[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

Could God be an internal not an external factor (need a better word, but that will do)?

I said something similar a few pages back. It explains things like prayer quite nicely; you're essentially giving yourself a pep talk.

I think it's fairly important not to muddy the water with this though. Whilst "god" might equate to some inner strength or karma, that's wholly distinct from many religions' ideas of god as a creator.

Have you considered Buddhism? I think it'd be right up your street.

Gonefishin - Even though you could have worded it better 😉 I will accept you apology for misreading/misunderstanding my questions for assumptions and for your pre-judgement of my position. 😉

Have you considered Buddhism? I think it'd be right up your street.

Cougar - I have certainly tried to study it and other religions but my knowledge is superficial at best (little more than schoolboy stuff, plus Tibetan Book of the Dead, Tchich Nhat Han ect). I prefer to examine areas where religions are saying the same message (hence the link to the Living Buddha, Living Christ book) rather than the normal focus on where they differ/conflict.

As to whether it is up my street or not, I will keep that to myself and let gonefishin jump to conclusions instead 😉

I will accept you apology for misreading/misunderstanding my questions for assumptions and for your pre-judgement of my position.

I made no pre-judgement and I make no apology for the conclusions that I reached. I judged on the available information. If you go out of your way to be deliberately vague, then that's up to you but don't put the responsibility on the reader when you do not make your position clear.

As to whether it is up my street or not, I will keep that to myself and let gonefishin jump to conclusions instead

Sorry, mia culpa. I was actually directing that at Ro5ey, I got usernames mixed up along the way.

Please dont be tiresome GF - you read words ending with a ? not as questions but as assumptions, and you presume that I inserted God into the argument, which I did not. You also ignored my response to Cougar ("Indeed") which is indicating the fact that your assumptions were mistaken. So if you are to judge me, please do use [i]"the available information" [/i]without prejudice. It would be more fitting!

I've been following most of this thread and would just like to thank the posters for generally keeping it very good natured, non-agressive, and interesting. "Keep up the good work"
Particular thanks to those that have refferenced outside sources such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Lennox, and Hitchens as this has led to some very interesting further reading.

He told Muslims to stop blowing stuff up!
Yes he did. And some Muslims have been blowing stuff up so it seems like a pretty fair request

Did he also tell blokes to blowing stuff up? 'Cos some of them have been blowing stuff up.

He later admits that he knows that not all members of the A

The bombers claim to be doing for Islam, but they do not believe the majority are true Muslims. They do not claim to be representatives of the Muslim majority. There is no reason the Muslim majority should be responsible for them.

He very clearly explained that he does not believe that the majority of Muslims support bombings, or that the majority of Christians support persecution, or that the majority of Jews support the extreme military moves of Israel.

So why did he imply they were?

Obviously it was hyperbole, for the sake of comedy, grabbing attention and getting his point across. I think he then qualified and explained that point very well.

Is he from Edinburgh?

"It was only a joke" has been the crap defence from racists and misogynists for years!

Do tell me his point, because the way I heard it, he started by saying, amongst other things, that all muslims are terrorists. He then goes on to say 'no, not really' (but it's funny to say that they are), but it's their blokes who are doing it so they should be stopping them, or perhaps stop believing in their God.

Can you justify 'Beardy, veily'?

This is just crap

Hmm well I've just started the confirmation course, as I've said, so will stick with it for the time being. But will look into it.

Can you change religions like you can change bikes?

CoE an Orange 5, buddhism a Yeti 575 ??

If it's acceptable that god has existed eternally, why isn't it equally acceptable that the universe has? If that's a plausible explanation, why do we need to add a creator?

I don't think there's a need to - it's more a response to [i]"[b]why [/b]are we here"[/i], rather than [i]"[b]how[/b] are we here"[/i].

A lot of people get hung up on the idea that Christians 'believe' the Genesis account - most academic commentaries nowadays proceed on the basis that Gen 1-3 is a creation myth, which were fairly common in the Ancient Near East, which seeks to explain why humanity has this desire to answer some of the 'why' questions about the meaning and purpose of life, in a format that the hearers (it would have begun as an oral tradition) could understand. I don't consider it's meant to be read as a modern scientific treatise on the origins of the universe.

