BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:58 PM

That was me.

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: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:29 PM

build on

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 07:03 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: 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: 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: 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,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,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: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:13 PM

Clearly, that was to Keith.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 02:27 PM

God 'defined' at Oxford Dictionaries.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 = √√√√√√