      The difference, shimrod is that you and stu insisted it could be done on the latter !   But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, and your scientific background don't help you defend your beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM

But ars, most christians do not believe the bible. It must be true because Keith said so and he is a christian and therefore cannot lie.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM

In three lines, pete, tell us what you understand by "the scientific method".

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM

I told you that most Christians understand that evolution is a fact.
The Old Testament is an oral tradition thousands of years old.
Of course it is not factual, but it holds many truths.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:03 PM

So you're telling me that most Christians don't believe that God created everything. Fine!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:04 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:16 PM

Then you are not addressing what I've told you. Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all. You can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM

"But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, "

What utter bollocks!! The Bible is just another religious text among hundreds of such texts. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Why single out that particular text? I can only think that it's on the basis of concensus among certain members of a once popular - but declining - religious sect. Oh, but I forgot, for some unaccountable reason, 'concensus' is a dirty word for you, isn't it, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

I think I have the gist of it, Steve. You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth. But it is not all the truth so someone has to tell them which bits are true and which bits are not. Since it is about things that happened in the past I suppose it is classed as a history book so it must be the historians who tell people what to believe :-)Trouble is, it was written by people who are now dead and their truths have now been superseded by other truths that have come to light because the government now let people have access to more facts. Things like education and science.

What I still don't really get is that if it is now accepted that some bits are not true then, presumably, it cannot have come from god because god cannot inspire people to lie, surely? If it does not come from god it must, therefore, come from men. In the word of someone who's name escapes me, it is made up shit. Now,that makes me think that it would be a good idea to make up a new, better religion but if I remember rightly when someone tried that before some christians went ape-shit and said it was mockery and ridicule. So, if one made up religion is mockery and ridicule why is another one adhered to? Easy. The first one has established itself by force. So, what any new religion needs to do is follow the example of the old one and kill, maim and torture people into submission.

We have a lot of work to do, mate...

What has this got to do with Clarkson? I dunno!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:51 AM

Most of the bible is metaphor.

Some people are unable to understand metaphor.

Sometimes the truth requires much thought (Ake....2015)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all.

Evolution is a process that requires no intelligent control.
That would be artificial selection, which we do.

You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth.

You don't see Dave.
Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:49 AM

It's going around on FB that the new favourite for the vacant 'Top Gear' job is Guy Martin, who is anything but a posh-boy.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:06 AM

In my neck of the woods (the American south and southwest, aka The Bible Belt) there are plenty of folk who will assure you that the bible is a historical, factual document.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:15 AM

Steve Shaw, the problem that hampers your understanding of people who accept the findings of science, such as evolution, and are still able to be theists is that you do not understand the nature of belief.
Everyone who believes in a deity either lives with a parodox (possibly several) or adopts a fundamentalist position whereby they deny what is obviously true. Focussing on the former, it is possible to accept paradoxes by recognising that there are things that one does not know, cannot know and will never know. This position seems to enrage (or irritate or confuse or whatever) those who pride themselves on being entirely rational.
There is more than one way of being fundamentalist. Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways.
(By the way, the hubris and arrogance you demonstrated in a previous post in which you suggested that I might need, want or require your approbation was truly breathtaking.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:23 AM

Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept. And selection isn't evolution. You have not addressed the crux of the matter, that evolution and a creator of everything cannot sit alongside each other.

Interesting point about historians, Dave. As the gospel writers whose gospels we accept for biblical use (there are others...) didn't actually know Jesus and were writing many years after his death, they were, de facto, historians. But they're dead.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM

Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.

So, in a nutshell, what is the basis of christian belief?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM

Whatever, Brendan. All I try to do is express what I'm thinking. I see others using careless language here and I have no desire to emulate them.

There is nothing in Christian thinking, as far as I know, that prohibits intellectual grappling. If you see a paradox, you should be asking yourself whether it's a paradox because of incomplete understanding, in which case let's delve more, or whether it's merely an apparent paradox because we're in denial, in which case let's ditch the baggage of preconceptions and take the thing on with ruthless honesty. In the case in point, I've argued that the process of evolution is entirely incompatible with the concept of a creator of everything and I've given my reasons for thinking that. In my opinion, the only possible reconciliation could be achieved either by rewriting God or rewriting evolutionary theory. I'm not up for that and I suspect neither are you. As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know. I suspect that God, having given us mighty brains, would agree with that. By the way, very little that I read on this forum ever enrages me, honest.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:56 AM

"Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways."

Pointing out the inconsistencies in a person's world view is NOT telling them that they are wrong nor is it telling them that they HAVE to recognise anything! There is no element of compulsion! The fact that, when their world view is questioned, theists often agressively claim that they being subjected to some form of compulsion suggests to me that they may be insecure in their beliefs.

As far as I am concerned, everyone is free to believe anything they like - until, that is, if those beliefs are irrational, they try to impose them on others - particularly children.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

" As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know."

Sorry, that's ambiguous. As a scientist I don't accept that, just because there may be things we will never know, we should stop investigating stuff. Phew.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

Dave, I can not put it in a nutshell for you.
Sorry.

Steve,
Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept.
Agreed.
Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

Ok - How about in a paragraph or two? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe he was the son of god? Do you believe god sent him to earth to rid of of our sins? Simple things like that. If so, where did those beliefs come from?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:42 AM

and I am sure we are not contained to the US bible belt either, gillymoor. and I don't suppose keith is lieing but probably mistaken, perhaps taking a more parochial/c of e view than global. but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, as the most have often been wrong before, but persisted in their error for a long time.
steve, there is a longer definition, but since you wanted what I understand by it in 3 lines
begin with your ideas, howsoever arrived at.
test and test again...ie observable, repeatable,
treat as confirmed till such time as demonstrated otherwise.
btw, you say ...selection isn't evolution... as far as I got in origins, it seemed Darwin thought so ? or at least his proposed mechanism ?.
shimrod, when I say the bible accords more with science, I do not so on the flimsy base of consensus.....that is what you do for origins !.
examples.....the bible predicts organisms reproducing after their kind, ie the horse kind , cat kind. mankind, etc. this is observable and repeatable. Darwinism speculates otherwise but never demonstrated it. the bible posits a creator, ie everything that has a beginning must have a cause. evolutionism says everything from, nothing via no one. your , who created God is a non starter because I don't believe in a god that needed to be created. and I would appreciate you laying off the bad lanquage, if you want direct replies, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM

A creator God is not disproved by any of them.

Again, that's just an unsupported assertion. You will note that I'm saying in my posts a God who creates everything. As far as I know, that is the usual Christian view of God. If you have a different version of God who doesn't create everything, let's be having it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

The other contender for Clarkson's ex-job is, apparently, Chris Evans. Oh dear! 😳

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM

". . . everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Prima facie that looks to be true, but it's a tough one to prove, Pete. We make the assumption that there is a cause, but how can that be demonstrated? I suppose that eventually every interaction that transpires has a cause and a cause before that, etc, but at what point in the interactions does God/god/G-d enter the equation? And what is god? If god is the ignition switch then god's job is finished once the motor starts running. It often boils down to the questions of riddle and paradox. Can god devise a question he is unable to answer?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:36 AM

Oooh - Do I see the start of a religious war? ars believes the bible is true while Keith says it is not so but still believes in god and that JC was his son? Who will be first to burn the other as a heretic I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM

"but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, ..."

What is it with you and consensus, pete?

Imagine you've been accused of [insert crime] and been tried in a court of law for it. The jury has reached its verdict and the judge sums up:

Judge: "Peter Seven Stars, you have been found guilty of [insert crime] and I will now pass sentence. Now I know that eleven jurors decided that you were innocent - but we all know that consensus is bollocks, don't we? The twelth juror, though, thought that you were guilty as hell and as I like the cut of his jib and he's wearing a blue jumper - my favourite colour is blue - I'll go with what he thinks. I hereby sentence you to 10 years in jail without remission. Take him down!"

You wouldn't like that, would you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith.
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

Pete and I disagree, but why would we burn each other?
Intelligent, tolerant people do not behave like that.

The headline for the main leader in New Scientist this week,

"Thank god for civilisation
The idea that religion led to modernity is gaining strength"

Dave, I decline to explain my faith to you.
If you really wanted to know about Christianity, the answers are very easy to find.
You are just looking for ammunition to use in your mocking and ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:36 AM

I've been an agnostic / rational / humanist since my teens.
I'm happy enough to lead a life of benign indifference
- I don't care what other folks worship
as long as they don't try to impose their control on me
or the institutions and laws that regulate our shared culture & society...

If a scientist can positively reconcile a faith in a god
with such an intellectually vigorously demanding chosen professional vocation
- well that's a fair compromise innit ...???

But any person of extreme faith who denies the value of science
with venomous hostility - what an ignorant dangerous pillock !!!

there.. surely those are easy enough ideas to live with.....

Now off to plug a guitar into a fuzz box and amp and rock away an hour
before the mrs gets back from the shops....


.. and as for Jeremy Clarkson, I really don't care if he definitely does exist
or is not just a construct of any tenuous grasp on reality...??? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:38 AM

And why, if that really is Keith, are you not logged in?

I know about faith. My Grandfather was a priest and my Dad was deeply religious until the day he died. I went to a faith school from 1957 until 1969. I was an altar boy, first in the Russian Orthodox church and then the Catholic church. I studied the bible and other christian texts as part of my higher education. I know that the whole basis for christianity is that Jesus was the son of god, sent down to absolve us of original sin that was put there by his dad in the first place. All these things are in the bible and it is no good saying the old testament does not count, as it is the basis for the new.

So, tell us then, either trolling guest or Keith if that really is you. How do you decide which bits of the bible are true and which bits are not?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Guest #.....an interesting and intriguing post, why cant more members look at things a little more deeply.....all the best...A

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:11 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.
I am a member of CofE.
I doubt any member believes that the universe began with a 6 day conjuring trick 4000 years ago, and that is no part of the teaching of my church.
Or Jonah living inside a whale, or pairs of animals boarding an ark.
This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.

If and when you do, I will believe it.

In the meanwhile

This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.

No it isn't. It is from the bible. A book that millions of people use as the basis for their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM

'How do you decide which bits of the Bible are true and which bits are not?'

That is a very reasonable question. Unfortunately I do not think that there is a single answer. I know how I do it. The Gospels contain a view of how life should be lived to which I subscribe. I suppose it is not a question of whether it is all literally true but whether the underlying message resonates with me, and it does. The Old Testament traces (supposedly) the history of the Jewish race; it is treated with respect in most Christian churches because some of it foreshadows the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ. However, it is my perception that a good many Christians give scant attention to the Old Testament and that most recognise that it is more myth than reality. The fact is that truth is a slippery customer and that religious belief cannot be equated with objective truth, unless of course you are a fundamentalist, which I am not.

Shimrod, when I used the word 'must' in the post to which you objected I was not suggesting compulsion but implying that it was Steve Shaw's view that one could not, logically, think in that way. I thought that that was quite clear, I apologise for confusing you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:38 PM

Well there's a fair chance that much of the four gospels is also myth. The jury's definitely out on whether Jesus even existed at all, and there are some pretty irreconcilable inconsistencies between the four accounts. It seems to me that, as the accounts were written long after the death of Jesus, they are most likely not intended to be historical documents, more a tendentiously produced manifesto for a new religion. Much of what Jesus is alleged to have said resonates with me, too, but some of it doesn't. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and turning the other cheek to someone who's attacked you, sound suspiciously like hippie philosophy to me.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:46 AM

Confirming my posts.
Dave, those ancient stories were passed on orally for millennia before they were ever written down.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:55 AM

For the record, everything Musket said on the closed scots thread about me and about meeting me is untrue, except that I believe there is only one person writing his posts

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:21 AM

If the Romam Emperor, Constantine (reigned 306 337 AD) had not adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire, would we have even heard of it - or would it now be regarded as just an obscure ancient cult, known only to a few historians?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:22 AM

Thanks Keith - Hope you understand my doubts.

So, what bits do you believe in?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

Would there be any way (as is done on other forums) to ask people who want to talk about creationism vs evolution to do it on a thread that's specifically for that purpose, and perhaps for the mod to direct people there, and if they continue to discuss it on another thread to suspend their posting rights?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

None of the famous four gospels was written before at least forty years had passed since Jesus's death. Think what that means with regard to all those "quotations" of his that form the bedrock of Christianity. Tape recorders didn't exactly exist in those days. The only references to the man Jesus we have are all by the religious writers who were on his side. There is not a single reference to Jesus in any secular source from the time, and sources from the time are abundant. Rather strange. I should like to know how these facts sit with your take on what represents valid historical sources and legitimate historians, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:01 AM

Go with the flow, Thompson. I know that this blatant thread drift seems a bit odd, but do you really think there much more to be said about Jezza? Is preserving this thread in its pure form really that important?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

Apparently the boss of the BBC has received death threats for sacking Clarkson......what a mad society we are creating.

Almost everyone seems to live in "medialand"......is this Orwell's 1984 for the 21st century?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:03 AM

You're probably right, Ake. It's both pathetic and scary at the same time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:29 AM

Recent myth has it that all their contracts expire at the same time, and JC sold his part of the progrsamme to the BBC not that long ago.
And talk of setting up a rival in America. And he has made a few friends in the Hollywooden Glitterati over the years.

Well I did posit to the effect, was this stupidity or tactical agenda.

Methinks I was right to be cynical. He is not stupid, he just does stupid things. A lot of them scripted.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:43 AM

The Rt Rev Keith A Hole of Hertford posted;

"Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them."

Perhaps, but neither is the idea that my pet dog created them, using the same evidence base.

Also, using the logic of theology, never mind science, Hawking put forward the perfectly reasonable theory that not only do you not need a God for the big bang, but the physics of the big bang preclude the very idea of it being created. There could be no conscious thought process to cause the big bang because cause and effect requires time, and time is a product, not a component of the big bang.

Presumably, there was a shortage of science teachers in Hertford. Anybody with an inkling of understanding would see that you were being disingenuous when you said "every other natural process."

That's the problem with God botherers. They cannot accept that it is a nice for them but otherwise irrelevant hobby, and try to twist science to accommodate their fantasy.

Dangerous fuckers, to a man.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM

I rather like the bifurcatory nature of this thread!

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now and not such a good proposition. He cuts a picture of a somewhat ageing, scruffy, lonely, dyspeptic old bloke when you see the paparazzi shots of him having a fag outside his place. Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:56 AM

". . . and time is a product, not a component of the big bang."

That is both profound and thought provoking. And true à part de ça.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

Still this assumption that there actually was a happening or occasion or whatever which is subsumed under that catchall nomenclature 'Big Bang'. I OPd a thread some years ago which ran&ran&ran for a good while, asking simply "What went Big Bang?" I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:50 AM

There are only two choices. Either the universe always existed or it started at some point. Since the universe seems to be, it therefore started at some point which is called the big bang. Unless you see another way.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Big band or wet fart...

- either way, we're all here and now adrift and along for the ride
on this deteriorating planet and need to make the best of it...

We're having tesco oven cook fish and chips soon
and settling down to watch a tripe blockbuster movie...

Wouldn't even have noticed Top Gear is cancelled...

Life really ain't so bad as it could be............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM



Oh, just wait until they give Clarkson's old job to the Ginger Tosser.... 😳

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:29 AM

What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now

Like Clinton was over (pun intended) our Monica?

The American public are not that different from the UK.
Blokey peeps love a blokey peep. He is bucks office. A bit sordid, and a lot grubby. He will be a hit (pun intended) - watch this space.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:39 AM

"What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!"

LOL. No, Steve - Chris Evans! Personally, I'd far prefer Guy Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:44 AM

I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

Well, Michael, there's plenty of evidence for what happened between a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang right up to now. That evidence demolishes any concept of an eternal steady-state universe. It's not a copout because we're still looking. Copout concepts are those concepts that satisfy the incurious and the science-deniers. God is the greatest copout concept because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence, in spite of its incredibly high improbability. One concept is questioned to exhaustion, with all the scientific and intellectual resources we can muster ploughed into the quest, while the other is not allowed to be questioned at all in the minds of so many people. To equate them as both being copouts is, well, a bit of a copout really...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:46 AM

I sincerely hope you don't think I didn't know who you meant, Backwoodsman! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

"Big band or wet fart... "... oops... errmmm specsavers here I come...

.. unless of course Stan Kenton or Syd Lawrence created the Universe...???😕

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:05 PM

because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence,

No-one is told to believe in Him.
You can not order belief.
Those that do believe still question, and experience doubt.
They are no less intelligent even than you Steve.
(Or even Musket, the other three in one.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:16 PM

"No-one is told to believe in Him."

Disagree strongly...

can't say how different it might be nowadays
but back in a west country C of E infant school in the early 1960s
we were taught bible stories as if they were historical fact.

And also in primary school, morning assembly prayers and hymns were imposed
still with the presumption all us small kids accepted & believed..

Don't recall any token mention of comparative religions & belief
until starting grammar school.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:18 PM

OK, Steve -- so what DID go Big Bang, then? And don't say again it was the primal particle, or some such. Particle of what? Located where? Which came whence? Which, as Ben Elton points out in one of his novels, is well-known to be questions that only stupid people ask [ie bloody everybody, and only a liar will say different]. Don't tell me it's a concept with any more validity than God -- in whom, BTW, I don't believe; He/It/Whevs as big a copout as B. Bang Esq. But then, "Steady-State" doesn't tell us that much either, does it?

At least Mr Clarkson seems to be an identifiable entity of some sort...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:20 PM

..."ARE well known", sodit

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:33 PM

PFR, it was the same in my school and all UK schools before the 70s, but none of my friends were practising Chritians, and the ones I remain in touch with still are not.
It did not make you believe either.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:43 PM

"It did not make you believe either.2

.. well from what I can remember..
it wasn't until well into my teens
I became sufficiently equipped with the intellectual tools and confidence
to question and counteract years of institutionalized christian indoctrination...

Same more or less with my close group of school friends.

It's a different story for my wife
[who I met when we were students on the same Polytechnic humanities subjects degree]

She's the product of a evangelical religious upbring in a tiny isolated village.
her brother is even a full time evangelical minister.

I'm an agnostic - she still has remnants of belief and fear of the devil...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:10 PM

MGM - Best explanation I have seen is...

We don't know. Something went bang, that is a provable fact. What went bang is not known. I favour the energy peak (or trough) but there is no proof. It may have been god who went bang. We cannot prove or disprove it. But if it was, his work was done billions of years ago :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:17 PM

Michael, if I tell you we still don't know, do you absolutely promise not to say that it didn't happen, then? We are within billionths of a second of the event out of over 13 billion years. We may get there, we may not, but at least science is honest enough to admit that we're not quite there. The steady state theory is adhered to these days only by the ornery, and creationism not only relies on having faith instead of evidence :-) but also on denying all the evidence we do have for the Big Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:22 PM

Brain washing..

I often wonder, if my brothers, father, uncles and grandfather hadn't been Sheffield Wednesday fans, would I have been a season ticket holder myself from the age of six?

Same with religion for others., although obviously not as satisfying as something important and relevant like football. It must have pissed off and confused the missionaries to find that despite God, Jesus etc being their big cheese and blamed for creating etc, that the local natives had never heard of him.

I am lucky in that my parents taught me how to think not what to think. I like to think I passed that on to my boys.

The main problem with religion, and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then, mine being that Rachel Riley off Countdown, is those too shallow or intelligent to see it as faith and look for literal aspects.*

A bit like Michael looking for a literal big bang. Presumably looks for loose change flying around the screen when watching bongo flicks and it comes to the money shot...