If it's acceptable that god has existed eternally, why isn't it equally acceptable that the universe has?

Is the eternal existence of something the same as it having existed since the beginning of time?
If not, the idea of an eternal universe is problematic isn't it?

My conception is that 'eternal' means something other than 'for all time', by which it isn't acceptable that the universe has existed eternally.

Charlie you seem quite determined to find offence at this and I'm not very sure why.

Though you are falling nicely into his quip that "not everything that is said about you is an attack on the Prophet Mohammed and Allah... have a cup of tea and chill out!"

Did he also tell blokes to blowing stuff up?

Because none of them have claimed to be blowing themselves up for "blokedom".

There is no reason the Muslim majority should be responsible for them.

And going back to the EDL, there is no reason that the majority "White England" they falsely claim to represent should be responsible for them either - yet white English people still openly and vocally oppose them to make it clear they do not share their views and to rob them of power.

"It was only a joke" has been the crap defence from racists and misogynists for years!

I didn't say it was only a joke. I said it was [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole ]hyperbole[/url].

Exaggerating for dramatic (and yes, comedic) effect. To quote Wiki "used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally."

Can you justify 'Beardy, veily'?

I was under the impression that beards and veils were fairly popular in the Muslim culture? (Just as "neat jumpers" are in Christian culture).

Why did he say it? It is an irreverent reference to Muslims that gives you a linguistic clue that what he is about to say next should not be taken too seriously.

Do tell me his point

I think I've done that already, but you seem too keen on seeking offence to listen to it.

I have certainly tried to study it and other religions but my knowledge is superficial at best (little more than schoolboy stuff, plus Tibetan Book of the Dead, Tchich Nhat Han ect)

I have studied and dabbled in religion as a youth and Buddhism is the only stuff I still carry with me. It has some very good and useful insights into the human condition and how to live a better life IMHO. I dont buy into all of it [ reincarnation for example] and certainly wont be achieving enlightenment this time 😉
I do find some of its messages/teachings very useful and still meditate. I dont consider myself to be religious though.

most academic commentaries nowadays proceed on the basis that Gen 1-3 is a creation myth,

I thought the Bible was the word of God? Was that bit a test or something?

More seriously; if you can accept that that bit is a myth, how can you then rely on the rest of the book without question?

Can you change religions like you can change bikes?

Fortunately in the UK yes, though I guess your old religious buddies of a different flavour won't think too kindly of you.

In other countries it may involve being murdered, unfortunately. (link: [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100107950/christian-pastor-youcef-nadarkhani-faces-death-for-apostasy-iranian-theocracy-in-action/ ]Christian pastor faces death penalty for apostasy.[/url] )

Is the eternal existence of something the same as it having existed since the beginning of time?
If not, the idea of an eternal universe is problematic isn't it?

My conception is that 'eternal' means something other than 'for all time', by which it isn't acceptable that the universe has existed eternally.

This feels a little desperate TBH, but let's go with it.

"It isn't acceptable that the universe has existed eternally." Why not? To whom? You? Mankind? Just because you / we don't comprehend it, that means it must be incorrect?(*)

Fortunately, I don't think the universe requires your acceptance.

Am I extrapolating correctly that you believe an 'eternal' creator is acceptable then? What's the difference here? Either it's possible, conceptually, to have something "for all time," or it isn't. Either it's possible something "eternally" for all time, or it isn't. Non?

(* - it probably is incorrect, but that's a whole different discussion)

So starting to go to church has just made me more aware of when I am basically happy and at peace, with lots of love thrown in there. Church, to me, has put another name to those feelings… God. Church is making it possible to know God and therefore to know happiness/peace/love and to seek it out….

Could you expand on this Ro5ey? I found myself at Catholic Mass a couple of weeks ago (My other half is Catholic) just after there was a lot of stuff on the radio about what Jesus might do in the protests outside St Paul's. My OH is broadly of the opinion that it's all just a framework for being nice to each other, which is fair enough, but then all the pantomime call and response, stand-up-now-sit-down stuff seems pretty much redundant. I don't really see how it fits with your interpretation of what God is, or how it could help you know it better?

On a slightly different note, I've always thought the Quakers have got it about right if there is a God- if I understand it correctly, there's nothing between you and God, it's just you and your relationship with him. Anybody here a Quaker?

