Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: BashfulAnthony on October 06, 2015, 04:01:46 PM
-
I have been away from here for a while, posting with sensible people. I quote here from the rules of that forum, which I have advocated over a period of years for this place, with no sensible response:
"The issue being addressed here is that it is not acceptable to attack another member's beliefs.
It is perfectly fine to disagree with other members, and to let them know why. There are certain aspects pertaining to Christianity in particular that people are simply not ever going to agree with one another about. The moderators have no problem with this, and understand that it is to be expected in both real life, as well as on this forum.
When it comes to what someone believes regarding their faith, it is not the same dynamic as a political stance, which one chooses based on reason or critical thinking, and how they feel about politically-based policies or issues. When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.
Disagreements, even passionately adamant disagreements (to the point of telling another member that they are wrong in what they believe) is permissible, so long as it addresses the particular point that is disagreed with. However, it must be done without attacking that other individual for what they believe.
--And that has to be upheld among the members who post on this forum.
The moderators are aware of the fact that there are aspects of Christianity that not every member accepts, or even feels to be correct in terms of another member's beliefs of what Christianity is. It is absolutely fine to disagree with another member regarding this, even to the point of stating that you feel they are wrong, and explaining your reasons why. But what is NOT acceptable, and what takes place on this forum every day is to attack that person for what in essence, is an integral part of who they are in what is highly personal to them in their perception of Christianity, and scripture, and is something they base their live's on, and what greatly defines who they are as individuals upon.
WHAT IS BEING MANDATED IS HAVING RESPECT IN ONE'S POST TOWARDS THOSE WITH WHOM ONE ADAMANTLY DISAGREES, no matter how adamantly you disagree with or feel another member's beliefs are wrong, BUT IT CANNOT BE DONE IN AN ATTACKING WAY, WHEREBY THE INDIVIDUAL HIM/HERSELF IS BEING ATTACKED BASED ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS.
By outright attacking another member's beliefs in their interpretation of, and understanding of Christianity, you are attacking that person. You are attacking that person inasmuch as their beliefs contribute greatly to who they are as people. This will no longer be tolerated. Despite the inevitable disagreements among members, these disagreements must be constructed in one's posts, where the member him/herself is not personally attacked for what they believe." (I choose not to say which site this is from as I do not wish any of the atheists here to log-on to it and spread their vitriol there.
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings - the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc. All this from people who have made it their role to debunk and belittle the lives of others through their beliefs - and this, in a number of cases, over a period of years, no less. It is cruel and heartless and unfathomable They should be ashamed of themselves - a forlorn hope!
-
It might help if you even tried to live up to the rules you want set up, and even in your post above , you can't manage to do it. Do as you say but not as you do?
-
And that is leaving aside the simple assertion that religion should be given special privileges in discussion because it it 'personal'.
-
It might help if you even tried to live up to the rules you want set up, and even in your post above , you can't manage to do it. Do as you say but not as you do?
What beliefs of yours do I belittle, eh? Your belief in boozing, maybe? Not even that! Answer my post, with a little intelligence, if you are able. The post is specifically about religious belief, here on this R&E forum - had you not worked that out? Apparently not!
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings - the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc. All this from people who have made it their role to debunk and belittle the lives of others through their beliefs - and this, in a number of cases, over a period of years, no less. It is cruel and heartless and unfathomable They should be ashamed of themselves - a forlorn hope!
I speak for myself, here, but I suspect there are others that agree with at least part of what I say - to make the comparison between 'intercessionary prayers' or 'miracles' and 'magic' is not to attack the believer, but to comment on the belief.
To describe the Bible, Qu'Ran, Bagavad Ghita, Odyssey, Book of Mormon etc. as 'fairy tales' is not to attack the believer, but the texts upon which the belief is (sometimes) founded.
It is not 'our role' to belittle the lives of believers - there might, at a stretch, be some who feel the need to point out how believers belittle their own lives through their belief. We want to show how trivial and yet dangerous belief is.
Believers of all stripes lend credence to the idea that Religion is a valid enterprise, and behind that credence extremists, terrorists, misogynists, homophobes and racists hide the preposterousness of their philosophies with the fact that they are exactly as justified as any other religious creed.
Religious people deserve respect, yes, but religious belief doesn't. This is our version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner', so if you recognise how it feels, perhaps you'll encourage some of the anti-gay Christians out there to bear that in mind, in the future.
O.
-
I have been away from here for a while, posting with sensible people. I quote here from the rules of that forum, which I have advocated over a period of years for this place, with no sensible response:
"The issue being addressed here is that it is not acceptable to attack another member's beliefs.
It is perfectly fine to disagree with other members, and to let them know why. There are certain aspects pertaining to Christianity in particular that people are simply not ever going to agree with one another about. The moderators have no problem with this, and understand that it is to be expected in both real life, as well as on this forum.
When it comes to what someone believes regarding their faith, it is not the same dynamic as a political stance, which one chooses based on reason or critical thinking, and how they feel about politically-based policies or issues. When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.
Disagreements, even passionately adamant disagreements (to the point of telling another member that they are wrong in what they believe) is permissible, so long as it addresses the particular point that is disagreed with. However, it must be done without attacking that other individual for what they believe.
--And that has to be upheld among the members who post on this forum.
The moderators are aware of the fact that there are aspects of Christianity that not every member accepts, or even feels to be correct in terms of another member's beliefs of what Christianity is. It is absolutely fine to disagree with another member regarding this, even to the point of stating that you feel they are wrong, and explaining your reasons why. But what is NOT acceptable, and what takes place on this forum every day is to attack that person for what in essence, is an integral part of who they are in what is highly personal to them in their perception of Christianity, and scripture, and is something they base their live's on, and what greatly defines who they are as individuals upon.
WHAT IS BEING MANDATED IS HAVING RESPECT IN ONE'S POST TOWARDS THOSE WITH WHOM ONE ADAMANTLY DISAGREES, no matter how adamantly you disagree with or feel another member's beliefs are wrong, BUT IT CANNOT BE DONE IN AN ATTACKING WAY, WHEREBY THE INDIVIDUAL HIM/HERSELF IS BEING ATTACKED BASED ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS.
By outright attacking another member's beliefs in their interpretation of, and understanding of Christianity, you are attacking that person. You are attacking that person inasmuch as their beliefs contribute greatly to who they are as people. This will no longer be tolerated. Despite the inevitable disagreements among members, these disagreements must be constructed in one's posts, where the member him/herself is not personally attacked for what they believe." (I choose not to say which site this is from as I do not wish any of the atheists here to log-on to it and spread their vitriol there.
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings - the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc. All this from people who have made it their role to debunk and belittle the lives of others through their beliefs - and this, in a number of cases, over a period of years, no less. It is cruel and heartless and unfathomable They should be ashamed of themselves - a forlorn hope!
Blimey - where to start.
First I don't agree that religious beliefs should be placed on a special pedestal compared to other belief, for example political beliefs. There is no doubt that there are plenty of people who hold political beliefs as dear and as personally as some hold religious beliefs. And additionally non religious philosophical and ethical beliefs can be just as sincerely held too.
But if you are to place certain things at the top of the heap in terms of being personal, being integral to the person, then surely sexuality will trump any belief (whether religious or not). Yet I don't see religious people holding back from putting the boot into people who are homosexual (not all religious people of course, but some).
And you have to understand the reciprocity of strongly held views. Sure a religious person may feel insulted or offended by a non religious person referring to their strongly held beliefs in terms of "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," - but of course it cuts the other way, with people who believe strongly in rationality etc feeling insulted by religious people's adherence to what they see as see as supernatural nonsense that offends their sense of rationality. Plus they may feel offended by the often casually thrown insults of the religious that non religious people don't belief in anything - have no moral compass etc etc.
So basically it cuts both ways - and in reality there is no right not to be offended. And if you have strongly held and perhaps rather extreme views or beliefs, expect them to be challenged, ridiculed, insulted etc etc if you raise them. That's life - if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Ad as Outrider the challenge is on the belief not the believer.
-
BA,
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings - the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
You're confused. It's right to have "regard" for the rights of others to believe whatever they wish, but not for the beliefs themselves just because they happen to hold them. You may find terms like "magic" etc to be infantile, but frankly some of us find the term "god" to be the same. When someone attempts an argument for a god that works equally well for, say, fairies, then its a perfectly legitimate response to say so.
Example? If someone insists that he has "intuited" the objective fact of "god", then he has no choice but to accept equally the objective fact of pixies if someone else thinks just as sincerely that that's what she has intuited.
-
So BA wants special privileges for Christians but expects to insult pagan beliefs with impunity.
-
Rhi,
So BA wants special privileges for Christians but expects to insult pagan beliefs with impunity.
And those of followers of Bacchus too it seems.
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings - the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc. All this from people who have made it their role to debunk and belittle the lives of others through their beliefs - and this, in a number of cases, over a period of years, no less. It is cruel and heartless and unfathomable They should be ashamed of themselves - a forlorn hope!
I speak for myself, here, but I suspect there are others that agree with at least part of what I say - to make the comparison between 'intercessionary prayers' or 'miracles' and 'magic' is not to attack the believer, but to comment on the belief.
To describe the Bible, Qu'Ran, Bagavad Ghita, Odyssey, Book of Mormon etc. as 'fairy tales' is not to attack the believer, but the texts upon which the belief is (sometimes) founded.
It is not 'our role' to belittle the lives of believers - there might, at a stretch, be some who feel the need to point out how believers belittle their own lives through their belief. We want to show how trivial and yet dangerous belief is.
Believers of all stripes lend credence to the idea that Religion is a valid enterprise, and behind that credence extremists, terrorists, misogynists, homophobes and racists hide the preposterousness of their philosophies with the fact that they are exactly as justified as any other religious creed.
Religious people deserve respect, yes, but religious belief doesn't. This is our version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner', so if you recognise how it feels, perhaps you'll encourage some of the anti-gay Christians out there to bear that in mind, in the future.
O.
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals. I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace. Others come in for similar treatment. Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs? The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
-
So ... basically, after weeks and weeks away, not posting here but posting somewhere you regard as better, you've fetched up here again just to bleat and whine about this place.
Why didn't you stay with your 'sensible' people?
-
It might help if you even tried to live up to the rules you want set up, and even in your post above , you can't manage to do it. Do as you say but not as you do?
What beliefs of yours do I belittle, eh? Your belief in boozing, maybe? Not even that! Answer my post, with a little intelligence, if you are able. The post is specifically about religious belief, here on this R&E forum - had you not worked that out? Apparently not!
