blonde poker forum

Ok British, but I'm not Christian. Is that ok?

Seemingly not!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234542.stm

Carey urges immigration control 
 
Lord Carey says Christian identity remains important in Britain
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has called for tighter controls on immigration when Gordon Brown becomes prime minister.
He told the BBC the issue would "not go away" and that stricter controls were needed alongside clemency for refugees.

Lord Carey also urged Mr Brown not to forget "the importance of Christian identity" to the UK population.

The Refugee Council said he was out of step with other religious groups and that controls were already strict.

British identity

Speaking on Radio 4's Sunday programme about his hopes for the Brown government, Lord Carey said: "At home, the issue of immigration will not go away and I hope that he will impose stricter controls on those entering the United Kingdom."

But he added that he understood Mr Brown was "very concerned" about British identity and that there was a need to balance control with "clemency in the case of some people who need refugee status".

  Lord Carey would seem to be out of step of with the Church of England and other Christian and faith groups

Tim Finch
Refugee Council

He added: "I hope he will not forget the importance of Christian identity at the very heart of being a part of the United Kingdom."

Tim Finch, of the Refugee Council, questioned why Lord Carey had intervened on the subject when "controls on immigration and asylum were so strong already".

He added: "Lord Carey would seem to be out of step with the Church of England and other Christian and faith groups which have been in the forefront of calls for more generosity to be shown to migrants and refugees."

The programme also heard from Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Muslim Council of Britain's secretary general, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, and chairman of the Hindu Council UK, Dr Jagdish Sharma.

Mr Brown has previously said he would like to see immigrants doing community work to help them settle before being granted UK citizenship.

 
=================
The guy's off his head. When you think of your 'british identity' do you feel 'a little christian' at the same time? wtf

I would not apply any of your desccription to myself. Im not British or christain so looks like im in trouble.............:) Just as well its fun being in trouble sometimes:)

well, you sound very nice anyway. We'll let you into Britain, as long as you wear this cross thing and we can baptize you and stuff. If you're jewish/sikh/muslim/hindi/jedi/buddhist* you can come in too, as long as you promise to convert within a year. This is very important. Because.....
because our country is full of old churches and a long time ago lots of british people were christian too.

*please ignore the obvious fact that lots and lots of british people are of these faiths already.

Does this mean that muslim people are less british than christian people? wtf? He's lost it. I wish he would get back to arguing about gay clergy.

what happens if you are a non believer and Scottish?

ok it's alright, (whispers) scottish people are not really british, we just tell them that to keep them quiet, allow them the religio-surrogacy provided by football tribalism, and let the ones who can read run our country from time to time.

 ;popcorn;

A Scottish atheist maybe..  :dontask:

thats correct, mosts Scots are not 'british' and I note the Scottish executive are nowing calling themselves the 'scottish government'/ the wind of change is apon us:)

Scottish not British?  You aren't independent... ;popcorn;

Im very independant. have been all my life:) hehe

 if you were born in Scotland your British

Yes I was born in Scotland and I'll never be British. No offence but its true:)

So do u have Scottish passport or British one?

I am British and was born in Stirling.   It is cool being British  :)  .  Britain is a great country, we have achieved so much and have a rich history.  It would be even better if we got rid of the Royal Family, but that is another topic. 



I think I will put my flag back up as my avatar

If you were born in Britain, you're Christian, according to some...

Yes and you have Lord Carey and Tony B ;nana;lair

well thats a question that doesnt require an answer. nationality and culture are not something that can be defined by a piece of paper which happens to have 'britain' on it. just because the governmental calls the people 'british' doesnt mean people see themselves in that way.

if all the paper in the world was burned today, I would still be left with the essence of myself which is Scottish. no amount of beurocracy would make me and many people think any differently.

feck the uk passport system too.........................................lol

 but its still a fact. you are British.

we could debate this all day but the fact of the matter is that im not british and never will be. so it might energy wasted??

According to Feuerbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Andreas_Feuerbach), "you are what you eat."

Have you ever eaten any of the following in reasonable quantities?:

Pie and chips with mushy peas;
Deep fried pizza
Deep fried mars bar
Irn Bru
Haggis
Welsh Rarebit
Nirvana roast potatoes
Yorkshire Pudding
Spotted Dick

If you have, I'm afraid the conclusion is inescapable.

i am not guilty your honour. thank the lord!!!!!!! lmao

Mine says European Union, I guess we're all Europians.

Im certainly not blooody british and you can say what you want to argue the fact!

im welsh and in the census, on passport froms, in registration processes if it asks for nationality i put down WELSH!

The only thing i am happy to be grouped in with, is with other celts!

By that token if your born in a stable does that make youa horse?

I was born in Scotland but would never ever descibe myself as british.

 :goodpost: ;iagree;

Given that most "British" people (by which i mean those born on the land mass an atlas would label Britain) don't go to church/ synagogue/ mosque etc etc, and given that <generalisation> most Poles </generalisation>  are active Roman Catholics surely the latest immigration from eastern europe has made us more religious.

 you might never describe yourself as British , or Mads case consider yourself to be British , i never say '' im British '' , just because you may not like it doesnt change the FACT , that , if you are Scottish - you are also British . Scotland is part of Great Britain , as is Wales , England and Northern Ireand and wether we like it or not , we are all British.

I'm British in the winter, but in the summer people can see my "made in england tattoo" on my stomach, GO ON THE ENGLISH!!!! ::) rotflmfao

yeah, well, I think when Carey said 'christians' he actually meant 'anglican'. I don't think Carey is too proud of Britain's catholic heritage.

does what it says on the tin?

im English but 1st and foremost im a londoner.

I'm a Londoner but 1st and foremost i'm a south londoner and we're ARD!!!!!!

I'm a Londoner but 1st and foremost i'm a south londoner and we're ARD!!!!!!
[/quote]

 ;hide; ;hide; ;hide;

You can take our national identity, but you will never take our sporans:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6234290.stm

an englishmans home is his castle.

a scot,welsh or irishman?

traditionaly,well wherever we tell them

 ;marks;

I think one of the best things about Britain and the British is how cosmopolitan we are as a country, and certainly don't see Christian identity as going hand in hand with 'Britishness'.



sorry to be pedantic, but Northern Ireland, whilst part of the UK, is not part of Great Britain :)

its more part of 'britain' than scotland could ever be

Now I am in a minority.... I am British, Catholic and Vegatarian....... LOL... But proud to be who I am....

Although I would say I am English.....I do not like it when you are filling in forms, and it doesnt have English.....

technically perhaps , their monarch is the Queen , their prime minister is Tony Blair/Gordon Brown and their currency is Sterling - pretty British in my view.

What about the citizens?

I'd love to see you tell the likes of Gerry Kelly & Gerry Adams from Belfast, Tony Kelly and Martin McGuinness from Derry, Pat Doherty and Catriona Ruane from Tyrone and many other Irish people from across the Northern statelet that they where British.

Its easy to look at things in black and white.  Thankfully not everything is in black and white.

one out of three aint bad

There is no doubt that you are now officially madasahatstand. I know lets build a great big wall and split Scotland off. What piffle and nonsense. Next you will tell me that you are not European maybe? The great thing that I have found about these fervent separatists is that they are well balanced. They have a chip on each shoulder. Time to move on. I suggest maybe reading the classic book "who moved my cheese" to broaden your horizons

political status doesnt change the issue , the people of Northern Ireland are governed by the British government ,
 that includes all the politicians you mentioned.

 and isnt Martin McGuiness from Londonderry ??

ive read 'who moved my cheese which i see you quoted more than once on blonde:) Im the mouse with the trainers on:) I have no problem with change and feel more european than british. i dont feel british at all and more than that, I'm no sepratist. Just so happens I dont associate myself as being british. no offence to any people that do. its just my way and i dont need to build a wall and dont have any chips on my shoulder. funny how easy it it is to hang many things on people without knowing anything about them:)  theres no need to try to insult me by saying im seperatist and need to broaden my horizons. my horizons are pretty broad already and Im up for broadening them further. so thanks for the point in d irection, but this woman doesnt need it:) wonder if any of the other people who are 'seperatists' would heed your adive??

Funny enough most Scots 'separatists' are very pro-europe. Don't think you can say that about the majority of fervent unionists, so perhaps broadening of horizons was wished on the wrong people?

Fair points all but the viewpoint of not identifying oneself as British does produce some interesting questions........ the Olympics for example. Do you cheer for only the Scottish athletes? Personally I have never had a problem cheering for Scottish sports teams or athletes and yet so many Scots seem to have a problem cheering for an English team or athlete? Why is this?

This is a problem I seem to have caught since Blair has been in power.  When I was younger I was very happy supporting any minority group that Maggie was trying to dump on.  Women, gays, immigrants, miners all needed more rights.  I supported Red Ken and listened to Billy Bragg.

By nowadays I seem to be a racist old git.  I don't feel any different in myself, and believe I'm still as sympathetic to minority views as I ever was.

But I live down south, and the changes that have occurred in the last ten years are beginning to worry me.  Not so much for now, but what will happen if things continue to change at the same rate.

Nowadays we have immigration, asylum, and migrant workers.  My fears are that we have such a shit infrastructure at the moment, surely putting more & more people into it can only make it worse.

I understand that we shouldn't have a limit to the people we let into this country, but looking at it from a purely selfish/practical viewpoint.

We have in place the governments plans to builds tens of thousands of affordable homes.  Which will increase the population.  But they are trying to close the local hospital.   Last year we had a hosepipe ban, because the local water supplies are too low to look after the local population. 

Just a couple of examples, admittedly, but wouldn't it be better to get the infrastructure working efficiently, before we increase the burden on it ?

I'm not saying immigration is bad, but the government don't seem to have accurate figures for the increase in population over the last ten years.  I worry that such shortsightedness will create long term problems.

If someone can put my mind at rest, I'd be very grateful.

PS - Religion.  Personally I don't care about religion, love God, hate religion.   I think more people die in the name of religion than anything else.  but I can understand the old boy's worry.  The head of this country is Queenie, she is head of the church in England, and she's a proddy.  So he wants to keep his own team on top of the pile.  But something to ponder ;

Religions: Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)  [ Figures from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html ]

Why not just let everyone that wants to be religious be a Muslim, and all the problems of religious war, solved.

My invoice is in the post.