You folks need to get out more. A lot more.

Thanks for that insightful and valuable contribution to the discussion. We were just treading water till you got here really.

Anybody here a Quaker?

My cousin married a Quaker. The most moving service I have ever attended (apart from my own wedding, of course). Amazing power of silence and contemplative prayer. Slightly spooky and uncomfortable to begin with, but then deeply moving.

The Quaker way has its roots in Christianity and finds inspiration in the Bible and the life and teachings of Jesus. Quakers also find meaning and value in the teachings of other faiths; we acknowledge that ours is not the only way. Our focus is on our experience rather than written statements of belief. Our sense of community does not depend on professing identical beliefs, but from worshipping, sharing and working together.

You folks need to get out more. A lot more.

Yeah! Talking about the fundamental nature of human existence and man's relationship with God is like sooo stooopid.

Let's like do something that matters instead: like go to the Justin Beiber concert!! He's sooo dreamy...

My cousin married a Quaker.

And did he get his oats?

.

(sorry)

but then deeply moving....

Be all that porridge. Mad for porridge them Quaker lads.

Charlie you seem quite determined to find offence at this and I'm not very sure why.

I'm not determined to take offence at it, I just find this lazy racism and generalisation offensive. No different from '****' jokes.

Because none of them have claimed to be blowing themselves up for "blokedom".

The point is that you could chose a different categorisation and make a whole new bunch of people responsible for the actions of people like them.

there is no reason that the majority "White England" they falsely claim to represent should be responsible for them either -

Two things here, firstly, I'm glad we agree that there is no reason the majority in the same categorisation should not be responsible for the actions of other folks who fit some broad description characteristics.

Secondly, as i said before, the 'nutters' do not claim to represent the majority. I'm beginning to see why it might be considered pointless to try to change other people's perceptions!

Though you are falling nicely into his quip that "not everything that is said about you is an attack on the Prophet Mohammed and Allah... have a cup of tea and chill out!"

I've not once said that what he says is an offence against Islam, I've said it's racist. So, not so simplistic there.

I didn't say it was only a joke. I said it was hyperbole.

you said it was hyperbole for comedic effect. Thanks for the link on hyperbole, but I do know what it means. What you might clarify for me is the difference between this and a joke. You know just in practical working definitions

I was under the impression that beards and veils were fairly popular in the Muslim culture? (Just as "neat jumpers" are in Christian culture).

So you don't think 'beardy, veily...' is pejorative at all?

It is an irreverent reference to Muslims that gives you a linguistic clue that what he is about to say next should not be taken too seriously.

It is lazy, played for cheap laughs, no different from Jim Davidson or Bernard Manning.

Am I extrapolating correctly that you believe an 'eternal' creator is acceptable then? What's the difference here? Either it's possible, conceptually, to have something "for all time," or it isn't. Either it's possible something "eternally" for all time, or it isn't. Non?

No, this is nothing to do with my belief,it's more of a semantic / linguistic question that arose really, not part of the main argument, just playing with the idea of whether or not eternal means the same as for all time. I can see how peoples conceptions of God are eternal, but the existence of the universe is 'for all time'. I'm only making the point that they might sound like the same thing but probably aren't.

I believe that eternal is probably part of the definition of creator, but i don't think eternal is a concept which can be applied to the universe, but as i say, it's more of a semantic / linguistic thought.

666 😯

If by eternal you mean infinite

Then no - our best theories and experimental results indicate the universe had a definitive start point, although it may not have a definitive end point.

But this doesnt require a creator either 🙂

Question: When you look at us and the universe we live in, you realise that the list of faults in something that is supposed to have been "designed" by an all-powerful "creator" is so long and so full of things that could have been done MUCH better, you wonder why religious people waste their time worshipping a supreme being who appears (under this explanation of existence) to be even stupider than they are. Why DO they do this?

Mr S … I agree with you

I’m new to this malarkey, doing the confirmation course at the moment, and the call and response stuff, is one of the things I’m struggling with.

Until explained to me otherwise, I see it as an old form of control. Which at times, I’m no doubt, religion has been. But then having a little think about it,(as I type this) maybe it’s just a rallying call to help the congregation feel close to each other. The community spirit is a big draw.