See 'with a little intelligence if you are able'. in this post or 'posting with sensible people' or the lazy generalisation of 'any of the atheists here to log-on to it and spread their vitriol there' in the OP. It does not live up to the part of the rule 'WHAT IS BEING MANDATED IS HAVING RESPECT IN ONE'S POST TOWARDS THOSE WITH WHOM ONE ADAMANTLY DISAGREES'.
-
Rhi,
So BA wants special privileges for Christians but expects to insult pagan beliefs with impunity.
And those of followers of Bacchus too it seems.
Silenus too
-
BA,
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.
Again you have it backwards. "Attack" and "critique" are different things: if you don't want to have your beliefs critiqued, don't come to a forum to discuss them (or confine yourself to the faith sharing area). What you're actually objecting to I think is the rebuttal of the expectation of some that their faith claims should be especially privileged in some way - which I for one think is fair enough.
-
So BA wants special privileges for Christians but expects to insult pagan beliefs with impunity.
Don'i be absurd! Where did I say any such thing? I am saying that it is wrong to debunk what a person's belief is, to the point of harm. That applies equally to the beliefs of anyone, what ever they may be. It seems that some are on here for the sole purpose of "having a go" at others' beliefs. Did you even read my post?
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings - the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc. All this from people who have made it their role to debunk and belittle the lives of others through their beliefs - and this, in a number of cases, over a period of years, no less. It is cruel and heartless and unfathomable They should be ashamed of themselves - a forlorn hope!
I speak for myself, here, but I suspect there are others that agree with at least part of what I say - to make the comparison between 'intercessionary prayers' or 'miracles' and 'magic' is not to attack the believer, but to comment on the belief.
To describe the Bible, Qu'Ran, Bagavad Ghita, Odyssey, Book of Mormon etc. as 'fairy tales' is not to attack the believer, but the texts upon which the belief is (sometimes) founded.
It is not 'our role' to belittle the lives of believers - there might, at a stretch, be some who feel the need to point out how believers belittle their own lives through their belief. We want to show how trivial and yet dangerous belief is.
Believers of all stripes lend credence to the idea that Religion is a valid enterprise, and behind that credence extremists, terrorists, misogynists, homophobes and racists hide the preposterousness of their philosophies with the fact that they are exactly as justified as any other religious creed.
Religious people deserve respect, yes, but religious belief doesn't. This is our version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner', so if you recognise how it feels, perhaps you'll encourage some of the anti-gay Christians out there to bear that in mind, in the future.
O.
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals. I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace. Others come in for similar treatment. Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs? The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
But you don't seem to understand or similarly recognise the hurt that attacks by some christians on gay people (or simply people for whom basic human rights of equality for people regardless of their sexuality is an integral part of their moral compass) may cause. You can't expect things to be all one way. If you want things that are important to you to be respected then you need to accord the same respect to others.
But the bottom line is that no-one is forced to spend time on this forum. If you don't like the nature of the discussion then stop posting and move elsewhere. What isn't reasonable it to expect to be allowed to post with impunity, even when those posts may cause insult or offence to others, but to expect your own views to be protected from posts that you might find insulting or offensive.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
-
So BA wants special privileges for Christians but expects to insult pagan beliefs with impunity.
Don'i be absurd! Where did I say any such thing? I am saying that it is wrong to debunk what a person's belief is, to the point of harm. That applies equally to the beliefs of anyone, what ever they may be. It seems that some are on here for the sole purpose of "having a go" at others' beliefs. Did you even read my post?
Perhaps not post something that refers specifically to Christian beliefs if you want to make that point? Did you read your OP?
-
BA,
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.
Again you have it backwards. "Attack" and "critique" are different things: if you don't want to have your beliefs critiqued, don't come to a forum to discuss them (or confine yourself to the faith sharing area). What you're actually objecting to I think is the rebuttal of the expectation of some that their faith claims should be especially privileged in some way - which I for one think is fair enough.
Again, you miss the point. I have no objection to Christianity being criticised: my point is that people here are too often personally attacked for their beliefs, rather than the religion itself. There is too little actual debate, only abuse, debunking and personal insinuations.
-
... the bottom line is that no-one is forced to spend time on this forum. If you don't like the nature of the discussion then stop posting and move elsewhere. What isn't reasonable it to expect to be allowed to post with impunity, even when those posts may cause insult or offence to others, but to expect your own views to be protected from posts that you might find insulting or offensive.
By rights that ought to be all that needs to be said on the issue.
-
BA,
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.
Again you have it backwards. "Attack" and "critique" are different things: if you don't want to have your beliefs critiqued, don't come to a forum to discuss them (or confine yourself to the faith sharing area). What you're actually objecting to I think is the rebuttal of the expectation of some that their faith claims should be especially privileged in some way - which I for one think is fair enough.
Again, you miss the point. I have no objection to Christianity being criticised: my point is that people here are too often personally attacked for their beliefs, rather than the religion itself. There is too little actual debate, only abuse, debunking and personal insinuations.
I think someone is projecting.
-
BA,
Again, you miss the point. I have no objection to Christianity being criticised: my point is that people here are too often personally attacked for their beliefs, rather than the religion itself. There is too little actual debate, only abuse, debunking and personal insinuations.
No I don't. You're conflating different terms here: "debunking" - eg showing the argument to be logically false - is fine; personal attack is not, but I see very little of the latter. Frankly my experience is that abuse is more likely to come from people who call themselves christians than from those who don't.
bluehillside's third maxim: The more (big C) the Christian, the less (small c) christian he is likely to be.
-
BA,
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.
Again you have it backwards. "Attack" and "critique" are different things: if you don't want to have your beliefs critiqued, don't come to a forum to discuss them (or confine yourself to the faith sharing area). What you're actually objecting to I think is the rebuttal of the expectation of some that their faith claims should be especially privileged in some way - which I for one think is fair enough.
Again, you miss the point. I have no objection to Christianity being criticised: my point is that people here are too often personally attacked for their beliefs, rather than the religion itself. There is too little actual debate, only abuse, debunking and personal insinuations.
But you seem to be talking against yourself.
I thought your whole argument was that because religiously held beliefs were so important to the person, so personal that it wan't possible to attack the belief without, in effect, attacking the person. That seemed to be the upshot of your original post.
And lets face it if you want to look for the most personal of attacks then you should look no further than person who attack another persons sexuality, which lets face it is far more intrinsic to the basic nature of a person than any belief, religious or otherwise, strongly held or not.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings - the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc. All this from people who have made it their role to debunk and belittle the lives of others through their beliefs - and this, in a number of cases, over a period of years, no less. It is cruel and heartless and unfathomable They should be ashamed of themselves - a forlorn hope!
I speak for myself, here, but I suspect there are others that agree with at least part of what I say - to make the comparison between 'intercessionary prayers' or 'miracles' and 'magic' is not to attack the believer, but to comment on the belief.
To describe the Bible, Qu'Ran, Bagavad Ghita, Odyssey, Book of Mormon etc. as 'fairy tales' is not to attack the believer, but the texts upon which the belief is (sometimes) founded.
It is not 'our role' to belittle the lives of believers - there might, at a stretch, be some who feel the need to point out how believers belittle their own lives through their belief. We want to show how trivial and yet dangerous belief is.
Believers of all stripes lend credence to the idea that Religion is a valid enterprise, and behind that credence extremists, terrorists, misogynists, homophobes and racists hide the preposterousness of their philosophies with the fact that they are exactly as justified as any other religious creed.
Religious people deserve respect, yes, but religious belief doesn't. This is our version of 'hate the sin, love the sinner', so if you recognise how it feels, perhaps you'll encourage some of the anti-gay Christians out there to bear that in mind, in the future.
O.
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals. I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace. Others come in for similar treatment. Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs? The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
But you don't seem to understand or similarly recognise the hurt that attacks by some christians on gay people (or simply people for whom basic human rights of equality for people regardless of their sexuality is an integral part of their moral compass) may cause. You can't expect things to be all one way. If you want things that are important to you to be respected then you need to accord the same respect to others.
But the bottom line is that no-one is forced to spend time on this forum. If you don't like the nature of the discussion then stop posting and move elsewhere. What isn't reasonable it to expect to be allowed to post with impunity, even when those posts may cause insult or offence to others, but to expect your own views to be protected from posts that you might find insulting or offensive.
Did you read my OP? I have spent the last two months away from this forum, and not encountered any kind of personal attack: it is only here, it seems, that the posters deal in that kind of posting. I re-appear her, just to find the same old, same old.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
I totally agree.
-
Funny how with your first contribution following your hiatus, BA, you've stirred up more vitriol than we've seen of late.
I think there are several points worth making.
1. This place is for adults, and in my view that means that they are free to act like adults: that includes the expectation that they can both 'dish it out' and 'suck it up' within reasonable limits.
2. If they can't, or if they disapprove of what happens here, then attendance isn't compulsory.
3. It isn't required that members conduct themselves as if they were members of a nursery.
4. Ridicule is an acceptable aspect of debate provided that it stops short of overt personal abuse.
5. The sensitivities of some in taking offense does not indicate that what they are taking offense at is in itself unreasonable.
-
BA,
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...
..."So fucking what?"
Of all the reasons not to say something, causing offence to the proponent is the weakest. Why? Because the moment you close down questioning and criticism all manner of evil can thrive behind the wall of silence.
While ad hominem is wrong (and pointless), that someone might take offence at having their beliefs dismantled is their problem alone.
-
Did you read my OP? I have spent the last two months away from this forum, and not encountered any kind of personal attack: it is only here, it seems, that the posters deal in that kind of posting. I re-appear her, just to find the same old, same old.
Well I have no idea what other forum you have been on, but from your description is sounds as if it is basically aimed specifically at christians only. Note:
'The moderators are aware of the fact that there are aspects of Christianity that not every member accepts'
Well guess what in a forum of this nature, which welcomes posters of all religions and none there is no suggestion that posters accept any aspect of christianity.
So sure if you are posting with a bunch of fellow christians they aren't likely to have a pop at the fundamentals of christian belief. But expose yourself to a wider range of opinions and guess what, we don't all accept your beliefs nor that they should be placed on a special pedestal.
If you want only to engage with people who agree with you on the broad issues (albeit not the minuscule details) then this isn't the place for you. If on the other hand you want to expose yourself to the widest range of opinions, and have your opinions challenged just as you can challenge others, then you are very welcome here. But remember we are all equal and none of us have the right to expect our views are beyond robust challenge.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
I totally agree.
But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.
-
BA,
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...
..."So fucking what?"
... and then there's Christopher Hitchens's take on it: "Whenever somebody says to me 'I'm offended by that' I always reply 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is'."