As a nice jewish boy I have a problem with this one. oh and by the way if the radical muslims get their way we all will be. Please note the use of the word radical. Like the radical factions of all religious groups and I do mean all their paradise means inflicting their views on others regardless

I don't understand your point here.  Immigration into the UK isn't a new thing, it's always been the case, especially after WWII. 

As for asylum seekers - what do you recommend we do?

It's a silly arguement to say you are not British, you are as much British as you are European, denying the fact does not change it. British is a collective description of the people who live in the British Isles, likewise European is a collective for people who live on the continent of Europe.
However neither British or European can be used to describe your nationality, you are either Scots, English or Welsh, nationalities we can all be and should be proud of.
As for religon being linked with nationality, it seems about as sensible as putting ice cubes in your coffee. Religon is about faith and belief and holds no concept of nationhood (IMO).
I am a strong ,pro-active Scottish nationalist, however I hold no truck with anti-English sentiment. The English people have fought and died beside us for 300 years and whatever the future holds, as far as independence is concerned, they will continue to be our closest, strongest and most loyal ally.

Good post, couldn't agree more.

geo

No real problem with the Olympics (it's more individuals anyway) I'm not standing up to the anti-Scot song though ;) . I'm also a huge fan of the Lions when up against the Springboks/All Blacks/Wallabies.

The main reason Scots seem to have for not supporting the English is Schadenfreude & the English media. Despite the title being the BBC, at any sporting occaision they become the EBC in a flash, seeing their jingoism rewarded with a defeat is extremely gratifying I'm afraid.

That's nice. As long as we can keep the oil, we'll be the best of friends.

If you had to pick between Afghanistan and Britain, which would you say was the most christian country?

I kind of like the relatively lukewarm religious state that the UK is in at the moment, won't be like this in 20 years, for sure.

It's like, we were very Christian in the past, which gave us strong education, some moral principles, altruism, and some nice buildings. We're left with that in our culture, but we no longer have the downside, namely the religious beliefs themselves, except for a minority of the population.

Take Northern Ireland, for example. There is just no way the bombings and shootings would have stopped were it not for the fact that 'Catholicism' and 'Protestantism' there is zero to do with almost anyone's religious faith, but really a tribal thing contingent upon which tribe you happened to be born in. Had these people actually been *practising devout religious folk* (like Sunnis and Shia in Iraq), there would still be a daily C4-fest in red and black and tan.

Gerry Adams, leader of the CATHOLIC christian clan, talking about his deep faith:

When Third Way Magazine asked Adams whether he was a Christian he said: 'I like the sense of there being a God, and I do take succour now from the collective comfort of being at a Mass or another religious event where you can be anonymous and individual – just a sense of community at prayer and of paying attention to that spiritual dimension which is in all of us; and I also take some succour in a private, solitary way from being able to reflect on those things.

-----
For sure, I don't want to get into any debate about irish sectarianism, but I think it illustrates just how shallow actual christian identities are in the UK.
In Glasgow, an atheist is still someone who goes to an Old Firm game to watch the football....

No.  What I'm saying is that this governement ponces around with definitions and statistics so much, that I, for one, don't trust anything they say about pretty much anything.  To me it doesn't matter how many of each we have coming in to the country, what's the overall figure.  I hear so much scaremongering in the crappy media about how many millions have come in over the last 10 years that I want ONE honest politician to stand up & explain it to me in simple accurate figures. ( like that's even remotely possible )

When it comes to asylum.  No problem.  But when does an asylum seeker become an immigrant ?  Also, how many asylum seekers ever return to their original country ?  And if we give asylum to people escaping from one regime, then demolish that regime, do we give asylum to the original bad guys, who now need asylum from the the new regime ?

I may be stupid & easily confused, but it all seemed so much simpler when I was younger.  Is that Blair's fault, or mine ?

[quote author=Snatiramas link=topic=24979.msg506300#msg506300
Fair points all but the viewpoint of not identifying oneself as British does produce some interesting questions........ the Olympics for example. Do you cheer for only the Scottish athletes? Personally I have never had a problem cheering for Scottish sports teams or athletes and yet so many Scots seem to have a problem cheering for an English team or athlete? Why is this?
[/quote]
The same reason everyone in England wasn't cheering on Man Utd in the CL final, using sporting rivalries to insinuate racism isn't big or clever.

Or was it because they weren't in the final?

bollox

 ;djinn;

if your scottish you are british whether you like it or not

personally i would love to see an independant scotland the sooner the better

although presently i am a proud scot and a proud brit

and yes scotland will allways be part of the british isle not matter what government changes are made

not only do i not cheer on english athletes representing britain, i dont cheer on scots representing britain.

i prefer any country to win over brit athletes, including germany argentina iraq...you get the point.

ironside is right at the moment us scots are brittish wether we like it or not. i for one though dont. this is why i cant offer support to those who choose to represent
the archaic institution that is 'great' britain.

I choose to represent the BRITISH armed forces and if given the chance i still would
i class myself as a scot looking for independace but even after independace i feel we
should have a united armed forces

even after indendance we will still be british after all we live on the british isles

yes we would be an independant country but we would still be british as much as we are all europeans as we live in europe

living on the brittish isles has nothing to do with being politically brittish, eire is part of the geographical brittish isles and they are not politically brittish.

Even the English don't claim to be British any more, which just leaves the Scottish labour party and the unionists.

I'm British.

As am I

I'm British, but was baptized christian and used to go to church, so technically I'm *very* british.

British and Christian and Proud - When I was a wee lad going to watch Leeds in the late 80's I remember getting given a BNP leaflet outside the ground with that headline on, food for thought.

ireland is not part of the british isle never was never will be

Yes it is.

The British Isles is a purely geographic term, referring to the island of England/Scotland/Wales, the island of Ireland and things like Shetlands, IOM, Hebrides etc.

what he said

yes its a geographical thing and no ireland isnt part of it

every picture on all but one link on my first page of google search of British Isles shows Ireland.  :dontask:

It's never gospel (but neither are the gospels), but here is a quote from wikipedia:


The UK obviously doesn't include Eire, but does include Northern Ireland.
Great Britain doesn't include Northern Ireland (nor Eire, obviously).

the British isle consists of the island Great Britain and the surrounding minot islands including the isle of wight and man and the Orkney's and Shetlands but does not include the emerald isle

Sorry Iron, but you're the only person I've heard say that.

this is controversial ironside, most experts on the subject reckon the island of ireland is part of the geographical british isles.
most of the objection, quite understandably, comes from eire.

however im glad you have managed to categorically resolve this, when the best anyone up to now has managed is to offer an opinion.

yw

i am just offering my opinion on what i have learnt in my brief life on this planet

i have always been taught that the emerald isle was not part of the geographical british isles

Ironside's geography teacher at school.

(http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/site_imagery/gerry_adams_140x140.jpg)

i am talking geography here not politics

actually mate, I think its the other way round. the objections to Ireland being refered to as part of the British Isles is a political objection, rather than a geographical one

as far as i was aware there are no objections to ireland being part of the british isle as i was unaware people thought it was

the objection was being part of the UK

 we are getting off subject , talking about geography and politics.

 the topic is religion , what this nut is saying basically implies that Britain shouldnt have any other religion than Christians

 that is an old fashioned view , borderline racist , and sounds like something the leaders of the National Socialists in Nazi
 Germany would try and shove down peoples throats.

 I am Scottish , Catholic and Proud , i am also British. doesnt necessarily mean they should all mean the same thing.

 there are other nationalities , other religions , some people are proud and some probably arent. the fact that we live in
 Britain gives us this right , to believe whatever faith we want , and we should be thankful for that.

 and that is just one reason of hundreds , we should be thankful and proud we live in Britain

Ireland's not in the UK.  Northern Ireland is though.

The British Isles does contain Eire, although many in Eire are opposed to its use (rather than its definition).

I've just posted in another thread that the religions are not meant to co-exist in multi-cultural bliss.  They are intentionally divisive, and nowhere is this more evident than in single-faith schools.

good post. That's the weird thing. It's so so weird. That he should come out and say 'Christians should be given priority because that is prototypically british'. Firstly, it's not prototypically british, and this is because secondly, we happen to be a melting pot, whether he likes it or not.
This man is representative of the british establishment. Well, if that's Britain, you can stuff it, I'm packing my bags and moving to Wales.

I disagree that British society is a melting pot whilst religion still casts its shadow over the country.  A child from a catholic family at a Catholic school isn't immersed into many of the exciting cultural elements of say a Muslim family who originate from Pakistan.  At the same time, a child from the Muslim family isn't going to have the opportunity to fully appreciate the many wonders of Britain's multi-cultural society. 

A Jewish, Muslim and Christian family could all live on the same street - and the children are actually taught and indoctrinated that they are different to the other children.  In reality, all they want to do is go out and play with the other kids. 

 I disagree that children are taught they are different , i went an RC school , primary and secondary , amongst my friends at school were , a muslim whos family are from Pakistan , a protestant , and a coloured lad ( which is rare where i live )
and we werent taught we were different , we were encouraged to interact and learn from each others cultures and beliefs. and at the end of the day we had a bloody good time in they days.

 some children may be taught to feel different because of religion or colour or whatever , but surely that is the point in this thread ? to highlight that this is wrong !

No, they weren't Muslim or Pretestant - they were brought up by parents who followed that religion.  The child had no say in the matter.

You weren't taught you were different?  I'm afraid you were.  Encouraged to learn from other's beliefs?  That goes against the basis of the religions you mentioned (don't forget the one true god, there can be no others).  Of course, most religious people are good people (as are most atheists) - most people are mostly decent.  What's that quote about Evil people do evil acts - but it takes religion to make good people do evil things (or something like that).

I went to a catholic school.  I didn't question what I was told was 'the truth' until I was older and started to question things I was told.  Before then, I'd heard nothing during my time at school about the positives of Islam, the argument for women to be allowed to have abortions, I was even taught that sex before marriage was wrong and in the same breath that contraception was also wrong.  I wonder why 5 girls in my year were pregnant before they finished their GCSEs?


We're adults.  We can make informed decisions, although these decisions can be influenced through years of brainwashing and one-sided misinformation - a faith that should not be questioned.  If your friend was being told that the Muslim faith was 100% correct - they are also saying that your faith (be it christianity, judaism, scientology, jedi or whatever) is 100% wrong.  This breeds adults who then indoctrinate their children in the same religion and blind faith, without considering if it's the best thing for the child in the long term.