And that’s the thing, regular church attendance, actually listening to the Pie n Liquor and having a little think about it all, is just opening new doors/experiences for me.

Hey I may have it completely wrong ??

But I like it, I go and hear lots of good things…. It a tonic to all the cr4p we are force feed via modern media.

Your OH is right ….. it’s nice to be nice.

Question: When you look at us and the universe we live in, you realise that the list of faults in something that is supposed to have been "designed" by an all-powerful "creator" is so long and so full of things that could have been done MUCH better, you wonder why religious people waste their time worshipping a supreme being who appears (under this explanation of existence) to be even stupider than they are. Why DO they do this?

Yes, it does make you wonder, doesn't it? Unless of course you happen to be a believer, then I guess it's all pretty obvious.

In that case, and assuming you're right, perhaps a believer might come on and tell us why he or she likes to worship a (supposed) being who appears to be a complete dimwit?

I think we should be told.

the 'nutters' do not claim to represent the majority.

There is a perception that they do, though. Shouldn't this be addressed?

No, this is nothing to do with my belief,it's more of a semantic / linguistic question that arose really,

<nods> which is fair enough, that was how I read it. It's an interesting aside; I was going to ask whether the start of time and the start of the universe were the same thing, but I feared that the wheels really would come off then. (-:

Either way though, it's a bit of mental smoke-and-mirrors isn't it. Irrespective of the meaning of the word, if you can apply "eternal" to god, why can't you apply it to the universe?

Eternal could mean "with chips and a side salad" for the difference it makes to the question. We're using the concept of god to provide convenient answers to things we can't readily comprehend, but all we're really doing is moving the the same problems somewhere else and then handwaving (or getting defensive) when challenged.

I thought the Bible was the word of God? Was that bit a test or something?

More seriously; if you can accept that that bit is a myth, how can you then rely on the rest of the book without question?

That's the thinking of an American fundamentalist approach to the Bible, where everything has to be literally, historically true. I think I'd be safe in saying that the majority of Christians globally don't, and never have, treated the Bible in that fashion.

So, for example, I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" probably isn't a real event - it's a story created by Jesus to illustrate a point far more effectively than a 40 min monologue. It's a common enough teaching technique used by rabbis and other teachers to this day. In the same fashion, there are a range of types of literature throughout the Bible, some we're familiar with, like the poetry of Psalms, and others that are fairly inaccessible, like the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation. Some of those books can be treated as "history with an agenda", and other sections, like Gen 1-3, are mythic in nature - they do carry "truth claims" but they're more in keeping with the Parable of the Good Samaritan than claims to present an accurate chronology of events as they happened.

Fred, really are a t1t. I almost don't know why I (or anybody else) bothers to respond to your stupid comments.

I do.

Would you like me to explain why? Seeing as how it appears to be so difficult for you to work out for yourself? Or will you once again report this post cos the nasty man on the internet made you feel small and frightened?

Question: When you look at us and the universe we live in, you realise that the list of faults in something that is supposed to have been "designed" by an all-powerful "creator" is so long and so full of things that could have been done MUCH better, you wonder why religious people [b]waste their time[/b] worshipping a supreme being who appears (under this explanation of existence) to be even stupider than they are. Why DO they do this?

I wonder why [i]you[/i] waste [i]your[/i] time wondering about such things...

Question: why do you need to feel superior to others?

Perplexing, as you often end up looking a bit daft really in discussions such as this, not to mention extremely narrow-minded, ignorant and bigoted.

Seriously Woppit; seeing as how you're so desperate to appear 'clever', do you not ever stop to think that you could in fact do a lot better by just relaxing, sitting down and thinking about things in a bit more depth?

Your views on religion reflect mine when I was a teenager, and knew a lot less than I know now.

I'm happy that I've grown up and become more open minded and reasonable. I'd hate to still be wallowing in such 'ignorance'.

you realise that the list of faults in something that is supposed to have been "designed" by an all-powerful "creator" is so long and so full of things that could have been done MUCH better,

I woke up this morning with a bladder that felt like I'd poured two pints in a pint pot, and an erection that I could've used to cut diamonds. If we are here through Intelligent Design, the creator is having a right laugh at our expense.

Are "we" any angrier than followers of the various religions? I suspect there are equal numbers on both sides who display the same behaviour.