-
Funny how with your first contribution following your hiatus, BA, you've stirred up more vitriol than we've seen of late.
I think there are several points worth making.
1. This place is for adults, and in my view that means that they are free to act like adults: that includes the expectation that they can both 'dish it out' and 'suck it up' within reasonable limits.
2. If they can't, or if they disapprove of what happens here, then attendance isn't compulsory.
3. It isn't required that members conduct themselves as if they were members of a nursery.
4. Ridicule is an acceptable aspect of debate provided that it stops short of overt personal abuse.
5. The sensitivities of some in taking offense does not indicate that what they are taking offense at is in itself unreasonable.
Well, free to act as adults here seems to include vitriol and expletives at will. Very adult.
Moderation hardly exists when, in effect, people say what they like in any manner they choose.
Adult debate requires some constraint and consideration for the feelings of others.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
I totally agree.
But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.
I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.
-
That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.
-
BA,
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...
..."So fucking what?"
... and then there's Christopher Hitchens's take on it: "Whenever somebody says to me 'I'm offended by that' I always reply 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is'."
Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!
-
That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.
As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.
-
BA,
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...
..."So fucking what?"
... and then there's Christopher Hitchens's take on it: "Whenever somebody says to me 'I'm offended by that' I always reply 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is'."
Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!
I am offended that you disrespect Christopher Hitchens
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
I totally agree.
But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.
I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.
Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.
-
That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.
As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.
Sometimes you can't have one without the other.
Especially with the delicate little lilies who take any form of challenge or criticism as personal attack.
Being made to feel uncomfortable because your beliefs are being challenged isn't "harm." It's character building , something normal healthy people are, or should be, exposed to early. You clearly missed out on it.
-
BA,
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...
..."So fucking what?"
Of all the reasons not to say something, causing offence to the proponent is the weakest. Why? Because the moment you close down questioning and criticism all manner of evil can thrive behind the wall of silence.
While ad hominem is wrong (and pointless), that someone might take offence at having their beliefs dismantled is their problem alone.
I'll say it again: I am not objecting to beliefs being criticised, but to personal attacks associated with one's beliefs: such as suggesting theists have psychological issues, or need counselling, etc. If you consider that reasonable debate, then you need to re-assess.
-
That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.
As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.
If you have beliefs that some find to be nonsense, don't be surprised to be told so.
-
That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.
As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.
But the problem is that there are people who passionately believe in freedom of speech and are deeply offended by any suggestion that it should be curtailed to prevent offence.
So where to go there - an impossible conundrum. Allow the right to offend, or cause offence through curtailing the right to offend.
-
BA,
Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!
Why would you think that? Apart from one infamous spat with George Galloway (not about religion), I can't think of one occasion when he indulged in personal abuse to make his point.
That's the thing about having reason on your side - you don't need to.
Incidentally, do you have any examples of Sassy or other christians being attacked here personally? I have plenty the other way around, but none that I recall directed toward christians.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
I totally agree.
But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.
I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.
Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.
Okay, to say again, I 100% disassociate myself from such people.. But, that was not what the OP with about. Start another thread to make that point.
-
That there free speech - it's a bitch, innit.
As long as it isn't confused with the licence to harm and cause personal heart-ache.
If you have beliefs that some find to be nonsense, don't be surprised to be told so.
Being told what you believe is nonsense is somewhat removed from suggestions of mental aberration, etc.
-
Well, free to act as adults here seems to include vitriol and expletives at will. Very adult.
Yep - that is how adults can behave if they want to provided they stop short of overt personal abuse; put simply they can say 'fuck' if they want to.
Moderation hardly exists when, in effect, people say what they like in any manner they choose.
Nope - and putting the Mod hat on for just a second, some members do get pulled up/suspended if they go too far - but, as I said, this isn't a nursery.
Adult debate requires some constraint and consideration for the feelings of others.
Indeed - but not to excess, and not to the extent of avoiding what is reasonable to discuss. If someone doesn't feel comfortable then they know where the door is.
-
BA,
Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!
Why would you think that? Apart from one infamous spat with George Galloway (not about religion), I can't think of one occasion when he indulged in personal abuse to make his point.
That's the thing about having reason on your side - you don't need to.
Incidentally, do you have any examples of Sassy or other christians being attacked here personally? I have plenty the other way around, but none that I recall directed toward christians.
If I had time to trawl through the years of posts on here, I'd find them. If you are asserting that such personal attacks are not made, then you are either naive, or somewhat wrong!
-
BA,
I'll say it again: I am not objecting to beliefs being criticised, but to personal attacks associated with one's beliefs: such as suggesting theists have psychological issues, or need counselling, etc. If you consider that reasonable debate, then you need to re-assess.
You're shifting ground now. So it seems that criticising beliefs is fine regardless of how much offence people who hold those beliefs may feel when it's done?
Good. I agree.
Oh, and suggesting that I think telling people they need counselling etc is fine is a straw man (though in some cases the obtuseness here is so bleedin' exasperating that I do wonder...)
-
BA,
Well, if we are considering debating with respect for the feelings of others, then the last person on earth to quote is Hitchens!
Why would you think that? Apart from one infamous spat with George Galloway (not about religion), I can't think of one occasion when he indulged in personal abuse to make his point.
That's the thing about having reason on your side - you don't need to.
Incidentally, do you have any examples of Sassy or other christians being attacked here personally? I have plenty the other way around, but none that I recall directed toward christians.
If I had time to trawl through the years of posts on here, I'd find them. If you are asserting that such personal attacks are not made, then you are either naive, or somewhat wrong!
Of course you made the claim, so you need to provide the evidence.
If you cannot we should ignore your assertion.
-
We don't allow speculation about the mental health of posters, if it comes to our attention we mod it out.
-
Well, free to act as adults here seems to include vitriol and expletives at will. Very adult.
Yep - that is how adults can behave if they want to provided they stop short of overt personal abuse; put simply they can say 'fuck' if they want to.
Moderation hardly exists when, in effect, people say what they like in any manner they choose.
Nope - and putting the Mod hat on for just a second, some members do get pulled up/suspended if they go too far - but, as I said, this isn't a nursery.
Adult debate requires some constraint and consideration for the feelings of others.
Indeed - but not to excess, and not to the extent of avoiding what is reasonable to discuss. If someone doesn't feel comfortable then they know where the door is.
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
-
BA,
If I had time to trawl through the years of posts on here, I'd find them. If you are asserting that such personal attacks are not made, then you are either naive, or somewhat wrong!
I'm not "asserting" that at all. What I am saying though is that christians here rarely suffer ad hominem attacks, and that criticising the belief rather than the person is perfectly legitimate regardless of how much offence it may cause.
I'm also suggesting that on balance the non-christians here are more sinned against than sinners.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
I totally agree.
But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.
I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.
Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.
Okay, to say again, I 100% disassociate myself from such people.. But, that was not what the OP with about. Start another thread to make that point.
Nope - it is entirely relevant.
Specifically because in the OP you were making the case for religious belief to be placed in a special position with regard to challenge. And there are plenty of christians who see their views on sexuality as inherently part of those christian beliefs. So if they choose to express those homophobic views in line with your OP we should not challenge them because those views are religious and, in your own words:
'When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.'
So how do you square the circle BA - it seems impossible to me. And indeed your description of the views of some christians in relation to gay people as 'an abhorrence' (reply 33 - note specific attack on the person, not the belief 'any who do are an abhorrence') surely is a perfect example of what you claimed to be unacceptable in your OP.
-
We don't allow speculation about the mental health of posters, if it comes to our attention we mod it out.
Well it happens, and I have seen numerous examples over the years, and they have most certainly not been modded out.
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
Really!
One person's 'personal attack' may be another person's 'reasonable comment' - but most here seem to be able to approach opposing views without presuming that they are being attacked.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
I totally agree.
But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.
I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.
Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.
Okay, to say again, I 100% disassociate myself from such people.. But, that was not what the OP with about. Start another thread to make that point.
Nope - it is entirely relevant.
Specifically because in the OP you were making the case for religious belief to be placed in a special position with regard to challenge. And there are plenty of christians who see their views on sexuality as inherently part of those christian beliefs. So if they choose to express those homophobic views in line with your OP we should not challenge them because those views are religious and, in your own words:
'When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.'
So how do you square the circle BA - it seems impossible to me. And indeed your description of the views of some christians in relation to gay people as 'an abhorrence' (reply 33 - note specific attack on the person, not the belief 'any who do are an abhorrence') surely is a perfect example of what you claimed to be unacceptable in your OP.
My OP was specifically aimed at the personal attacks on Christians; at no point have I said it doesn't happen to others. That can be debated on a separate thread, if it bothers you. Don't blur the issue.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked. I see no reason to use the despicable word at all, as it happens.
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.
And your list of examples is?
-
My OP was specifically aimed at the personal attacks on Christians; at no point have I said it doesn't happen to others. That can be debated on a separate thread, if it bothers you. Don't blur the issue.
But you have just described christians who have a particular view on homosexuality as 'an abhorrence'. So it doesn't seem that you practice what you preach, even on a thread that you started complaining about people making personal attacks on christians. You just did!
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.
And your list of examples is?
I've said it at least once.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
You totally miss the point. I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them. Do you not understand? I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.
And your list of examples is?
As I've said, I have not the time nor the inclination to trawl through to make a list. If you are denying such happenings, then I can onlyvput it down to a failure to read posts properly.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
You totally miss the point. I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them. Do you not understand? I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.
Wrong BA:
In response to me saying:
'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'
You replied:
'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.
But anyhow in your OP you claimed not to be able to detach the person from the belief when the belief is religious.
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.
And your list of examples is?
As I've said, I have not the time nor the inclination to trawl through to make a list. If you are denying such happenings, then I can onlyvput it down to a failure to read posts properly.
But if you cannot bother to look for the evidence why should I believe you.
My memory of the posts on here differs from yours.
I think you are wrong
-
I'm off. I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.
-
Cheerio then - that was fun while it lasted :)
-
I'm off. I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.
I do not think that will be the outcome of this thread!
-
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals. I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace. Others come in for similar treatment. Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs? The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
Several things:
1. I nod in agreement with the rational responses to your OP.
2. If you do not like your beliefs being robustly challenged, then why post here? As was said above, if you cannot stand the heat in the kitchen, then stay away from it. Those who are so prone to infer direct insults, ridicule etc from posts need only produce one fact to end any, well almost all, disagreement.
3. You might like to have a look at my topic on Ship of Fools on what top theologians know, really know, about God!
4. Your OP does go on rather, doesn't it? Was there anything cheerful or positive about it?
I did not notice, but will now go back and re-read and edit here if necessary.