*I've never seen Countdown with her on it, but have watched Eight out of Ten Cats do Countdown.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:06 PM

and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then

It's a funny thing, Musket, but if you compare the bible and the silmarilion they are spookily silmilar. Silmarilion may be better written but that is just my preference. Concepts are identical. I wonder if, in a couple of thousand years, someone with no knowledge of either, would like to confirm which people believed?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:08 PM

Anyway, no answer so far. Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith? Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:17 PM

I count my self fortunate that
even though my parents were 'only' menial manual factory worker and cleaner / care worker,
they were idealistic progressive post war young socialists.

They deliberately abstained from having me and sibling christened,
wanting us to make our own minds up when we were old enough.

So the reality was a total absence of any religion at home
to reinforce all the dogma encountered at school
and whatever other reactionary influences outside our house.

What still amuses me - at start of the new term,
4th year class after our grammar was converted to a comprehensive.

The form teacher called us all up to front of the class one at a time
to fill in registration forms.

He was middle aged, ex army, fought in the war [metal work teacher if I remember correct]

He noticed I hadn't filled in the required box for religion.

I answered "Sir, my mum and dad didn't have me christened"

His indignant reply "Nonsense boy, you're Church of England - now go back to your desk"

as he ticked the box for me.....

If he's still alive I bet he'd be a Jeremy Clarkson fan....😜

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:39 PM

Lovely story, PFR. Reminds me of my late mate Adam, rest his soul. Was old enough to do national service in the RAF. He well remembered the drill on a Sunday. Fall out, Jews, Roman Catholics and other denominations... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:15 PM

well#, while admitting to a faith position, I believe it is supported by observations and daily experience over all time. to say that everything with a beginning needs a cause, accords with that overwhelming simple science of observation and experience. that is probably as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !. lion asks what went bang ?. there was absolutely nothing to go bang. surely we are left with either a theological miracle, or secular miracles. and as great creationist scientists in past time have demonstrated, such a position spurred on science, rather than hindered it. by contrast the evolution belief has oftimes hindered it by its slavish devotion to darwinist dogma. steve asserts masses of evidence for his faith, but don't share it with us, other than yet more assertions. I reckon it is steve, and his fellow believers who deny the evidence for creation, and against evolutionism, but of course they can just put it down to further research needed !
and btw, #, there are some things God cannot do. one is , as scripture says is lie. it is also no reflection on his being and attributes that he could not construct a puzzle he could not solve...quite the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Pete, is English your first language? If so, can you answer me a simple question that Keith seems to have problems with please? What bits of the bible are true?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:28 PM

It is not possible to discuss anything constructively with someone who can post that drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM

Not sure that PFR's teacher would be a Jeremy Clarkson fan. I recall a magazine article where he said he was irreligious, a stance I too am comfortable with. Just like being aphilatelist or aincestous.

What's all this bollocks about God not being able to lie? Why do you put that pete?

After all, if what I heard is true, he loves us. The lie being the work I have been involved with at a children's hospice. If he was more than your vivid imagination, he'd be a bigger bastard than Hitler for that one. At least Hitler never claimed to love his victims.

Mind you, at least you aren't a hypocrit. Keith picks and chooses between the absurd and more benign aspects of the Bible and still claims to be a Christian. Boutique Christians are a laughing stock because they at least show enough intelligence to realise the absurdity of it all. They just use it to look smug.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:09 PM

i'm sorry dave, I thought you were baiting keith with that question. a simple question you say ?. you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith, as you say you already do. now why would I suspect you were trying to trick me ?. perhaps I should be more charitable and at least answer the specifics you asked keith. yes I do believe that Christ came from God, died for us, that all who believe and repent may be saved, rose from the dead, and ascended after, to the Father. no problem for God since he is he who spoke creation into being.....but then you knew what I believe, didn't you. and as keith is not addressing me, I don't intend to get involved about whether a pick and choose bible belief is valid or not, with him. he is right though that neither of us would burn the other.
steve, the former science teacher,....that the best you can do.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 07:30 PM

Is that the best I can do? Let's see. You appear to expect a sane and sensible person to address this gem:
contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !.
Then yes, it's the best I can do. And if that's the best you can do, I feel bloody sorry for you. It's tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM

that all who believe and repent may be saved

Did he say anything about those who neither believe nor repent but who still manage to lead good lives? What if there are people who believe, but who rob and cheat people all their lives, abandon their wife and kids, drive drunk, etc., but then repent quite late on, sort of thing...do they get more of a leg up than the non-believing, non-repenting good guys? Have you thought that through? Has God thought that through?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 AM

Repentance late in life. One way of hedging your bets apparently. A bit like taking a tablet for the hangover of last night's drinking session.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:23 AM

No tricks, Pete. So, you believe all of it I gather. I think that is fair enough. If you believe all of it then, yes, anything is possible. I don't believe any of it, which is also fair enough. As long as you don't try to force your beliefs on other people we have no quarrel. Why would you say you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith though when I have already explained that I do understand it? What I am trying to understand is what bits of the bible people believe to be fact and which bits are fiction. If it is permissible to pick and chose bits then which bits do you pick and chose and why?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:03 AM

Dave makes the important point of understanding doesn't mean accepting.

A lot of people cannot make this distinction. Presumably "to know him is to love him " has sinister overtones after all?

I'll never see Maddy Prior in the same light again 😥

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

" ... as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, ..."

Oh dear!

1. The word "logical" DOES NOT mean "pete's preferred explanation"!

2. Where in the Bible (apparently your only reference book) does it say that God is "outside of that space/time/matter creation"?

3. You're conflating scientific theories concerned with the development of life on this planet (the "general theory of evolution") with scientific theories concerned with the origin of the Universe.

4. I've asked you this a million trillion times (and I've told you not to exaggerate!) but where did God come from (bearing in mind that you've probably made up the bit about Him being "outside of that space/time/matter creation") and where did he get his materials from?

5. And you STILL haven't learned that gas IS a form of matter, have you, pete!!!! Extraordinary!!! You, a complete scientific ignoramus, could boil some ordinary tap water to make steam (a gas), condense the steam to turn it back into water (a liquid) and freeze that water to make ice (a solid): gases, liquids and solids - all forms of matter! If God created you, he really missed quite a few bits off, didn't he, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith?

There is no way of knowing silly.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:00 AM

Then it's very much like your take on history, Keith. The problem with not knowing which bits are true is that you can't trust a single word of any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM

I will assume you are not being purposely thick, Keith, and it was my poor phrasing.

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

No.
On History, I believe the historians if there is a consensus.
Their findings are based on research subjected to the scrutiny of rivals.

On the history of WW1 I expressed views on which there is a consensus of historians, and has been for about twenty years.
Reading their work is how I came to hold those views.

You and a few others ridiculed me for that.
You Steve even made a little joke about the historians needing to "grow up."
You imagined that you knew more about that history than the historians whose life work it is.
Such arrogance and hubris!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:20 AM

Dave, a few weeks ago you acknowledged that you only came on to a thread to mock and ridicule me, and told me to "live with it."

You now ask me to lay bare to you my deepest faith and beliefs.
I choose to decline, respectfully.

The teachings of the Anglican Church are available for scrutiny.
On these issues they do not differ from Catholicism, Methodism and most others.
My beliefs are broadly in line with the teachings of the Anglican Church of which I am a member.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:33 AM

I did indeed, Keith, and on that thread you deserved everything you got. You are now going the same way on this thread by twisting and distorting what people say. I am not asking you to lay bare your deepest anything. I am asking you which bits of the bible you believe are true and which bits are made up shit. A couple of examples will be fine. Yes, the teachings of the Anglican church are as you say. But your beliefs are 'broadly in line with' so they do not concur exactly. How are we to know which bits you chose to follow and which bits you disagree with unless you tell us?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 AM

If I recall accurately, the joke Keith is referring to went something like:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Do note "Keith's" there. The joke was entirely on you, Keith, no-one else. Keith is so bad at getting jokes that I sometimes think he must be a yank. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:50 AM

He's certainly yanking something...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:16 AM

I find it astonishing that Keith is prepared to rubbish every WW1 Historian who wrote prior to 1995 but is quite happy to believe a book written up to 3,500 years ago.

Even the most recent of the New Testaments are almost 2,000 years old and were written decades, if not a century, after the demise of all the people who were supposed to be the "main players"

As for his comment that "no-one is told to believe in him" I have seldom heard such tosh. Yet another example of sheer ignorance and lack of basic understanding

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

I promise that I wouldn't dream of saying "it didn't happen", Steve.

Whatever "it" may have been...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:23 AM

Will this do

B A N G

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:32 AM

I have just solved a couple of mysteries. Once upon a time an all powerful being got so full of shit he went bang and the universe was created! So there WAS a creator. Shame he couldn't stick around.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:13 AM

Let's just enjoy the quest, Michael, and luxuriate in the thought that science, at least, tries not to indulge in the intellectual copouts that are the bedrock of all religion. What on earth would God think of our refusing to use the mighty brains he endowed us with?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM

OK, let's --

Our Big Bang which art in ∞ville...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.

Musket said, "those historians should know better."

The views I put forward are a consensus of the current generation of historians.
In two years none of you were able to find a single one who was not one of "keith's historians."

You people mocked and ridiculed their findings and imagine you know better than them.

You mock Pete for not believing the scientists on science, but you people refuse to believe the historians on history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:24 AM

"You people"

A bit desperate if you don't mind me saying so.

The historians you refer to are expressing views based on their take of the known facts. I and anyone else for that matter can read those facts and form different conclusions. It isn't difficult. The main difference between Max Hastings and me is that I was a professional investigator who has a postgraduate qualification in investigative practice and assessing evidence, and a track record in prosecuting successfully.

But if you have a different view given the facts, that's fine.

You don't say that though do you Keith? You say that clever people conclude something so none of us by have the right to contradict them. You mock people for displaying Intelligence and independent opinions.

No wonder you are impressed by dog collars and gilded statues....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

Here's the confounded joke again:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Now here's what Keith thinks my joke said:

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.

"They should grow up I said". Well no, I didn't say that or anything like it, did I, Keith? There it is in black and white. Nothing in the joke about telling historians they should grow up, eh, Keith. And you wonder why people vilify you for being inaccurate, unreliable and untruthful. Blimey, I think I feel one of those Guardian misquote moments coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM

Quotes? But Keith always puts "" when quoting, doesn't he?

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

Looks like the poor bugger couldn't even get on the UKIP candidate panel....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.

Musket, you chose Hastings, the only one of the historians I quoted who is not a senior professor in a university History Faculty.

Have you yet found a single historian who has written anything in the last twenty years supporting your views?

No.
They should know better, right Musket?
They need to grow up, right Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

It was a quote.
I showed it to you proving it was a quote from a UKIP site.
I am not and never have been UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:28 AM

Ever he the old joke about the lady carrying the pig and the drunk sitting near the gutter?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:53 AM

yes steve, repentance and faith are available to all, even late in life. that might be the obviously outwardly sinful, or the prideful, not so obvious impenitent. in theology this is known as saving grace on the part of God. do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM

.. so providing Hitler managed to squeeze out a quick prayer in his last few minutes
he might actually now be sitting in the lounge bar of Heaven
next to my dear old grandmother
who probably never did a really bad deed in her entire life...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM

.. in which case there might still be hope yet for Jeremy Clarkson in the afterlife...
if he quickly prays every time before getting in a fast car
or smoking a cigarette...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

What sort of a daft question is that and how come you only use a capital letter when referring to god rather than at the beginning of sentences?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM

.. thinking a bit more...

so if Hitler repented at the last minute, reserving a place on the waiting list for heaven,
then he goes and blows his chances by committing suicide.... ooops !!!

Careful with the fast driving & smoking Clarkson,
there might be a lesson to be learnt there...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:55 PM

Still no response from Professor KAOH re his ignoring a myriad of books written by people who actually took part in WW1 who he has dismissed and his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago.

How strange ..............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:08 PM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.

Your twisting and turning on this is risible. I'm inclined to retort that it's my joke and I get to decide what the butt of it is, but I won't. Suffice to say that there is a world of difference between proper historians as a body of personages and Keith's historians as a body of personages. The former represent an august and respectable cadre, the latter a tawdry, hand picked, misrepresented and misquoted unfortunate bunch indeed. Something even mythological about them, really. Gosh, I feel sorry for Geoffrey Wheatcroft. If I have any more jokes I'll likely run them by you first, Keith, in order to get your preliminary take. If there's one thing I can't be doing with it's having to explain jokes. The moment all too quickly passes. Usually.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:29 PM

ok dave, hopefully we are more or less clear on that one !.

shimrod, re your numbered points..
1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !. and it is perfectly logical, and accords with experience and observation, to say that creation has a creator. granted, that in itself is not proof. your preference has yet to demonstrate logicality, and is contrary to experience and observation.
2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth.   i think we are agreed that time had a beginning. but God was at the beginning, and began it.
3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,
4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.
5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at. indeed ice is a solid, water liquid, and steam a gas . have you witnessed it becoming anything else ? or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else, let alone life, and the information to sustain it ?.
the irony is, that the bible describes water as being Gods starting material in creation.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:38 PM

"water... or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else ?"

errrmmm.......wine".. Jesus the miraculous party dude...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 PM

his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago

Sorry, Raggy, but he has got you on that one. He does not believe all of it, only part. What parts he does and does not believe is secret and we can only guess as to what they are. If anyone does guess he can, of course, then say 'no, that is wrong' and no-one will be any the wiser. You've got to hand it to the lad. Got it all covered.

I have learned from a master so I will give it a go myself. Things said about Keith
1. He is a liar.
2. He is a cheat.
3. He is thoroughly despicable.
4. He is from Hertford.
5. He has 2 willies.
6. He pisses champagne.
7. He is a complete tosser.
8. His mother is a hamster.
9. His father smells of elderberries.
10. He can twist the words of anyone to mean anything at will.

Of course, I only believe some of those things, but as my beliefs are deeply founded and personal I cannot possibly let you know which ones...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM

Steve, I quoted all the current historians writing on WW1.
They are all heads or senior professors of university history departments except Hasting who writes books.

Name one who is "tawdry."
None were misquoted. I quoted them with links so the quote could be seen in its intended context.

You people could not find one historian who had written anything in the last twenty years that disagreed.

Name one of "Keith's historians" who you think should be dismissed Steve.

Do you agree with Musket that, "those historians should know better?"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:33 PM

Dave, You are correct to a point ........... however the Professor dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995 even the one's who took part and/or witnessed events for themselves.

They, according to his infinite wisdom, are unreliable and we should discount anything they have contributed.

HOWEVER, the bible, parts of which were written three and half thousand years ago, should be accepted as gospel as it were.

Neither you or I know which bits of course, that's secret, but then why should mere lessor mortals such as you and I be party to such knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Raggy, it is not me who "dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995."
It is the current generation of historians.

Then there was no consensus on those issues.
Now there is.

You people think the current historians are all deluded fools.
Why would anyone think that?
I am no historian.
I get my views on history from reading the historians whose life's work it is.
You people think you know better than those historians.
Fine.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:42 PM

Just watched the BBC drama, 'The Ark'. Funnily enough it was all those who did not believe in god that drowned. What a bastard he must have been. Oh look. I have cocked it up. Best kill this lot off and replace them with yes men. Nowt down for us, lads. Sorry. Still, at least we won't have to put up with Keith and Pete being insufferably smug...

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 PM

They have a lot to be "smug" about!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:01 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

Well, a couple of things. As I've said many times before, I don't not believe in God. I don't know whether there's a God or not. I hate to tell you this, but neither do you. The difference between us is that I seek out all the evidence I can to try and make a judgement whereas you rely entirely on faith. By evidence, I mean stuff that can be corroborated and that emanates from the laws of nature. I can't find anything in any description of God that fits that bill. What I don't accept as evidence is myth, ancient stories written down and/or made up by scribes who had an agenda, tradition, ceremony, edicts coming from holy men and witness. The case against is, in my mind, further strengthened by claims made about God that he is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful and eternal. Everything that you can think of that goes against the laws of nature, in fact. The explanation of everything in the universe, including all life on earth, is that God created it all. Yet the greatest theologians of all time can't answer that most childish of questions, who made God then?

The universe is vast and complex, and, in my view, the only way to explain it is by resorting to our scientific endeavour. That is not empty words. It means ruthless pursuit of knowledge by means of gathering real evidence. It means not falling back on silly notions about "greater truths" and the like, words that are just that, words. You can't explain something as complex and diverse as the universe by inventing an explanation that is not only infinitely more complex than the thing it attempts to explain but which for itself there is neither explanation nor evidence. So I'm on the fence, but both arms, both legs and my big arse are all on one side, while on the other you might just glimpse the tips of my fingernails.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:09 PM

Keith, with all the respect I can muster, and I speak for myself though I may get support, I'm sick to the back teeth of you and your historians. You have used a joke I first made months ago to resurrect the damn thing, so round and round and round we go. You know that you will not get anyone additional to agree, so give up why don't you. The thing is dead. The horse will no longer whinny. The tank is empty. I look deep into the topic's eyes but there's no-one driving. Most important, the sword of truth is not in your scabbard. Do those goths still hang around the canal bank in Hertford?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:22 AM

Meanwhile over in Dumbfuckistan, this just in.

The state of Indiana has just enacted a religious freedom and protection act.

Apparently it's not exactly freedom and protection as such but the freedom for Christians to discriminate against people they don't like, even in business.

By the people, for the people
That was Lincoln's vow
But what the hell would Abraham Lincoln say
If he could see America now?

(Dick Gaughan)

Some people say that Clarkson is too ironic for his own good. Looking at the world around us, he seems to have a lot of material to be going on with.

Poor Keith. He really is having problems coming to terms with being out of step with reality. Can't tell the difference between a discovery that clicks into a scientific jigsaw and an opinion that gives a version of interpreting facts, or historian commentary as it's known. It really troubles him that some of us can interpret facts for ourselves. Judging by past form. It isn't Keith you should be asking re which parts of the Bible he believes Dave. Ask his vicar. He prefers to repeat views of others rather than have a mind of his own.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (The Gas Pedant)
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:48 AM

pete, re your numbered points... following my numbered points ... errr

1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !...

But my 'preference' (i.e. the explanation which I find to be the most credible) is based on evidence gathered by many, many talented scientists over many decades. Your preference, on the other hand, is based on a concensus (Oooh! Dirty word!), among you and your fellow cultists, that the myths and parables in an old book are an expression of absolute truth.

2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth...

"it is inferred by his description" in the Bible, you mean? But few people, except you and your fellow cultists, believe that the Bible represents absolute truth. And, apart from some words in the Bible, there would appear to be no evidence that your God even exists. Of course, words in an old religious text don't count as evidence.

3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,

Whatever! I made this point just to emphasise your general ignorance about modern science.

4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.

Again, what you choose to believe, or not to believe, is irrelevant! Only evidence counts!

5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at ...

But, pete, someone who does/did not not know the elementary scientific fact that gas is a form of matter, should not really be attempting to enter into a scientific debate. In scientific terms you're a bit like someone who doesn't know that B follows A in the alphabet! You're a bit like someone who can't spell CAT trying to lecture us on feline taxonomy!

If you want to enter into a debate about science, pete, please go away and do some homework! Although I suspect that you'll be away for a very long time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

What is "smug" as opposed to smug? Anyone any idea what it is on about?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

Why are people being so personally mean to Keith? His views are different from mine, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be personally mocked for them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:27 AM

Nobody mocks his views

His assurance that everybody else is wrong and his mocking of any view. Or his frantic googling in order to find some obscure crap that makes views of others look suspect.

