BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

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.