 Richard Dawkins puts it very succinctly:
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." 

There are people brought up in a Christian way, and when they reach adulthood they change to atheism. Then there are people who are broght up as atheists then at adulthood they become spritual and seek something more... There are those that are brought up in a religion and stay within a religion, or change to a different religion when they have the choice....

Atheism is harder to practice than a religion..In fact I think atheism and Dawkins in particular is becoming a religion (cult)..... To not be superstitous, and not follow any religious practices must be really hard...Not to say,,,'oh god, i dont believe it'. Or the Christening thing, for some reason some adults who are atheists got their child christened.

I know where we are brought up has a huge influence on our religion but it does not restrict our choice when we reach adulthood. We still have freedom of choice... As we have seen in these couple of threads....

Atheism gets very easy to get used to once you start practising it. It's not just another side of the coin: atheists understand god-believers believe what they do, but god-believers do not understand why atheists believe what they do.

You don't 'practice atheism' - how can you? You simply do not practice religion.

Atheism is as much a religion as not stamp collecting is a hobby.

Like a phantom philatelist?

This thread is like deja vu, it didn't go well the first time because of one or two radicals (?)
I hope certain folks don't revisit this thread with their politics...............

Atheism seems as much as a cult as religion...

In what way?

There are atheist organisations actively recruiting members.

They are mobilised in such away to get there message across.

You have to take a leap of faith to believe in something (the big bang) that cannot be proved to of happened, or what caused it to happen.

There are sets of 'rules' for atheists.

A religious person will bring their children up in that faith, just as athiests bring up their children in that way.

And most of all, atheists are going about spreading their message, and delivering to audiences, and trying to convert people from a religion to another.

Religion does not mean worship. I am a catholic but do not worship God in a church every Sunday. I believe in God, just as an athiest believes in the big bang theory of the universe.

what reasons do those who 'believe' in the Big Bang typically give to support their belief?

Not sure what you mean by this....

Although they believe things that they are told by others. As a religous person has no proof, an atheist has no proof. There are only books written. Some people call them fiction. But because they are 2000 years old, does not mean it is not correct.....

The atheists are believing things that scientists are telling them, things that they cannot understand. Scientists and physicists alike agree that you cnanot get something form nothing. So therefore the big bang theory would fall down on this alone.....

FlyingPig, you quite clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Being a member of an 'atheist organisation' is no requirement of being an atheist. I couldn't even tell you the names of any.


Atheism has nothing to do with the big bang. You can be an atheist and not believe the big bang theory to be correct.


Which are?


An atheist is far more likely to not indoctrinate their child into any particular mindset with regards to spiritual matters. They'll instead focus on allowing their child to develop the ability to make up their own mind about things using an evidence based approach.


Atheists do not try to 'convert people from a religion to another', as that kind of misses the point of atheism. As I've explained before, atheism is not a religion.


Ah, you're one of those Catholics who only ever turn up at Christmas and Easter. God makes a note of you lightweights.

I don't believe in the Big Bang theory.

I have seen empirical evidence that suggests it's a possible theory on how the universe began.  I don't believe in it blindly.  I do believe however that answers should be sought out, and if scientists came back and said "we got it wrong, there was no big bang, there was a [something else] instead", then that's fantastic as that's exactly what science is about.  Expanding our understanding.

this is where you live

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/WMAP_white.jpg)

Andrew, I do know what I am talking about. I know I am not an expert in these matters but I don't claim to be. I can feel some anti-semitic feelings against christians. Or are you a closet Catholic but not ready to come out.....

There are a number of organisations. One of which is based around the corner from where I live. There are several national ones, which profess what atheists do an do not believe in.

Maybe athiesm is not all about the big bang, it generally is though, it is about believing in we are here because it just happened.

Again, an atheist will bring their children up in the same way a Christian will. This is bringing them up the way they think is best. Neither of which is bad, right or wrong...

Atheists do bang on to Christians about how wrong they are, just as christians bang on to atheists...This is trying to show them the error of there ways..

Atheism may not be a religion, but it is a way of life. Like this or not,, it is...

And I know the last bit was a bit of a joke, but I am not a catholic who turns up at easter and christmas. You do not know me, you do not know what I do.

I am not angered by atheists. It does not bother me. What does bother me, is when they try to dispell Christianity as a joke. Which they invariably do. Like you are.... I respect others beliefs, unlike certain so called atheists, who will still celebrate christmas. Lest not we forget christmas is a christian celebration.

The earth is so placed perfectly at the right distance from the sun to allow us to live. If we were a bit closer or a bit further away we could not survive. If the moon was slightly further away or slightly closer, we would cease to exist. In facto the moon is so perfectly placed where it is, it is beyond imagination (according to scientists) . If one day was to last 4 hours longer or 4 hours shorter, we could not survive. It was an amazing co-incidence of events that you are here now. These just could not of happened by accident. Well they are my thoughts...

didnt know whether to post this here, in god delusion or in evolution.

you wouldnt believe what's just been pushed through my letter box. It's an A4 flyer for the Bethesda Evangeligal Church in my town. It's a glossy colour picture of Noahs Ark. It looks like a giant shed which if I was to estimate the scale would be about 400m long. I can just about make out the pairs of animals, though some are guesses. get this queue.
bears
horses
hipos
elephants
pigs
camels
diplodicus (i kid you not)
lions
brontosaurus
giraffe
dear
goats
rhino

apparently a scale model of the ark will be used for a talk. it's free admission and questions like "how did all the animals fit into the ark?" and "was the flood global or only a local one?" will be answered

should I go or leave the crackpots to it?

LOL,, leave it to the crackpots.....Blonde forum has turned into an ethical centre.... Some posts could be posted on any of 3/4 threads...

Well, we've established you don't know what 'anti-semitic' means, for a start.

FlyingPig, all I can do is recommend you read a book such as The God Delusion - all your 'arguments' for Christianity are dealt with in there.

wow, missed that

google that phrase immediately flyingpig. it's important

There you go again having a go... I do know what it means; prejudice towards Jewish.. Judaism is a Religion...You cannot help yourself but have a go....

Do you celebrate Christmas, or buy easter eggs.. I bet you do...

Maybe it was the wrong phrase to use, and I do apologise if it has caused offence

... But I was trying to get accross your hostility towards religion....

nothing wrong with a bit of christmas. a chance to focus ones attention on showing affection and appreciation for friends and family.
I just make sure religion doesn't interfere with it.

not bothered with easter but you try standing between my wife and a chocolate egg

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that on the bottom of every Easter Egg box was a notice from Cadburys saying 'The purchase and eating of this confectionary item means you agree to recognise the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and accept him as your lord and saviour'.


Yes, I am hostile towards religion, because religion is not harmless, it is holding humanity back.

Bear in mind there is a difference between being hostile towards religion, and being hostile towards religious people. I almost feel as if I am patronising you by pointing it out, but the anti-semite comment makes me wonder.

Religion is harmless... The people who cause trouble blame it on religion. They would fight over land or something else if it wasnt religion.

The people who kill over religion, are not nice people, the religion is harmless. They show no respect of others. Whereas we should be respectful of other people, and their views.

As for buying eggs.. It is the deeper meaning behind the eggs, and by buying the egg and giving it, you are celebrating the ressurection of christ...

I think you should at least people and their religious views, that is just common decency.

you might be. I'm scoring house points with the wife

LOL.... Same as me...90% that 10% Religous festival....

What about if you wait a couple of weeks after easter to buy it cos you love cadburys cream eggs but are fucked if you're paying 5.99 for some chocolate so you wait untill it goes off and get it for 2.50(result) :)up, does that count?

LOL - that's what I do.  I got a lovely belgian chocolate one this year about 4 weeks after easter for 79p :)

as long as you go to confession before you take the mass:)

I'd just like to say fair play to FlyingPig for playing Devil's Advocate (lolz) in the face off all us heathens. I might not respect religion but I can respect that.







But I will point out that Christmas as we celebrate it was originally a pagan festival that was Christianised by the Romans in 350 by Pope Julius I to make it more palatable to the locals to convert to Christianity

for many people their belief in a god or supreme entity provides them, at times of the the most dire of circumstances,a vestige of hope where there is seemingly none.

when all else has failed the comfort found is the only aid that is left. any life lived without hope most be the most unbearable of things. so though im an aetheist i envy people of faith.

i dont see religon as an enemy but as an ideal of how certain people choose to live.
its obvious to me that religon in the world is a force for good. i know you can point to atrocities made in its name but i think far more good is done and yet no mention is made of the lives saved thruogh religous aid organizations throughout the world.
and its understandable why not as it must be unquantifiable the good  done or for that matter the bad not done because of peoples religons.

A good point but lets be honest the aid in the huge majority of cases goes to countries that only need it because of religious infighting in the first place.
If it wasn't for the yanks i reckon every war that has ever been has religion at it's centre.

Get the Tesco ones, advisory on the back: "Caution: This egg may contain Jesus."

Surely that would be Kinder Surpise?

be more than a f***ing suprise

Tescos have withdrawn the eggs from sale as the Resurrection story may contain 'pieces harmful to small children'.

Easter/Oestre was also a pagan festival to celebrate the coming of spring and the egg symbolises the rebirth of nature after the winter.
Conveniently the early christian church decided that this was when Jesus died, they told the pagans they can still have their feast day but now it is to celebrate Christ rather than Nature.

If god does exist surely he is being mischievous by not showing himself clearly to the whole world. He could light up the night sky with neon lights saying which branch of religion is the correct one rather than leaving it to people to see the word Allah when they cut into a pineapple or people seeing what they perceive to be the image of christ in a concrete wall or whatever. It wouldn't be too hard for Him seeing as he created the whole universe in seven days!, it would also stop the people he claims to love killing each other because everyone would know who the true god was Allah, Yahweh, Buddha or whoever.
It's all well and good asking people to prove the big bang theory or any other non divine theory on the earths creation but we all now believe that the earth revolves around sun but can you actually prove it to the common man.
The Catholic church in particular has a colourful history in regards to scientists who knew the earth wasn't flat or believed that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the opposite.

For the record, although my parents forced me to go to their church until my early teens I have not been christened or baptised, I got married in a civil ceremony and although I don't have any kids my friends tell me that to get their children into a local primary school they need to attend church to get their child's name on the waiting list. No wonder they claim church attendance is rising.