If you read his posts you will see his childish behaviour on view.

No. His actual views. Hospitals and schools are legitimate targets for Israeli militants. British Muslims of Pakistani origin are potential rapists as it is hardwired into them. Sending waves of men over the top into machine gunfire was good leadership and the men understood this and supported the tactic. Only UKIP have their finger on the immigration pulse. That he never met someone who met him so that person is a liar rather than his memory failed him.

They are just views sunshine.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:32 AM

"Why are people so mean to Keith"......the people who are mean to Keith, have just been comprehensively defeated in debate on another thread by Keith, Teribus and Lighter.....among others.
They have simply fallen back to their default position.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:11 AM

I must have missed that one.

I'll see if Musket was on duty that day.

What was the subject worm? Fascist pin up models?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:45 AM

In all the time I've been on here, I've never seen anyone victoriou or vanquished. The arguments just go on and on until one of us decides to go for a bike ride.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:16 AM

Musket, those are not my views.
Steve, it was not me who "resurrected" the history debate.
I just responded.
Of course you people are sick of the historians.
They all refute the claims you people made about WW1.
You were wrong to ridicule me for just repeating what they are all saying.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM

Steve, it was YOU who resurrected the history debate, 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM

The ONLY person who has made ANY claim regarding historians is Professor KAOH, he is the one who dismissed the work of ALL historians who wrote prior to 1995 but he still maintains he partially believes in a book that was written up to 3,500 years ago.

Illogical to say the least.

And we still don't know which bits he regards as truth and which bits as fairy stories .............. or perchance untruths.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:41 AM

I faith in Musket's epistles. Not all of them. Some are true and some are not. But I will not tell anyone which ones I believe...

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

Just so long as you keep the faith and remain prompt when subscriptions are due....

Oh and have them not just faith them. I've had to put an occasional table over that bit of the carpet since the last acolyte faithed in the corner. The dog remains traumatised.

Oh, one for Keith. If they aren't your views either get the moderators to delete the posts you put them in as you must have an imposter or look on your keyboard for " and learn not only how to use them but give us a clue why you post the words in the first place if you wish to disassociate yourself from what you post.

Bad enough the real one without a bloody tribute act....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

I did NOT resurrect the flippin' history debate, Keith. I merely informed you that your understanding of evolution is as poor as your grasp of history. That is all I said. That is not "resurrecting" a debate that shuffled off its mortal coil weeks ago. You pounced on it gleefully to see if you could squeeze a drop more ire out of us. It's what you do, Keith. Now, as you lost that debate somewhere in a mire of inexactitudes of your own fashioning, might I gently advise you to just laugh at my extremely hilarious joke, then BLOODY LET IT DROP??

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:24 AM

"indeed ice is a solid, water liquid, and steam a gas . have you witnessed it becoming anything else ?"

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:28 AM

Musket, I do not understand your last post.
Raggy,
Professor KAOH, he is the one who dismissed the work of ALL historians who wrote prior to 1995

Not true.
Back then some historians backed my current views and some backed yours.
It is the current historians who now dismiss the views of Taylor and Clark.
Not me.
I am not an historian.

On matters of history, I believe the historians.
You people think you know more than all those professors whose life's work it is.
Fine, but the rest of us find you ridiculous

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

I merely informed you that your understanding of evolution is as poor as your grasp of history. That is all I said. That is not "resurrecting" a debate

The only history you and I have debated is that of WW1.
You claimed I had a poor grasp of it.
My views on WW1 derive from reading the history of that war.
I was able to quote many historians in support of my views, which I formed from reading their work anyway.
You people could find nothing written less than twenty years ago to support your views.

That is why I refuted that slur.
YOU resurrected the issue Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:47 AM

Back to the main point tell us about the Bible Professor, which bits are truth and which bits are lies. It is truly humbling to hear the words of a master such as yourself ..................

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:46 AM

Lies are intended to deceive.
I do not believe the bible is the literal truth, or history, but not lies.

Do not expect me to lay bare my beliefs here to be mocked and ridiculed.
I am an Anglican, a church with tens of millions of members world wide.
My views are broadly in line with the teachings of my church, which is broadly in line with those of the Catholic Church, Methodists and others.

If you need help to find what those teachings are I am willing to help.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:50 AM

and of course you don't lie, do you professor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:19 AM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:22 AM

I am confused now. You co not believe the bible is the literal truth, you do not believe it is history and you do not believe it is not lies. What is it then? Besides 'broadly in line with' can mean anything. What a cop out. But like the god theory really.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:33 AM

Not much of a Christian either

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

OK, Keith, an evangelist told us that Jesus fed five thousand with five loaves and two fishes. That is either true or false. If it's false, and an evangelist told us it, and it's in the Bible, isn't it a lie? A lie in the Bible? Or do you believe that little nugget? If you do believe it, doesn't that sit rather uneasily with your claim that we shouldn't believe historians (who, at least, were real human beings) that were writing before your mercilessly-recent cutoff date? An evangelist, moreover, who was very pro-Jesus, writing two thousand years ago, whose identity we can't even be sure of, and who was writing long after Jesus's death? But if you don't believe it, then aren't you saying that the Bible can tell lies? What's it to be on this one, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM

How many folksongs tell the literal truth?
Are all folkies liars?

As I said, my views and beliefs are broadly in line with Anglican teaching.
This is not about me so you do not need to know exactly what I believe.

The historian thing is quite different Steve.
In the last twenty years, as more knowledge has become available, a consensus has emerged among historians about aspects of WW1.
Before that some felt differently, but now they agree.

I am not an historian, so I get my history from people who are.
You all ridiculed me for that.
You think you know more about history than the historians, so people should come to you instead.
That is so ridiculous it is funny.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:47 AM

Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor, that is neither wholly true, or wholly untrue.

It is however full of meaning for anyone open minded enough to put their own interpretation on it.....you are like a pack of curs with a bone, why don't you put a bit of thought into what you wright?

I am an atheist don't believe in an after life, but I can appreciate the metaphor and the peace it can bring to some of my brothers and sisters.
The Christian religion of the present day is a force for good, based on the teachings of a philosopher far ahead of his time.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor

Tell that to Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM

I don't need to tell pete anything, he ploughs his own furrow and seems to understand more than any of us.
I am not arrogant enough to ridicule him for his views when we know almost nothing about the origin of the universe and as I have said before humanity will be long gone before we do.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

So who is the comment Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor aimed at then seeing as Keith believes part of it, though he will not say which part, and Pete believes all of it. I have already said that it is made up. I think most other people on here would agree.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:30 AM

I always thought that loaves and fishes business was about inspiring a big bring and share party. I think it was the vicar when I was a kid that explained it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:22 PM

Err.. You don't know anything about the origins of the universe, but quite a few people are bloody close to it, a few picoseconds in fact.

Mind you, credit where it is due. The bible is a metaphor. Correct.

Let's ask a few Christians if it is, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

Not just christians, Musket. Don't forget that at least part of it is the basis for the jewish and muslim religions as well. Possibly some I don't know about and would not really care to either...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:33 PM

Well.. it's easy enough to work out how "water to wine"
could have been set up with a trick barrel, a few clay pots and sheep bladders, etc
- easily available technology 2000 years ago..

Whether or not Jesus was an aspiring amateur night club stage magician.. errrmmm.. open to debate ???

What was he doing during the missing years..
- practicing and refining his tricks and audience patter...???

Maybe if he'd got more regular gigs, and broke into the top city & seaside resort venues
the course of history might have been entirely different...??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

How many folksongs tell the literal truth?

How many folk singers do we kneel in front of and pray to? Mind you, a few years ago I'd have done that to Karan Casey...

The historian thing is quite different Steve.

Of course, Keith. Nothing like applying a double standard, is there.

Most of the Bible is metaphor

That's news to me. The trouble with that is that we tend to know when it's metaphor and not the actual story. In the case of the Bible, an awful lot of people seem to not have been told that it's a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM

Who should tell them Steve?
No-one tells me what to believe, and I am sure all Christians would say the same.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM
...
I am not an historian, so I get my history from people who are.


From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM
...
No-one tells me what to believe

No, absolutely nothing like applying double standards. Probably can't even see the irony in making those 2 statements a mere 6 hours apart. As to who should tell them. Historians maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:10 PM

Sorry - Me at 03:09PM

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:53 PM

nice to see steve referring to the gospel writers as historians.....of course, it contradicts his earlier assertion that the bible writings were not to be believed.....ok, relax [but not too much!], I know you are trying to have it both ways, so as to attack keith as well as me !. so steve what are these laws of nature ? and how do they fit your evolution beliefs. I suggested some natural laws that do fit the bible, because they are observable science. you claim your belief is true, but present no evidence for it. [ I should point out that some like bill attempted to do so, but could not demonstrate how the data contradicted the bible, creation/flood model] so go on steve....show us some evolution !....credit hostile witness snail here.    and I am glad that you recognize the " who made God " question as " that most childish of questions ". so try something more grown up.    uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God. a scientist like you, shimrod, dawkins or hitchens et al ought to be able grasp this concept. failing that, present some science that evidences stardust to steve evolution, instead of off the mark theological arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM

"uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God" ···

No: God is postulated as "eternal & uncreated". A postulation is not a description. Surely you can grasp that distinction?

≈M≈

Hohoho -- we can play these philosopho-semantic [or semanto-philosophic] games for hours&hours&hours&hours...

10 pm. Bedtime. G'night. Sweet dreams! Happy postulations!

PS That Belgian who laid off the ball for Fellaini to score was offside when he received it. Israel were robbed!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM

Probably can't even see the irony in making those 2 statements a mere 6 hours apart.

Correct Dave, because there is none.
WW1 is well documented recent history.
There is archaeology from biblical times but almost no documentation for historians to work with.

Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas and St. Paul were real historical figures.
Beyond that, who knows.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM

The bible writers could have been considered historians and now cannot to be believed. See Keith's assertions that that the older historians can no longer be believed because new evidence has been found. The people that wrote the bible have, likewise, been outdated. It is little wonder that you cannot grasp scientific concepts when your attempts at the simplest logic are so dismal. And what on earth does failing that, present some science that evidences stardust to steve evolution, instead of off the mark theological arguments. even mean? You do your faith no credit by talking gobbledegook.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:19 PM

The two statements were nothing to do with historical figures. You say you do not know history that well so you get your information from historians. Yet you say no-one tells you what to believe. Once again you are twisting like a bucket of snakes on speed. Maybe you should stand for parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:39 PM

to counter your counter again, shimrod...
1, you are yourself appealing to consensus. let me remind you again. your own science has nothing to say about origins, by your own admission [ this at least negates the claim that all of science is interdependent with the Darwin storyline]. this means that you are just following the Darwinist cult and their hallowed writings. of course if you can demonstrate that these changeable ideas are science ?......which brings us to
2, we only have their writings claiming evolutionism is true, but even some of them know it is full of holes, and admit it. and judging from your empty arguments, your evolution does not exist !.
3,    and demonstrated your ignorance of the theory you blindly accept. but I don't claim to be a scientist, but the simple arguments have not been answered by anything except consensus.
4, only the evidence counts, you say.....ok, lets have yours.
what does count though is a reasoned argument. " who made God " is not such. like how round is a square, or to whom is the bachelor married.
5, someone sais somewhere " the man who can read but doesn't, has no advantage over the man who cannot read". you are the one claiming to be the scientist, but only offer appeals to consensus and authority, with some uninformed theology. yet it is me , the non scientist, making arguments that accord with [ observable ] science.
take some of your own medicine please .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM

nice to see steve referring to the gospel writers as historians

I didn't.

.....of course, it contradicts his earlier assertion that the bible writings were not to be believed

I made no such assertion.

I know you are trying to have it both ways

Have what both ways?

so steve what are these laws of nature ?

Did you do physics and chemistry at school? Ever heard of Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Einstein? Ever wondered why your tea goes cold? Why things fall when you drop them? How the moon stays up there? How your brakes work? How your voice makes a noise? Why the sun feels warm? The key to the question is, have you ever wondered?

and how do they fit your evolution beliefs

I haven't got any.

you claim your belief is true,

What beliefs?

some like bill attempted to do so, but could not demonstrate how the data contradicted the bible, creation/flood model

Absolute rubbish. Everything in nature contradicts your silly "model", for which there is not the slightest scrap of evidence.

so go on steve....show us some evolution !....credit hostile witness snail here.

He's no witness, as I'm sure he'd agree. You may think he's hostile to me, but, by Christ, you can take it from me that he is most emphatically not on your side.

and I am glad that you recognize the " who made God " question as " that most childish of questions ". so try something more grown up.

If it's so childish, you should have no difficulty answering it. Come along, I'm waiting.

uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God. a scientist like you, shimrod, dawkins or hitchens et al ought to be able grasp this concept.

It is not a concept at all. It is a wacky, unsupportable claim emanating from deluded eejits. If the cap fits...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:05 PM

And I see it's a "Darwinist cult" now. Christ on a bike. "Pete seems to understand more than any of us," said Akenaton. Cor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:13 PM

"You say you do not know history that well so you get your information from historians. Yet you say no-one tells you what to believe."

There is a difference between reading various historians then forming one's opinions and being told what to believe.

I don't think anyone 'believes' in historians in the same way Christians or Jews believe in The Bible, which is just another word for The Book. Historians for the most part ask us to read their works and see if they make sense or fit facts as we have received them. The Bible is a mishmash of writers whose works were discovered and seen to be parts of a group of writings, what some would call history.

See the Nag Hammadi for work referring to the same time(s) which calls some of the biblical beliefs into question. Then look at the influence of the Catholic Church on The Bible and its layout. The Bible requires belief because it is disjointed and has too many footnotes. Of par

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:20 PM

Sorry. I clicked something before I was finished.

Then look at the influence of the Catholic Church on The Bible and its layout. The Bible requires belief because it is disjointed and has too many footnotes. Of particular note is the New Testament. What inevitably gets left out of these discussions are mentions/prophesies of the Messiah in the OT which are duplicated by Jesus and his followers either because he really was the Messiah or it was necessary for an elaborate piece of theater to take place that duplicated the prophesies. (Time will tell about that.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:35 PM

No, pete, - he said patiently, for the umpteenth time - it is not about BELIEF but about EVIDENCE and credibility. Based on the accumulated EVIDENCE of (at least) the last 150 years, it is not even remotely credible that some big beardy bloke in the sky (whose existence we are not even supposed to question ... f**k that!) created everything 4000 years ago plus all the crap about Adam & Eve and Noah cramming all of the animals (what about the plants?) that ever existed (how many species of ant are there, pete? Look it up [if you can spell ANT, that is])into a big boat - must have been a f**king big boat just to get all the insects and other invertebrates in! Only a brainwashed idiot could believe all that rubbish.

And, again, I refuse to play the game in which I present you with evidence and you say you don't believe it. The evidence (truck ... no arkloads) of it is out there for you to discover for yourself - but it's not what you want to hear, is it, pete?

And what is it with you and 'concensus'?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM

what does count though is a reasoned argument. " who made God " is not such. like how round is a square, or to whom is the bachelor married.

It is not an argument at all. It is a question. What's more, it's a perfectly good question, and you chucking in ludicrous false questions which you wrongly claim to somehow be equivalents does not change that one jot. God is your invention. You deliberately try to put him beyond science (in your attempt to make him invulnerable to reasoned investigation). Well we're not keen on that, so we want to know more about your God notion. The first question any reasonable and thinking person would want to ask is where does he come from? If you can't answer that, then your God notion is at best inchoate and at worst seriously ill-conceived. Terribly in need of a big rethink.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM

See Keith's assertions that that the older historians can no longer be believed because new evidence has been found.

Silly Dave.
It is the historians who have rejected SOME of the previous generation.
New evidence has shown that SOME were wrong, and now there is a consensus on those issues.

Are you saying that, because I am a Christian, it is incompatible for me to believe the historians' verdict on WW1 over that of Musket and Jim?
Really Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

I think we are saying that we find it odd that you won't apply the same standard to biblical evidence as you do to secular historical evidence. One can only conclude either that you haven't thought it through or that you are, in the case of your Christianity, adhering to some "greater truth" that has fatally blunted your critical faculties.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:08 AM

What biblical evidence Steve?
There is none.

Historians spend their lives researching evidence from original sources.
They have independently all come to the same conclusions on those views I put forward.
Why would anyone refuse to believe them?
Why would anyone believe Jim and Musket over them?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:10 AM

Sorry, should read,

What biblical evidence Steve?
There is none.

Historians spend their lives researching evidence from original sources.
On WW1 they have independently all come to the same conclusions on those views I put forward.
Why would anyone refuse to believe them?
Why would anyone choose to believe Jim and Musket over them?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:15 AM

"yet it is me , the non scientist, making arguments that accord with [ observable ] science."

No you're not. This statement represents either a total lack of understanding, a delusion or an outright lie. You have no idea what you're talking about, it would be laughable but I'm concerned you actually believe your own waffle. Stick to the ephemeral goddy stuff and forget science if I were you Pete. You're just making an arse of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:28 AM

Are you saying that, because I am a Christian, it is incompatible for me to believe the historians' verdict on WW1 over that of Musket and Jim?

Nothing of the sort as you well know. I am saying that on one hand you say no-one tells you what to believe and on the other say that you believe what you do about WW1 because it is what some historians have told you. But I know there is no point in continuing as you will carry on twisting and turning until no-one has a clue what you are on about. Doesn't matter now, everyone can see what you have said regardless of how you try to get out of it. The words dishonest, cheat and despicable seem to spring to mind once again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 07:58 AM

Dave, no-one tells me to believe the historians on the history of WW1.
I choose to.
You may ridicule me for that, and choose to believe that Musket and Jim know more about it than the historians do.

We both make our choices, but no-one tells me what to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM

ALL historians Keith?

Interesting assertion. Politically convenient too. Even amongst your cherry picked list of newspaper hacks and minor academics, there is no consensus over and above the numbers killed to the nearest few thousand and the inept political and military blunders that exacerbated the tragedy.

You know, talking of consensus. 150 years shot, there was a scientific consensus that ether explained gaps between objects. It was ether that allowed waves to travel in vacuum etc. Overnight, the consensus collapsed.

As Bible nonsense hasn't collapsed overnight as the fantasy aspects are blown away, it is the metaphor rational people with no mind disorder recognise it as.

By the way, it would appear that some of the actual historical characters in the Bible, mainly Romans but some others too, lived in different times to each other. Not surprising really, but just makes seeing it as anything but an interesting collection of tales rather pathetic really.

I recently picked up a bible and opened it at random. It is a wonderful example of how people may have thought a couple of thousand years ago, coupled with examples of how the medieval writers who re wrote it were thinking and most of all, the way we wrote in the times of King James.

It's those who look too deeply into it who are missing out if you ask me. Imagine not being able to enjoy Tolkien or Michael Moorcock because you don't just see abstract stories to enjoy? Granted, the Bible stories aren't exactly gripping reading and I doubt I will pick up a copy again, but I accept it is of interest to historians, not as history but as an indicator of how people used to entertain each other before Corrie and Knobenders.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:10 AM

You believe that the troops in WW1 were well led? Yes? You have often said you are no historian so, if no-one told you what to believe, how did you come to that conclusion?

I don't believe Musket and Jim know more than historians. I do believe that they will not be fooled into believing that any war is a good thing, no matter how well led. Nor will I.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:11 AM

All the historians Musket.
All the ones any of us on the WW1 threads over two and a half years could find.