-
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.
Some of your forbears were crucified, others thrown to lions. Some were burned to death (by other Christians) or hung drawn and quartered (by other Christians) but you find robust debate unbearable.
I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace.
That Sassy's experience, not yours.
The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
Could you point out some examples please.
-
No, he's gone.
Or so he claims.
-
So ... basically, after weeks and weeks away, not posting here but posting somewhere you regard as better, you've fetched up here again just to bleat and whine about this place.
Why didn't you stay with your 'sensible' people?
They probably banned him. After all he was completely unable to live up to the standards that his new friends required while he was here.
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
Actually, telling somebody to go away in a forceful manner is not a personal attack. In fact I have used it here without moderation at least twice - both against BA, in fact.
-
Incidentally, this is the forum he was talking about.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1961050-christianity-forum-update.html
-
I'm off. I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.
Not really in my case. I find your posts on this thread to be both confused and confusing.
-
Dear Bashers,
How you doing old son, how's the new dog, is he developing his own personality. ;)
Anyway, my tuppence worth on the decryers of Christianity on this Forum, well, I would say that the Christians only have themselves to blame, they kneejerk to the same old boring questions.
Oh!! By the way, I have you heard the latest. :o your old sparring partner is now a pagan.
Gonnagle.
-
BA,
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.
The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.
Actually, telling somebody to go away in a forceful manner is not a personal attack. In fact I have used it here without moderation at least twice - both against BA, in fact.
You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse, when debating with someone. You have certainly told me to f-off on more than one occasion, and others with impunity. But, I guess, that kind of language defines you pretty accurately, and your "debating" standards.
-
Incidentally, this is the forum he was talking about.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1961050-christianity-forum-update.html
Flattering of you to take the time to research: then, you are on Google most of the time, anyway.
-
I'm off. I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.
Not really in my case. I find your posts on this thread to be both confused and confusing.
That doesn't surprise me.
-
Dear Bashers,
How you doing old son, how's the new dog, is he developing his own personality. ;)
Anyway, my tuppence worth on the decryers of Christianity on this Forum, well, I would say that the Christians only have themselves to blame, they kneejerk to the same old boring questions.
Oh!! By the way, I have you heard the latest. :o your old sparring partner is now a pagan.
Gonnagle.
Hi, Gonners,
Hope you are well, too. Meg has grown a lot recently: I've been feeding her up. She is very clingy and still desperately short of confidence. I've no idea what she had been through, but it has left her with issues. But she is lovely, and very people-oriented.
If you mean the delightful and shy Shaker, then I hope he's ready for a bit of his own back_ Not from me, of course!
-
We don't allow speculation about the mental health of posters, if it comes to our attention we mod it out.
I must say, then, you seem to have collectively missed the number of instances when Sassy, for example, has had her mental status questioned.
-
So ... basically, after weeks and weeks away, not posting here but posting somewhere you regard as better, you've fetched up here again just to bleat and whine about this place.
Why didn't you stay with your 'sensible' people?
They probably banned him. After all he was completely unable to live up to the standards that his new friends required while he was here.
That's probably the reason you are unable to leave here, after all the years: no other reasonable forum would tolerate your guttersnipe language.
-
No, he's gone.
Or so he claims.
I merely left for tea. Some people actually manage to tear them selves away from this fun place. Besides, I've developed a little interest in paganism. More later.
-
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals. I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace. Others come in for similar treatment. Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs? The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
Several things:
1. I nod in agreement with the rational responses to your OP.
2. If you do not like your beliefs being robustly challenged, then why post here? As was said above, if you cannot stand the heat in the kitchen, then stay away from it. Those who are so prone to infer direct insults, ridicule etc from posts need only produce one fact to end any, well almost all, disagreement.
3. You might like to have a look at my topic on Ship of Fools on what top theologians know, really know, about God!
4. Your OP does go on rather, doesn't it? Was there anything cheerful or positive about it?
I did not notice, but will now go back and re-read and edit here if necessary.
1. Which responses, in particular? Most of them missed the point pretty glaringly.
2. I do not run away from the half-brains who challenge my beliefs, and thus, me, without responding.
3. I have my own views and do not need to be instructed at this time of my life, by someone who knows no more than I do.
4. The OP was a direct quote in full, from the forum I was visiting, and was well worth quoting in full.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
You totally miss the point. I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them. Do you not understand? I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.
Wrong BA:
In response to me saying:
'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'
You replied:
'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.
Bump for BA.
Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.
Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
You totally miss the point. I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them. Do you not understand? I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.
Wrong BA:
In response to me saying:
'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'
You replied:
'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.
Bump for BA.
Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.
Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'
I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.
-
BA,
1. Which responses, in particular? Most of them missed the point pretty glaringly.
Actually it was your OP that "missed the point": critiquing the belief is fine; attacking the person with the belief is not. That the believer may find the criticism hurtful or offensive says nothing to whether or not is should happen.
2. I do not run away from the half-brains who challenge my beliefs, and thus, me, without responding.
Oh the hypocrisy! "Half-brains" is exactly the kind of ad hominem that isn't acceptable, and that you were attempting to complain about in your OP.
3. I have my own views and do not need to be instructed at this time of my life, by someone who knows no more than I do.
What makes you think that people who "instruct" you know no more than you do? Clearly many here do know more than you, and closing your mind to them does you no favours.
4. The OP was a direct quote in full, from the forum I was visiting, and was well worth quoting in full.
No doubt you think so. Now though you've had your error explained to you - ie, that being offended by criticism of a belief is neither here nor there - perhaps the "food for thought" you referred you is for you rather than for others to consume.
-
BA,
1. Which responses, in particular? Most of them missed the point pretty glaringly.
Actually it was your OP that "missed the point": critiquing the belief is fine; attacking the person with the belief is not. That the believer may find the criticism hurtful or offensive says nothing to whether or not is should happen.
2. I do not run away from the half-brains who challenge my beliefs, and thus, me, without responding.
Oh the hypocrisy! "Half-brains" is exactly the kind of ad hominem that isn't acceptable, and that you were attempting to complain about in your OP.
3. I have my own views and do not need to be instructed at this time of my life, by someone who knows no more than I do.
What makes you think that people who "instruct" you know no more than you do? Clearly many here do know more than you, and closing your mind to them does you no favours.
4. The OP was a direct quote in full, from the forum I was visiting, and was well worth quoting in full.
No doubt you think so. Now though you've had your error explained to you - ie, that being offended by criticism of a belief is neither here nor there - perhaps the "food for thought" you referred you is for you rather than for others to consume.
:) :) I find you so pedantic, not to mention grotesquely wide of the mark in all your above comments.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
You totally miss the point. I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them. Do you not understand? I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.
Wrong BA:
In response to me saying:
'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'
You replied:
'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.
Bump for BA.
Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.
Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'
I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.
'any who do are an abhorrence' clearly refers to the people as an abhorrence not the views. If you meant the views you'd have said something like 'the vows of these people are an abhorrence' but you didn't - you referred to any who do (ie people) as the object of your abhorrence adjective.
So stop trying to reinvent history, to try to imply you didn't write something that you clearly did.
So the bottom line is that you are unable to live up to the standards you claim in your OP should apply universally on this MB.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
You totally miss the point. I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them. Do you not understand? I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.
Wrong BA:
In response to me saying:
'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'
You replied:
'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.
Bump for BA.
Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.
Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'
I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.
'any who do are an abhorrence' clearly refers to the people as an abhorrence not the views. If you meant the views you'd have said something like 'the vows of these people are an abhorrence' but you didn't - you referred to any who do (ie people) as the object of your abhorrence adjective.
So stop trying to reinvent history, to try to imply you didn't write something that you clearly did.
So the bottom line is that you are unable to live up to the standards you claim in your OP should apply universally on this MB.
All down to semantics; plus you trying to make gain a brownie point at my expense. Pretty childish post, really.
-
BA,
I find you so pedantic, not to mention grotesquely wide of the mark in all your above comments.
No doubt you do, but the fact remains that your OP was wrong for reasons that have been explained to you. If you don't want to try a counter-argument to those reasons that's fine, but they stand nonetheless.
Incidentally, here's Brendan O'Neill at the Oxford Union explaining why the right to offend is not only acceptable but essential:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA
-
BA,
I find you so pedantic, not to mention grotesquely wide of the mark in all your above comments.
No doubt you do, but the fact remains that your OP was wrong for reasons that have been explained to you. If you don't want to try a counter-argument to those reasons that's fine, but they stand nonetheless.
Incidentally, here's Brendan O'Neill at the Oxford Union explaining why the right to offend is not only acceptable but essential:
https://www.youtube...
The OP was a direct quote from another forum, which laid out its forum rules. It is not a question of them being right or wrong; it is a question of whether they are appropriate to mature and acceptable debate. I think they are: you seem to think otherwise.
-
BA,
The OP was a direct quote from another forum, which laid out its forum rules. It is not a question of them being right or wrong; it is a question of whether they are appropriate to mature and acceptable debate. I think they are: you seem to think otherwise.
Yes I do, for reasons I've explained. Watch the video I linked to to find out why.
-
BA,
The OP was a direct quote from another forum, which laid out its forum rules. It is not a question of them being right or wrong; it is a question of whether they are appropriate to mature and acceptable debate. I think they are: you seem to think otherwise.
Yes I do, for reasons I've explained. Watch the video I linked to to find out why.
I've just watched it and I find it a despicable and arrogant perversion of what is acceptable. To quote just one line: "The poisonous notion that humans are fragile." Some may not be , but many are, in many ways, especially when their most precious views or opinions are concerned. To suggest otherwise shows a frightening lack of human empathy. If you subscribe to the views expressed, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
-
BA,
I've just watched it and I find it a despicable and arrogant perversion of what is acceptable. To quote just one line: "The poisonous notion that humans are fragile." Some may not be , but many are, in many ways, especially when their most precious views or opinions are concerned. To suggest otherwise shows a frightening lack of human empathy. If you subscribe to the views expressed, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
You've missed the point. Pretty much every human right you enjoy has been obtained because someone somewhere challenged the orthodoxy of the time and offended those who guarded it. What makes them "fragile" is precisely the censorship you support - "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" - and what makes them robust is free and open debate and challenge regardless of any offence that may cause.
In other words, the only one who should be "ashamed" here is you.
-
BA,
I've just watched it and I find it a despicable and arrogant perversion of what is acceptable. To quote just one line: "The poisonous notion that humans are fragile." Some may not be , but many are, in many ways, especially when their most precious views or opinions are concerned. To suggest otherwise shows a frightening lack of human empathy. If you subscribe to the views expressed, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
You've missed the point. Pretty much every human right you enjoy has been obtained because someone somewhere challenged the orthodoxy of the time and offended those who guarded it. What makes them "fragile" is precisely the censorship you support - "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" - and what makes them robust is free and open debate and challenge regardless of any offence that may cause.