I don't buy easter eggs primarily because you can buy a dairy milk bar for a quid and you get more chocolate than you do in a £3.99 easter egg.

excellent. I knew about christmas being a highjacked pagan festicval, but not easter

flyingpig needs to get back on that google  ;)

http://www.aznewage.com/easter.htm

Oh, it is good to be an atheist, at least I don't feel threatened by all those infidels.....

Christmas and Easter are Christian festivals. These dates may of been chosen to co-incide with a calender at some point in time...But these are events to celebrate christian events. You can celebrate the pagan festivals if you so wish. But me thinks you will still probably celebrate Christian ones.

There is no denying that the church have created so many bad things over the years, but so has man and science. They both have killed groups of people in the past.

Start to think about the good things that Christianity has brought about. In years gone by, it has brought morals, and a certain way of life which was imposed by the social structure at the time. This has undoubtedly helped in the past when things may of not been so good. There are countless times when people have turned to the churches in times of help, and guess what, they have helped. They have provided help, hope, money, and much much more.

There are bad things about any group of people no matter who they are.

Its all belief and respecting others beliefs. I respect the fact that people take a leap of faith and believe that we are here of our own accord, and a chain reaction of events have got us here, and this is still a belief system. Where if you believe this, you cannot be superstitious of things, and most human beings are superstitious of some things by nature. I beleive that there is a God, and my belief system should be respected.

Surely this thread is coming to its end..... I feel like I am the God squad.......

If I go out for a meal on Easter Monday I'm not doing it to celebrate christianity or paganism any more than I'm celebrating Barclays just because it is a bank holiday.


I'd like to see the Church versus Science kill ratio


The bible is a bit ambiguous on morals, the Old Testament shows God to advocate ethic cleansing, slavery and prostitution among other things.Are you saying non christian countries have less morals than the early christians? where do buddists and sikhs for example get their morals from?
I agree churches provide comfort for their worshippers in times of emotional need, but I can get that from my family and close friends should the need arise.
On a personal level I respect peoples right to believe whatever they wish .
I'm open minded as to how we got here, I know what I don't believe rather than what what I do.
I know the bible is hypocritical, contradictory and chronologically incorrect so thats why I choose not to believe it but the scriptures say I'm going to an eternal fiery abyss for my sins, how can I respect an organisation that says that?


Armageddon already?

I for one am glad that you have posted and you are so open with your beliefs, we'll have you converted in no time ;)

lol monkaments

flying pig without 2 sides there is no debate, you've done a great job. no one is trying just to get their point across, i put my position to you clearly so that i can learn from yours.

waderleg, 'Why I am not a christian' by Bertrand Russell is pretty good, a nice discussion between Frederick Coppleston (a catholic scholar) and Russell:
FC: so what if you do die and find yourself before God, what will you say to him?
BR: I'll ask him why he didn't make his existence clearer to me in my lifetime.

good post.

Cheers, is there a box-set of all his work? I have about 5 of his on my must read one day list.?

Part of me wants to wait until this thread has died, wait three days, then resurrect it. :)


Except where those beliefs are 'I believe I don't celebrate Christianity when I get time off work in December/Spring'. In those situations, FlyingPig tells us what we really think.


Hmmm, people killed in the name of science? Off the top of my head I can think of very few. People deliberately exposed to radiation in the atomic bomb tests? That's all I can think of. Perhaps FlyingPig could provide a list of the examples he's obviously researched.

while it's nice to be on the same side of a debate as you for a change Andrew, please ease up on the sarcasm.

there isn't a researched list and you know it.

he might take the time to do one. sounds like he's had enough though ;shame;

I'd like to at least hear a couple, seeing as it's one of the arguments he gives supporting his viewpoint.

well ask him nicely and I'm sure he'll oblige

here's another one that could go in a couple of threads.
He's been on before in the youtube thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
who says Amricans don't get irony

Interesting, if not a little macabre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll

This is slightly concerning:


...and how much of this is attributable to the catholic church's stance on the use of condoms?  Even 'benign' and moderate religious policies can cause suffering and death on a wide scale.

 

Hmmm, people killed in the name of science? Off the top of my head I can think of very few. People deliberately exposed to radiation in the atomic bomb tests? That's all I can think of. Perhaps FlyingPig could provide a list of the examples he's obviously researched.

Andrew,

People have been dying in the name of science for many, many years. Long before the 18 hundreds when Burke & Hare would kill local people in Edinburgh to sell their bodies to the local medical schools in aid of "medical research".

In the 60's it is reckoned that scientists actually infected an Amazon Indian tribe to test some race theory that led to thousands being killed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,372067,00.html#article_continue

I am sure if I had the time to search 'tinternet there would be many more examples.

Porton Down the Army science research place near Salisbury has been the main testing place for all sorts of chemical/nerve agents and there effects. There are reported incdents of deaths there, however as much of it from 1916 onwards has been kept so secret numbers are difficult to obtain, however I'd hate to think of the effects this "testing" has had on decendants of the volunteers that took part over the years.

Am not saying that science has been responsible for more deaths than religion or vice versa, only that we cannot tell as figures relating to the science related deaths are so hard to find compared to the widespread knowledge of killings done in the name of religion.

I am an Athiest btw, however feel that anyone who has a belief that gives them comfort should be free to do so, but ask that they don't ram it down my throat as to why I should think otherwise.

geo

Please take time to watch this on You tube, its a very interesting take on the Catholic church and their take on Abortion and HIV amoungst other things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LStcajxvb_E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LStcajxvb_E)

good stuff

this is relevant too.
Dawkins on morals and religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJLqDSfv6dU&mode=related&search=

 

No.  But it didn't invent treatments for cancer, antibiotics, transplant operations, heart by-pass surgery, the contraceptive pill, etc.  Science asks the questions and tries to find answers.  Religion blocks and stifles questioning, advancement and a greater understanding.

Also, AIDS in Africa has killed far more people than the atomic bomb.  Millions of people could have been saved from suffering and death through something as simple as a condom.  Unfortunately, it's not science that is the problem there.


If god is some complex being that created the universe (which I guess is what you're saying), then where did he come from?  If something as wonderful and amazing as the universe needs a creator, then this someone as wonderful and amazing as the god who created it would also need to come from somewhere.  You haven't answered any question here - you've just moved the goalposts.  It isn't a rational theory at all - it's merely saying "I don't know the answer, therefore it must be something supernatural."  The same for those who argue against evolution - they often don't understand it at all. 

and assuming you're not literal creationists, if we are the pinacle of a divine plan how come the planet has been here 4 billion years and it took til a few million years for us to arrive?

Unless you're the Catholic Church?  ;carlocitrone;

or the mormons, jehovahs witnesses, Bethesda Evangelist, 7th day adventists...

God can do anything. 
God made the earth. 
Then god made night and day. 
Then a few days later god made the sun and the other stars. 
Then God made man. 
God gave man free will. 
Man sinned. 
God got angry. 
God punished man with 'original sin'. 
God persecutes man for thousands of years. 
God decides to save man by making himself into a human and appearing on earth. 
God then gets his human form killed so that he can please himself and free man from original sin. 
God then helps his human form to rise from the dead and appear to a few of his mates. 
God then makes his human form ascend (not sure where to though). 
God then wants all of mankind to obey what was written about this episode and can't be bothered to show himself to make it any more obvious to the billions who have been born since, instead we're meant to have faith.

god was trying out various ideas, giraffes n stuff

ps. there was no time before the Big Bang. It's not a time or space where the universe popped out from, its time/space itself starting. Meaningless to talk of God being what existed before then. How could God have been, or acted, before then? He would exist in this meaningless, timeless void.
Religion is science for people that don't get stuff.
I repeat what I said before: people don't need the *truth* they need *answers*, people of all ages have been religious cos they always just wanted an answer. Never do you read of a religious group living in xxxx BC who went 'well, we were gonna worship this river god and then build a tower and smoke some horse droppings in his honour, but then we realised it may just be a whole crock of crap that one of us just made up' because the myth does its job: it fills in that answer.
Science is exactly the same, except that it brings on board repeatability and accountability, strangely lacking in mainstream religion.
I love it when people talk about 'reconciling science and religion' or the 'great science vs religion debate', as if they are on a par with each other.

How can you chalk deaths down to science or religion?
You could argue that anyone killed by a gun or explosive or by poisonous gas even in religious wars is down to science, what about death by sword in the name of god using steel purified by scientific process??
Equally by religion because that guy was shot, blown up, poisoned or stabbed because it was Pope Pius the 15th that ordered it.
You can say that AIDS would never have become a pandemic if folks used condoms but also that if men hadn't laid down with men it wouldn't have happened either??

But what did any of it have to do with football

some people think Henrik Larsson is the Son of God

I did when he scored against V**la :D

I don't think you can say that.

I'm not.  I would, personally hate being a Catholic, but for those who are, and get something out of it, good luck to them.  Just because I believe in faith, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in education.  If we tell everybody what a religion stands for, they can make a choice about whether they should follow it.

Who said we are the pinacle of a devine plan.  There's always room for improvement.

Assuming the planet has been here for 4 billion years.  Compare that to growing a flower.  One needs to spend hours making the soil ready to plant the seed, then one needs to plant the seed and water it until the flower grows.  Once the flower has grown and the blossom has opened, it will only keep it's beauty for a few days, when it will wither and die.  Is the result worth all the effort ?  Ask a gardener.

If there is a god, maybe 4 billion years to him is the same as 3 months to me.  Hopefully when mankind withers and dies he'll think we created enough beauty to be worth his effort.

Just another way of looking at it.  Don't treat it as a literal analogy, please.

You're talking about beliefs - that's fine.  Every individual has the right to believe in whatever they choose.  It's religion I was talking about.  Something very different.

Blaming the Catholic Church for the huge numbers who are dying of AIDS in Africa is naive in the extreme. If you think Africans are not using condoms because the Catholic Church tells them to then why did AIDS spread so quickly when the same Catholic Church preaches against sex outside marriage?  ;carlocitrone;

Poverty and the church's determination to prevent the easy access to condoms are definitely massive contributors to the horrific AIDS issue in Africa. 

I'm not saying people aren't using condoms because they're told not to.  I'm saying that the distribution and easy access to condoms and improved sexual health education would dramatically improve the situation.  Why aren't these happening? 