I am an atheist but do not have an unshakeable faith that there is no god(s). IMO it's 50/50 and I accept that there is as much chance I'm wrong as right.

I have a real problem with Richard Dawking as he just can't seem to see that he is a "religious" zealot of a different shade.

I think I'd be safe in saying that the majority of Christians globally don't, and never have, treated the Bible in that fashion.

Fair enough. I was always under the impression that the Bible was the Christian, ah, "player's handbook." I've heard many, many times that Christians know something unquestionably because it's "in the Bible," though I couldn't in honesty tell you how many of those were American or fundamentalists or both.

I am an atheist but do not have an unshakeable faith that there is no god(s). IMO it's 50/50 and I accept that there is as much chance I'm wrong as right.

See, I can quite happily get along with that. Someone openly and confidently expressing their onion, yet without needing to resort to insults, abuse or mocking and belittling others. And that rare thing; someone accepting that they may possibly be 'wrong'.

When you look at us and the universe we live in, you realise that the list of faults in something that is supposed to have been "designed" by an all-powerful "creator" is so long and so full of things that could have been done MUCH better, you wonder why

Well, the inkling that [i]"things are not the way they are meant to be"[/i] is a frequent starting point for people's journey of discovery, whether religious or otherwise. The Christian story starts off with a creation myth that suggests things are not as the creator intended - I think several other religions do a similar thing.

What interests me more, is why an atheist would think in categories of [i]'right'[/i] and [i]'wrong'[/i] when viewing the universe and not simply think in terms of causality? I'd have assumed that, from the standpoint of scientific determinism, the nagging feeling that something is amiss which appears to have been a feature of human existence up until this point is something that needs to be left behind?

"I woke up this morning with a bladder that felt like I'd poured two pints in a pint pot, and an erection that I could've used to cut diamonds."

LOL

and on that note I'm outta here... It been fun and a help.

I woke up this morning with a bladder that felt like I'd poured two pints in a pint pot, and an erection that I could've used to cut diamonds. If we are here through Intelligent Design, the creator is having a right laugh at our expense.

Hmm.. I fear this is in danger of turning into a two-person debate thread which is never very productive, so if anyone else would like to contribute to this bit then please speak up (or tell me to shut up).

I just find this lazy racism and generalisation offensive. No different from '****' jokes.

It's really quite a lot different in my view. He isn't being derogatory or inciting hatred for one thing. And it isn't about race either.

The point is that you could chose a different categorisation and make a whole new bunch of people responsible for the actions of people like them.

Yes I understood your point, but it's the folks blowing themselves up [i]"in the name of"[/i] that categorisation, that are doing the categorising, not us.

They could all be called Dave, have ginger hair, moustaches and one leg, but if they claim to be blowing themselves up for Greenpeace then it would naturally fall to Greenpeace to say [i]"no they're blimmin' well not"[/i] - the other categories would be irrelevant.

the 'nutters' do not claim to represent the majority

No, but they do claim to represent Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.

If I was a follower of Islam and a member of that brotherhood then I'd want to challenge that - just as I would challenge the EDL if they claimed to represent me.

I've not once said that what he says is an offence against Islam, I've said it's racist. So, not so simplistic there.

Racist against what race?

What you might clarify for me is the difference between this and a joke.

Sorry no, I've tried a couple of variations but I can't manage it without sounding like a patronising git which I don't want to do.

So you don't think 'beardy, veily...' is pejorative at all?

Nope. Irreverent? Yes. Deliberately overly-familiar and matey? Yes.
Disrespectful? Yes. Intended as slur, abuse or a derogatory insult? No.

If you applied it to another group, say "a bunch of beardy bikers", would that be insulting to them?

It is lazy, played for cheap laughs, no different from Jim Davidson or Bernard Manning.

If find it to be intelligent and played for laughs but with a deeper meaning. I don't see the comparison to those two bigots at all. Sorry.

I’m new to this malarkey, doing the confirmation course at the moment, and the call and response stuff, is one of the things I’m struggling with.

I think the answer there is that some people like stability and a framework whereas others prefer a somewhat more open approach to worship but with the randomness that that may bring. In the same way that some folks feel that the ornate darkness of a Russian Orthodox church puts them in the right frame of mind while others prefer the openness of a modern US church which they may feel puts less between them and God.

