Oh My f**king God America... What The Hell Is Wrong With You?

[1a2bcio8]

Ben you've got splinters in your arse because you sit on the fence that much.

(Stolen from Vinny Jones on Celebrity Big Brother.)

I'm not sure what I've done? Anyway, I'll admit to not being absolutely sure about anything. I consider it a virtue! It's just some things seem more or less likely. God as a man like entity seems mostly unlikely to me. But then I'm just a limited human being with a limited comprehension of what the fook is actually going on, so I might be wrong. It tends to be the fundamentalists that spend most of the time stuck to one side of the fence

Oh yeah Alan, although I'm still waiting for the name change, I'd appreciate it if you refered to me as Jesus from now on. Appreciated, thanks.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[beigemaster]

Cheers for that Phil. It was a good watch but a shame that it was only a summary.

Cheers Jesus, I completely agree that it's a shame it's only a preview, would love to get hold of it some time. There are a few more debates with Hitchens and Lennox on the tube but again there all previews. I do however have Dawkins vs Lennox Oxford debate DVD on it's way in the post, should be pretty epic.

Edited January 25, 2010 by beigemaster

[Al_Fel]

I'm not sure what I've done? Anyway, I'll admit to not being absolutely sure about anything. I consider it a virtue! It's just some things seem more or less likely. God as a man like entity seems mostly unlikely to me. But then I'm just a limited human being with a limited comprehension of what the fook is actually going on, so I might be wrong. It tends to be the fundamentalists that spend most of the time stuck to one side of the fence

Oh yeah Alan, although I'm still waiting for the name change, I'd appreciate it if you refered to me as Jesus from now on. Appreciated, thanks.

Twice in one night...

SORRY Jesus. I was only joking anyway. I meant you are sat on the fence as in not on one side or the other.

I'd love to meet the person/people that actually wrote the bible and find out what reason they wrote it for.

[Tony Harrison]

Ah, but is a fence really a fence? That's the question. But is it a question?

[1a2bcio8]

Ah, but is a fence really a fence? That's the question. But is it a question?

Ah but is it really a question? Is that not the question or a question?

edit: Buggar I missed you asking if it's a question already. Bit of a fail, was that. My omnipotence/omniscience is lacking a bit this evening :$

Edited January 26, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[Matt Burrows]

You'd never be able to get rid of religion completely. There's waaaaay too much money in it and it's faaaar too good an excuse to be incredibly shitty to each other and murder people in its name.

There will also always be the less intelligent, less confident people who want and need to be told what to do and think. In days gone by people truly didn't know what was out there and so the nutjobs could spout their rubbish and people knew no better. These days I think more people are willing to question what's around them and combined with the progress in science probably helps to reduce the number of todays youth who attend church. It would appear that Amercians might be a bit behind us in that department .

I really can't be bothered to get involved in this arguement, but I will say one thing. For someone who I have always considered to be an intelligent and decent person, the topic of religion seems to really get to you. You come across as a condescending, close-minded, ARSEHOLE everytime the topic comes up. Is there any chance you could argue your opinion with logic and reason without being so judgemental of those that may disagree?

[Al_Fel]

I really can't be bothered to get involved in this arguement, but I will say one thing. For someone who I have always considered to be an intelligent and decent person, the topic of religion seems to really get to you. You come across as a condescending, close-minded, ARSEHOLE everytime the topic comes up. Is there any chance you could argue your opinion with logic and reason without being so judgemental of those that may disagree?

If someone came along and argued that echo SL forks are 10 times stronger than Trial-Tech forks would that not piss you off?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I really can't be bothered to get involved in this arguement, but I will say one thing. For someone who I have always considered to be an intelligent and decent person, the topic of religion seems to really get to you. You come across as a condescending, close-minded, ARSEHOLE everytime the topic comes up. Is there any chance you could argue your opinion with logic and reason without being so judgemental of those that may disagree?