Your interpretation of god, and mine, are totally different.   Years ago men wanted other men to be obedient, so this is what we understand that they preached.  As times change the interpretation of ancient words can change with them.  I don't feel the need to be obedient to anyone except myself.  If I live my life in the best interpretation of those words that I can muster, I hope I'll do more good than I do bad, and I hope he'll see it that way as well.

in some parts of africa people have been told by the catholic church that comdoms CAUSE AIDs

Again, I have no problem at all with you believing in god or whatever.  It's religion that is the problem (as far as I'm concerned).  There are still many, many people who assert that the words in the bible are god's words and must be taken literally.  Same for many other religions and their holy scripts.

If you want to believe in god or gods - absolutely, 100% fine.  I don't myself, but that's my choice and your choice.  I'm sure on a morality standing we probably agree on 99.99% of issues. 

 ;izimbra;

How do you know when your garden has AIDS?


































All the pansies die

I think the one thing that we all agree on is that god supports Liverpool, you keep posting in blue you're gonna piss him off

I think I understand what you mean.  'I say my religion is better than yours & I'm going to kill you if you don't agree' sort of argument.

That makes for a whole new discussion.

I believe in MY religion.  It gives me freedom to think what I want, and believe what I want.

Some religions still don't do that.

But if we condemn those religions we are, in my opinion, no better than those who preach the downfall of non-believers.  We ( humans ) have come a long way in what is a blink of an eye in the history of our world.  But we still have a fair distance still to go.

If enough of us speak honestly about our beliefs, then great good can be done.  It is when we try to stamp out those with opposing views that the wars and the horror starts.  It's when I try to say what is right and wrong for you that religion and belief fly out the window, and the hatred and fear take over.

The religions of the modern world do not condemn each other.  Muslims and Christians can, and do, live happily in the same streets as aetheists.  And I  bet they can safely drink in the same pub as well.

The problem at the moment is that we let our politicians preach their politics to us using words of religion to hide behind.  That's not god's fault ( whichever god you may follow ) That's man's fault.

If Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussain had tried to justify their actions with words of politics, none of their actions would ever be remotely acceptable.  It's because they hide behind religion, that the blame is blurred.

Religion is not wrong, it's some men of religion who try to lead the rest of us down the wrong path.

But like I say, THAT is a discussion for another day.  I'm too knackered, and my head aches now.  It's tricky trying to stand up against you lot.

Sorry, but that's another common mistake.  That's ALAN GREEN you're talking about.  He just THINKS he's god.

Lubo dies and goes to heaven (of course), when he gets there he is met by Saint Peter at the pearly gates. He says to Lubo, "Thank God you've arrived, we need you to make up our football team." Lubo takes a look about and he sees Jimmy McGrory, Jinky Johnstone, Bobby Murdoch, Ronnie Simpson and other great Celtic players. He then spots a guy
running about with the hoops on and no. 7 on his back. Lubo turns to St Peter and says, "I didn't know Henrik Larsson was dead." St Peter replies, "He's not. That's God, he just thinks he's Henrik Larsson."

Ladies and gentlemen the good lord is most definitely a West Ham supporter.........because what you saw was a miracle

I'd wait till after tomorrows meeting.............................

Not funny.

It's all relative...............

funny is never relative..... 

Course it is, humour is dependant on viewpoint.

WOW!! Where did you get that from?? The SUPER SOARAWAY SUN??

Children are taught in school that that comment is racist. What colour was he - mauve?

Panorama I think. it was a few years ago

found these links, but it was a 10 second search. there's more out there

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1465326.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1247745,00.html

do I seem like a Sun reader to you? You haven't been reading my posts very closely  :D

not sure yet either the sun or more likely the sunday sport

if you ever see me doing anything other than quickly scanning the sport section of the sun you have my permission to roll it up and shove it where the current bun don't shine

If you ever see me doing anything other than wipe my arse with the s*n, you can do the same.

Well said...

oh so its the sunday sport then

I thought this thread had been put to bed by everyone agreeing that God exists...  ;hide;

 ;popcorn;

That declaration was awaiting Moderator approval.

Not from this one.

;D

The articles are saying that condoms won't stop the spread of AIDS. There is no mention of them causing AIDS. I'm sure you would agree, that's just stupid. Comments like that only fuel the fire - why, it's the reason for my response. If you had said that the catholic church said that condoms don't stop the spread of AIDS, I would have disregarded your comment. However, perhaps you were looking for the very sesationalism that you suggest you are against. Oh, and your partly right - I don't read your posts at all.

We are still awaiting proof.

Can anybody prove that  their god exists and if not why believe ?

Philistines

I didn't get my initial information from these articles. I watched the documentary 4 years ago that the articles refer to. I did miss out a key word in my previous post. I must have been in a hurry. They were saying that condoms CAUSE THE SPREAD of AIDS. because the condoms didn't protect against AIDS wearing them gave people a false sense of security so they had more sex and so were more likely to contract AIDS.

but then you won't be reading this post

At last, an american chat-show host giving Dawkins a run for his money........

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/dawkins-colbert-p1.php

You think?
His only argument is that yes god does exist!!
Love that he plugged the book at the end LOL

Er, you do realise that Stephen Colbert is a spoof chat-show host, don't you? One that's playing the part of a rabid right-wing conservative chat-show host?

Still very funny though.

As an american he's still probably a believer though, and Dawkins argument (which is the one I side with the most) is still ultimately.....*absurd*.
.........that the Universe popped into being, that everything accidentally conspired in such a way that intelligent life exists, and all this without planning or forethought. You can argue natural selection all you want (and I do), but I will never surrender to Dawkins hypothesis that you can create some kind of Universal Metaphysics from it.
Pretty funny though. Better than this lunatic anyway.....http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/oreilly-dawkins-p1.php

So everything after the big bang was planned?

Nice question, slightly false question also since it assumes that once the state of the universe at the big bang is known, any eventual outcome can be predicted by 'playing the tape forward', and I think it's now understood that we cannot do that.
Even though Dawkins is right in saying that you cannot posit a personal intelligent mind behind the universe just because you find non-random design within it, this does not mean that there are no further very serious questions about just why the conditions are so right for life, for example. We are aware of many many parameters, for example, from the strength of gravity, to interparticle forces, not to mention our distance from the sun and our atmosphere (I sound like a bible basher, eh?), that need only be slightly different and you have no life, never mind intelligent life. Scientific statistics-based research is largely based on setting acceptable degrees of probability and seeing if things can be measured within them: according to most tests, it would be very difficult to show that our universe could have come out any way and just happened upon this one.
You have to start, I suppose, with a definition of 'Reality'. What is 'Real', in the sense that, if you were to have ANY universe emerge from ANY big bang, you would always have these conditions. For example: gravity, its size, the fundamental forces, their size, the quantum constant. Until you can declare that, most other talk is pretty pointless.

I think what you're referring to there is the anthropic principle, and also the inverse gambler's fallacy. 

Both dice ended up spinning on a corner.

Why is there something and not nothing?

Don't know, but I don't think it was all 'created' for our benefit.

Christians have it so easy...

While there are other possible outcomes, how we find ourselves was largely dictated by the way the big bang developed from the start, and this, surely, connected to how it came about. I don't see how much of what is here now can be explained until someone can explain how the big bang came about.
Believers always retort 'everything around you that happens has a cause; the big bang had to have a cause. This is God.' How can you possibly ascribe anything to outside this universe according to what you find inside it?

Where's FlyingPig when you need him?

If the argument is that the world is so complex that a god must have designed it, then God would indeed be so complex that he too must have been be designed.

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=26428.new#new

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/6955889.stm

The headline is "Sikh girl in Catholic school row".  She's 4 years old.  How/Why is she a Sikh girl, in the same way a 4 year old girl with Catholic parents is a 'Catholic girl'?

What a load of nonsense.

Mass and religious education are part of the school ethos/curriculum. They don't wish to waste efforts or tax-payers money on those who have little or no chance of salvation.

Well that's obviously ridiculous too, but this labelling of children as a catholic girl or a sikh girl is bloody nonsense - and actually harmful.  Let's create arbitrary boundaries and prejudices in innocent children before they have a chance to make their minds up for themselves.
 

She is a Sikh girl because her parents are Sikhs, and they are trying to con their child's way into a Catholic school because they believe she will receive a better education. Pretty standard really, if further clarification  is required I can draw you a picture.

draw me a picture. Maybe they have no respect for intake selection based on religion nonsense, and are just playing the system?
Kinboshi, I think much of religion relies on getting it into their heads while they're too young to see past it. And the cycle repeats.
Having said that, my nephew (5), of very christian upbringing, just came out with 'I don't really think I believe this god stuff, not the jesus bit anyway.' (horrified parents). This is only 6 months after his 'no santa' breakthrough. Maybe he's bright. Or maybe he's just trying to get into the local Secularist school.

says the school is oversubscribed, there is a process and (as mentioned) an appeal process.
This seems to have failed for them too so they are trying the "religious card" and involving the media to try to beat a good system, is that not actually the "racist card" too??
Tell 'em to bugger off i say

Sikh mummy and daddy with little sikh kids

Catholic mummy and daddy with little catholic kids

Atheist mummy and daddy with little atheist kids.  If any more pictures are required please ask, they are all quite similar.

When did Rolf Harris join Blonde?

Are fascist's 4-year old children called fascist kids?  :dontask:

Could you show me what their family looks like please?

exactly the same sadly

as an atheist I sit back in mild amusement that not only do they believe in a silly god but their belief is so shallow that they'd deny it in order to get their child into a school to worship another silly god.

religion and schools should be seperate.

I'm sorry, I can't let that go.

Silly God? How dare you. I haven't read any more of this thread after I last posted, but I thought, I wonder if Adam has posted any more of his drivel. Oh, and look - he has! Who do you think you are, 'sitting' there, wherever that is - with a smug grin on your face, deciding that God is silly? Your comment has really made me very angry. Don't bother replying to me, because, as you already know, I don't read any of your posts.

God made the world, mankind, and everything in it. The world, mankind, and everything in it, is pretty silly, by my estimation. Should follow that God is probably a bit silly, or at least a bit of a joker.

silly
(http://www.progressdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/god.jpg)

I must disagree Adam God isn't silly, he is just figment of the imagination created by and for ignorant people. 
 
Its the people who make up these ridiculous religions with there ridiculous beliefs that are silly.

Not happy with believing in this rediculous nonsense, they force
 their children to also believe it and demand the rest of us take them seriously.

amen.

funny how religious people tolerate each others opposing views but if an athiest dares to suggest that there's no god at all and that he finds it all a bit ridiculous they go mad.

