British and Christian and Proud

[FlyingPig]

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

Well said...

[Ironside]

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

oh so its the sunday sport then

[FlyingPig]

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

 

[fearisthekey]

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

 

That declaration was awaiting Moderator approval.

[kinboshi]

Not from this one.

[steeley68]

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

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

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 

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.

[CelticGeezeer]

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

 

We are still awaiting proof.

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

[ifm]

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

Well said...

Philistines

[AdamM]

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

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

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 

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.

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

[fearisthekey]

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

[ifm]

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

[AndrewT]

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

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.

[fearisthekey]

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

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

[kinboshi]

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

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?

[fearisthekey]

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

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.