Historians do not tell people to believe them Dave.
They give their findings and conclusions and how they came to make them.
When they all independently reach the same conclusions, I felt moved to believe them on those issues.

You did ridicule me for that Dave.
Mercilessly.
Musket denied what the historians found.
"They should know better" he said.

You never so much as questioned him or Jim over any of their assertions, but you attacked everything I said.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM

Of course I ridiculed you Keith. But not for what you say. I ridiculed you because you are an idiot. Does that make me a bad person? Possibly. Could I give a shit? Nah...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:36 AM

Dave, you should retire and apologise, that was one of the lamest responses that I have ever read on this forum.

Like a child in the street.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:38 AM

Are you prepared to sacrifice what's left of your credibility for the bullies?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:52 AM

Yep - Like a child rather than a manipulative, conniving sociopath. Quite proud of that, thanks. Quite happy with my credibility as well thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:03 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me .....not even if you ask them nicely.
"I think I'm a Musket too"

You're a Trade Unionist......that's worse than they think we are. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM

It's nice to have credibility... I'm happy with mine too.

Just think, you can be credible to normal people who matter and count, or you can be credible to bigots, idiots and little men.

Looks like some of us tossed the right coin...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:17 AM

Dave,
I do believe that they will not be fooled into believing that any war is a good thing, no matter how well led. Nor will I.

And nor will I.
And nor will anyone else.
What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:13 AM

What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

Well, apart from the phraseology of that being idiotic, what is stupid and pointless about being anti-war?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me

I may be childish is some respects but I grew out of gangs when I was about 11. There are a number of people who post on here who do not believe that gay people should be treated as second class citizens or war should be glorified. If that is what you mean by gang, however, I am proud to be part of it.

And if you think I have been horrid, you have led a very sheltered life. As the song says, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:06 PM

That's the problem with the self righteous with nothing to be righteous about. They are so far up their own arse, insults get rather muffled. So when they do hear clearly, they don't understand how they got to such a reputation.

Normality is a gang eh? Being a normal well adjusted person with moderate objective takes on society is a conspiracy?

No wonder mental health services in Scotland are at breaking point. Just had a look at the CCG commissioning for Hertfordshire. That is 21% underfunded too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM

What's to say?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 01:57 PM

Dave, no-one thinks a war is "a good thing."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:43 PM

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?. I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ? ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.
we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.                  
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:58 PM

Pete. There is no evidence for god apart from very circumstantial, hearsay and appeals to authority. And that authority is thousands of years old and cannot be trusted. You believe? Fine. No one has any problems with that. But for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats as it is fact and stop trying to make sure that my grandchildren are told the same pack of lies that you were. You want people to stop using your name as a swearword? Then stop acting like an arse.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM

if I am playing a game [ which I don't see it as ] , shimrod, I reckon I might be doing better than you, the scientist, who cannot cite any science to support what he claims is true !. oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it, and you don't get it, that that is not an argument. all it proves is that more people agree , than not. and is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ? ........ it will probably work !.

and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:17 PM

is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ?

No, it genuinely isn't from me. It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom. Means you will be first in line with your season ticket at the pearly gates. You you should be thanking us.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:23 PM

I still can't see quite how we got here

BLOODY AGAIN!!!

from Clarkson.

Still -- Play Your Games, dears.

Bedtime for Pussikatz'n'Lions...

Ho-hum

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:21 PM

Dave, he wants me to stop saying "Jaysus", "by Christ" and "Christ on a bloody bike". Jesus wept, what a cheeky monkey! This delicate fellow, who uses the name of Charles Darwin in the most insulting and offensive contexts! You couldn't make it up.

So.

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?.

Correct.

I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ?

Presume no longer. Evolution is here. It happens. It cannot be contradicted. By any measure, it's true. The theory of evolution is a different matter. The theory attempts to explain the phenomenon of evolution. Theories in themselves are not the truth. In fact, there are plenty of gaps to be filled and tweaks to be made to the theory as our knowledge increases. Science is a wonderful endeavour that tries to get to the heart of things. You wouldn't understand that. Your God gave you a mighty brain that you don't use. You couldn't be more disrespectful to your God if you tried. See you in Hades.

ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence

Gibberish.

. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.

You ignore evidence and appear to understand nothing. And there's nothing I can tell you that would change that.

we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.

Go fetch him then. At least he says challenging things at times that I can get my teeth into, unlike your good self.
               
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.

Denied. If that's the worst swearing you've heard, then, bejaysus, you really are a poor, sheltered thing, aren't you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM

Find me one religion that hasn't lied for its god and I'll maybe begin to have some belief. Until then, it's all bullshit, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:55 PM

It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom.

You have become a despicably intolerant person Dave.
Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:20 PM

Excuse me from butting in but as a little diversion ... here is a link to a Guardian article about a reformed Clarkson published about 24 hours ago Former Top Gear presenter says being sacked by the BBC was a 'wake-up call' as he joins host of celebrities backing climate change campaign  
Sorry, about 24 hours late spotting this.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:32 PM

April fool!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:33 PM

April Fool? Really !!?
Would the Guardian play such a trick?

You'll be telling me next the island of San Seriffe sank before it reached Sri Lanka.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:51 PM

btw It's a bit complicated in parts but if you weren't about in 1977 you'll find a good copy of the Guardian article if you google
... able to study the San Serriffe phenomenon in a comparative way and his diary for 1796, now at the Geographical Society at Kensington Gore, contains the first description of the extraordinary scouring and deposition pattern which continually shapes and reshapes the island group.
Worth a read.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:14 AM

Just for the record, pete, I have no "evolutionary beliefs" either! And that's because (for the umpty millionth time) science is NOT about belief!! Science is a system for examining the nature of reality through observation, the gathering of evidence and experiment. The evidence gathered so far supports an evolutionary model - it does not, in any conceivable way, support a load of fairy tales in an old book!

"oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it ..."

Of course I appeal to concensus - you idiot! An important aspect of modern science is peer review i.e. a scientist's work must be accepted as valid by his peers before it can be published - a form of concensus. And all of the religious waffle you set so much store by is also based on concensus among members of your silly holy cult.

Finally, as someone with a scientific background, I can think of no conceivable reason why I should not question the nature and origin of your God. You (spuriously) dismiss such questions as "childish" - but, remember, children sometimes ask the most pertinent questions!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 03:56 AM

I remember it well, Freddy. Having been a Grauniad reader for 40 years or more, I'm on the alert every April 1 for the latest jape, and the paper never lets us down. I remember one year when it was very subtle, the BMW badge in the car ad the wrong way round or something like that. The Clarkson one yesterday had Mrs Steve fooled, but don't tell her I told you!

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

Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"

Yes, but not close in philosophy. Also, they were very acceptant of my choices and did not try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else. And FWIW I have always had a very low tolerance of fools who believe that theirs is the only 'truth'.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:28 AM

Dave,
try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else.
for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats

So we can have views but must never express them?
You really are very intolerant.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:04 AM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.

Now today you accuse me of foisting my beliefs on you!!

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:49 AM

Nowt so much wrong with 'expressing'..

but evangelizing / proselytizing / indictrinating / brainwashing / etc..

let's just say these forms of 'expression' are somewhat problematic to say the least...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:22 AM

None of that here PFR.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:28 AM

(Except from the atheists trying to convince believers that they are deluded)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 11:49 AM

Pete, this:

"and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !"

. . . follows on from a previous post containing this:

"and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old."

That me old mucker, is a statement that is simply wrong. I've engaged you over the years and quite comprehensively, but still you regurgitate dross like this.

Mind it was nice of God to sort all those fossils into a carefully stratified, logical order that allows us to construct a tree of life to disprove creationist mumbo-jumbo. Imagine if they were all mixed up, like they must have been in the swirling tempest of the flood? He must have made them settle sequentially on the seabed, from simple to complex. Now why the heck would he do that?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 01:08 PM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.


Proof please, Keith. I have never demanded anything nor been petulant. Either in upper or lower case. Why do you keep lying? Or if not lying, twisting peoples words. You really do have some some personality issues don't you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:16 PM

Dave,Here is you demanding to know my beliefs.

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM

I will assume you are not being purposely thick, Keith, and it was my poor phrasing.

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.



And here is you being petulant about me refusing to lay bare my beliefs.

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:22 AM

I am confused now. You co not believe the bible is the literal truth, you do not believe it is history and you do not believe it is not lies. What is it then? Besides 'broadly in line with' can mean anything. What a cop out. But like the god theory really.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:20 PM

And,

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

"So who is the comment Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor aimed at then seeing as Keith believes part of it, though he will not say which part,

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:23 PM

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.

How is this a demand?

It is a question, nothing more or less. If you chose not to answer, fair enough. People can draw their own conclusions.

The last point of your post. Not petulant. Again, asking a question. If you chose not to answer, fair enough. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:40 PM

You wanted to know the detail of my belief.
You did not like it when I refused.
You then say I am foisting my beliefs on you, and you say it is me who is an idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars kink
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:38 PM

Well stu, at least some kind of argument.   Granted there is a general order. It would be expected that a catastrophe beginning in the ocean would cover the sea floor creatures first. It would also be expected that the more mobile would be overwhelmed last. There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence. And of course, order or not, these fossils are preserved by the tons, but only because of rapid burial that slowed or prevented deterioration. Oh , and is there anywhere where the whole fossil index is complete ?.                           So shimrod, Copernicus and Galileo were wrong after all, since they were rejected by peer review ?!.   All the complex epicycles their contempories kept adding are just like the ever changing evolutionary story, I reckon.    and I must say again, that it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge.                                                          As for me shoving my beliefs down throats....! Give us a break. It was you evo atheists that just could not help yourselves from looking for a fight, that both initiated this debate, and who are shoving evolutionism and atheism down our throats.....if you insist on taking that line .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:59 PM

it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge.

An eternal God with no beginning doesn't come from anywhere. But the problem with your statement is your completely unjustified and unsupportable claim that your God is eternal with no beginning. You have no evidence for the existence of such a creature. Indeed, he breaks so many laws of nature that the possibility of his existence is vanishingly small. So I'm not asking you where your eternal God with no beginning comes from. I'm asking you where God comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:10 AM

"There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence."

I'm not sure what that means (not sure you do either). Presumably, God arranged the "catastrophe" and then thought: "Hang on! I've got the order all wrong here (Huh! So much for my infallibility!). I'll have to do a re-shuffle. Let's hope the God botherers don't notice!"

"So shimrod, Copernicus and Galileo were wrong after all, since they were rejected by peer review ?!"

Copernicus and Galileo were independently minded pioneers at a time when religious dogma dominated all thinking and muddied and obscured the human race's view of the universe. Fortunately, science has now kicked religion into the 'long grass' and its dogmas are only adhered to by a few weirdos like you and your fellow cultists.

" ... it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge."

I'm not denying God's existence; I'm asking you to covince me that he exists. After all, if you're so sure that he exists, it's not a 'big ask', is it?
The other question that you always dodge is: If God created the universe, where did he get his materials from? Did he conjure them out of nothing? I thought that, according to you, it was 'impossible' to get something from nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:58 AM

"Evo athiests"

That's new one.

Do we get to wear silly hats?

Anyway. As its Good Friday, I need to get practicing. My back is a bit stiff today and I need to be supple in order to deliver my annual impersonation in the pub tonight.

"Jesus on a rubber cross."

Keith. Do keep up. Nobody can convince people they are deluded. It is a contradiction in terms. But stop thinking people are thick eh? Of course faith is a tenet of your hobby same as believing Sheffield Wednesday are perfect is a tenet of mine. But we all know The Owls are mid table and that means we lose a few and we all know that ultimately, religious faith is built on fairy tales. It isn't true. You know it isn't and I know it isn't.

But religion is a proxy for bigotry, and the more rational people point and laugh, the less disruptive the stupid aspects can be.

(I watched Mrs Brown D' Movie yesterday. Not good by any standard but one hilarious bit where the statue of Jesus was hanging off the cross on the wall outside a church. In the next scene, a priest is seen on a ladder nailing him back on..,,,)

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

Steve,
Indeed, he breaks so many laws of nature that the possibility of his existence is vanishingly small.
No. God would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.

Musket,
But stop thinking people are thick eh?
I do not.
Neither believers nor atheists have a monopoly on intelligence or ignorance.
we all know that ultimately, religious faith is built on fairy tales.
I do not know or accept that.
But religion is a proxy for bigotry,
False assertion.
My church for instance is famously tolerant, and consider the anti-faith bigotry expressed by Dave in his rant against "holy men."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:18 AM

"No. God would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created."

That's pure supposition and you've just made it up to avoid having to answer awkward questions, KofH. Evidence, please!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:25 AM

Shim, there is no evidence for or against.

It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:31 AM

"There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence."

Love it. Thanks pete!

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

You wanted to know the detail of my belief.
I wanted to know which bits of the bible you believe. A valid question in the circumstances.

You did not like it when I refused.
I really could not give a shit whether you answer or not.

You then say I am foisting my beliefs on you
I have never accused you you of that. Links please.

So, 2 lies and one half truth in one post.

and you say it is me who is an idiot!
Wrong again. A liar, a cheat and an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:47 AM

Sorry - Me at 04:15 AM

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM

Dave, you say you did not care that I refused to reveal details of my faith to you, but you did remark on it a couple of times.
In a reply to me you said that at least "holy men" in your family did not foist their beliefs on you.
That comes across as saying that I did.

Neither Pete nor I have done that so I am pleased that you do not make that false accusation.
What exactly do you object to Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:01 AM

In any event, surely such accusations as "foisting of beliefs" are misplaced. Discussion forums exist for the purpose of expressing one's beliefs and opinions. If one is to be inhibited from doing so by accusations of endeavouring to 'foist', or some synonym thereof, such beliefs and opinions, then what is the purpose of discussion at all?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:13 AM

That comes across as saying that I did.
Twist, twist, wriggle, wriggle.

What exactly do you object to Dave?
I haven't objected to anything have I?

Michael - What are you on about? The phrase was the the holy people in my family did not foist their beliefs on me. And that was in answer to a comment that Keith made in the first place. He then chose to take that as meaning that he did foist his beliefs. His problem, not mine. I have not accused anyone of foisting anything on anyone. I have accused Keith of being a liar, which this last escapade further reinforces; a cheat, which his excuses underline and an idiot, which is just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:30 AM

Ah -- thank you for clarification. I had got somewhat lost among all the verbiage of accusation and counter-accusation and.....

Ho-hum. Both too early & too late to go back to bed. Think I'll have a nice cup of tea and a blue cheese sarnie.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:35 AM

Anyone else, BTW, notice this adventitiously delightful typo last evening?


"From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars kink - PM
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:38 PM"


√√√√√√ = Like = √√√√√√

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:38 AM

It was an orange cheese two weeks ago...



"My church is famously tolerant.."

Thank fuck for that! Who knows how much more child fucking, preying on vulnerable people, trying to have a say in secular affairs, murdering gays, albinos and people who just don't fit in, circumcising women,feeding bodies of dead Muslims to pigs, historically burning at the stake, crusades, inquisition etc etc there would have been if it weren't so tolerant!

😹




Mary! Mary!

What ails you my Lord?

You can see our house from up here!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:59 AM

Shim, there is no evidence for or against.

Only half-right. Certainly there's no evidence for. We have only assertions. The evidence against is very strong on an intellectual level. An eternal, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God is proposed as the explanation for the universe and everything in it. Just think, all those clusters and galaxies and stars and planets and the laws of physics that govern it all, much of it so complex that, as yet, we have no more than rudimentary knowledge of it (though we're closing in, thanks to scientific endeavour). That being so, the God who created all this must be infinitely more complex. Yet no-one has ever seen this fellow or been in touch with him. There are no traces of him anywhere. The proposition is for a infinitely complex being whose very existence trumps every law of nature yet for who there is not a scrap of evidence, just assertions. Religion tries to explain the universe in all it's complexity by installing a being who, himself, is deliberately put beyond explanation. Disturbingly, more and more of his "creations" can be explained, as time goes by, by resorting to no more than the laws of nature. God isn't really much of an explanation at all, is he?

It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.

It is neither a supposition nor a fact. It is an unsupportable assertion that, conveniently, puts God beyond arm's length from science. That is religion's deliberate ploy, intended to make God invulnerable to intellectual scrutiny. Where God is concerned, only blind faith can reign supreme. Critical examination is not permitted. Religion, in the way it chooses to define God, sees to that. I've seen more honest approaches, frankly.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:04 AM

That apostrophe in "it's" was put there by Apple, not me. One know's exactly how to use ones apostrophe's and itll be a sad day when one forget's how.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:36 AM

Where God is concerned, only blind faith can reign supreme. Critical examination is not permitted.

Unless it is to examine processes by which mankind came up with the idea of God in the first place, much less the idea of Religion which we seem to have been dealing with for some tens of thousands of years, though, at around 4,000, God himself is a relative newcomer on the scene of myth and general dreaming delusion.

Even then the idea was far from ubiquitous : in wandering the stone circle at Duddo in Northumberland a couple of weeks back, itself around 4,000 years old, I sensed nothing of God, but plenty of the WTF? bafflement that still moves us to keep asking questions & find some sort of pattern to it all. I doubt God was ever part of such a process; as a concept it's less for asking questions than it is for fucking people over with fear and ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:38 AM

Steve, the universe can certainly be explained without recourse to God.
So what?
Belief does not rest on that.

It is not supposition but 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 of God.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

Musk [whichever Popgun is on today!] --

Which church has ever circumcised women, as you appear to assert in your last post, 0538 am?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:58 AM

From the Professor 06.38

"It is not supposition but 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 of God"

A FACT can be proven, it can be demonstrated to apply.

To make such a claim as this is disingenuous as it cannot be proven.

As to the final sentence "that is inherent in the concept of God" which God, who's God, who says is it inherent, with what authority can they say it is inherent.

Supposition and superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:18 AM

The teaching of The Anglican Church.

According to Amnesty International, in Uganda, Kenya, CAR chiefly. Historically, many more as missionaries used their usual tactics of integrating local superstition with their own.

Meanwhile, get nurse to find you some newspapers. They are full of politicians pledging action on female circumcision and destroying the popular myth that it is purely another thing for you to get Islamaphobic about. It transcends flavours of superstition.

I forgot to add the dangerous bastards who remove their children from medical help insisting prayer is better. The Pentacostal crowd in Nottingham are being investigated as I type. A doctor who was a member complained to the police when their preacher was encouraging people to throw away medicine and trust their piss poor Lord.

Of course, not all Christians are shits but some might not know what their nephews are up to eh?
😋

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:36 AM

"It is not supposition but 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 of God"

Dear me, Keith. As ever, you seem to think that repeating a thing mantra-like will somehow make it more true. The concept of God is an entirely human one, entirely invented. God has never shown his hand either to confirm or deny your concept, so it remains entirely speculative. As for your fact, if God does exist it would be highly presumptious of you to try to define his nature. 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, and neither should you, convenient for your argument though it is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:15 AM

I could, I suppose, try to point out to Mather'n'Minions, the Thicko-Muskie-Popgun-Peddling-Pack, the difference between doctrine & syncretism; but I have learned that pissing-down-the-wind can be a much more satisfactory activity than trying to engage intellectually with that bunch of self-satisfied proud-to-be-ignoramuses, so let it pass.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:21 AM

Raggy,
"It is not supposition but 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 of God"

A FACT can be proven, it can be demonstrated to apply.