I'll be bringing my children up as gods fearing rather than God fearing

really?

I'd say there's an awful lot of people have died over history because they don't

Love the call for toleration of ridiculing someones whole belief system. Can't understand why they'd be outraged  ::)

I'd bring my kids up not to be judgemental....

Can we not just close this devisive thread for good - it keeps popping back up like a floater in the bog.....

I think it was the tone of your post more than anything Adam. Implying people are stupid for believing in something 'silly'. Not all people who hold religious beliefs feel the need to tell/talk about it or try and convert their children/friends into believing. Belittling those that hold these beliefs in whatever God they believe in is futile and childish frankly.

Ok so you don't believe, why do you feel THE need to tell everyone? :P

Nothing that divides on such arbitrary lines as religion. 

Football IS my religion ;)

La vida es sueño

Football does create arbitrary tribal divisions - but it fades into insignificance compared to the divisions religion creates. 

Look at the Celtic v Rangers rivalry - is that as strong (and as spiteful) as it is because of football, or because of historial/traditional religious divisions?

I get your point, but I found the Liverpool/Man U division more blatant than the Celtic/Rangers - we have to live & work closely with eachother - I'd prefer to wear a Celtic top through Glasgow City centre than a Man U one through Liverpool.

I'm sure any good christians I've offended will forgive me

Possibly - but I wouldn't want to wear a Celtic shirt in certain parts of Belfast (for example).  A Celtic shirt would be expected in Glasgow (as would a Rangers top) - but the site of a manure shirt in Liverpool (except when they're playing at Anfield) would definitely stand out.

Saying that, I wouldn't fancy dressing up as a rabbi and walking through central Tehran...

Trite reply.

lol. that is in the user's manual. i'm not sure if it's gospel though.

I was a christian once. I would have been banned from the site for my flaming against what Adam and Kinboshi have written (a lot of it pretty sober). Looking back....best thing they could have done for me. I would have loved to have read a thread like this back then.
I want to sue the church for all those years of guilt free sex I've missed.

I'm British, of Scottish Birth, married to an English woman of Irish Decent, served 16 years in the British Army two children both born in British Military hospitals overseas, the eldest of whom has also served 5 years in the British Army. When abroad I describe myself as British first, then Scottish.  So there is no crowd of politicians who will change my Identity from being British.

As for the Christian thing, I was brought up a catholic but gave up on that once I realised how divisive religion can be, Ive just let the kids find their own way and both have turned out pretty agnostic.
However, I have been running a self marketing campaign for about ten years,  every night I pray to whichever god will have me to show me a sign and I'm their man, to date nothing.  could it be I'm just a bad person or is there not really anything there. ( hope Ive not been wasting my prayers )

Good post Owen.  Not many Scots who I know consider themselves British as strongly as you do.  End of the day, geographical borders shouldn't mean anything, but unfortunately they do.

Please let us know when Allah/God/Yahweh/Zeus or whoever gets in touch, and give them my regards.

It's not geography - it's law

The Acts of Union 1776 joined England and Wales to Scotland to create Great Britain - hence anybody born in Scotland is Scottish and British (but if you are born in Northern Ireland you aren't British - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

If you are Scottish you may feel Scottish and not British - but then again if you are a white teenager born in London you may feel like a black, American - doesn't stop the legal fact of being British though.

Nothing to do with the law.  I'm 'European', but it doesn't necessarily mean I consider myself European anywhere as much as I consider myself English or British.  Most Scots will consider themselves Scottish a lot more than British - to the degree that a lot of Scots I know don't support British athletes in the Olympics as they're not Scottish. 

Ask the people living in Gibraltar if they feel Spanish or British.  The 'law' isn't going to change how they feel. 

The English have passed a lot of stupid laws  which are treated with the contempt they deserve.

FYP

;D

Like Blair and Brown LOL

1 or 2 more

http://www.alba.org.uk/westminster/scotgov.html

Good-looking lot...

2 degrees of separation.

How did Des Browne get a cabinet post? The man's an idiot.

My eldest son doesn't want to go to church - he's 12. So, guess what? He doesn't go!! Adam - you really need to stop believing that everyone who believes in God also forces their beliefs on everyone else. I was working for my present employer for over a year before I happened to mention - in passing - that I was a christian. The biggest complement I got was 'Really? Well, I kinda thought you were.' This shows that I was/am living my life the way God wants me to (and also, because I have a mind of my own and I made a choice). It just so happens to be the way I want to live my life as well. I decided not to take drugs (and before you start with your pompuss 'Alcohol is a drug' I mean crack etc). I don't go shouting all over the place that people who take drugs (or believe in them) are stupid. That's their choice. It is my choice to belive in God. You need to remember, it was your stupid comment which 'started me off'. If you hadn't made that remark, I would have left you alone. What are your beliefs?

Where in the Bible did God say do not do drugs ? or did he tell you personally.

excuse me? pictures?! we loved your pictures.

I'm sure the walking on water bit involved drugs along the way. Wasn't someone stoned at some point? (I'm sure kinboshi can do much better than this).

I'll try not to rush this because one wrong move will cause serious offense and as ever, that's honestly not my intention.

My PERSONAL belief is that there's no god and that it's no more plausible than believing in fairies or ghosts. I've always defended peoples right to believe whatever they like, regardless of how implausible it seems to me. However, recently I've been doing some 'sole searching' and have started to harden slightly in that respect. I've started taking on board the opinions of other atheists, starting with Dawkins and then watching atheist video blogs (as well as the religious video responses). As I said earlier, it seems odd to me how tolerant religions seem to be towards each other these days, but how angry atheists get people.

I don't do crack either. I also don't steal, murder, commit adultery,  assault people or judge people on the basis of skin colour or ethnicity. I manage all this without the guidance of a religion.

I don't believe all religious people force their beliefs on me, but the fact is, some do. Nones ever knocked on my door to tell me there's no god.

I have no problem with individual people because of their religious beliefs, any more than I do based on skin colour or ethnicity, but I do think they're mistaken and I strongly believe as a species we'd be better off without religion. I would never force my opinion on other people. we're discussing it here on blonde because that's what we do. We discuss all sorts of subjects in a safe environment. I'd never stand outside a church on a sunday with a banner saying "there is no god, now move your cars off the double yellows, I'm trying to get to the supermarket" however tempted I might be.

I'm sorry Rod thought my 'forgive me' post was trite but I'm forgiving of what I believe is peoples misjudged worshiping of idols. All I ask is the same forgiveness and tolerance from those that actually have it in their manual.

If god ever speaks to me, I promise, this will be the first place I'll come to testify.

god bless atheists

I agree with the separation of religion and education, but I do object to you quote of a 'silly god'. It is estimated that over 90% of the world believe in some form of God, so I dont think its right that you can/should discount it.

Darwins evoltion and hawkins big bang have as many holes in them as any form of religion, and require a leap of faith to have a belief. God is not silly, nor is a belief in God. As a intelligent person you should respect another persons beilef, this doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but you should always respect others and there beliefs.

 
What if they believe that if they blow up a train full of people they will go straight to heaven.

http://www.dustinweber.com/_photos/see-God.gif

better not start that one again. the evidence for evolution and the big bang are overwhelming. there is no evidence of god, only faith.

also, it's not Hawkins big bang

The fact that 90% of the world believe something would make me less inclined to believe it, not more.
I don't think anyone's going to easily change your mind, waste of time trying really, on the God front. But I'm really interested to hear how you explain away the fossil record and your suggestions about the history of the cosmos.
I totally respect someone's right to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't preclude my right or inclination to tell them what they believe is a load of crap. I would expect them to do the same to me. In fact, I welcome it. I wish to be as delusion free as possible (as Noah would say).

 ;scarymoment;

Religion_LOL

There are a few books which are about the son of god, its if you choose to believe them and what hapened in the past. There is also overwhelming evidence to poke holes in both of them theories (big bang & evolution), these theories are not definitive and ideas that various people have come up with. Where it is a fact that  there was a man on earth called Jesus, who was accepted as the son of god.

The big band requires such a leap of faith; that from abosutely nothing came this amazing world. All the time physiscists are saying that you cannot get matter from nothing. Regardless of what hawkins puts on paper, he cannot prove it, nor dsiprove God.

Eviolution has more holes in it than the sponge in my bathroom. The missing links, where are they all? If the missing link between apes and humans died out, why? They where meant to be more intelligent than apes but less intelligent than humans, so why then did they die out. This is for all species on earth. There is no steady progression of species, although there are definite differences and likeness between species.

The different species have adapted (not evolved) to live in the surrounding they are in, and we will continue to adapt. In 10,000 years we will still be human, we will not of changed, although we will adapt to the conditions.

As for Hawkins, again he cannot disprove the existence of God, just as much as he cannot prove that we all came from a single bacteria. So we are at a stalemate, and will always be. It will be down to the individual.

No one likes to be told what they are believing in is a load of bunkum, so they immediately go on the defensive. I do try (sometimes stray) to avoid this and so far I think I have been succesful.

Was it the commies who made up this crazy evolution thang.

Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

According to the paintings they had, and as we know the sacred paitings represent the truth.  They had their belly buttons   so the masses did not feel alienated.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel

Missing links:

Cain and Abel (belly buttons not shown)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Cain_leadeth_abel_to_death_tissot.jpg)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Do the aliens in the life of Brian prove that Scientology is more than just a made up comedy cult.

Those who discount evolution as a viable theory generally have nothing to put in its place, and often do not have a full understanding of how evolution is said to work.

Instead, a far-fetched, unproven 'creationist' theory is put there in its place.  I'd like to highlight Occam's Razor here - let's not over-complicate what we're discussin, or introduce straw-man arugments to muddy the argument.  Show me ANY holes in evolutionary theory, and I'll show you a hole in your understanding of it.

It makes far more scientific sense than a 2,000 year-old book of fables, edited and compiled in the 4th century AD by some power-crazed 'wise men'.

occams razor doesn't really apply as the most likely scenario is the matter of debate in the first place.............

Yes it does. Evolution is a relatively simple principle, but the idea of a supernatural 'creator' is often cited as the only 'logical' explanation of the diversity of life and to explain the supposedly lofty position of mankind.  We're simply clever monkeys with technology, no need to prescribe us with a special place on 'god's world'.  The introduction of a supernatural creator adds unecessary complexity.  The creation of life doesn't need a hand to guide it, and therefore the question regarding the creator's beginning doesn't need to be introduced either.