My main problem is that I see things as black and white. In my mind there is no God- there has never been any kind of evidence to point to the slightest possibility that there is. There is no afterlife- why should there be? We've evolved from amoeba, do the single cell organisms of today have an afterlife? I doubt it so why should we? I know I come across exactly as you say and I don't really mean to but in my mind I just find it completely preposterous to believe anything in the bible and can't understand how anyone could. Of course good can come from religion, but as I've said before, only in the common sense kind of way of 'be nice to each other, don't rape, murder or steal' kind of stuff (which funnily enough is the opposite of what's in the old testament so go figure).

I've argued my opinion with logic and reason 'til the cows come home in the previous threads and it all comes back to science=sensible, logical and open-minded while religion=close-minded, illogical and completely irrational. Basically in my mind, those that disagree are wrong. Much like anyone who strongly believes in Christianity and the bible think that I'm wrong and will burn in hell for eternity for my sins.

Anyway, please don't be too pissed off with my comments- yes I believe what I write but a lot of it is tongue in cheek to provoke a response.

If someone came along and argued that echo SL forks are 10 times stronger than Trial-Tech forks would that not piss you off?

How dare you... How very dare you.

[beigemaster]

""to science=sensible, logical and open-minded".....

My main problem is that I see things as black and white. In my mind there is no God- there has never been any kind of evidence to point to the slightest possibility that there is. There is no afterlife- why should there be? We've evolved from amoeba, do the single cell organisms of today have an afterlife? I doubt it so why should we? Basically in my mind, those that disagree are wrong.

[anzo]

There is no afterlife- why should there be?

Frederick emails to say he has four children, he is the proud father of a new baby boy; Josua, and his daughter; Susan, 5, has just started school, and he thinks after death there issss nothing.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

:facepalm:

You know what I mean! I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of an afterlife, god or whatever else. However, that possibility is so minute that I might as well preaching that there is a variety of pig unfound by man who has wings and can fly. Of course there's a possibility (gotta keep open-minded here) but the actual chance of it existing are so small it's not worth considering. Cue BBC newsflash reporting the finding of a flying pig...

Frederick emails to say he has four children, he is the proud father of a new baby boy; Josua, and his daughter; Susan, 5, has just started school, and he thinks after death there issss nothing.

[anzo]

Alan Partridge quote - Get with the times!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Alan Partridge quote - Get with the times!

My sincere apologies, never actually watched any Alan Partridge :$ .

[JT!]

My sincere apologies, never actually watched any Alan Partridge :$ .

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

:facepalm:

DAMNIT!!

[beigemaster]

You know what I mean! I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility of an afterlife, god or whatever else. However, that possibility is so minute that I might as well preaching that there is a variety of pig unfound by man who has wings and can fly. Of course there's a possibility (gotta keep open-minded here) but the actual chance of it existing are so small it's not worth considering. Cue BBC newsflash reporting the finding of a flying pig...

But on a serious note, it's not so much the question of possibility that I would highlight, it's the use of categorical dismissive terms and remaining close minded about ideas outside the box of materialism. To put it another way, yes there is the possibility that one day we will find that legendary winged pig, but no one has put forward any argument to suggest such a creature exists. However, there are large amount of rational and highly intelligent people who consider the possibility that there is more to life than the materialist view. Examples (who I have cited before) such as Lennox, Lewis, McGrath and Swinburne who have put forward challenges to materialism based on logic, reason, mathematics, biology and morality. Of course, you can argue that such evidence isn't strong enough change your opinion which is fine, but to simply deny it altogether or dismiss it as preposterous is to adopt the same dogmatic attitudes of those crazy SOB's in the vid that started this thread.

Edited January 26, 2010 by beigemaster

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Lennox Lewis

Of course, you can argue that such evidence isn't strong enough change your opinion which is fine, but to simply deny it altogether or dismiss it as preposterous is to adopt the same dogmatic attitudes of those crazy SOB's in the vid that started this thread.