Cougar, I liked it when I thought you were a woman.

😯

I've heard many, many times that Christians know something unquestionably because it's "in the Bible," though I couldn't in honesty tell you how many of those were American or fundamentalists or both.

There's a very definite anti-intellectualism about some traditions within Christianity that, sadly, is frequently quite "shouty" and because they're happy to trot out simplistic soundbites at the drop of the hat, are loved by the media as a result. Some of them are kind and generous people, even though they're not very bright, others are really unpleasant folks like the Westboro Baptist Church crowd.

The whole religion business will now put me in mind of diamond cutting erections and the contents of Mrs Barnsleymitches jumper. What this means in terms of intelligent design, eternality, and the literal versus figurative nature of scriptural interpretation remains open to question.

I grew up thinking God was a woman. Who looked like the woman from the PG tips box.

[img] [/img]

??

^ 😆

It's really quite a lot different in my view. He isn't being derogatory or inciting hatred for one thing. And it isn't about race either.

Yeah, but it does reinforce a negative stereotype though, dun't it, and it is a bit lazy. I like Marcus and think he's a funny, clever bloke. Not overly bothered about this comment, as I can appreciate the context in which it was made, but he might be mindful to consider this as a small 'mistake' or slight error of judgment, [url= http://www.****/news/article-1164742/Sir-David-Jason-forced-say-sorry-making-racist-joke-live-radio.html ]as might David Jason[/url] (There were worse 'jokes' on the 'Jokes' thread imo).

[img] [/img]
!!!

The whole religion business will now put me in mind of

You've room to talk, weren't you in the bath earlier?

Just read the David Jason thing. Sure, it was ill-conceived but,

last night Mohammed Shafiq, of Muslim charity the Ramadhan Foundation, said:

'These are inappropriate remarks about a stereotype that may have held a little water in the 50s and 60s but is not true to today. He should've known better.'

... does that make any sense to anyone? What stereotype is he referring to, that was appropriate in the 50s but not now? It sounds more like he's objecting to the implication that someone from the Indian subcontinent would be working in the service industry. Have I missed something here?

Re: David Jason

I liked this quote:

Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, who is of ****stani origin, said he did not see the joke as racist. 'It really is a storm in a tea cup,' he said. 'I'm a big fan of David Jason.

'The only thing is he's let me down because it's not very funny.'

I don't see that joke as particularly racist either. It's just a (bad) joke about a (very bad) pun on someone's name.

We've had quite a few [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/one-for-the-amusing-names-pile-fanny-chmelar ]threads on here about folk with funny sounding names[/url], both "foreign and domestic".

A spokesman for Absolute Radio said there had been no complaints to the station from listeners

So a complete non-story then? How unlike The Daily Mail.

You've room to talk, weren't you in the bath earlier?

Yes, but that was yesterday, and, as documented, there was a distinct lack of tumescence owing to the retraction of what I choose to describe as a sleeping tiger.

It sounds more like he's objecting to the implication that someone from the Indian subcontinent would be working in the service industry. Have I missed something here?

TBH, it's something that's hard to put yer finger on really, but there is a certain cultural ignorance about the 'joke', for sure:

It is a play on words around the name of the political and spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi - who was from India, not ****stan.

'Mahatma' is a Hindu name, whereas ****stan is a predominantly Muslim country. But if you made the joke more culturally accurate:

[i]'What do you call a ****stani cloakroom attendant? Mohammed' [/i]

does not in any way really work, does it? 😐 It is a teeny bit 'oh well they all look the same'. Bit like making a joke about an Englishman, who's name is François....

I think this just about sums it up really:

Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, who is of ****stani origin, said he did not see the joke as racist. 'It really is a storm in a tea cup,' he said. 'I'm a big fan of David Jason.
'The only thing is he's let me down because it's not very funny.'

Yup, as usual Elfin is right. 😯

I like Marcus, he's usually a smart politically incisive comedian. This stuff was just a bit like 'the french, how come they all stink?"

Ok, we can have an argument about what constitutes a race, but call it what ever 'ist' you like, it was rude.

Yup, as usual Elfin is right.