Agree Raggy.
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.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:40 AM

That is not proof, it is merely a definition. Surely even someone of your limited capacity can understand the difference between a definition and a fact.

I did notice however that you failed to include the remainder of that definition. I wonder why.

Tantamount to lying AGAIN me thinks.

The reminder of the definition goes on to suggest a "moon god" or the "Hindu god Vishnu" and that doesn't correlated with your version of god does it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:41 AM

So Keith repeats it again, hoping we'll all think it's getting a little bit more true. This time his appeal to authority is not to theologians, not to historians - but to a dictionary! And, what's more, it's "proof"! Funny man, Keith. Keep 'em coming! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:39 AM

Where else to go but to a dictionary for the definition of the concept of God?

As I said,if there is a God, it would be outside and above the laws of nature.
"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

It is a fact that that is a definition of the concept of God.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:54 AM

Michael in the garden said "the difference between doctrine & syncretism;"

is the difference that the circumcism doesn't hurt as much with one than the other? I'm sure victims are grateful to you for excusing those who preach doing it from those who carry it out for them.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.

Of course, if you could reason with God botherers, there wouldn't be any god botherers, so we may as well carry on with this verbal wanking eh?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:21 AM

so we may as well carry on with this verbal wanking eh?

It is no such thing, Musket. I believe the correct term is a mass debate...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:34 AM

... but if that is the old Muskiboozes' motivation, Dave, we mustn't spoil their masturbatory fun, must we?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:49 AM

"That is not proof, it is merely a definition. Surely even someone of your limited capacity can understand the difference between a definition and a fact."

Without definitions it is not possible to establish facts in the philosophies. Possibly it isn't in other disciplines either. If we look for example at the concept of god, we must be able to define the deity to everyone's satisfaction. Then there is common ground to discuss. Without a mutually-agreed-upon place to start from, the journey can seldom be more than this thread has demonstrated: argumentative, combative and on occasion crass.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Just nice to be able to get it up I suppose...

Mind you. Christians get some things right. The Easter Bunny for instance. I love Easter Eggs. Getting all excited about Sunday now.

Getting excited about next Thursday too, when I can pre order my Apple Watch. Some things are worth worshipping.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM

Where else to go but to a dictionary for the definition of the concept of God?

As I said,if there is a God, it would be outside and above the laws of nature.
"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

It is a fact that that is a definition of the concept of God.

Well, within one post we go from "the definition..." to "a definition". Progress of a sort. But please stop parroting it now, Keith. We hear you. We don't like it, but we hear you. So, Guest#, your aspirational statement that "we must be able to define the deity to everyone's satisfaction. Then there is common ground to discuss" has not been achieved. And it can't be. You can't define the deity to everyone's satisfaction unless the clause "but he almost certainly doesn't exist" is in there somewhere. We suffer quite enough religious imperialism on this planet without having a definition of the deity forced on us that lacks that bit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:00 PM

"So, Guest#, your aspirational statement that "we must be able to define the deity to everyone's satisfaction. Then there is common ground to discuss" has not been achieved."

That's what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:27 PM

Professor you suggested that because there was a definition of a god that in itself proved that a god existed.

No.

It merely indicates that SOME people accept there is a definition of a god.

I notice you didn't respond to my inclusion of the remainder of your definition from the dictionary you quoted which mentioned a moon god and the Hindu god Vishnu.

Now why was that a reasonable person could ask.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 02:27 PM

God 'defined' at Oxford Dictionaries.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:11 PM

"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

It is a fact that that is a definition of the concept of God.

Interesting that this was Keith's post when in the dictionary definition it says

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

So, not your version of god then Keith. Yet another instance of selective cut and paste. Rumbled once again and wondering why people say you are dishonest. Do you think we are all stupid and will not notice?

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

Dave, I am not "rumbled" and there is no dishonesty.
The definition I quoted was the general definition, and it was then refined for specific gods.
The general definition still applies.

Raggy,
Professor you suggested that because there was a definition of a god that in itself proved that a god existed.

No I did not.
I have said there is not even evidence never mind proof that god exists/existed.

Steve,
You can't define the deity to everyone's satisfaction unless the clause "but he almost certainly doesn't exist" is in there somewhere.

No justification for such a clause Steve.
There is no evidence for it and atheists are a minority in every country.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:50 PM

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 bit were you said there was proof (as above) or the bit in your last post where you claim there is no evidence or proof that a god exists.

You cannot have it BOTH ways

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

May I point out that a five minute browse through the OED turned up definitions of bogeyman, werewolf and phoenix. Does this imply some sort of reality to these imagined creatures? For crying out loud Keith, stop being ridiculous and providing ammunition to those with whom you disagree. They are not stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:09 PM

So you're appealing to numbers now, eh? So, the more people who say a thing, the more likely it is to be true, eh? Is that the best you can do? As for no evidence for it, well that's a bit rich. At least there's a solid intellectual argument for the non-existence of God. Asking for evidence for the non-existence of something is ridiculous. Far less ridiculous is the request for evidence in favour. You have neither that nor the intellectual counter-argument. You have only blind faith and the appeal to "deeper truths".


You lose... :-) :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:13 PM

Clearly, that was to Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:28 PM

lol lion, like it too. I didn't notice the kink either.
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 say again, you can deny his existence , by claiming zero evidence of his being, but as already pointed out the dictionary gives a definition. I suspect there is a dictionary definition for evolution as well, 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 " !.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:52 PM

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.

of course, it is an article of faith , just as your position is. and if you insist your position is otherwise, demonstrate it. I have presented evidence, rather to the contrary. not that you will admit it.

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.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 04:17 AM

As I walked past our local Catholic church, yesterday (Easter Sunday), I noticed that several of the 'sharing-n-caring' congregation had parked their cars on the opposite pavement so that mothers with prams and elderly people had to walk in the road in order to get past. Meanwhile the church itself sits in the midst of a vast desert of asphalt that doesn't seem to get used for anything (thank you for your 'creation', Lord, you don't mind if we cover our bit of it over with a life-supressing layer, do you?).

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 04:51 AM

Written histories were abundant, and, if we are to believe what the New Testament tells
us, Jesus made quite a stir, being a pain to the Romans as well as to the religious establishment of the time. You'd have thought that Herod's slaughtering of babies, those alleged miracles, that mass meeting on the Mount and the political public execution might have provoked the odd mention of Jesus somewhere, no? Dismissing his alleged impact as a minor cult seems a stretch to me.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:28 AM

Dave, please explain how anyone can be a Christian and not believe in God.

Raggy, thanks for your irrelevant info. on church attendance.
Here is something more relevant you posted earlier.
"No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)"

Musket, your survey was by an atheist organisation.
They counted believers who were not religious as atheists.
Believers are not atheists.
The census and independent surveys show atheists are a minority.

Steve, again sorry for confusing your posts with Musket's.
You would want to distance yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:51 AM

I know people who class themselves as christians on official documentation, such as the census, because that is what they were brought up as. Yet they no longer believe in god. I did myself for some time. If you are using the census as an official guide to what religion people are remember that many of them also said they were jedi.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 06:07 AM

As Dave has indicated many people put on paper that they are Christians. It's an easy option when many, like myself, were christened before they had a choice in the matter.

However of 33.2 million who claim to be Christians only 1.3 million could be bothered (Easter 2013) to attend a church on one of the biggest days in the church calendar. Just 4% ...... 96% rolled over and had another hours kip. Not very religious in my book.

If you take that 1.3 million who did attend church on a major feast day as part of the whole population of the UK you find that just 2% (two)of the population are practising Christians which means that 98% of the population are not.

2% is a very small minority and not one that can realistically be used to maintain that Britain is a Christian country.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

"first you need to demonstrate that the details can,t be harmonised"

The onus is always on everyone else to prove pete wrong, never the other way around.

As for Britain being a Christian country, it is in name only. It's hardly very Christian in it's compassionate approach to the world. Actions speak louder than words.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 06:50 AM

You people choose to believe that a significant number of people would lie on the census about believing or not believing in God, because you do not like the answer.
They had the choice to say "no religion" and only a minority selected that.

This YouGov poll asked different questions but showed the same picture.
Only 40% said "not religious at all."
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/xbqfnxhcct/YG-Archive-140423-Religion.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM

The claim that Britain is a Christian country is not based on the idea that people are Christians but upon the fact that the social and moral principles upon which British society is based, drew upon primarily Christian traditions. Obviously these have evolved over time, it could be argued that the secular, liberal tradition that has its roots in the Enlightenment has drawn society away from its Christian roots although some basic values remain.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM

98% of people in the UK chose not to go to church at Easter.

Ninety Eight percent of the entire population, of whom approx 50% "claim" to be Christian, couldn't be bothered to climb out of their pit to go and worship.

Which bit of that do you not comprehend.

You are in a minority of just 2% of the ENTIRE population.

I doesn't bother me in the slightest if you want to go to church but please do not make out that Britain is a Christian country the figures do not back you up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:12 AM

Thanks for repeating all that irrelevant info on church attendance Raggy.
Believers in God mostly do not bother to go to church.
Why should they?

I have made no claims about church attendance and just reported the census and survey results that show non-believers to be a minority.

As you yourself informed us Raggy
"No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:26 AM

Can you provide any evidence or justifications for your statement that
"Believers in God mostly do not bother to go to church. Why should they?"

Three of my friends, two vicars and a priest all express sorrow that their congregations are diminishing.

As Dave would no doubt say: wriggle, wriggle, squirm, squirm.

The figures are there for all to see. Just 2% (and falling) of the entire population are practising Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM

Your question Keith Dave, please explain how anyone can be a Christian and not believe in God.

My reply I know people who class themselves as christians on official documentation, such as the census, because that is what they were brought up as. Yet they no longer believe in god. I did myself for some time. If you are using the census as an official guide to what religion people are remember that many of them also said they were jedi.

Your response You people choose to believe that a significant number of people would lie on the census about believing or not believing in God, because you do not like the answer.

Who are 'you people'? I assume that includes me? Yes? In which case where did I say a 'significant number' or that they lied? I said I know people, which I do, who put christian because it is what the had always done. No significant numbers, no lies. A few people, including me, for whom old habits die hard.

I answered your question honestly and to the best of my knowledge. If there was anyone who did not like that answer, that was you Keith. You just cannot stand to be proved wrong in anything and will do anything in your power, including changing peoples words (read: lie) to try and 'win'. Sad really but perfectly in character.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:51 AM

Raggy,
Can you provide any evidence or justifications for your statement that
"Believers in God mostly do not bother to go to church. Why should they?"

Yes.
The numbers who say they believe in God in census and surveys far exceed those who say they attend church.

Dave, if someone says they are a Christian but do not believe, they are not describing themselves accurately.
We do not have windows into people's souls, so we must judge them by what they say.
That is the point of censuses and polls.
That is the only hard evidence that we have.
It says atheists are a minority.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:56 AM

I would think there is a far higher percentage of practising atheists than there are practising Christians. But there again, like you, I have no evidence for that statement.

Remember professor you are in a minority of just 2%, that's right just 2% of the entire UK population are god botherers like yourself.

Must make you proud.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:03 AM


I would think there is a far higher percentage of practising atheists than there are practising Christians. But there again, like you, I have no evidence for that statement.

You have no evidence.
I have the hard evidence of the census and a YouGov survey.
Also your report that, "No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)"

What does a "practising atheist" do Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:10 AM

The same, I would think, as most of the Christians ..... sweet Fanny Adams.

It still doesn't alter the fact that there are just 2% of the entire population who are practising Christians.

I know you like statistics so here we go:

The VAST majority of so-called Christians just can't be bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:11 AM

Dave, if someone says they are a Christian but do not believe, they are not describing themselves accurately.

You mentioned nothing about people describing themselves accurately. You asked how anyone can be a Christian and not believe in God. I answered. You did not like the answer so you made up some of the things I had said. Wriggle, wriggle, squirm, squirm indeed. You need to define what you mean by christian I believe and if that includes following the christian tenet of attending church on Sunday then, as Raggy has said, only 2% of those who described themselves as christian can be said to be true christians.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:26 AM

I read an article somewhere that suggesting that the UK was predominantly 'apatheiest'. If someone is not religious why bother thinking about it from a personal perspective ?

It does not rule out believing in both a secular state and religious tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:27 AM

You are also ignoring people who say they are religious on a 'just in case' basis. 'Well, I don't really know but it does no harm...' It is like a superstition and it is so deeply embedded in our society it is little wonder that people say they are religious when all they really are is afraid of not being. I don't walk under ladders (although that one is quite sensible!) and say 'bless you' when someone sneezes. Doesn't mean I believe in such nonsense. Touch wood...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:10 AM

Poor Keith.

The discussion has gone beyond how many people believe in God nonsense, and his claim that rational people are in the minority is good for a chuckle.

So why does he continue to embarrass himself? Could it be that there is a glimmer of intelligence there and he needs the assertion that believing is the normal state of affairs because without strength in numbers, (a million lemmings can't be wrong) irrational notions that insult intelligence make you look a fool?

By the way, the companies who do surveys of people choose them at random. Keith's assertion that you choose your view of polls based on who commissioned them is just another sign of the desperate end of delusion.

Carry on Keith. No problem with your faith. None whatsoever. No problem with the faith of our friends who are Muslim, Sikh etc for that matter. Mrs Musket's brother is a vicar so your hobby pays his mortgage. Well done.

But to claim normal rational people who see religion as someone else's fantasy as being in the minority?

It says more about your instability than any claim worth considering.

🙊🙉🙈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:46 AM

Dave, anyone who does not believe in God is not a Christian.

Raggy, I know very well that church attendance is low and falling.
I also know, from the census and survey results, that more people believe than disbelieve.
I do not wriggle.
I have made that claim and no other, and I have stuck with it.

On the subject of people concealing their true belief, people who believe may choose to keep quiet with people who regard believers as deluded fools.
Bear that in mind when considering what your friends tell you Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:51 AM

Dave,
what you mean by christian I believe and if that includes following the christian tenet of attending church on Sunday

It does not, and anyway I was considering believers in god(s), not just Christians.

Non-believers like you people are a minority.

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

"I also know, from the census and survey results, that more people believe than disbelieve"

No you don't. You only KNOW that many people put down they are Christians on a census form. You do not and cannot know anything further.

As for wriggling you do it constantly on this and other threads. You are a liar, you are deceitful, and the only person who is being fooled is yourself. Yet you claim to be a Christian, I don't know you can sleep at night after you've said your prayers. You are a hypocrite of the first order.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:19 AM

Dave, anyone who does not believe in God is not a Christian.

I simply pointed out that not all people who say they are christians are christians. I gave examples of why they may say it. I have done so since. You still refuse to accept the simple truth that people say things they do not mean, for many reasons.

On the subject of people concealing their true belief, people who believe may choose to keep quiet with people who regard believers as deluded fools.
Bear that in mind when considering what your friends tell you Dave.

So, if I understand this correctly, people may lie when they are talking to me but always tell the truth when responding to questions on a survey. Or do they only tell the truth when it fits in with what you say? I suppose those people who said they were jedi were all telling the truth too? Still, makes about as much sense as some of the bollocks on here...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:23 AM

Oh, and

Non-believers like you people are a minority.

I really could not give a rat's arse whether I am in a minority or not. I have never said anything about minorities or majorities. You are arguing a point I have never made.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM

What about me then? I'm neither a believer nor a non-believer. I feel horribly left out.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM

There's an article in the latest edition of 'New Scientist' (04.04.2015)
about the psychology of belief. The article, by Graham Lawton, is entitled 'Beyond Belief'. I've not had chance to study it in great detail yet, but a couple of quotes caught my eye:

"This potent combination of hypersensitive "agenticity" and "patternicity" has produced a human brain that is primed to see agency and purpose everywhere. And agency and purpose are two of religion's most important features - particularly the idea of an omnipotent but invisible agent that makes things happen and gives meaning to otherwise random events."

and

" ... our personal guidebook of beliefs is built on sand and also highly resistant to change. "If you hear a new thing, you try to fit it in with your current beliefs," says Halligan [Prof of Psychology, Cardiff Uni.]. That often means going to great lengths to reject something that contradicts your position, or seeking out further information to confirm what you already believe."

Does that last bit sound familiar? I wonder who it could apply to?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 11:20 AM

I'm a non believer. I don't believe Clarkson has much in the way of talent at all.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 12:21 PM

Raggy, your case is that the census and independent polls are all wrong.
Fine.
I, like the government, industry and commerce regard them as strong evidence.
You have no evidence at all.

Dave, I can see why a believer would not lay bare his beliefs to someone who thinks such people are all deluded fools.
I do not see why they would lie on a census return or a survey.
I am sure some do but not significant numbers I think.

Certainly the Office For National Statistics stand by the findings, as is reported in the article Musket linked to.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 01:10 PM

I saw it written down and therefore it is truth.

I wonder how much has been written down over the centuries and accepted as truth by a myriad of people who do not question the things they read.

The professor and his ilk do not question. They do not ask why has this been written and for what purpose and perhaps most importantly by whom.

Anything that challenges their preconceived ideas is dismissed as propaganda even though they are victims of propaganda themselves.

I know it's an old saying but you cannot educate pork.

Say your prayers Professor, I have a feeling that, if there is a god, you will need them more than I.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 02:16 PM

Dave, I can see why a believer would not lay bare his beliefs to someone who thinks such people are all deluded fools.
I do not see why they would lie on a census return or a survey.
I am sure some do but not significant numbers I think.

You have not answered my question. Do you believe that my friends lie to me but would not do so on a survey? I have not suggested that people lie on a census survey, I have named two reasons why they would tick christian when they are not. Habit and superstition. There are probably those who lie but we have no idea how many of any class there are. I have never claimed significant numbers. I have never argued about minorities. You are, once again, putting words in my mouth and creating straw men not of my construction for you to attack. Why keep doing it when everyone can see what you are doing? It is things like that that strengthen my belief that you are an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:30 PM

So shimrod, you can follow a scientific argument, but you cannot defend what you say is true !. And you think that because you can reel off more plant names that this makes your evolutionist beliefs more credible ?, that must be some sort of fallacy !. Fact is, if you can not produce the evidence for what you claim is true, it is simply a belief.   

in fact stubborn belief, since I have produced evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature.                               Steve, as far as arguments from silence go, you done well.   But, chances are that like other arguments from silence levelled against the bible in the past, yours too will eventually be covered with dirt from the spade of the archaeologist.    In the meantime, what we do have, is closer to the event than many other records recognised as historically valid.                                                                  Personally, I don't want to make any argument about polls, but it is interesting that even Dawkins has described himself as a cultural Christian !. Even atheists can recognise a Christian heritage it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:10 AM

" ... you cannot defend what you say is true ..."

No, I can't because I don't have any 'beliefs' about evolution. The evolutionary model is only as good as the evidence for it. But there is a whole mountain of evidence out there - which you refuse to engage with.

"And you think that because you can reel off more plant names that this makes your evolutionist beliefs more credible ?"

Please don't put 'beliefs' into my head! I merely told you about my botanical interest to illustrate to you that I know more about biology than you would appear to do.

" ... since I have produced evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature."

You have produced no evidence whatsoever!! You have merely told us, over and over again, what you are prepared to believe based on your incredibly limited understanding of the "laws of nature"!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:31 AM

"There are more believers than non believers "

You ought to try visiting The UK then Keith.

Steve makes a good point. I too am neither a believer nor non believer. You can only really consider yourself a non believer if you have considered and rejected superstition. I have never felt vulnerable nor delusional enough to have considered it in the first place.

Just like the vast majority.