In other words, the only one who should be "ashamed" here is you.
You are pretty adept at turning truth on its head. It is not acceptable to simply say that you should offend. We are not at the Oxford Union of privileged "toffs;" but in the real world of "ordinary" humans, who can be easily and hugely hurt by such an attitude. You lack any human sensitivity whatsoever, not to mention your lack of understanding of human nature. I am not ashamed to stand up for the sensitivities of others, who perhaps cannot cope with adverse attacks. If that is indeed shameful, in your view, then you are an idiot.
-
BA,
You are pretty adept at turning truth on its head.
Your truth BA, not the truth - and that seems to me to be pretty much what you do in any case. Let's see though...
It is not acceptable to simply say that you should offend. We are not at the Oxford Union of privileged "toffs;" but in the real world of "ordinary" humans, who can be easily and hugely hurt by such an attitude.
This is fundamentally wrongheaded in my view. The right to offend is by magnitudes more important than the right not to be offended. Why? Because the moment someone says, "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" is the moment ideas atrophy, progress in human affairs stops and any manner of wickedness is given room to breathe.
Moreover, if you really believed something to be true would you not welcome rather than be offended by criticism of it? If you could rebut the critique your belief would be strengthened, and if not then you'd be given good reason to revisit and reconsider your opinion. What possible role can being offended have to play in that?
You lack any human sensitivity whatsoever, not to mention your lack of understanding of human nature. I am not ashamed to stand up for the sensitivities of others, who perhaps cannot cope with adverse attacks.
On the contrary, I'm full of the milk of human kindness thanks. I'm also intelligent and aware enough though to understand that "offence" is too often used by people who would do bad things to hide behind. It's precisely for fear of "offending" for example that so much abuse in the RC church was allowed to carry on for so long - "hush now, you can't say that of the Father - it's offensive to my faith" etc.
If freedom of speech is to mean anything, its precisely the defence of "I'm offended" that deserves least respect of all.
If that is indeed shameful, in your view, then you are an idiot.
How's that not insulting posters here plan of yours going BA?
-
BA,
You are pretty adept at turning truth on its head.
Your truth BA, not the truth - and that seems to me to be pretty much what you do in any case. Let's see though...
It is not acceptable to simply say that you should offend. We are not at the Oxford Union of privileged "toffs;" but in the real world of "ordinary" humans, who can be easily and hugely hurt by such an attitude.
This is fundamentally wrongheaded in my view. The right to offend is by magnitudes more important than the right not to be offended. Why? Because the moment someone says, "you can't say that because I'm offended by it" is the moment ideas atrophy, progress in human affairs stops and any manner of wickedness is given room to breathe.
Moreover, if you really believed something to be true would you not welcome rather than be offended by criticism of it? If you could rebut the critique your belief would be strengthened, and if not then you'd be given good reason to revisit and reconsider your opinion. What possible role can being offended have to play in that?
You lack any human sensitivity whatsoever, not to mention your lack of understanding of human nature. I am not ashamed to stand up for the sensitivities of others, who perhaps cannot cope with adverse attacks.
On the contrary, I'm full of the milk of human kindness thanks. I'm also intelligent and aware enough though to understand that "offence" is too often used by people who would do bad things to hide behind. It's precisely for fear of "offending" for example that so much abuse in the RC church was allowed to carry on of so long - "hush now, you can't say that of the Father - it's offensive to my faith" etc.
If freedom of speech is to mean anything, its precisely the defence of "I'm offended" that deserves least respect of all.
If that is indeed shameful, in your view, then you are an idiot.
How's that not insulting posters here plan of yours going BA?
You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense. All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties. Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected. You can talk all you like about the right to offend, but it does not fit in with a humane and concerned view of life and of others.
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
-
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
What a monumental hypocrite.
And it isn't a "fact" but your belief. I wish you lot would learn the bloody difference.
-
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
What a monumental hypocrite.
And it isn't a "fact" but your belief. I wish you lot would learn the bloody difference.
No need to swear old fella: you simply show yourself up, again.
-
BA,
You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense. All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties. Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected. You can talk all you like about the right to offend, but it does not fit in with a humane and concerned view of life and of others.
Including the sensitivities of the abusing priest?
Look, if you can't mount a counter-argument that's fine - fortunately for us all (you included) others have taken and continue to take a more enlightened approach to freedom of speech, and long may it remain so.
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
Oh I see. So in your head if you decide that someone is an idiot then it's ok to say so?
Fine: you're an idiot.
-
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
What a monumental hypocrite.
And it isn't a "fact" but your belief. I wish you lot would learn the bloody difference.
No need to swear old fella: you simply show yourself up, again.
No I didn't. If you can't cope with people using robust language, and you clearly can't, go back to your other forum.
-
BA,
You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense. All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties. Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected. You can talk all you like about the right to offend, but it does not fit in with a humane and concerned view of life and of others.
Including the sensitivities of the abusing priest?
Look, if you can't mount a counter-argument that's fine - fortunately for us all (you included) others have taken and continue to take a more enlightened approach to freedom of speech, and long may it remain so.
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
Oh I see. So in your head if you decide that someone is an idiot then it's ok to say so?
Fine: you're an idiot.
You are an idiot because you cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and licence.
-
It seems to me that some theists, but not all, see their faith as being an attribute of themselves and not just something external that they have acquired and they now subscribe to.
These theists seem not only to interpret anyone challenging their faith as being a direct challenge to them as a person, which it isn't, they also expect others to tread carefully and respect their religious sensitivities which, thankfully, those of us who don't live in theocracies don't have to.
However, for as long as organised religion seeks to have an influence on society at large then they can expect to be robustly challenged: in that sense they are just as much fair game as are, say, political parties.
-
BA,
You are an idiot because you cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and licence.
What difference do you think there to be, and who gets to decide where the line is in your view?
How about the offence the abusing priest might take for example?
PS Given your authorship of the OP, how does that "you are an idiot" fit with the sentiment exactly?
-
It seems to me that some theists, but not all, see their faith as being an attribute of themselves and not just something external that they have acquired and they now subscribe to.
These theists seem not only to interpret anyone challenging their faith as being a direct challenge to them as a person, which it isn't, they also expect others to tread carefully and respect their religious sensitivities which, thankfully, those of us who don't live in theocracies don't have to.
However, for as long as organised religion seeks to have an influence on society at large then they can expect to be robustly challenged: in that sense they are just as much fair game as are, say, political parties.
It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence. To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.
-
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals. I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace. Others come in for similar treatment. Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs? The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
Firstly, you come here voluntarily. I don't want this to come across as a 'if you don't like it you can go away' comment, because I genuinely want everyone to feel comfortable here, but the reality is that you come here knowing that people will disagree with you.
In my experience, the commentary Sassy attracts is in part because of the absolute certainty with which she pitches some absolute nonses, and in part because of the nonsense itself - not because of who she is, or what she, but because of how she puts herself across.
I suspect it no more gives anyone a buzz to call into question people's religious beliefs than it does for believers to suggest things like - and I appreciate this isn't universal - we will suffer an eternity of torment or that we can have no moral structure and must all be depressive nihilists.
I suspect that the allegation isn't that 'theists' are in need of counselling, though I don't doubt it's been suggested to certain individual theists at times - we all have 'psychological aberrances' of one sort or another, believing in magical things for which we have no evidence is just one of them. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means the belief you hold has insufficient basis to justify it - that's why it's faith and not understanding.
O.
-
BA,
It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence. To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.
So now we need to add "fascism" to the list of words you don't understand.
Look, it's simple enough: if someone has a personal belief - in anything - that's no-one's business but his own, and nor should anyone "disrobe" him of it. The moment though he demands special rights and privileges for that belief in the public square - to be taught as factually true to children for example - then damn right it should be challenged and critiqued, no matter how offended he might be by it.
-
So now we need to add "fascism" to the list of words you don't understand.
He probably got that from Vlad.
Look, it's simple enough: if someone has a personal belief - in anything - that's no-one's business but his own, and nor should anyone "disrobe" him of it. The moment though he demands special rights and privileges for that belief in the public square - to be taught as factually true to children for example - then damn right it should be challenged and critiqued, no matter how offended he might be by it.
Hear hear.
-
Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made - the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals. I experience this here: the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace. Others come in for similar treatment. Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs? The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.
Firstly, you come here voluntarily. I don't want this to come across as a 'if you don't like it you can go away' comment, because I genuinely want everyone to feel comfortable here, but the reality is that you come here knowing that people will disagree with you.
In my experience, the commentary Sassy attracts is in part because of the absolute certainty with which she pitches some absolute nonses, and in part because of the nonsense itself - not because of who she is, or what she, but because of how she puts herself across.
I suspect it no more gives anyone a buzz to call into question people's religious beliefs than it does for believers to suggest things like - and I appreciate this isn't universal - we will suffer an eternity of torment or that we can have no moral structure and must all be depressive nihilists.
I suspect that the allegation isn't that 'theists' are in need of counselling, though I don't doubt it's been suggested to certain individual theists at times - we all have 'psychological aberrances' of one sort or another, believing in magical things for which we have no evidence is just one of them. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means the belief you hold has insufficient basis to justify it - that's why it's faith and not understanding.
O.
Outrider,
I am not naive enough to believe that I, and others, will not be criticised.on here. If I did not accept that I would go, and stay away. But the kind of criticism the OP is referring to is quite another thing, and I am surprised that a reasonable person like you seems unable to differentiate between fair and equable debate and contradiction, and personal, and often foul-mouthed, diatribe.
-
You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense.
Surely you can appreciate, though, that to a lot of us your religious belief is, at best, 'hypothetical nonsense'?
All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties. Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected.
No, they don't. The minute something becomes 'taboo' or 'sacred', the minute you have areas that are beyond question or commentary, the instant you censor commentary on a particular area you make it priveleged, and that confers a status on it that's artificial.
If it's beyond question on its merits then the questions will all be answered, but if you need to protect it from questions then those questions need to be asked, however they're phrased.
There is no right not to be offended, your offence is your choice; I cannot make you offended, I can only offer up something and let you take offence if you choose.
O.
-
You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense.
Surely you can appreciate, though, that to a lot of us your religious belief is, at best, 'hypothetical nonsense'?
All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties. Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected.