I'm going to print this out and frame it. 😀

A lot of people get hung up on the idea that Christians 'believe' the Genesis account

Indeed, isn't the whole creation versus evolution debate centred around several red herrings. Studying the creation story is far more entertaining when it is considered as a poem (particularly the Hebrew rhyming apparently) and enjoyed for the symmetry of the story rather than literal meaning of the text. Plus isn't it really about the idea of a single creator rather than the multiple creators that the pagans believed and more importantly a message that humans were special to "their" God (?) rather than people who should fear their gods?

But is the message of Job the real answer, of merely a theological cop-out? So God refuses to answer Job (apparently) and poses questions to him instead. So what is going on here? Is it correct that there are things in life (including illness) etc that are simply beyond human comprehension? Or is that merely a convenient way of ducking the challenges posed?

does that make any sense to anyone?

he's usually a smart politically incisive comedian. This stuff was just a bit like 'the french, how come they all stink?"

Indeed, isn't the whole creation versus evolution debate centred around several red herrings. Studying the creation story is far more entertaining when it is considered as a poem (particularly the Hebrew rhyming apparently) and enjoyed for the symmetry of the story rather than literal meaning of the text.

I know it's a bit of a 6th form argument and some people have already said it today, but anyway: That's all well and good, but what about the burning bush? The feeding of the 5000? The tablets given to Moses? The Ark? The virgin birth? Doesn't the God part of the bible (as opposed to viewing it as a sort of let's-all-be-nice-to-each-other handbook) rest on at least some of it being taken literally? If so how do you decide which parts?

[i]Sevenundred.[/i] 😐

I don't think I've ever had a Sevenundred before.

I reckon as time goes on that religions will slowly mythologise most of their holy books and be left with just the "Be excellent to each other*" bit, jettisoning the rest.

* And party on, dude!

..a more fitting epitaph would be hard to find, Adam.
God bless us, one and all.

'Mahatma' is a Hindu name, whereas ****stan is a predominantly Muslim country. But if you made the joke more culturally accurate:

... it'd be, "what do you call a Hindu cloakroom attendant?"

It's crap (and as we've highlighted, factually inaccurate), but hardly racist.

Compare,

"What do you call a bloke from Dover with a seagull on his head? Cliff!"

"What do you call an Englishman with a shovel on his head? Doug!"

A bit more Hitch on religion. Worth a listen right through but to stay right on topic go to about 19:00.

Hitchens to god - "At least I didnt curry favour". Brilliant.

i think you mean you disagree with what he said but it was a bit more nuanced [ if not any less offensive] than the french line above.

I was making a reference to a Lee Evans gag a good few years back, but the point is that it was well below his usual standard and playing to an easy audience.

Worth a listen

Nah, you're alright. That [b]Marxist's[/b] voice sends me to sleep, tbh. And he's not saying owt I jolly well have not heard before, if other stuff I've heard from him is owt to go by.

I'm certainly not going to waste 30 minutes of my life listening to him droning on. Maybe you could give us a brief summary of what he's going on about?

'Mahatma' is a Hindu name

Isn't it a title, or an accolade rather than a name?

playing to an easy audience.

That's Radio4 for ya 🙂

Incidentally, I do agree he was rude, but that's quite a different thing from being racist (or Islamististist).

Isn't it a title, or an accolade rather than a name?

It is indeed. I fought his name was Mohandas or something like that.

Mahatma - does it mean teacher?

Yeah but the point is it's a Hindu term rather than a Muslim one.

Y'know, I do enjoy reading a debate between a bunch of white* ** IT guys about what's racialisticism and what's not.

*And Effin.
**Presumably.
Racist!! *
*Yeah, I know. 😐

I don't really think Marcus or David were being 'racist' at all, tbh. Just a bit naive.

It's not really a big deal. Bravissimo's said worse about the Oirish....

I've tried but Christ alive I can't stomach 18 pages of this. Any good bits?

I'm not white

I'm certainly not going to waste 30 minutes of my life listening to him droning on. Maybe you could give us a brief summary of what he's going on about?

Given the amount of time you have spent on this thread and the content of your argument (such as it is) it would be an education and consequently time well spent.

[img] [/img]

I'm not white

Hence why I said "presumably"; point of information accepted though CM. 🙂

I'm white. Is that good or bad?

I'm white

You're special mol.