Same as athiest. It means having taken a stance on theism. Most people take a stance on X Factor and Knobenders characters if the newspapers are anything to go by.

Pity we haven't got a thread all about Jeremy Clarkson. I like his comment. "irreligious. That means I don't have a stance so get off my doorstep and take your delusion with you."

In a strange way, pete makes a point. Cultural Christian. You can't alter the factors that make up your society and yes, Christianity certainly helped shape our society in the past. Executing people for worshipping the right God in the wrong place does have an effect.

But even Cameron when wooing the irrational vote over the weekend clarified to The BBC that he meant "culturally and historically."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

The evidence for the numbers of believers and non believers is the census, and surveys and polls.
They all say that non believers are a minority.
That is the hard evidence.

You people have no evidence for your assertions whatsoever.
As with history, you just know you are right and mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees.

Even when we rub your silly faces in the evidence that proves you wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 04:23 AM

Well, pete, I'm to wait for the archaeologist's "spade" now, am I? You appear to think I'm making an argument from silence. Well it's sheer lack of evidence that I'm politely pointing out to you. In spite of Jesus's getting on the nerves of those literate Romans, and even being executed by them, there's not a single contemporary mention of him anywhere outside religious sources. That's not me making an argument - that's me pointing out a fact. The only comment I need to make about that is that it's a bit odd. As with all those millennia spent waiting for God to show his hand, your archaeologists do seem to be dragging their feet somewhat. However, I'm a patient chap and I'll probably be long in the tomb before I get to reach a final conclusion. As for Dawkins being a cultural Christian, he'd tell you that atheists and Christians alike share many of the same moral values. The question is who usurped the values of whom. I don't recall hearing that all those ancient pre-Christian civilisations got by by eating each other's babies, rescued only when the Saviour showed up. Christian values are a bit like Christmas - nicked from someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM

You people have no evidence for your assertions whatsoever.
As with history, you just know you are right and mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees.

Even when we rub your silly faces in the evidence that proves you wrong.

Who are 'you people', Keith? Am I included in that? If so, what assertions am I making that you have proved wrong? Or is it just a question of when you know you are wrong you just use the shotgun approach and hope that no-one will notice? Is saving face really that important to you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 05:49 AM

Of course saving face is important to him, that's why he has two of them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:05 AM

The majority of people in The UK are not religious. Full stop.

Fool.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM

Non believers are not in the minority. Full stop.

Interestingly, if you, as the secular society has done, add up all the known polls carried out by accredited pollsters, there are more that relate something closer to the true secular state of The UK than say otherwise, despite the successful attempts by The House of Bishops, when scrutinising the appropriate legislation, to have loaded questions in the census to boost their propaganda.

Hence the explanations in the link I gave.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 09:57 AM

The majority of people in The UK are not religious. Full stop.
Agree.

Non believers are not in the minority. Full stop.

Yes they are.
That is the finding of the census and the the polls and surveys.
I choose to believe them, even over you Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 10:15 AM

The UK 'Office for National Statistics'

I put that there in the event anyone wants to be first on the block to inject some facts into the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 10:27 AM

"since I have produced evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature."

Then pete old chap, get it written up and peer reviewed and we can all see your data, methodologies, discussions and conclusion. If you can produce evidence that evolution is against the laws of nature (whatever they are) then you will be a world famous scientist.

Go on my son!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 11:04 AM

The ONS data on census is challenged through loaded questions, suggested by the Lords spiritual during the Lords debate on census data.

Read my link.

Keith. There is no evidence that over half the population believe in God, none whatsoever. I personally have bought four churches and converted them in useful homes over the last few years. Thousands more emptied over recent years. Mosques get less people than ten years ago too for that matter. Younger people are more polarised. They either don't give a flying Fuck or get involved to a fundamental level, mainly.

A couple of surveys of a few hundred people and a census with loaded questions does not make facts. (Either way, as more polls suggest something nearer the truth.) The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God.

So.. Do you believe the evidence, like Keith A Hole of Hertford says he does or do you believe Keith A Hole of Hertford when he said all Christians believe in God.

😹😹😹

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 12:19 PM

Guest at 07 Apr 15 - 10:27 AM was me. Not sure what happened there.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 12:29 PM

Keith. There is no evidence that over half the population believe in God, none whatsoever.

Yes there is.
The National Census, and every opinion poll except the small online poll conducted for an atheist organisation.
If you read your link to the end you will read that the Office of National Statistics dismiss that survey and say the census is correct.

Look at the 2004 YouGov poll.
Unequivocal.
Atheists are a minority.

The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God.

No they did not.
You made that up Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 04:33 PM

Well Steve, we can look back and say, why did the Romans not write about Christ ( if they did,nt that is ), and there could be any number of reasons for this, including their not recording every Jew or other nationality that caused a problem for a roman governor. I,m sure Pilate would like to have forgotten it.   Having no extant record from the exact time is hardly a strong argument again him, especially as it is only a matter of decades after that there is record of him and his followers.   But, granted, not a bad shot, for an argument from silence, or as you insist, a lack of evidence, exactly contemporary with Jesus,

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 05:11 PM

So shimrod, there is a mountain of evidence out there for it is there. Ok, give us a shovelful at a time, show us some evolution !?. You won't though will you. You just take it on faith. If you can't demonstrate it, it is just a belief.               And just because you know more biology than I proves nothing, anymore than if I know more theology than you.       And yes I have produced evidence that evolution is impossible, or rather scientists have. As far back as Louis Pasteur it has been demonstrated that life only comes from life, so darwins evolution could never get started.......I believe that is called a law of nature !.   You assert something as evidenced that is contrary to such laws. And of course, the preservation of various soft tissue that is said to be multimillion yr old is only now accepted as possible, because to hold to experimental science that measures decay rates, would damage the Darwinist paradigm. Or how about trees through strata supposed to be millennia laid down. It should have rotted away and left nothing beyond the very bottom surely.    These and more are evidence against evolutionism. So what do you do if you don't have an answer ? You just resort to saying answers have not been found yet but as evolution is true there must be an answer ?.   Being as you cannot demonstrate the evolutionary story, it seems to me it is more logical to throw it out. Of course if you can demonstrate that it is true........             And stu, do you suppose Galileo would pass peer review at the time ?   How about some arguments, other than appeal to authority. You did make a bit of an effort with the geologic record, which you claimed was so finely graded as to be a problem to creationism.   But not as much as you assumed !.

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

Neither the Romans nor anyone else outside your own bunch of proselytisers ever mentioned Jesus around the time he was supposed to have lived. That doesn't trouble me, but it should trouble you. I'm just saying.

What theology do you know, pete, and where dld you get it from?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:47 PM

"If you can't demonstrate it, it is just a belief."

I can't demonstrate anything, pete, because I don't work in the field of evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, thousands of very competent scientists do, and all you have to do is to read up on their findings. Don't expect me to summarise those findings, and to do the work for you, only for you to bleat, "I don't believe it!" and quote waffle at me from some redneck website.

"And just because you know more biology than I proves nothing, anymore than if I know more theology than you."

How does knowing more theology than someone have any bearing on a debate about science?

"And yes I have produced evidence that evolution is impossible, or rather scientists have."

So, let's be clear, have you produced this "evidence" or have "scientists" produced it? And if you've produced the evidence, why not publish it, as Stu suggests?

"As far back as Louis Pasteur it has been demonstrated that life only comes from life, ..."

In which of his works did Louis Pasteur state that "life only comes from life"? Where can I read about 'Pasteur's Law of Nature'? I'm not sure of Pasteur's dates, but can I remind you that an awful lot of science has been done since his day - so some of his conclusions are bound to have been modified, or even over-turned, by now.

"Being as you cannot demonstrate the evolutionary story, it seems to me it is more logical to throw it out."

Far be it from me to arrogantly reject at least 150 years of scientific research (only a fool and complete pillock would do that, pete!)may I remind you, though, that, if tomorrow, the model built on all of that 150 years worth of labour was found to be completely wrong, it still would not mean that your precious bronze-age, middle eastern goat herders' myths and legends are true!

You know, pete, I keep getting this image of you as a stiff-necked, short-sighted pygmy frenziedly attacking a lump of granite with a teaspoon - little realising that the lump of granite is only part of the base a vast mountain (the vast mountain of modern science - just in case you weren't able to figure out the analogy for yourself)! Give it up, pete, modern science has reduced your silly superstitions and baseless beliefs to total irrelevance!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 07:27 PM

Well, Shimrod, I think we ought to know what theology pete knows and where he got it from. This is a very interesting topic, as I understand that atheists can be theologians too. We may find that our friend's scholarship in the field of theology is just as shaky as is his scholarship in science. We've heard a good deal of what sounds like serious bullshit from this fellow. So let's get him to show his credentials. So, pete, what theology do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 AM

Well, pete, I had a bit of a read up on Louis Pasteur and here's a passage about him from an essay entitled "Louis Pasteur: A Religious Man?" by Brendon Barnett (2011):

"More than anything Pasteur believed in experimental science. As he said himself, "Experimental science is essentially positivist in the sense that in its conceptions it never conerns itself with the essence of things, the origin of the world or its final destiny." Pasteur of course was a product of 19th century Europe and unmistakeably was effected by the beliefs of the Enlightenment. However, unlike many others, Pasteur asserted the preeminence of hypotheses over religious or metaphysical prejudices and always seemed willing to abandon theories that were outdated or useless in practicality. Pasteur often saw religion as a hinderance to scientific progress. In 1874, presiding over the award ceremony at the Collège of Arbois, he clearly stated his position:

"I know that the word free thinker is written somewhere within our walls as a challenge and an affront. Do you know what most of the free thinkers want? Some want the freedom not to think at all and to be fettered by ignorance; others want the freedom to think badly; and others still, the freedom to be dominated by what is suggested to them by instinct and to despise all authority and all tradition. Freedom of thought in the Cartesian sense, freedom to work hard, freedom to pursue research, the right to arrive at such truth as is accessible to evidence and to conform one's conduct to these exigencies--oh! let us vow a cult to this freedom; for this is what has created modern society in its highest and most fruitful aspects."

Pasteur had great respect for the unknown and the infinite, but did not allow himself to become a victim of superstition and fanatical religious explanations."

Now I know that you're going to dwell exclusively on Pasteur's thoughts on experimentation and tell us for the umpteenth time that you can't perform experiments on evolution, blah, blah, blah ... But, of course, you know that, in reality, you're being selective because experimentation is not the only tool in the scientist's toolbox. But the bits that you should really focus on, and reflect on, are Pasteur's view that religion can be a hinderance to scientific progress and that last sentence. You, of course, are a "victim of superstition and fanatical religious explanations" and Pasteur would probably not have approved of you!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:33 AM

I feel honoured. Apparently serious study into the demise of superstition are things I made up!

I wonder how much money I got selling my lied to ONS, The BBC, national newspapers, The Secular Society, Church of England and all the others using the data I referred to.

Meanwhile, this just in. Churches, mosques, temples etc don't need to be sold for development after all. Keith has just found 55,000,000 more God botherers than we thought exist!

Delusion is fascinating. Reminds me of a throwaway line from a Monty Python sketch. "Dinsdale was a loony. But he was a happy loony. Lucky bugger."

Enjoy your hobby Keith. Just don't make false claims for it eh? It's alright. Nobody is saying you can't believe in it. You don't have to assert bollocks. Just enjoy it while it lasts.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM

Just don't make false claims for it eh?
BELIEVERS, NON BELIEVERS AND CAN'T- MAKE-UP-THEIR-MINDERS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:31 AM

Musket, you stated,

"The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That was completely untrue.
You did make it up.
Sorry to point that out.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:35 AM

And here's another quote about 'belief' from the latest edition of 'New Scientist' (this time from the editorial):

"Religious faith has long been considered a special category of belief ... But the more we learn about how beliefs work, the less exceptional religion looks It turns out that almost all of our beliefs are built on intuition, biases and gut instinct: yet another facet of our mental lives over which we possess less conscious control than we like to think.

Science is not exempt. The scientific method is based on verifiable evidence, and is thus NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM [my emphasis], despite frequent claims to the contrary. But scientists, as humans, are influenced by their own beliefs about what is important, what they might find and what their findings mean. YET IT IS STILL THE BEST WAY TO DISTINGUISH WHAT WE BELIEVE FROM WHAT WE KNOW (my emphasis)."

But you don't want to know any of that, do you pete? So you'll probably ignore it!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM

Jim's link.
15% women and 30% men are atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM

Another extract from the same article:

"At the other end of the spectrum, 15 per cent of women said they were sure of the existence of a deity and compared with only nine per cent of men"

Everyone can play with figures. These would suggest that fewer people are convinced of the existence of a god that those who are convinced there is not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:02 AM

Raggy, I count myself a Christian, but there are no certainties.
We all experience doubt.
Beware any who say they do not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:14 AM

I do not think anyone has a problem with you being a committed Christian Professor, that's entirely your choice.

The problem lies in the inference that we are:

1. a Christian country

and

2. the influence that religion has on the day to day functioning of our country.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM

I have made no claims about any of that Raggy.
I merely refute Musket's assertion that atheists are now a majority anywhere.
And that I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:47 AM

Not a scintilla of doubt is present in the Lord's Prayer, Keith, nor in most other prayers, hymns or liturgies. We may well all harbour doubt, but the teachings of religions are predicated on certainties, and in some cases we are to accept those certainties under pain of repercussion. That, and the brainwashing of children, are my biggest issues with religion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM

So, Keith

You people have no evidence for your assertions whatsoever.
As with history, you just know you are right and mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees.

Even when we rub your silly faces in the evidence that proves you wrong.

Who are 'you people', Keith? Am I included in that? If so, what assertions am I making that you have proved wrong? Or is it just a question of when you know you are wrong you just use the shotgun approach and hope that no-one will notice? Is saving face really that important to you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:58 AM

As for the numbers game that seems to have taken over, I'd just say that, were I the only atheist left on the planet, living among oceans of believers, it would not undermine one jot my opinion that every single one of them was harbouring a delusion. If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing, let's give it up for everyone in that crowd who voted Barabbas. They were in the majority so they must have been right. And kindly don't give me any hindsight Christian bullshit on that one!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM

"15% women and 30% men are atheist."
The figures are based on beliefs of there being "something there after death" - ie a superstition.
This arises largely from the fact that religion has been taught in schools as a fact up to relatively recently - that this is no longer the case will obviously contribute to a continuing decline, and the behaviour of certain churches will accelerate that, as it has in the Catholic Church, which, certainly in 'Holy Ireland' is in somewhat of a crisis.
Those who believe in or adhere to a specific religion are in the minority and the number of people who actually practice any religion in any form is minuscule.
The most devout of any religion in Britain is Muslim - the mainline religions are in the minority.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:01 AM

If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing,

I do not and have not.
I merely refute Musket's assertion that atheists are now a majority anywhere.

That I have done.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM

If you really want to play the strength-by-numbers thing,

None of you accused Musket of that when he claimed atheists were the majority!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:31 AM

Ah ........ poor little Keith, folk picking on him again. Run off and tell Mummy about the nasty people on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:52 AM

On the basis of small surveys stated atheists are not a majority but they are a far larger number that practicing believers in ithe ainstream religions.
For those of us who were compulsarilly taught religion, atheism carried a stigma, making our atheism a no-go area in 'polite company'.
On this basis, random head-counting is meaningless.
One thing is certain - preachers are increasingly preaching to all-but-empty churches.
That fact can only accelerate - unless some religious nutter causes a war, of course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:13 AM

No argument with any of that, but Musket was wrong to claim that atheists are a majority.
Right?

He was trying "to play the strength-by-numbers thing."
I was not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:40 AM

"No argument with any of that, but Musket was wrong to claim that atheists are a majority.
Right?"
Wrong
I repeat - most of us grew up in an education system where religion was a compulsory subject taught as fact
To declare oneself a non-believer could incur anything from ridicule from your schoolmates to a beating from the teacher (been there, done that).
I didn't go to a Catholic School, but may parents and many of my relatives did - to them "A fear of God" was something quite tangible.
People who grew up under such conditions are not a reliable source on which to judge the levels of belief in people - if you want to judge the level of belief, count the people who attend church - head counting is a pointless excercise and would probably produce similar figures if you asked if they threw salt over their right shoulder or walked under ladders.
An interesting change I've noticed since we moved here.
I can remember being asked for my religion on numerous occasions back home by doctors and officials - when I replied "none" it was, more often than not - entered as "Church of England" (nearest thing to "none" apparently).
Over here, they type in "not revealed"
If you are notr playing the numbers game, why are you playing the numbers game, I wonder?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:56 AM

I was born an atheist as were we all and an atheist I will die.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:03 AM

No argument with any of that either Jim, but Musket was wrong to claim that atheists are a majority.
Right?

He was trying "to play the strength-by-numbers thing."
I was not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:07 AM

"To you, I'm an atheist.
To God, I'm the loyal opposition."

Woody Allen

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:24 AM

"I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up."

George Carlin

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 09:58 AM

" And yes I have produced evidence that evolution is impossible, or rather scientists have. As far back as Louis Pasteur it has been demonstrated that life only comes from life, so darwins evolution could never get started.......I believe that is called a law of nature !."

So a law of nature is life only comes from life? Just out of interest, how do you define 'life'? When is something alive? Is a virus alive? A prion?

Thing is pete, the onus is on you to confront science on it's own terms (otherwise it isn't science). Put your money where your mouth is. If you've got all this proof, I suggest you narrow down the focus on what interests you most and go for it. Seeing as you seem to think all fossils were deposited during and after the flood but are in fact ordered and occur in distinctive and unique assemblages, write up how this happened and the mechanism that caused this to occur. Point out the reasons hundreds of years of palaeontology, the collective efforts of hundreds of thousands of people, is wrong and you're right.

I dares ya!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 10:50 AM

Keith. Posting a link to a website giving information from polls conducted by regulated polling companies is not "making it up"

I accept that you rely on people not bothering to click on links so take your word against mine but all that does is compound your dishonesty.

You prove daily that you do not have the mental capacity to debate and your calling people liars for pointing out your infantile attempts at spreading bullshit to defend irrational stances gets tiresome.

If you insist that polls don't exist then stop using them to say, wrongly, that normal people are in a minority. This is debate. Not some sad loser stood on a street corner with a sandwich board encouraging people to share his mental state.

No. Believers in a god idea are no longer in the majority. No. People who are comfortable being labelled Christians do not necessarily believe there is a god.

Find a street corner if you must share your irrational passion. Some of us studied science and had teachers not hamstring by fantasy. Sorry if you didn't. You might be happier talking to fellow believers, it can't be easy hearing what the majority of people think of religion and the hatred, terror and abuse it represents.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 11:31 AM

Right, pete, you've got two challenges now!

1. Write up the 'evidence' you've got which 'proves' that "evolution is impossible" and get it published (in a reputable scientific journal - not some creationist 'rag').

2. Tell us all you know about theology.

Those two things should keep you busy - you'd better get cracking!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 12:13 PM

Musket, YOU posted the link!
Here is the page, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12799801

You claimed this about it,
"The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That does not appear in it Musket.
You did make it up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 12:16 PM

Musket,
Some of us studied science and had teachers not hamstring (sic) by fantasy.

For forty years, I was such a Science teacher.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 12:37 PM

"For forty years, I was such a Science teacher."
Do you mean they let you near kids?
Explains what's happening in the world today.
You are still trying to score points with meaningless surveys, despite your claims otherwise.
Like folk music, most people son't give god a second thought - that, in my book, makes them non-believers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:24 PM

Presumably explained the science behind the miracles....