No, they don't. The minute something becomes 'taboo' or 'sacred', the minute you have areas that are beyond question or commentary, the instant you censor commentary on a particular area you make it priveleged, and that confers a status on it that's artificial.
If it's beyond question on its merits then the questions will all be answered, but if you need to protect it from questions then those questions need to be asked, however they're phrased.
There is no right not to be offended, your offence is your choice; I cannot make you offended, I can only offer up something and let you take offence if you choose.
O.
I'm repeating myself again. I have no objections to people stating their views on religion, why should I: it is no skin off my nose. But when that criticism is allied to personal abuse and denigration, it becomes unacceptable.
-
BA,
I'm repeating myself again. I have no objections to people stating their views on religion, why should I: it is no skin off my nose. But when that criticism is allied to personal abuse and denigration, it becomes unacceptable.
You're shifting ground again: no-one thinks "personal abuse and denigration" - calling someone an "idiot" for example - is acceptable. What you attempted to argue before though was that criticising their beliefs is unacceptable if they are "offended" by it, and that doesn't wash.
-
BA,
I'm repeating myself again. I have no objections to people stating their views on religion, why should I: it is no skin off my nose. But when that criticism is allied to personal abuse and denigration, it becomes unacceptable.
You're shifting ground again: no-one thinks "personal abuse and denigration" - calling someone an "idiot" for example - is acceptable. What you attempted to argue before though was that criticising their beliefs is unacceptable if they are "offended" by it, and that doesn't wash.
Let me ask you: why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism ? I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon! Surely, enough is enough.
-
BA,
Let me ask you: why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism ? I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon! Surely, enough is enough.
I find religion to be an interesting cultural phenomenon and enjoy discussing it.
Do you now understand the difference between criticising the person and criticising his beliefs?
-
Let me ask you: why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism ? I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon! Surely, enough is enough.
Of all the objections you have put up this is surely one of the weakest - why haven't you asked why do so many Christians spend so much of their time on here with their pro-religious postings? It's the same thing.
People choose to spend as much or as little time here as they wish. Yes you can argue we should all be doing something more productive with our time - but human beings don't really work like that. They concentrate on things they enjoy or are interested in. Sometimes you are lucky and can combine that enjoyment and interest with paid employment - more often you can't.
To try to suggest that people should stop - "enough is enough" - seems to miss the whole point of what is happening on here.
-
I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum. Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!
But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.
You totally miss the point. I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them. Do you not understand? I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.
Wrong BA:
In response to me saying:
'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'
You replied:
'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.
Bump for BA.
Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.
Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'
I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.
'any who do are an abhorrence' clearly refers to the people as an abhorrence not the views. If you meant the views you'd have said something like 'the vows of these people are an abhorrence' but you didn't - you referred to any who do (ie people) as the object of your abhorrence adjective.
So stop trying to reinvent history, to try to imply you didn't write something that you clearly did.
So the bottom line is that you are unable to live up to the standards you claim in your OP should apply universally on this MB.
All down to semantics; plus you trying to make gain a brownie point at my expense. Pretty childish post, really.
It isn't all down to semantics actually. I fail to see how anyone would read:
'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.'
And conclude anything other that you are describing the people with a particular view as abhorrent, not the view.
But even if we accept you are talking about the view, this still isn't consistent with your OP. In this you inferred, through reference to another message board that religious views are so personal that an attack on the view is tantamount to an attack on the person. Note:
'When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.'
So even if you are attacking the view as abhorrent, if this view is part of a person's strongly held religious belief under your OP that is also an attack on the person.
-
BA,
Let me ask you: why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism ? I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon! Surely, enough is enough.
I find religion to be an interesting cultural phenomenon and enjoy discussing it.
Do you now understand the difference between criticising the person and criticising his beliefs?
I always have. And it is criticising the person, with undue ferocity and vitriol that I object to (see, the OP.)
It seems to me that your "enjoyment" in discussing the phenomenon goes beyond the realms of what is a reasonable use of your time; especially on such a small and pretty well inconsequential little back -water as this. Have you really nothing else to occupy your interest? It you have, you must spend precious little time on it.
-
It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence. To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.
Which would be fine if religious people kept their feelings to themselves: but they don't, and in addition some of them at least expect the rest of us to take what they believe seriously and also pussy-foot around their sensitivities.
The solution is simple - let them treat their religion as a sort of private hobby to be shared only with their fellow enthusiasts: but no - some of them (but not all) seem to feel obliged to spread the 'good news' on the presumption that it is somehow vitally important to everyone, and in doing so they also expect to have a public platform by default and that their 'good news' should be 'respected'.
I'm quite happy for religious people to do their thing, on exactly the same basis that I'm happy for train-spotters to gather on the platforms of railway stations and do theirs: I know they are there, and I respect their wish to indulge in what satisfies them personally provided that they do so without harming others or expecting me to either engage with their hobby or to take it seriously or respectfully.
In this regard train-spotters keep themselves to themselves whereas organised religion seems to assume that what is important to them is important to everyone - and on this point they can expect to be challenged.
-
It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence. To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.
Which would be fine if religious people kept their feelings to themselves: but they don't, and in addition some of them at least expect the rest of us to take what they believe seriously and also pussy-foot around their sensitivities.
The solution is simple - let them treat their religion as a sort of private hobby to be shared only with their fellow enthusiasts: but no - some of them (but not all) seem to feel obliged to spread the 'good news' on the presumption that it is somehow vitally important to everyone, and in doing so they also expect to have a public platform by default and that their 'good news' should be 'respected'.
I'm quite happy for religious people to do their thing, on exactly the same basis that I'm happy for train-spotters to gather on the platforms of railway stations and do theirs: I know they are there, and I respect their wish to indulge in what satisfies them personally provided that they do so without harming others or expecting me to either engage with their hobby or to take it seriously or respectfully.
In this regard train-spotters keep themselves to themselves whereas organised religion seems to assume that what is important to them is important to everyone - and on this point they can expect to be challenged.
Christians post here on the Christian forum, and still the atheists latch on. You cannot help yourselves: you are obsessed, and it is a pretty unedifying scenario.
Anyway, dinner time. Meg and I are starving.
-
Christians post here on the Christian forum, and still the atheists latch on. You cannot help yourselves: you are obsessed, and it is a pretty unedifying scenario.
Nobody is forcing you to look, BA, and there is a Board that can be used for purely faith-based discussions.
This isn't a 'Christian' Forum.
-
It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence. To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.
Which would be fine if religious people kept their feelings to themselves: but they don't, and in addition some of them at least expect the rest of us to take what they believe seriously and also pussy-foot around their sensitivities.
The solution is simple - let them treat their religion as a sort of private hobby to be shared only with their fellow enthusiasts: but no - some of them (but not all) seem to feel obliged to spread the 'good news' on the presumption that it is somehow vitally important to everyone, and in doing so they also expect to have a public platform by default and that their 'good news' should be 'respected'.
I'm quite happy for religious people to do their thing, on exactly the same basis that I'm happy for train-spotters to gather on the platforms of railway stations and do theirs: I know they are there, and I respect their wish to indulge in what satisfies them personally provided that they do so without harming others or expecting me to either engage with their hobby or to take it seriously or respectfully.
In this regard train-spotters keep themselves to themselves whereas organised religion seems to assume that what is important to them is important to everyone - and on this point they can expect to be challenged.
Christians post here on the Christian forum, and still the atheists latch on. You cannot help yourselves: you are obsessed, and it is a pretty unedifying scenario.
Anyway, dinner time. Meg and I are starving.
We have a faith forum for that purpose.
-
I have been away from here for a while, posting with sensible people. I quote here from the rules of that forum, which I have advocated over a period of years for this place, with no sensible response
Sensible people? Is that ones that only agree with you BA?
There has been many people on here who despite everyone disagreeing with the complete nonsense they dribble out e.g. sassy, Vlad only seem to think everyone else has the problem and not them ::)
Yes I count you in that since I have spent many a time trying to engage with people like yourself as have others you can't see past your own opinions and of course can't see that much of what you say can't be backed up by those old things we like to call facts..
I had to take a break to get away from delusion pushers like yourself if you like the yes BA forum so much then bugger off to it... just a suggestion (or a hope) :)
-
if you like the yes BA forum so much then bugger off to it... just a suggestion (or a hope) :)
In a nutshell!
Won't happen though - he loves the attention too much. Anybody else ever noticed (1) any thread on which BA appears is instantly derailed by complete and utter irrelevancies (whinging about swearing, etc.) and (2) no actual discussion of religion or ethics takes place?
-
if you like the yes BA forum so much then bugger off to it... just a suggestion (or a hope) :)
In a nutshell!
Won't happen though - he loves the attention too much. Anybody else ever noticed (1) any thread on which BA appears is instantly derailed by complete and utter irrelevancies (whinging about swearing, etc.) and (2) no actual discussion of religion or ethics takes place?
Does anyone else see that you're actually making his exact point for him? He's here discussing the way people are targetted rather than the arguments, and you revert to attacks on his propensity to derail.
I'm not saying that he doesn't, necessarily, but deal with it if and when it happens.
O.
-
if you like the yes BA forum so much then bugger off to it... just a suggestion (or a hope) :)
In a nutshell!
Won't happen though - he loves the attention too much. Anybody else ever noticed (1) any thread on which BA appears is instantly derailed by complete and utter irrelevancies (whinging about swearing, etc.) and (2) no actual discussion of religion or ethics takes place?
Does anyone else see that you're actually making his exact point for him? He's here discussing the way people are targetted rather than the arguments, and you revert to attacks on his propensity to derail.
I'm not saying that he doesn't, necessarily, but deal with it if and when it happens.
O.
No. According to #101 BA doesn't have a problem with "stating an all-too-obvious fact." Which this is. (Even though his example involved the expression of a personal opinion, not a statement of fact). Doing so isn't insulting - he said so. We have BA's example for this one; I don't see the issue.
-
Mmm except he is here starting a discussion about people being insulting and in the OP where he says he is opposed to it, insults people. Should the hypocrisy in that be ignored?
-
Mmm except he is here starting a discussion about people being insulting and in the OP where he says he is opposed to it, insults people. Should the hypocrisy in that be ignored?
See #99 for details.
-
Why #99 when it is in the OP?
-
Why #99 when it is in the OP?
The OP is mostly taken up by an overlong and utterly pointless posting of the rules of another forum. (Closer attendance to the rules of this forum would seem to be in order, I'd have thought). #99 seemed to me a clearer example of the sort of hypocrisy which has been noted by several.
-
NS,
Mmm except he is here starting a discussion about people being insulting and in the OP where he says he is opposed to it, insults people. Should the hypocrisy in that be ignored?