Ok, I hear what you're saying. My views mainly relate to Christianity though, sparked by those retards in the first post, Americans who seem to be primarily Christians and the basis of Christianity which is the Big Book of Fairy Tales Bible.

The logical reasoning for there being a 'first cause' or whatever you want call it from biology and maths etc strikes a chord with me but anything to do with the Christian Bible I consider laughable.

[beigemaster]

The logical reasoning for there being a 'first cause' or whatever you want call it from biology and maths etc strikes a chord with me but anything to do with the Christian Bible I consider laughable.

I suppose to answer that you would need to consider the possibility of a first cause having the capacity for reason and lead us to the nature of revelation which would take us down another argument. Just found this frankly excellent un edited interview between Dawkins and McGrath.

Youtube Video ->

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> Edited January 26, 2010 by beigemaster

[JT!]

I have the same attitude as monkeyseemonkeydo when it comes to religion, have have big issues with the extremists, ie people who follow the bible literally (well, they pick and choose), speak in tongues, belive in creationism and believe that homosexuality is a sin. I just don't rant about them like he does, but I think it pretty loudly.

I do still have problems with the less extreme religious people, like people who are the opposite as listed above, they seem to want their cake and eat it too.

I have no problem with people who believe in God although I don't and don't think anyone has a rational reason to other than God being an answer to something that we don't know as a human race.

[Al_Fel]

Beigemaster what are your view on Scientology?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Just found this frankly excellent un edited interview between Dawkins and McGrath.

They seem to spend 10 minutes politely talking without actually saying anything... they would make excellent politicians.

[1a2bcio8]

They seem to spend 10 minutes politely talking without actually saying anything... they would make excellent politicians.

That's not what I thought. I felt they raised many issues which we've previously discussed but articulated and surmized them somewhat better.

It was amusing for me to see them being so pleasant to one another. Dawkins, like Hitchens, as I know him can sometimes be a bit of a diatribist and quite condescending. I've developed some respect for him from watching that. He was very open to an opposing view regarding its strength of argument

Edited January 26, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[beigemaster]

They seem to spend 10 minutes politely talking without actually saying anything... they would make excellent politicians.

It’s called philosophical dialogue but I do see you're point. Problem is when dealing with intelligent people and complicated ideas it can take a long time to put your point across because if your argument has even one weak step or assumption, your whole argument is destroyed. I've written 6 thousand word essays that have really only argued maybe 2 points because you have to make sure your argument is water tight. BTW, when I say "dealing with intelligent people" I'm referring not to myself but the lecturer who is assessing your work. Politicians on the other hand take a long time to not say much because they simply over use the rhetoric.

What do I think of Scientology? Similar to most rational people, I think it’s a murdering money making morally repugnant cult. Is you’re point to try and compare Christianity with Scientology or to try and establish what the difference is?

He was very open to an opposing view regarding it's strength or argument

In my opinion, the mark of someone who is truely intelligent because they obviously have such a strong desire to understand and develop their ideas.

[Al_Fel]

Surely you must be open minded and give them the benefit of the doubt? That's what you're asking us to do with Christianity.

[beigemaster]

Surely you must be open minded and give them the benefit of the doubt? That's what you're asking us to do with Christianity.

Its a fair point but I have based my opinion of scientology using the same tools of reason that I would use to reflect on Christianity. One only has to read the life of L. Ron Hubbard to fully appreciate the motivations and corruptions of he's so called 'religion'. When you have quotes such as

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.

You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.

It doesn't take a genius to put work out that a failed science fiction writer with these types of quotes that Scientology is bogus. Even if you ignore this obvious truth, you only have to investigate the Church of Scientology for maybe a couple of hours to see it's true colours. It isn't a religion or spiritual practice, it is clearly an organisation that simply makes money. Once again, using the powers of youtube, you can watch a the work of a great chap called Mark Bunker who has literally hundreds of videos on the nature of scientology. Here is a vid in which he compares the difference between a normal religion (in this case he discusses Christianity) compared to Scientology.

Youtube Video ->

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">