No Keith. I posted two links at different times and you know it. One link was to the BBC story and the other was to a humanist website that gave a round up of recent polls. The paragraph you are avoiding like the plague is ;

"However, in a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question 'What is your religion?', 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked 'No religion'. When the same sample was asked the follow-up question 'Are you religious?', only 29% of the same people said 'Yes' while 65% said 'No', meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious."

The Daily Torygraph has an interesting article too, telling the reality. This for instance;


"Thirty years ago more than two thirds of the population associated with one religion or another.

While 40 per cent classed themselves as Anglican a generation ago, now only 20 per cent do so."


Any more myth busting you want to take into account? Just bear in mind, it isn't that religion is a dying hobby, as much as that is to be welcomed, it's that the truth about religiosity is different to what you want us to believe.

God or Clapton help 40 years of pupils. Which text book did you use for astrophysics, "Worlds in Collision"?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:27 PM

The National Census is not a "meaningless survey" Jim, and neither are polls conducted by the likes of YouGov.

I am not trying to score points.
Musket claimed that Atheists are the majority here.
I merely corrected that false assertion by referring to the evidence that proves him wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:35 PM

Musket,here is a link to the page you just quoted.
It is also what your BBC link was about.
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/

You claimed this about it,
"The most telling poll was the one I gave a link to which asked two questions. Are you a Christian and do you believe in God? Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That does not appear in it Musket.
You did make it up.

Atheists are a minority here as in all countries.
You were wrong to claim otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 01:54 PM

Are you a christian = what is your religion

Do you believe in god = are you religious

Different words, that's all. Bit like vulgar and fraudulent.

Why is it that when you change the words of a published work it is OK but if someone else does it isn't? I fully understood Muskets point as I am sure many others did.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM

seems somewhat hypocritical, shimrod to require answer to your challenges , when you have answered precisely nothing. I cannot recall any argument from you, other than appeals to authority. but as to theology I don't claim any great scholarship, and as to that being irrelevant to science.......no more than your own scientific achievements and interests, and that by your own admission.   well, as I say, evolutionism isn't good for anything science except evolutionism itself. and if you think science has moved on from pasteurs demolishing of Darwin, I suggest you tell us how. and about that vast scientific mountain, you still have not dug any of it out to evidence evolutionism. and of course, I have written up some of the evidence against it HERE, but as to peer reviewed journals, run by evolutionary believers, even fully qualified scientists that don't toe the party line don't get published , though I have heard that occasionally some articles get through if the reviewers don't realize the Darwinist story is challenged in some area.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:49 PM

last I read, stu. a virus is not strictly life, but as you are the scientist, what do you think ? you ask me to narrow it down, and I did......you did not answer or refer to those points.   your allusion to the fossil grading is probably your strongest argument. however, creationists have addressed this issue, and I earlier mentioned that under such biblically based model, it would be expected that seafloor life would be buried first, but also be found on high ground and mountains as dramatic uplift occurred. the more intelligent and mobile would be expected to be consumed last as they found higher ground. the intervening levels are , I understand, not so finely graded as you might have been led to believe. evolutionists have had to move fossils around the column to preserve the idea. btw, stu, do you know anywhere there is a complete column ?. mammal fossils have been found in dino strata, but being of less interest are rarely displayed with dinos. and aren't mammels supposed to have evolved after dinos ?........just like the birds found in dino stomachs !.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM

Well, I've read some tosh here in my time but that last post of Pete's really takes the biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM

Do you believe in god = are you religious

Absolutely not!
I do not regard myself as "religious" and would answer no to it.

I see "religious" people as the sort who always go on about God and Jesus, bringing religion into every conversation and being prudish about sex, drinking and language.

Most of us are nothing like that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:18 PM

I `ad that Jeremy Clarkson in my cab the other night. (Did you know `is mum made a killing with stuffed Paddington bears?). Anyway, Clarkson`s all in disguise, you`d `ardly recognise `im. It was `is smirk that gave `im away.
I said, " Morning champ. What`s all this then? You `iding from the press or something?"
`e said, "Nah, them camel bashers `ave put a fatwa out on me. I don`t want to end up without my `ead."
I said, "What`s up then? You made some joke about Mohammed and all `is virgins?"
`e said, " Nah. We made a programme for the the Middle East and `appened to mention the seats in this flash motor were very comfy and made of the finest pigskin. Christ, did that bring the pains on!!!"


Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:20 PM

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM

Well, I've read some tosh here in my time but that last post of Keith's really takes the biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM

Professor you stated "Atheists are a minority here as in all countries"

You may be correct, care to back this up with any evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:33 PM

Ahhh, so you do see my posts. Just choose to ignore the ones that you are embarrassed to answer :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:22 PM

Keith supplies a link to where I got my information that has verbatim what I just quoted and he still said I'm a liar.

At the risk of losing the post..

Thick cunt.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:27 PM

Oops, that last post of mine was supposed to be a one-liner.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:30 PM

"I have written up some of the evidence against it HERE, but as to peer reviewed journals, run by evolutionary believers, even fully qualified scientists that don't toe the party line don't get published , ..."

You have 'presented' NO evidence 'HERE'! You have merely demonstrated your lack of understanding of science ... And now, it would appear, you don't understand theology either!

OK, let's have an example of a "fully qualified scientist" who has not "toed the party line" and, as a result, has not been published. In addition, who are these "evolutionary believers" who insist that their scientific peers "toe the party line"? This suggests that you believe there exists some sort of enormous conspiracy. Who is behind this conspiracy, and what do they hope to gain by it?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:20 PM

By the way pete, mammals in "dinosaur strata" are fine. "Birds in dinosaur stomachs" are also fine. Dunno why you see a problem with either of those.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 10:05 PM

ok shimrod, lets put this simply. anything that is not hard has always been expected to decompose. lots of stuff called soft tissue has been found in dead animals that evolutionists say are millions of years old. if they were millions of years old, there would not be stuff that could decompose still there. this is evidence against evolution. when a tree is found that has the bottom in one layer that is supposed to be millions of years old and the top is in a higher layer not so supposedly millions of years old. this too is evidence against the evolution story. that is because the top would have rotted long before the next million years. it has never been demonstrated that life can come from non life. all experimental evidence confirms that life only comes from life. this is evidence against evolution also. and until you address your challenges, I am under no obligation to address any more of yours.
yes steve, no problem, evolutionism is so pliable it can stretch to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:32 AM

Before I start on your latest incoherent mish-mash, pete, can I point out that mammals DID co-exist with dinosaurs - just as mammals co-exist with birds and reptiles today; no clandestine, conspiritorial re-arrangement of strata necessary!

As for all this gibberish about decomposition, this is not 'your' 'evidence', is it? This is (probably) data selectively extracted from the legitimate scientific literature by religious fundamentalists - who, laughingly, characterise themselves as 'scientists'(LOL!) - and who are desperate to discredit evolutionary biology because it undermines their silly religious certainties. I can assure you that no real scientist, on finding material which appears to be anomalous, would shout: "Aha!! This means that the Theory of Evolution must be wrong and the myths and legends of some bronze-age, middle eastern goat herders must be right!

"all experimental evidence confirms that life only comes from life. this is evidence against evolution also."

Experimental evidence is not the only evidence available.

"and until you address your challenges, I am under no obligation to address any more of yours."

May I point out that I am not the one who is 'challenged'. And, I agree, you are under no "obligation" to do anything. Only your credibility is at stake; but as that credibility barely exists, anyway - no harm done!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 03:16 AM

Reading posts from pete and Keith and reading about how religions are manipulated for wicked ends, I tend to be drawn to two conclusions ;

Religion is a powerful drug. Both posters are capable of typing words into sentences, both appear to be able to read and understand the challenges to their fairy stories in terms of being compared to reality yet both seem to genuinely think they are in the right. It is sadly the same religious fervour that allows terrible crimes to be committed too. The Voltaire quote that those who can convince you of absurdities can make you commit atrocities is bang on.

Of course our two aren't being told to do bad things, except perpetuate delusion I suppose, but both show that once you are hooked, you will justify the absurd all day.

The other point is more hopeful. Anybody thinking that a decent sized minority of lemmings can't be wrong might read some of pete's diatribe and realise that delusion isn't for them.

Not really.

Reality may not have a comfort blanket to suck on but at least you keep your intellectual credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:12 AM

" ... evolutionism (sic) is so pliable it can stretch to anything."

Again, pete, you are confusing 'belief' and 'evidence' - a misapprehension that you are determined to labour under. May I remind you of that quote from a recent 'New Scientist' editorial, which I quoted above and which you so studiously ignored:

"The scientific method is based on verifiable evidence, and is thus NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM [my emphasis], despite frequent claims to the contrary."

New evidence may lead to existing models being modified - it happens all the time. Only fanatical religious fundamentalists, like you, are bothered by this. That is because you have convinced yourself, and are determined to believe, that you are in possession of absolute truth. You are also determined to see science as a competing belief system - which it is NOT - see above.What really bugs you and your co-religionists, though, is that science completely undermines your belief system and renders it irrelevant.

Louis Pasteur knew the difference between belief and evidence way back in the 19th century (you're way, way, way behind the times, pete!).

Another quote which you also wilfully ignored:

"Pasteur asserted the preeminence of hypotheses over religious or metaphysical prejudices and always seemed willing to abandon theories that were outdated or useless in practicality. Pasteur often saw religion as a hinderance to scientific progress."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:18 AM

Musket, neither of those pages say what you claim they say.

"Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That is made up.
It does not appear.
You have been caught out and all you can do is bluster.

Steve, calling my post "tosh" does not explain what you disagree with.
Do you disagree that you can believe in God without being religious?
Well you can, and most do.
The poll made it two different question so they clearly do not equate the two as Dave did.
You are both wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:27 AM

The poll made it two different question so they clearly do not equate the two as Dave did.
You are both wrong about that.

Quite possibly, but if we were wrong other people could be and may have answered the questions incorrectly. The whole point is that the claim that x% of people being religious or believing in god takes no account of misinterpretation, superstition, habit and downright lying. Such surveys just cannot be relied on particularly, as someone pointed out, when thy have leading questions. If we were to believe everything on the census how do you account for the number of people who said they were jedi?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:34 AM

Such surveys ARE relied on.
They are used by government and commerce for strategic planning.
The independent surveys all make the same findings on the number of believers and the number of atheists, confirming their reliability.
Atheists are a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM

Such surveys ARE relied on.

Well, bugger me. There really must be 300,000 or so jedis.

They are used by government and commerce for strategic planning.

Yes, and proper statisticians know that there is a skew factor in all of them so adjust their plans accordingly. They do not use the figures to 'prove' anything.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:52 AM

Well, pete, evolution doesn't need to do any stretching. The fact is that birds, mammals and dinosaurs coexisted. No-one has tried to wriggle and squirm to make that fact fit the theory. You see this as a problem because you haven't the faintest idea of how evolution works. You also don't appear to understand that you need micro-organisms in order for decomposition to take place. Deny them the conditions they need and decomposition will be put on hold. It happens in peat bogs, in deep waterlogged sediments, in amber and in your freezer. You see this as a problem because you haven't the faintest idea of how living organisms operate. Finally, if you don't agree that life came from non-life, kindly tell me what God created life from. Did he use a magic wand, and do you really think that's a better explanation than mine? Incidentally, there really isn't anything magical or sacred about life. Like everything else in nature, it's wonderful. Like everything else in nature, it obeys all the laws of nature and can be explained using them. Explaining life requires us to take it off its mystical pedestal first.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:58 AM

The figures on belief and atheism are unequivocal, and they all independently find the same.
Atheists are a minority.
Musket was wrong.

The only confusion comes from the one poll that was commissioned by an atheists organisation.
They asked the question "Are you religious?" without clarifying what they meant by it.

Most believers would not describe themselves as religious, so there was a strong negative response.
That was then used to support the atheist agenda.

The National Census and the independent surveys all find that atheists are a minority.
That is hard evidence.
What evidence supports Musket's assertion?
NONE!
(or do you have some now?)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:25 AM

"and aren't mammals supposed to have evolved after dinos ?........just like the birds found in dino stomachs !."

Wow, this sort of sentence shows you actually know nothing. I mean, seriously? This is BASIC stuff most 10 year olds know. This makes you look stupid pete, at least introduce some refinement to your arguments.


"btw, stu, do you know anywhere there is a complete column ?"

Nope, there isn't one. But that is irrelevant, at least in the manner you mean it (oh that there was - joy!). Thing is, if the flood only occurred a few thousand years ago you'd expect to find uninterrupted stratigrahic columns everywhere, but bits are missing, lots and lots of them. You talk about dramatic uplift but that implies tectonic activity, something you deny exists because it is an agent that affects evolution. It's difficult to know how to answer this, as without going through the fundamentals of geology any discussion is meaningless.


"I have written up some of the evidence against it HERE, but as to peer reviewed journals, run by evolutionary believers, even fully qualified scientists that don't toe the party line don't get published , though I have heard that occasionally some articles get through if the reviewers don't realise the Darwinist story is challenged in some area."

Utter, complete rubbish. So it's all a big conspiracy then? You give the people that study this, give their time freely and gladly in peer reviewing papers very little credit of you think they're all out to propagate some non-existent agenda. That's a total fantasy on your part, and a baseless accusation.


"lots of stuff called soft tissue has been found in dead animals that evolutionists say are millions of years old. if they were millions of years old, there would not be stuff that could decompose still there"

No! No! No! You arrogance is showing again pete. Firstly, don't presume that we have reached the sum of our knowledge, as we haven't by a massively long shot, whether by scientific enquiry or divine revelation. Secondly, the mechanisms of preservation are becoming understood because we're looking for them now. A hundred years ago we had no idea of the levels of preservation or how certain proteins and other organic molecules and markers survive the diagenetic process. Also, there's a lot more on this to come as I've seen some preliminary results and they are impressive to say the least, but they need to be tested and then go through peer review and so are under embargo (standard practice in science to make sure released research is as accurate as possible ).

I know several people involved in this field and they are finding some very interesting results and are changing the way we excavate our specimens. Exciting stuff!

So pete, you need to do what the rest of us do when reporting our research or commenting on other people's: collate your data, draw your conclusions, make your arguments and write it all up, get it peer reviewed and present it. If you're right about the flood, then you'll change numerous scientific disciplines at a stroke and if your data and analysis was sound, then that's great.

But you won't, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:39 AM

Out of interest to all but Pete I expect. List of known floods across the ages.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:54 AM

Ok, Keith. Black is white, bears don't shit in the woods, one-legged ducks swim in straight lines and the Pope's the Dalai Lama's uncle. Now that we've agreed all that, can you stop wittering on about your facts and figures for a minute? Read my lips, Keith. It is not the important thing. It is a sideshow. Relax and enjoy life a little more. Feel the spring sunshine on your skin. Go and have a pint or seven in the Old Barge. Do you still get all those goths smoking pot on the towpath?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:16 AM

Floods is jt? Check this out:

Revealing God's Treasure : The Anchor Stones of Noah's Ark

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:29 AM

"Musket was wrong."
Yup "You win again" as Hank Williams used to sing and you never get tired of telling us.
Prove it
Do you have to book in advance for a seat in your church?.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:56 AM

The census and the polls do prove it Jim.
I make no claim about church attendance.
Musket made the false claim that atheists are a majority, and was called on it.
He was wrong.

He also claimed a survey said, "Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."
That was not true.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:29 AM

If there's a God, let him come down now and help us to be rid of this Hertfordian statistical nut (and if he blazes down to Bude in a chariot of fire, I'll believe in him for evermore. Deal, God?)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:30 AM

That's God, Keith, not you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM

" ... kindly tell me what God created life from. Did he use a magic wand, ..."

Now Steve! Come on! You know (because pete told you - so it must be true) that God is unknowable and it's "childish" to ask such questions!

In addition, if you attribute everything to God, and God is unknowable, you don't have to know anything or do any thinking ... does that remind you of someone?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,big al whittle
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 12:59 PM

how did od create life...,,

I expect one day he farted, followed through..looked behind him and there it was....the garden of eden, all freshly manured.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:52 PM

Steve,
Being aware of the findings of the National Census and of the various polls and surveys does not make anyone a "statistical nut."

It makes them well informed, and able to spot and expose ignorant false claims and assertions.

Musket made the false claim that atheists are a majority, and was called on it.
He was wrong.

He also claimed a survey said, "Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."
That was not true.

Ignorance compounded by dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM

It does when you go on and on and on and on and bloody on about it. Which you do. As ever. With everything. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:00 PM

Not true.

I only repeat when there is a denial.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM

I know it's not true. It just seems to be true. Allow me a cri de coeur occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:11 PM

Suggestion for everyone on this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:39 AM

In one sentence Keith went from saying there was no poll to saying it was by an atheist organisation so doesn't count. Didn't retract from calling me a liar of course but you can't educate pork.

He gets better. Who needs Top Gear anyway? Keith gives far better value for money in the light entertainment stakes.

The poll by the way was by one of the accredited polling companies and therefore feeds into ONS data.

Even The Daily Torygraph say half the population have no religion. Factor in the many who put a religion on forms but don't believe in imaginary friends and you start to look at the reality society reflects.

Talking of God. He is possibly called Tim Cooke and the Jesus character is called Jonny Ives. They have just given me a wafer and wine. Or put another way, I have just pre ordered my Apple Watch. No need for it, no situation I couldn't deal with without it and I crave it.

Fuck me, I must be religious!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

Professor, your quote:

" Not true. I only repeat when there is a denial"

On a recent thread about historians you used the term "you lose" over 45 times to my knowledge (I was bored one day and counted them)

You repeat constantly, you lie constantly, you are deceitful and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence. It is tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever as no-one takes you seriously in the first place.

A lot of people like winding you up just to see which inanity you come out with next, it can be quite amusing on a rainy day.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Bizibod
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:06 AM

And...........Back to Jeremy Clarkson!
Have I Got News For You will not see JC as host later this month.
That would have been quite some programme with Hislop and Merton mercilessly extracting the urine...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:11 AM

Even The Daily Torygraph say half the population have no religion.

And I am sure they are right.
I made no claims about people having religion, only about people with belief, and atheists.

You Musket claimed that atheists are a majority.
No single poll supports that.
It was a completely unsupported assertion.

The National Census and all the polls show atheists to be a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:23 AM

2011 YouGov poll commissioned by the Humanist Association.
(The one Musket keeps on about.)

What is your religion?

No religion 39%
Christian 53%

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:33 AM

"On a recent thread about historians you used the term "you lose" over 45 times to my knowledge (I was bored one day and counted them)

You repeat constantly, you lie constantly, you are deceitful and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence. It is tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever as no-one takes you seriously in the first place." - Raggytash

1: "Your repeat constantly"

And? The one thing about the truth and the one thing about facts is they rarely, if ever, alter and on such occasions that they do it is usually due to new information coming to light. Facts supported by the fullest and latest information tend to be constant and verifiable, unlike some of the assertions made by the likes of yourself, Dave the Gnome, the Musktwats, Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll on that self same thread "about historians"

2: "you lie constantly"

Really?? Only in your fevered imagination, but there again perhaps you could provide some examples of these lies then we could compare them with the ones told by the likes of yourself, Dave the Gnome, the Musktwats, Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll on that self same thread "about historians"

3: "deceitful

Where? when? C'mon Raggy you've made the observation and felt compelled to comment so now substantiate it - or have the decency to STFU.