Sort of. I’m fairly relaxed about his hypocrisy – it’s the old thing about the statement “murder is wrong” not being invalidated if it’s said by a murderer. That the speaker doesn’t follow his own advice says nothing to whether or not that advice is sound.
What is legitimate though is to point out where he commits a logical fallacy – in this case the ignoratio elenchi: he complains about swearing, but whether he’s right or wrong to do so is irrelevant to his complaint in the OP.
As it happens the OP fails in any case because BA (or the quote of which he approves) wrongly conflates attacking the argument with attacking the person who holds the argument dear, and he seems now to be trying to make us look the other way about that by introducing something else.
-
No, he's gone.
Or so he claims.
I merely left for tea. Some people actually manage to tear them selves away from this fun place. Besides, I've developed a little interest in paganism. More later.
This should be fun
😉🌹
For whom? Having been given an idea elsewhere of BA's knowledge of Paganism it is actually likely to be as much bullshit as he is expending trying to back-pedal on his errors in answering the comments on his OP.
-
. . . then you are an idiot.
What were you saying about calling poster's mental state into question?
-
No, he's gone.
Or so he claims.
I merely left for tea. Some people actually manage to tear them selves away from this fun place. Besides, I've developed a little interest in paganism. More later.
This should be fun
😉🌹
For whom? Having been given an idea elsewhere of BA's knowledge of Paganism it is actually likely to be as much bullshit as he is expending trying to back-pedal on his errors in answering the comments on his OP.
I have answered the comments on my OP, even though they were, in the main, fallacious and absurd. It's a bit rich, you throwing in your tuppence worth, you being one of the leading proponents of the vile practice of denigration seen on here.
-
. . . then you are an idiot.
What were you saying about calling poster's mental state into question?
Do you ever have any cleat idea what you are talking about? I don't!
-
BA,
I have answered the comments on my OP, even though they were, in the main, fallacious and absurd.
No you haven't and no they weren't.
It's a bit rich, you throwing in your tuppence worth, you being one of the leading proponents of the vile practice of denigration seen on here.
Can I assume that you won't trouble yourself with giving us some examples of this supposed "vile practices and denigration" - presumably things like calling another poster "an idiot"?
-
. . . then you are an idiot.
What were you saying about calling poster's mental state into question?
Floo has just used the same word in the topic"Topic for going off topic," m227. So I guess you are doubting her mental state then.
-
BA,
I have answered the comments on my OP, even though they were, in the main, fallacious and absurd.
No you haven't and no they weren't.
It's a bit rich, you throwing in your tuppence worth, you being one of the leading proponents of the vile practice of denigration seen on here.
Can I assume that you won't trouble with giving some examples of this supposed "vile practices and denigration" - presumably things like calling another poster "an idiot"?
"Vile practices" probably means his ideas of what pagan rituals are - his ideas being based upon a load of rubbish promoted by those Christians who know (BA COVER YOUR EYES) absolutely fuck all about what pagans actually do.
-
BA,
I have answered the comments on my OP, even though they were, in the main, fallacious and absurd.
No you haven't and no they weren't.
It's a bit rich, you throwing in your tuppence worth, you being one of the leading proponents of the vile practice of denigration seen on here.
Can I assume that you won't trouble with giving some examples of this supposed "vile practices and denigration" - presumably things like calling another poster "an idiot"?
"Vile practices" probably means his ideas of what pagan rituals are - his ideas being based upon a load of rubbish promoted by those Christians who know (BA COVER YOUR EYES) absolutely fuck all about what pagans actually do.
Yes, it's very apparent how you never enlighten the forum about your beliefs and practices, but are only too ready to criticise Christianity. The word,"hypocrite," springs to mind!
-
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
What a monumental hypocrite.
I do so agree.
The phrase, 'chip on shoulder' springs inevitably to mind,.
-
It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact. If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.
What a monumental hypocrite.
I do so agree.
The phrase, 'chip on shoulder' springs inevitably to mind,.
And wrongly! :)
-
BA,
I have answered the comments on my OP, even though they were, in the main, fallacious and absurd.
No you haven't and no they weren't.
It's a bit rich, you throwing in your tuppence worth, you being one of the leading proponents of the vile practice of denigration seen on here.
Can I assume that you won't trouble with giving some examples of this supposed "vile practices and denigration" - presumably things like calling another poster "an idiot"?
"Vile practices" probably means his ideas of what pagan rituals are - his ideas being based upon a load of rubbish promoted by those Christians who know (BA COVER YOUR EYES) absolutely fuck all about what pagans actually do.
Yes, it's very apparent how you never enlighten the forum about your beliefs and practices, but are only too ready to criticise Christianity. The word,"hypocrite," springs to mind!
Are you serious? Do you actually read CMG's posts? Seems to me he is one of the more explicit about what his beliefs and practices are.
-
BA,
Yes, it's very apparent how you never enlighten the forum about your beliefs and practices, but are only too ready to criticise Christianity. The word,"hypocrite," springs to mind!
Even if that was true, it's not what "hypocrite" means.
-
BA,
Yes, it's very apparent how you never enlighten the forum about your beliefs and practices, but are only too ready to criticise Christianity. The word,"hypocrite," springs to mind!
Even if that was true, it's not what "hypocrite" means.
You're still there! I'm beginning to feel I'm being stalked here.
-
BA,
You're still there! I'm beginning to feel I'm being stalked here.
Further evasion noted.
-
BA,
I have answered the comments on my OP, even though they were, in the main, fallacious and absurd.
No you haven't and no they weren't.
It's a bit rich, you throwing in your tuppence worth, you being one of the leading proponents of the vile practice of denigration seen on here.
Can I assume that you won't trouble with giving some examples of this supposed "vile practices and denigration" - presumably things like calling another poster "an idiot"?
"Vile practices" probably means his ideas of what pagan rituals are - his ideas being based upon a load of rubbish promoted by those Christians who know (BA COVER YOUR EYES) absolutely fuck all about what pagans actually do.
Yes, it's very apparent how you never enlighten the forum about your beliefs and practices, but are only too ready to criticise Christianity. The word,"hypocrite," springs to mind!
Alright, so you're blind as well - look at the pagan topic.
I am always happy to answer direct questions about my beliefs and that does not mean the crap thrown at me in the guise of enquiry by idiots like JC.
I will also not reply to people who dismiss my beliefs as nonsense because I believe in magic.
You want to ask about my beliefs? Go the the Pagan Topic and post your questions.
-
BA,
I have answered the comments on my OP, even though they were, in the main, fallacious and absurd.
No you haven't and no they weren't.
It's a bit rich, you throwing in your tuppence worth, you being one of the leading proponents of the vile practice of denigration seen on here.
Can I assume that you won't trouble with giving some examples of this supposed "vile practices and denigration" - presumably things like calling another poster "an idiot"?
"Vile practices" probably means his ideas of what pagan rituals are - his ideas being based upon a load of rubbish promoted by those Christians who know (BA COVER YOUR EYES) absolutely fuck all about what pagans actually do.
Yes, it's very apparent how you never enlighten the forum about your beliefs and practices, but are only too ready to criticise Christianity. The word,"hypocrite," springs to mind!
Are you serious? Do you actually read CMG's posts? Seems to me he is one of the more explicit about what his beliefs and practices are.
Your servant, Sir. (doffs hat)!
-
You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse
If I were to say Bashful Anthony is a fuckwit. That would be personal abuse. If I say "fuck off" that is not personal abuse, it is telling you to go away.
when debating with someone.
If I tell you to fuck off, it is a signal to you that I have stopped debating with you.
and your "debating" standards.
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
-
Flattering of you to take the time to research: then, you are on Google most of the time, anyway.
My research consisted of pasting the all-caps sentence into Google. The first link returned was your other forum. It took about five seconds.
-
2. I do not run away from the half-brains who challenge my beliefs, and thus, me, without responding.
I challenge your beliefs. Are you describing me as a "half-brain", because, if so, it would be a personal insult.
-
You are an idiot because you cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and licence.
More personal abuse.
-
You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse
If I were to say Bashful Anthony is a fuckwit. That would be personal abuse. If I say "fuck off" that is not personal abuse, it is telling you to go away.
when debating with someone.
If I tell you to fuck off, it is a signal to you that I have stopped debating with you.
and your "debating" standards.
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Total lie!
-
Flattering of you to take the time to research: then, you are on Google most of the time, anyway.
My research consisted of pasting the all-caps sentence into Google. The first link returned was your other forum. It too
Just wondering why you bothered. Then, you spend all your time googling, so I guess sometimes you're stuck for something to look up!
-
You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse
If I were to say Bashful Anthony is a fuckwit. That would be personal abuse. If I say "fuck off" that is not personal abuse, it is telling you to go away.
when debating with someone.
If I tell you to fuck off, it is a signal to you that I have stopped debating with you.
and your "debating" standards.
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Very revealing. You seem to premise all your actions around a certain word. You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite. I wonder if you talk like this to family and friends, or whether you are just one of those Walter Mitty saddos who lives his life out on the Internet? This is not abuse, but a considered evaluation of your behaviour.
-
You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse
If I were to say Bashful Anthony is a fuckwit. That would be personal abuse. If I say "fuck off" that is not personal abuse, it is telling you to go away.
when debating with someone.
If I tell you to fuck off, it is a signal to you that I have stopped debating with you.
and your "debating" standards.
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Very revealing. You seem to premise all your actions around a certain word. You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite. I wonder if you talk like this to family and friends, or whether you are just one of those Walter Mitty saddos who lives his life out on the Internet? This is not abuse, but a considered evaluation of your behaviour.
Bashful Anthony - Jesus loves hiim!
Which is just as well 'cos everyone else thinks he's a pompous arrogant blinkered deluded twit!
This is not a personal attack but a considered evaluation of his attitude to others, especially those who have the temerity to disagree with him or to question his statements.
-
You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse
If I were to say Bashful Anthony is a fuckwit. That would be personal abuse. If I say "fuck off" that is not personal abuse, it is telling you to go away.
when debating with someone.
If I tell you to fuck off, it is a signal to you that I have stopped debating with you.
and your "debating" standards.
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Very revealing. You seem to premise all your actions around a certain word. You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite. I wonder if you talk like this to family and friends, or whether you are just one of those Walter Mitty saddos who lives his life out on the Internet? This is not abuse, but a considered evaluation of your behaviour.
Bashful Anthony - Jesus loves hiim!
Which is just as well 'cos everyone else thinks he's a pompous arrogant blinkered deluded twit!
This is not a personal attack but a considered evaluation of his attitude to others, especially those who have the temerity to disagree with him or to question his statements.
