BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

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 - 06:06 AM

What is it then? A Mickey Mouse God?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:12 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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,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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:38 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 - 10:32 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 - 10:29 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:19 AM

And I still count as a Catholic.

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: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:43 AM

No ................ he was lying ............... again

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: 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 - 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.