That made my brain hurt!!!

I believe in evolution, the big bang etc - but I don't agree the Occam's razor is applicable, or relevant. The argument that the simplest explanation is right is only applicable when there is a simple explanation, there isn't one at the moment.

Personally I'm not sure if there's a god - but I'm sure if there is the main religions have missed him.... look at the leafy dragon fish from the southern kelp forests - I struggle to comprehend how long evolution would take to produce such a perfect specimen for it's place in its environement, BUT I can't give credit to the 'let the bad guys kill the kids' 'allow all of the terrible things that have happened in god's name deity that all the churchgoers go on about either.

My only answer, when told I'll go to hell by the religiously overbearing, is to point out that I try to be a good guy - & if your god would be so sad as to send me to hell for not having faith with him, he's not a good and worthy god.

can't say fairer than that

For anyone wondering - this is a leafy sea dragon......

(http://www.billybear4kids.com/animal/whose-toes/SeaDragon3c.jpg)

pretty amazing

see, if we are the focal point of a divine master plan, how home that is clearly more adapted to it's emvironment than we are?

good example of natural selection. millions of less green, less leaf-like species died out while that one prospered.

Yet more religious tosh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6964564.stm

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/photogalleries/journey_of_man/images/primary/jm1n.jpg)
!Kung San. Last of the hunter gatherers and only humans on earth who live in the environment for which humans have adapted.
They don't have internet, so you can write what you want about them.

they've got wireless

I believe that's correct, the guy on the left has a wireless router

Here they are arguing over Virgin vs Sky broadband

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gC4IpoRAEw&mode=related&search=

I find it pretty fascinating. It's the environment that built you and that you were built for. Not a semi in Kent.

I don't see why evolution doesn't provide the simple solution to the existence of any species that does (or has ever lived) on the planet.  If someone could point out one species that can't be explained by evolution, please point it out.  The leafy sea dragon is a great example of evolution.

Someone doing all their chips with  Th 9h on a  Ts high flop in the first level of a 10,000 chip long clock freezeout?


this is my first and only contribution to this thread lolol

So it can be used on the Saudi flag, but people can't use the Saudi flag?   What nonsense.

rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

That's a perfect example of survival of the fittest.  He obviously wasn't made to play poker, and he demonstrated that perfectly.

So you are saying  that poker prowess is nature not nurture ?

I love it when they hit and get the big stack.
(http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/fish/donkey.jpg)

caption comp....

says to the other bloke: "dont look at me like that mate, this is obviously the donkeys fault"!

Mohammed's donkey courier ground to a halt during Kev's lunchbreak.

(sorry Kev :) )

"In the pub the c4-propelled-instant-horse-delivery-service sounded like a great solution to the difficulties of desert travel. It was only after lighting the blue touch paper that the initial doubts started to creep in."

the donkey thinks........"i need to tip the wieght back this way think jessica simpson, jessica simpson, jessica simpson, jessica simpson"

Amazing donkey unicyclist shits boxes.

lol

Illegal street trader admits to using donkey as a lookout

lol, we're so sick!

"In the Asian Sub Continent, the contraption required to geld donkey's was still rather primitive...."

"Street magicians amazing donkey rocket launch was cancelled due to low crowd turnout"

While the moustached man lived in fear of the catapult, he was unfazed by the donkeyapult.

lol donkaments

Shrek's venture into space exploration didn't quite go to plan...

"Donkey!!!"

(http://uk.hollywood.com/films/shrek/shrek_r2_c2.jpg)

quality  :D

kinda embarressed that the pictures been up all day and i missed that one  ::)

The Bollywood remake of E.T. was a storming success

To capitalize on the current mood of the market, Conn Iggulden hastily published The Dangerous Book for Donkeys

His donkey's unforseen but totally enormous invisible erections were always a source of embarassment to Ahmed.

The Bangladesh branch of IKEA...........click*

* sound of man in central Scotland turning off his PC so he doesn't spend all evening at this pisch.

rotflmfao

You missed the point. It doesn't say in the Bible not to do drugs - that's just you being silly. I'm saying in my statement that I made a choice.

The choice of you not taking drugs (from your post) suggests that this is to do with your faith....

That's a rubbish caption - it doesn't mention the donkey at all.

Yeah, he's trying to hijack the thread...

but it's kind of ironic seeing as religion is the opiate of the people

oh sorry, i saw a donkey last nite - it eat my cabbage and then puked on my carpet....

great post comrade

Erm..no it doesn't. I hung about with people throughout school/work who took/take drugs and I thought, 'Wait a minute - I don't think I want to do that.' At no time did I think, 'Wait a minute - the Bible says not to do drugs. I'd better not, then.'

So what does the bible actually tell or guide you to do in life?  Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, send out your daughter to be gang-raped to protect a male visitor to your house?

I should be okay, being British and named Christian....

so the donkey thought: "why am..........

oh, are we not doing that anymore?

I'm still doing it, just stopped posting them.

There's no mention of that last bit, and to be honest with you, I find it offensive. Nowhere does it tell me to do that to my daughter. Can I ask what it is you are trying to say by that sick and vile statement?

And you're a moderator????

I suggest you read Genesis Chapter 19.

A couple of angels come to Sodom. Lot let them stay in his house overnight. The men of Sodom surround the house and demand Lot give them the angels to 'know them' (literally, biblically). Lot has a much better idea though.


And God was so impressed by this that Lot was the only guy that God saw fit to spare the destruction of the city.

Old Testament God was a right arsehole.

Mind you, those two daughters did turn out to be a right pair as they both got their father drunk and shagged him in order to get pregnant.

And people say Eastenders is a bad example.

Just because you believe in God and everything the bible tells you don't mean you have to actually read it.

I think Andrew's pointed out the relevant chapters. 

I find it offensive too.

Gotta stick up for steeley here.

The Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of tales and parables that can be interpreted in multiple ways. At no point have I seen steeley post that he takes everything as a literally as a skimming atheist would have him.
He is a man of admirable faith.


FWIW My interpreatation of the story in question is somewhat different to AndrewT's.

God does not save Lot from Sodom's destruction just coz Lot offered up his daughters to the mob. As this implies....


The visitors to his house were angels there to take him and his family away from Sodom anyway, and they did not really need protection from the men outside. This is made reasonably clear.

Lot is a good man, and acted as he felt he must, with the ultimate act of sacrifice.
It would still have been noble for him to offer the men outside something else to protect the visitors. Either with his own body (fight me instead) or some sort of monetary arrangement. He instead chose to offer up his daughters.

This could be interpreted as an act of selfishness/cowardice but I don't think it was. God would have seen through this with the old omniscience thing, he can see what is in Lot's heart.
His daughters honor and safety was the dearest thing in the world to him, more than his own safety, honour or possessions, or that of his wife. He offered the greatest thing that he could have lost.

It is this that surprised God I think, I believe that the concept of omniscience is misunderstood. God knows everything that has ever happened, but perhaps not everything that is going to happen. He can know sometimes what will as he knows what everyone is thinking (and so therefore what they are planning to do.)
The human being was granted freewill basically, we can do with it what we please.

This is what I take from the story, this part of the bible is full of examples of this freewill being "misused", letting god down as it were. Lot proves that the opposite is possible too. I think perhaps God expected Lot to defend his angels, but not with such an ultimate act of sacrifice.

I don't consider myself "Christian" but do believe in God. The above is only my interpretation.

I certainly don't think the Bible is telling me to "send out your daughter to be gang-raped to protect a male visitor to your house"
The commands to Love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek are kind of a little more explicit, and both come from the New Testament. not really comparable, and I can see how steeley became offended.

Well, it's meant to be the same fella in the New Testament.  There are still plenty of indications of his vengeful nature and dubious morality:

Try:

2 Thessalonians 1:7–9
2 Thessalonians 2:8
Hebrews 10:28–29
2 Peter 3:7

oh, and whole of Revelations of course.

Even during the well known sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:18–19) the punishment that is going to be handed out to non-believers is not entirely congruous with this image of an all-forgiving god.

I'm sorry, but he did offer up his daughters to be gang-raped.

"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

You might be able to read another interpretation into that - I can't.

It's also interesting what happens after that.  The destruction of the city by god, the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, and then the incestuous impregnation of both of his daughters.  Not really a fantastic moral example for me.

I'm torn between two possible interpretations of the fire and brimstone stuff/how can god be loving/forgiving is he's also capable of such bloody revenge.

#1. It's analogous to small print.

Here you go guys, I've made this world place for you to live, you can do what you like. Be a shit, don't be a shit, you don't even have to believe in me if you don't want to.

Matthew 5:18–19 All rights reserved.


#2. Not everyone can be a person of unwavering faith in a world where everyone is free to do as they please (and the resultant shittiness).
Some need a disincentive from wavering from the path.
The fear of hell etc can help some good people stay true, rather than say "bollox to this, I'm off to be shitty to people."

As to whether or not he'll go ahead with it or not, we don't know. Saying it isn't the same as doing it. This could be a big God bluff.

When you die there could be heaven for the faithful, and instead of Hell, just a big void for the sinners.

I'm not sure about any of this, they are just ideas.

A big void for the 'non-believers' would make sense for a forgiving god - I agree.  Even if he doesn't find the compassion to forgive those who lead good and generous lives - dare I say 'christian' lives, but without the faith that seems to be required, he surely doesn't need to punish them?

However, the bible (new testament this time) says that he does, you only have to read Revelations to see this.  Non-believers will be given no rest but will be tormented (in what I guess is hell?) for eternity, whilst those who believe will enjoy heaven.

God's just running a protection racket.

'Gee, Looks like a pretty sweet afterlife you've got there. It'd be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.'

I wish I could see everything in as black and white terms as that. I would save myself a lot of time.



Gotta say though, even if I was a devout atheist, with some sort of assurance that there is no supreme being, I would still be impressed by the bible.

Literature that is thousands of years old, yet still contains stories from which you can find relevance in todays society.

As an example....


That even the best of men are capable of the worst things after a few Mickey Finn's.
Or, if you prefer, that so called good men act out their base carnal perverted desires and blame it on the drink.