4: "and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence"

Well from what I have seen on this Forum you appear to condemn people you see on one side of the argument for faults that you let pass when exhibited by those you regard as supporting your views - that Raggy ol'son is being two faced. As to the "lack of intelligence" jibe - well in that particular thread Keith ran circles round all of you, purely because his knowledge of the events was based on a balance of what historians of the time and of those down throughout the century that has passed have written about it - unlike those arguing against it who relied on the out of date and discredited writings of those with a particular axe to grind, a few poets, left-wing luvvies with their own unconnected agenda and comedy script writers.

5: As to Keith A's contributions on that particular thread being - "tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever" - well they would be to you wouldn't they, his views first challenged, then completely blew apart all those myths and smug assumptions your lazy approach to the topic held dear, and instead of being open to debate and actually learning something you preferred to wallow in ignorance - the purpose by the way was to inform and to go some way towards righting a tremendous wrong that had been done to people who could not defend themselves.

6: "as no-one takes you seriously in the first place."

If that is true Raggy then more fool you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:40 AM

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:23 AM

But all true though Raggy

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

Of course, I stand by everything I wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:33 AM

Put the follow up question Keith. I stated that in the survey, two questions were asked to ascertain whether people identify as Christian through social conditioning and use the word in the same way they might use star sign or blood group.

How many of the 53% turned out to believe in God? Come on, I'll let you tell the boys and girls. I'll just mention your dishonesty when you said all Christians believe in God.

Dishonest fool. Real Christians must wince when they see you and your intellect fighting their good fight as they unfortunately call it...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 02:01 PM

How many of the 53% turned out to believe in God?

All of them, but that question was not asked Musket.
You lied when you said that many who answered as Christian said they did not believe in God.

I now call it a lie because I have pointed out several times that it is not true.
You still try to deceive the forum.
You were wrong to claim that atheists are a majority, and you lie to try and hide your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:20 PM

Read the fucking link.

Stop assuming nobody bothered to look.

I am not a liar. You however are typing them even though anyone can read up and see them. The people who answered Christian were then asked if they believe in God. How many Keith eh? Why did you proclaim the survey you are talking about didn't exist and I lied when I mentioned it? Eh fuckwit?

Your medicine man must be proud of you.

God or Clapton help the poor kids who had to learn from your idea of reality and reason. Education is a wonderful thing but relies on sane teachers.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:30 PM

"Experimental evidence is not the only evidence available". Agreed shimrod, but we all got the same data, we all got the evidence. It is whether it can be interpreted in more than one way. And if experimental evidence is available it must trump theories and interpretations that run counter to known laws , until such time as experimental evidence overthrows such laws.    And your suggestion that creationists cannot be real scientists is just sticking your head in the sand   Take Pasteur , as you found quotes about him, which you think helps your case. The fact that his faith did not hinder his science seems rather to hinder your contention. And as usual there is the equivocation !. Did I say the scientific method was the same as belief ?.   No argument with that quote from new scientist. After all, you have yet to demonstrate that evolutionism is validated by the scientific method !.                                                                                  I may be missing something here , Steve, or you may be grossly exaggerating the time that soft tissue and other degradable items can last.   But did anyone think that such preservation over myo was possible before the data conflicted with the theory ?.   What do you think the conditions were that prohibited micro organisms doing their bit. I would suggest rapid burial, such as would be consistent with a catastrophic flood.    And yes I do believe God created from nothing. After all he is God !. Your option that there is no creator is more problematic.....unless you believe the general theory of evolution is god.........judging by the religious fervour exhibited by the atheists here......?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM

All true my arse, Billyboy. Please show me where I lied on the historians thread, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:40 PM

You certainly are missing something here, pete. You're missing your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:59 PM

Musket, here is the link to the Humanist Assoc page.
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/

There is absolutely nothing there about Christians not believing in God.
If I am lying, cut and paste it.
If you are lying, make some pathetic excuse.
Which will it be?!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:03 PM

Stu, please tell me where I dismissed tectonic movements. It may be part of the evolutionist model, presumably slowly crashing together and causing uplift, but it is part of the flood model also, minus the sloooooooooow !.   And please explain why the flood model only thousands of yr ago should produce an uninterrupted total column rather than the slow and gradual (and occasional catastrophe ) model.          So, stu you are privy to groundbreaking research that will validate your contentions and claims, and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to. I wonder if that will outlast the former proofs of evolution. If you are right , I shall have to retire from that argument......but your excitement might be a little early don't you think?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:45 PM

What former proofs of evolution? Take your time now...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:49 AM

Always happy to oblige fuckwit.

Using your link, just in case you changed it from the original as you did once with a link Jim supplied on a different subject ;

"However, in a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question 'What is your religion?', 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked 'No religion'. When the same sample was asked the follow-up question 'Are you religious?', only 29% of the same people said 'Yes' while 65% said 'No', meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious."

Yeah, all Christians believe in God eh?
😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 06:50 AM

"but it is part of the flood model also, minus the sloooooooooow !"

Except . . . this would have had to happen in times we have written records for, and as far as I am aware these make no mention of the Himalayas, the Rockies or the Andes (to name but a few) rising in the last few thousand years. Surely this event didn't go unnoticed? Your flood is mentioned in texts older than Christian, your lot merely appropriated them for their own use (a typically Christian habit, it appears), so why no mention of the of the Alpine orogeny?

Also, why do you discount erosion and weathering? Did God speed these processes up after the deposits were thrust to high elevation. We can observe these processes now and understand the speeds they occur and their mechanisms of action. Were these changed supernaturally, then slowed at some point? At what point were they slowed? What would be the purpose of this?


"So, stu you are privy to groundbreaking research that will validate your contentions and claims, and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to"

No! No! NO! Listen man! I saw new data presented at a conference (along with hundreds of others) on the survival of soft tissue in a dinosaur that's not been reported before. The findings were preliminary and might not be borne out, hence the embargo. It's another piece of the jigsaw rather than a definitive answer, that's how science progresses. I really don't understand your issue with soft tissue survival. Did you think we'd discovered the sum total knowledge of palaeontology when Cope and Marsh were battling for Brontosaurus?


"why the flood model only thousands of yr ago should produce an uninterrupted total column "

Surely if all the sedimentary layers we see were laid down in a single event, which happened mere thousands of years ago, then they haven't had time to arrange themselves as we see today? See comments above. Provide explanation.


" Take Pasteur , as you found quotes about him, which you think helps your case. The fact that his faith did not hinder his science seems rather to hinder your contention"

Faith doesn't hinder science, we've discussed this at length on other threads pete. Plenty of scientists have faith, but you're an extremist. What hinders science is ignorance, a lack of curiosity and the desire to conform. Also things have moved on since Pasteur's day, as you might notice if you actually understood anything about science.


"and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to"

That is such poorly constructed entrance it's almost poetry. I actually quite like it! Nice one.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 07:54 AM

"39% ticked 'No religion'."

Having no religion is not the same as not believing god exists. Further, participating in a religion is not proof one believes in god.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 09:17 AM

Correct but Rt Rev Field Marshall Acheson VD&bar stated that all Christians believe in God.

Then said this survey didn't exist.

Then said it wasn't valid because those commissioning it were rational.

Then said the second bit didn't exist.

Then went thankfully quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM

Musket, your survey said some Christians do not consider themselves religious.
No surprise.
I do not consider myself a religious person and would have answered no to it.

I do not believe that anyone who calls them self a Christian would answer no to believing in God and nothing in the surveys suggest that.

Musket, you stated as a fact, ""Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That was a blatant, deliberate lie.
No survey or any Census says any such thing.
You are exposed as a liar and a fraud, again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 01:22 PM

I'm not a Christian but I don't not believe in God. I don't know whether there's a God or not. Not a single Christian, nor anyone else on this planet, knows whether there's a God or not. I don't understand why any rational person allows belief to enter into it. We should all be placing ourselves on a spectrum according to the weight we put on each piece of evidence for or against. Dawkins's spectrum goes from 1 (100% certain that God exists - an irrational position) to 7 (100% certain that God does not exist - equally irrational). Dawkins and I both put ourselves at 6.9. Atheists are atheists because of the sheer lack of evidence that God exists. But we have to leave that tiny margin of 0.1 because, well, you never know when evidence might crop up. We atheists are completely open to new evidence about God. It is vital to understand that lack of evidence is not the same as non-belief. Vital, but seldom understood by God-adherents. I sometimes call the latter believers, because they call themselves that. But that's just irrational. In future, I think I may ask them where they are on that scale.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:38 PM

One minute Keith says all Christians are religious the next minute he isn't.

I'm happy him calling me a liar. He seems to be deranged.

Or saying anything to justify his religion, for which up to the last post, said he is religious.

I suppose if you believe in fairies, the humpty dumpy clause can easily apply.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:50 PM

One minute Keith says all Christians are religious

No.
Keith has never said that.
You are making up shit again.

You previously stated, "Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

You made that up too!

You stated that atheists are a majority.

More made up shit!

You have made yourself even more laughable than usual over this.
Do keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:22 PM

Stu, as far as written records are concerned , there is one, and I would not expect many more, seeing as the judgment of God swept all except 8 away in judgment. There are however flood stories from around the world, including the Gilgamesh epic. But there are aural traditions from diverse locations,often with similarities to the biblical record.       Why would you expect mountain ranges that only sprung up in the flood yr to be recorded, certainly not by name.          As to erosion and weathering, it is hard to generalise, esp as I am not a geologist. However, I think that often what " you lot " put down to slow processes , creationist geologists put down to catastrophic phenomenon , and produce observational evidence to support that interpretation of the data.      I have reread you're your former post and can see now how I misunderstood it.......ie you were claiming nothing, but rather expressing a hope that the problem will be ironed out,   Presumably validating your preference that soft tissue can be preserved multimillion yrs.   sorry you don't understand the problem with soft tissue preservation. I would have thought a " ten year old " would comprehend the problem. It is my understanding that observational science had always regarded such preservation as impossible, and it was only the confirming of said phenomenon that caused evolutionists to search for some mechanism that will validate their deep time belief. But presumably we can at least agree that such mechanism has not been found, and that the under wraps new dino find is unlikely to alter that.   I don't know what the declassification of brontosaurus has to do with it !.       Sedimentary layers were laid down in the flood year. And I don't think I see what you are asking. I had formerly discussed how I understood how the geologic column , if we grant that there is such, was laid down. Ie, that there is a general order, but which is rearranged from time to time as the need arises to maintain the paradigm.   I am glad to see you don't see faith as a problem to being scientific, but if the creationist model is extremist, that don't mean it is wrong. You are merely expressing an opinion until you can demonstrate otherwise. And as to conforming ,you can hardly accuse creationists of that !. Rather it is the evolutionist that is following the herd.                      And yes I did write poetry, before going on to songwriting. Glad you like it !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:31 PM

Are you sure I said atheists are in the majority Keith?

Are you making things up again?

Naughty naughty.

I don't recognise the term atheist as meaning rational person who doesn't believe in imaginary friends for starters.

I said the majority don't believe in God or whatever. I am not any atheist. I don't reject theism on the basis it isn't my delusion either way.

Just like most people. fool.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST, Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:42 PM

Well Steve, maybe you might want to quibble as to whether these were considered " proofs " but I was thinking things like the forgeries of piltdown man , and hackyls recapitulation ontogeny drawings , various missing links that were put in the evolutionary dustbin, and the more recent fizz in the pan re background microwave radiation.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 07:28 PM

Well, pete, Piltdown Man has long been discredited. By scientists. Would you like me to repeat that? Oh yes, there have been fraudsters masquerading as scientists. As an impressionable young botany graduate I was taken in, like lots of others, by the claims of John Heslop-Harrison that he'd found some incredible rarities on Rhum. He'd planted them there himself as it turned out. Have a google. But here's the thing, pete. He was exposed by his fellow scientists, you see. We hate dishonesty and cheating. Science will not knowingly allow falsehood to set the agenda, because it knows that an agenda set that way can lead only to blind endings. As for those drawings you refer to, do tell us what your take on them is. Naturally, I shall be expecting your account to contain some science.   Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:28 AM

"It is my understanding that observational science had always regarded such preservation as impossible, and it was only the confirming of said phenomenon that caused evolutionists to search for some mechanism that will validate their deep time belief. But presumably we can at least agree that such mechanism has not been found, and that the under wraps new dino find is unlikely to alter that."

pete, keep repeating to yourself: "Science is NOT a belief system. Science is NOT a belief system. Science is NOT a belief system ..."

And once that concept is lodged firmly in your thick, fanatical, fundamentalist little head (It's not yet, is it? Despite our best efforts!)then contemplate the truism that science IS an open-minded, open-ended system for investigating reality. IF soft tissue has been found preserved in dinosaur bones, then the scientists concerned have made an interesting, and possibly ground-breaking, discovery. If it turns out that they are mistaken about having found soft tissue preserved in dinosaur bones then they HAVEN'T made an interesting, and possibly ground-breaking, discovery (although the discovery may mean something else entirely). Nevertheless, the discovery (whatever it means) almost certainly does NOT allow anyone to dismiss the the whole of modern science and conclude that the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of some bronze-age, middle-eastern goat herders, recorded in an old book, must be right!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:41 AM

You might as well just have a wank. In a debating sense, you are anyway.

Religion fucks you up. pete demonstrates that continually, but at least he is consistent which is fair play given the intelligence level displayed. Keith on the other hand seems ashamed of the absurdity he defends at times and seems to be going through an "I am not religious" phase. To date, his "I am religious" posts outnumber them by a wide margin.

Two people who, strictly speaking, it is self indulgent to try to engage in debate with.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:58 AM

Just what I've said multiple times about you Three Musketeers, eh? - with the invaluable assistance of Miss Austen's Elinor Dashwood: ""Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." No apology for repetition -- always germane when it comes to the Popguns.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 03:08 AM

MGM, if you check back through this and other threads I think you find you come a far distant second in the repeating stakes. I think you will find it is the Professor(KAOH) who repeats things most often.

Sometimes his contributions are repeated like a mantra. Things like "my three points" or "you lose" The "you lose" comment was repeated on one thread in excess of 45 occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 03:55 AM

Musket,
I said the majority don't believe in God or whatever

The Census and every poll and survey say that is not true.
You are proved wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 04:34 AM

A quote of yours from an earlier post, pete (I can't always seem to be able to access Mudcat):

" And your suggestion that creationists cannot be real scientists is just sticking your head in the sand ..."

Can I remind you that REAL scientists don't start from the premise that they are in possession of absolute truth and 'work backwards' from there? In addition, REAL scientists don't spend all of their time, and expend all of their efforts, trying to discredit the conclusions of other scientists, mainly because those conclusions cast doubt on their prior assumption of absolute truth!

I recently watched an episode of the TV programme 'Mock the Week'. During the programme the comedian, Andy Parsons remarked: "There are five major religions in the world. That means that four of them must be wrong!" Leaving aside the possibilty that all of them might be wrong, how do you know that YOU'VE picked the right one and that you, and your beloved "creationist scientists" (LOL!), are really in possession of absolute truth?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM

Raggytash, it seems to me that one of Keith's main purposes here is not to defend points which are patently true in any case, but to point out the deliberate lies and distortions propagated by "Team Musket". In doing so Keith is in fact doing a service to the whole forum, for if this behaviour is allowed to continue unopposed, we shall have no forum at all.

I commend Keith for his doggedness in this matter, as myself and others are continually lied about by "TM" and I have neither the time nor the inclination at present, to point them out over and over again.

For one thing, and I think you may be able to agree with me here, three or four people should not be allowed to post under the one handle, as it confuses debate and wrecks serious discussion of important issues.

"TM" have admitted that it is a vehicle for "piss taking".
I think it is pretty obvious to most members why these people are here and what the wrecking tactics are all about......do you and the rest of the membership wish to see obscenities and abuse replace reasoned debate?....I don't really think so, put small personal slights aside and see the bigger picture....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:26 AM

I have this dream whereby I wake up one day, click on a Mudcat thread and read a post from Akenaton that is neither generalised and incoherent rubbish, devoid of thought, concerning his strange take on political matters, nor a whinge about the people here with whom he disagrees and about whom he is complaining either directly or indirectly to the powers that be. My good man, we do have a forum, and by far the best use of it is to make your points, preferably well-considered (read that phrase again, please), innocent of your usual prejudices, about the matter under discussion. Think you can manage that? Just for once? Give it a little try, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:45 AM

do you and the rest of the membership wish to see obscenities and abuse replace reasoned debate?

It is very easy. Don't post obscenities about and abuse of minority groups thinly disguised as reasoned debate and people will not react in kind. Think you can manage that? I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:57 AM

To Both.....I actually love discussing things with people I disagree with, I don't think I post obscenities, and do you really think that people who have admitted to reporting Mudcat to the authorities over content, who continuously attempt to wreck discussions and who share one member name to "piss take" and confuse the issue, should be allowed to participate here?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

I think you will find the Professors main purpose is to forward ignorance, ill considered racism and bigotry which he then continues to propound again and again and again. Ad Nauseam.

He is not really worth the effort of a response, however it can be amusing on a rainy day, as it in this morning in Yorkshire.

As you your remark regarding "membership" I should point out to you that I do not know any of the Muskets, Steve and others. Dave the Gnome I have met and have even shared a pint with him on the odd occasion.

Some might say it would possibly be best to ignore his racist, ignorance and bigotry. I do not.

I can normally get on with most people and should our paths ever cross I would hope that you and I could sit down over a pint together. I doubt if I would piss on the Professor even if he was on fire.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:29 AM

I don't think I post obscenities

Gay people are perverts
They should be on a register
They are promiscuous
They should not be allowed to be married

Need I go on? You do not think these statements are obscene and abusive?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:30 AM

I haven't met anyone who posts here to my knowledge (I had a natter once with Brian Peters but he won't remember). I rarely communicate by private message except to respond to someone who's contacted me first. I'm not in anyone's team and if someone I generally agree with goes off on one I usually just shut up and cringe. But I'd be ashamed of myself if I saw bigotry and ignorant prejudice left unremarked on any forum I was posting on. I didn't permit it in my classroom in 25 years and I'm damned if I'm going to see racism, prejudice against gay people, gay marriage and Muslims, fuelled by hatred and ignorance, pass on this board without comment. As for complaining about multiple identities, well I don't know your identity either, and I don't see you whingeing about the multitude of nameless Guests who post there, often in numbers that make discussion nonsensical. Be honest with yourself for once. You have it in for a particular individual who is very good at ruffling your feathers. And you deserve it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 11:23 AM

Dave is almost impossible to engage with, as he has obviously been brainwashed by his heros in "TM".

While statements like that help to promote open, friendly discussion I suppose?

Ake, I don't know haw many more times I need to tell you. I have never met Musket. I have only ever mailed him once or twice and that had nothing to do with any of this crap. I disagree with Musket about many things and we have had heated debates but we can have open, friendly discussions because he does not make absurd sweeping statements about whole sections of society. Nor does he tar everyone who disagrees with him with the same brush.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 01:02 PM

It's not a "him".....it's a "them"......but others think that they are three figments of one deranged mind. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 01:43 PM

Whilst your diagnosis is easier to state. The only bit not sure is whether it is judge or psychiatrist territory.




Keep going Keith. Your vicar will be proud of you.

Assuming they haven't found someone else to do the sound in church. (One of the things you told me about when we met, or didn't meet as you insist.)

I haven't met Dave although we have a few mutual friends I assume, judging by geography and folk clubs. Disagreement? The three Muskets disagree on many things between ourselves, but are on safe consensus territory when pointing and laughing at bigots..