 

Here's something that will suprise you...I never used to sleep without saying prayers, I still do have a ritual I have to go through before i can rest, and no Kin it's not sex. But then I decided what sort of God would make a child that can not possibly have done harm to anyone , suffer , and so I stopped believing. Then this time we were in Birmingham I went into the church oppo the ward and thanked him. Now,  am i cracking up or what, was it divine intervention or Reece being the battler he is that has turned this around. I still left my thanks on the tree as I'm soft like that you know. But please any experts out there feel free to let me know how this God works.

It is a great piece of literature, I'll give you that.

As are the writings of Confucius, Aesop's Fables, and also the stories of Tolkien's middle earth.

But I can't see the bible as a good guidebook of morals or instruction manual as to how to live my life.  If there was a god, surely he'd do a better job than that?

As for an assurance that there is no supreme being - I wouldn't say I was 100% certain of that.  99.99% possibly.  I just see no evidence to even suggest why I should even start to think that he might exist.  I don't mean to offend anyone with my views on religion, although I also don't see why faith should be an 'admirable' thing either. 

Perhaps the bluff is on a bigger scale.

Everyone is going to get into heaven, regardless of what they have done with their lifes and regardless of their religion or creed.

That the Bible says that they aren't is to get man, fallible sausage that he is, to go along with all the love thy neighbour stuff, because it's kind of groovy that way.



But does religion make people act better?
I've heard it said that without religion there would be no war? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

Perhaps without religion there would be no war only because there would be no countries with which to wage war. Constant warfare by nomadic tribes killing each other to survive the winter instead, intermixed with the odd brutal dictatorship masquerading as a civilisation.

I know people don't need religion to be generally good people and I'm not suggesting for a moment that those of the major faiths have a monopoly on loving neighbours, doing unto others etc.
We'd like to imagine that we'd do all behave in a world where there was never religion, but would that be a world where it is possible to do that, and survive at the same time?

Perhaps religion is just the advent of man to subjicate and control large amounts of people, but considering where we are now as a society, is that such a bad thing?

I understand what you're saying there.  I was brought up as a Catholic.  I have actually read the bible (the lot), and not just 'skimmed through' some selected parts as was suggested earlier.  As a child I knew no better, but something about the way that children are indoctrinated and 'brainwashed' for want of a better word frightens me (especially when I look back and remember some of the things I was told to believe and accept).


The reason Reece will get through all of this is because he's a battler, because he has you and the rest of the family with him, because he has the doctors and the knowledge that has been built up through medical science - not through divine intervention.

However, a kind word, some time and sympathy from a friendly priest or whoever won't do any harm.  If putting a note on the tree made you feel more relaxed or if it helped in any way - then it's not a bad thing.  But I know you're not going to 'put your faith' in some sort of miraculous supernatural intervention.  Between Reece, you and the others around him, and the doctors doing what they do, he'll get through it.

One argument is that society needs religion because people can't be trusted not to act like selfish arseholes if they think no one's watching. And who better to keep an eye on people than an invisible, omnipotent being who will act as judge, jury and executioner on how you've lived your life.

I think I ommitted that I put the note on the tree AFTER the results were given. This does make me soft.

We all know you're a big softy. 

;D

Speaking as impartially as I can, looking at the bible for interesting literary content only....


Confucious needs to sex up his stuff a bit if it is to be readable beyond all the philospohy.

Aesop too has the longevity, but his tales don't work on anything nearly as many levels and inspire as much cross-millenial debate as the bible.
They get a bit samey after a while, and are for kids are they not?

Tolkein can give us a shout in the year 3000 if he's still on the shelves.

This brings the question, if there is a God, what is his job description?

Perhaps you can enlighten me, as this would suggest that you not only know what the job description is, but also of criteria from which to guage how well he (or she or whatevah) is getting along.



I find faith an admirable trait, but it is hard to explain why. It is getting late for me (working stiff now innit).

In the Qur'an the tale is a little different.

The daughters are offered to the men for marriage and the incestuous impregnation of both of his daughters doesn't happen.

Not quite as bad now eh?

Also, in the Christian version the men outside aren't always interpreted to want to rape the angel although I admit this is the case in the majority of translations. Finally Lot's daughters are nearly always interpreted as evil, (overfed, lazy, vain etc etc) and their offering to the men outside I'm pretty sure is meant to be a metaphor for Lot's kindness towards the angel which Tank has already mentioned.

That donkey sticking up in the air is funny

Yes and even s/he knows religion is tosh and faith is what matters:)

So the difference between christians and atheists is that christians think only some of the bible is made up nonsense ?

I hope the next time the pope is googling "the bible" (he might look at porn now and then but he usually looks at religious stuff) he gets a link to this thread because all the ambiguity about the literal translation of the contained stories of the bible have been resolved, hundreds and hundreds of years the formost pre-eminet theologians have failed to achieve concensus but they were too thick to realise this stuff only gets sorted out on a poker forum.

I mean i can understand the first 19 pages, modern day religion and morality ect, but in the last 3-4 pages debating the interpretation of gospel specifics is about as sick and futile as you can get.

you lot really lost it in the last few pages

I think you could test religion experimentally.

If you were to drop a load of kids on an island secluded from outside influence and left them to their own devices, 1 of 3 things should happen.

1. They spontaneously develop a major religion proving that there is a god
2. They don't develop any religion proving that there isn't a god
3. They develop their own religion proving that the development of religion is a basic factor in the human condition.

I think 3 is the most likely to happen, it's in human nature to attribute the unknown to some malevolent entity as a way to get some sort of mental handle on it. When cavemen worshiped the sun and the moon and the stars and things that went bump in the night it gave them a framework to turn the unknown into the known, as nature abhors a vacuum the brain can't handle the unknown and will do what it can to rationalise it's experiences, it's basically a delusion generator.

On a different note I thought this was quite funny
(http://www.happybhoy.com/pen_logic.jpg)


 

It's even funnier how much government policy is created after using this logic.

I've only read the bible a couple of times and my memory isn't that good, but my sister was very good at passing on some of the juicy bits when she was doing bible studies.

My general impression was that with some good editing the Old Testament would make a cracking story, but the New Testament goes a bit flat. But that's what you'd expect really, sequels are rarely as good as the original.

The Greeks had the best stories though where religion was concerned, if I was forced to choose a religion I'd go for the ancient Hellenic ones.

I look away for one minute and this turns back into a God thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRaQoLqvDLE&mode=related&search=

No end to the mumbo jumbo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6979292.stm

 rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

You're kidding?

(I'll get my goat..I mean coat)

What about all the good things religion brings to the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6980439.stm

Why, oh why is this being censored for god's sake???

http://www.voanews.com/english/Entertainment/2007-09-12-voa13.cfm

Ratzinger is already on blonde.

Pope John Paul II was a pretty sharp guy, an excellent poker player (not so good at dodging bullets :( ) and was an excellent theologian, philosopher and poet. I reckon he knew that modern evolutionary theory was correct, that Adam/Eve etc were allegorical, and that the gospels were not an historical account of the life of Jesus. He just didn't want to give up the day job.
The majority of catholic bible scholars, for example, do not accept the bible esp the NT as any kind of accurate historical record.
In the days when I did go to church, sometimes the priest during the sermon would perform an 'exegesis' or examination of the meaning of the greek, to find the true meaning of the Lord's words. Will never forget what I heard from one old guy at the back of the church following one such service: " Uf english were goood enuf fir Jesus it's good enuf fir me!", shaking his head in disgust.

Latest news from the War on Reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6994415.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6994415.stm)

There is a chain of limestone shoals between India and Sri Lanka which, legend has it has a religious explanation (built by either Rama, a Hindu god, and his army of monkeys, or Adam, if you're Christian or Muslim). This geological feature makes the strait too shallow for ships to pass through, so the Indian government has come up with a plan to clear a way through and build a canal. The report outlining the proposal states that the story is just a myth and there's no evidence to support it.

Whoa, not so fast, says religious groups. Hindu groups blocked roads and railways across the country in protest. The government has now withdrawn the report.

Built by "Ram and his army of monkeys."  Matt has a lot to answer for.

Shame the mythical fairy creatures weren't fans of canals.  Then there wouldn't be an issue.

Who needs monkeys

Moses did that so he could drive is Triumph through the land...

I believe he had one of these:

(http://www.hellsangelslondon.com/images/history/GOAT%201971.jpg)

It's not like the ships could go round? It's all very well saying 'We'll just blast a channel through here', but the changes caused to prevailing currents etc could have a very detrimental effect. Rather than religious reasons I'd like to think there was a 'why f*** about with it?' reason not to do that.

A logical reason not to do it would be fine.  That's not the case though, is it?

The reasons given were explicitly religious. The World Hindu Council led the protest. The main opposition party objected because the report went against the 'faith of the millions'.

As it happens, there are valid economic arguments against it (the time saved by ships may make the fees charged to used the canal be too expensive) but that's not the objection.

Anywaaaayyyy...

Are we agreed that I'm not a silly billy for believing in God?

OH be quiet man

we were just about to see the back of this thread and you go and ask that..........

what about the donkey picture?

Agreed, that's not the reason.

You are the most sane person on blonde:)

Hardly a very high bar.

 ;sark;

God 1 - Partick Thistle 0

good point. he fits in well at blonde. is that better? lol

;nana;
Thank you Robert.

Tilley for PHA mod.

I wonder if you would ever see the Monkey Bridge Scenario in the UK. Seems like the civil liberties argument always gets in the way of Faith v Reason hitting court. They got close with Creationism being taught in schools in the USA; 'We don't think it should be taught in schools' 'Your reason being?' 'It's bullshit' 'That's not a valid reason'.
'I don't think she should be allowed to wear full hibjab in passport photos' 'Your reason being?' 'I can't see her face in the picture' 'You can't see her face in real life, idiot, do you have a real reason?'

http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html

In the beginning there was the word.  It was a writ.

I think the senator just fell asleep in front of the tv one night whilst watching a film.

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/ (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/)

What would Jesus sue?

Go to love the tolerant religious maniacs



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7001538.stm

Even if he wanted to, his hands were tied.

You "Nailed it"....

Anyone else think it's funny that this thread comes back to life after three days?

 ;carlocitrone;

its like a ressurection

Yeah, "Alien Ressurection" was alright...

More religious nonsensibilities:

Offensive footy strip (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=U2S1HZAU2YJJTQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/12/wfootball112.xml)

I'd say that is his motivation :P

The world has gone mad.

You must be pulling my leg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7142920.stm