The thing is, he likes to represent me as an abuser, but he is precisely that himself, though in a more subtle way. Talk about pots and kettles!
-
You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite.
You do know that under the terms of your OP, and the general thrust of your argument throughout this thread this makes no sense at all, and makes you also look like a hypocrite.
-
You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still not appreciated.
And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.
That attitude has been around for thousands of years and is not limited to/procured by religious beliefs.
No religion can be held responsible for the existence of such beliefs.
As pagans, atheists, and religious people hold such beliefs it is nothing to do with magic or any other form of beliefs by Pagans, Atheists and Christians.
They are an opinion not a belief system. The right and wrong which cannot be clearly defined.
Nature does not allow for two men or women to procreate together.
Though it may not be right in nature doesn't mean people should be mean to those who want to live together in a relationship.
But for those whom it does not come natural to, you cannot tell them it isn't wrong for them and by what they feel. No more than you can say being gay is the only right way.
You should not confuse the natural element of something not being right for one person but right for another with small minded people who hate and hit out at people because that is how they feel.
Religious, Pagan and Atheists do not all believe the same things when it comes to being gay. Do not use something so sensitive as a stick to try and brow beat someone in an argument when it is a mute point to the discussion.
-
That attitude has been around for thousands of years and is not limited to/procured by religious beliefs.
"We've done it for a long time" is not a justification for prejudice. For a long time it was justified to presume that black people were a lower form of human - that didn't make it right, and it wouldn't justify someone repeating the slur now.
No religion can be held responsible for the existence of such beliefs.
It certainly can, if:
a) some of the senior figures within that religion publicly espouse that opinion as a tenet of the religion
b) the underlying tenets or sacred texts of the religion espouse that opinion
c) both of the above
They are an opinion not a belief system. The right and wrong which cannot be clearly defined.
They can. They're wrong, it's easy.
Nature does not allow for two men or women to procreate together.
The naturalistic fallacy compounded by the mistaken idea that all relationships are primarily about children.
Though it may not be right in nature doesn't mean people should be mean to those who want to live together in a relationship.
Well-spotted.
But for those whom it does not come natural to, you cannot tell them it isn't wrong for them and by what they feel.
Yes, you can, just as you can call out racism or misogyny.
No more than you can say being gay is the only right way.
Nobody is saying that 'gay is the only right way', they're saying that it's wrong to say that straight is the only right way.
You should not confuse the natural element of something not being right for one person but right for another with small minded people who hate and hit out at people because that is how they feel.
No, you should call out the naturalistic fallacy wherever you find it, and castigate people using the internet to promulgate it for the irony overload.
Religious, Pagan and Atheists do not all believe the same things when it comes to being gay.
Being gay isn't a belief issue, it's a reality. Some people are gay. Those people deserve to be treated equally well by society, because their sexuality is not something that they can choose.
Do not use something so sensitive as a stick to try and brow beat someone in an argument when it is a mute point to the discussion.
It's not a moot point, you cannot claim that your chosen belief system trumps someone's right to equal treatment in a civilised society.
O.
-
That attitude has been around for thousands of years and is not limited to/procured by religious beliefs.
"We've done it for a long time" is not a justification for prejudice. For a long time it was justified to presume that black people were a lower form of human - that didn't make it right, and it wouldn't justify someone repeating the slur now.
If, that had been the case for everyone then racial prejudice would never have changed. In those times as now. Not everyone thinks the same or believes in the same things.. But today you have a choice and can speak out. It has never been justified to believe black people a lower form of human being. Just as the attitude has not justification. Neither is it a good comparison to compare the colour of skin to homosexuality or religious bigotry. Skin colour has no choice whatsoever.
No religion can be held responsible for the existence of such beliefs.
It certainly can, if:
a) some of the senior figures within that religion publicly espouse that opinion as a tenet of the religion
b) the underlying tenets or sacred texts of the religion espouse that opinion
c) both of the above
No it can't because the bigots of this world are atheists, pagans and religious.
All evil comes from man himself. Only the Muslim religion today allows for homosexuals to be stoned to death in the streets, Think on.. if this country becomes a Muslim state then you won't be able to defend such beliefs or speak out without fear of death.
They are an opinion not a belief system. The right and wrong which cannot be clearly defined.
They can. They're wrong, it's easy.
No! that kind of thinking can put things everyone considers wrong at risk of becoming legal. The fact is the right and wrong of it cannot be defined because there is no way to do that. It is prejudice of men and how they feel which cause the evil to take place.
Nature does not allow for two men or women to procreate together.
The naturalistic fallacy compounded by the mistaken idea that all relationships are primarily about children.
No! it was about the sexual reproduction system not any relationship or that relationships are about children. It is a fact the sexual reproduction system only works with one of each sex together.
Though it may not be right in nature doesn't mean people should be mean to those who want to live together in a relationship.
Well-spotted.
It wasn't spotted it was a fact.
But for those whom it does not come natural to, you cannot tell them it isn't wrong for them and by what they feel.
Yes, you can, just as you can call out racism or misogyny.
No you cannot. Because the colour of skin has NO choice involved. And misogyny
is about the sex of a person not their sexuality. We have Muslims who make women and girls to be worthless. Are you going to call them out on it?
Thought not... after all they might want you to disappear.
No more than you can say being gay is the only right way.
Nobody is saying that 'gay is the only right way', they're saying that it's wrong to say that straight is the only right way.
In reality we have both. We know both exist but they are not right for everyone.
You should not confuse the natural element of something not being right for one person but right for another with small minded people who hate and hit out at people because that is how they feel.
No, you should call out the naturalistic fallacy wherever you find it, and castigate people using the internet to promulgate it for the irony overload.
How is hurting another for their beliefs any different than that of the beliefs the person held you are hurting them for? You cannot change by force. You need to understand and find a peaceful settlement for all. Live and let live.
Religious, Pagan and Atheists do not all believe the same things when it comes to being gay.
Being gay isn't a belief issue, it's a reality. Some people are gay. Those people deserve to be treated equally well by society, because their sexuality is not something that they can choose.
Equally... as human beings but not given special treatment which sets them apart from their community. Which is what is happening and causing more problems not helping their cause. When people use their cause as a stick on religious sites for instance when it is nothing to do with comparing, paganism and Christianity with magic etc.
Do not use something so sensitive as a stick to try and brow beat someone in an argument when it is a mute point to the discussion.
It's not a moot point, you cannot claim that your chosen belief system trumps someone's right to equal treatment in a civilised society.
O.
Paganism and Christianity is not about equal treatment in society.
What was being discussed what calling paganism and Christianity about magic etc.
Homosexuality is not about religion or magic.
-
If, that had been the case for everyone then racial prejudice would never have changed. In those times as now. Not everyone thinks the same or believes in the same things.. But today you have a choice and can speak out. It has never been justified to believe black people a lower form of human being. Just as the attitude has not justification. Neither is it a good comparison to compare the colour of skin to homosexuality or religious bigotry. Skin colour has no choice whatsoever.
And sexual orientation has no choice whatsoever. To say that sexual behaviour does is to suggest that black people could opt for skin bleaching. As you say, times change, and unjustifiable positions get called out and become publicly unacceptable. The homophobic stance is in the midst of that process now.
No religion can be held responsible for the existence of such beliefs.
It certainly can, if:
a) some of the senior figures within that religion publicly espouse that opinion as a tenet of the religion
b) the underlying tenets or sacred texts of the religion espouse that opinion
c) both of the above
No it can't because the bigots of this world are atheists, pagans and religious.[/quote]
She asserted, whilst the Catholic church's consultation on the family tries to decide if gay people are acceptable...
All evil comes from man himself.
That we can both agree on, even though I'm confused at your justification - I thought you were of the opinion that all things come from God?
Only the Muslim religion today allows for homosexuals to be stoned to death in the streets...
Only theocratic nations allow for the persecution of homosexuals. How far are Uganda and Nigeria from this?
Think on.. if this country becomes a Muslim state then you won't be able to defend such beliefs or speak out without fear of death.
Yay, Christian extremism is better moderated by secularism than Islamic extremism... your conclusion from this is that Christianity is better?
No! that kind of thinking can put things everyone considers wrong at risk of becoming legal.
Like homosexuality? It's not wrong because I say so, it's wrong because it has no valid justification.
The fact is the right and wrong of it cannot be defined because there is no way to do that. It is prejudice of men and how they feel which cause the evil to take place.
No, it's really easy, you just have to decide what maxim you consider to be important. Does it hurt anyone? Then there's no evil there. Does it bring joy to people, then it's good.
No! it was about the sexual reproduction system not any relationship or that relationships are about children. It is a fact the sexual reproduction system only works with one of each sex together.
And what's that got to do with whether or not different sexualities are socially acceptable? That they serve a natural purpose - or, at least, don't unduly hinder natural purposes - is demonstrable by the fact that across the animal kingdom there are any number of animals in which homosexual behaviour can be observed, and it still hasn't been evolved out.
Though it may not be right in nature doesn't mean people should be mean to those who want to live together in a relationship.
Well-spotted.
It wasn't spotted it was a fact.
Like 'There's no justification for treating gay people differently from straight people'?
No you cannot. Because the colour of skin has NO choice involved.
And people who are gay have no choice in being gay.
And misogyny is about the sex of a person not their sexuality. We have Muslims who make women and girls to be worthless. Are you going to call them out on it?
Yes, each and every time I have the opportunity. I'm also going to call out Christians, conservatives and Hindus who believe that women should be quiet and stick to child-rearing or secretarial work, who objectify women in the media and believe that it's fair to ask female politicians who's going to look after their children whilst their working.
No more than you can say being gay is the only right way.
Nobody is saying that 'gay is the only right way', they're saying that it's wrong to say that straight is the only right way.
In reality we have both. We know both exist but they are not right for everyone.
No, they aren't, but we have to accept that what's right for those people is perfectly fine until and unless it has a negative impact on someone else.
How is hurting another for their beliefs any different than that of the beliefs the person held you are hurting them for?
Because their belief is a choice, apparently. Because their choice to express that belief is hurtful, and because their choice to try to legislate that belief is more hurtful.
You cannot change by force. You need to understand and find a peaceful settlement for all. Live and let live.
You mean like calling out bigotry as bigotry on discussion forums when I see it?
Equally... as human beings but not given special treatment which sets them apart from their community. Which is what is happening and causing more problems not helping their cause.
How is opening up social conventions and legal status to gay people giving them 'special treatment'?
Paganism and Christianity is not about equal treatment in society.
I'm not sure, I'd probably suggest that the majority of paganism are probably perfectly happy with the idea, certainly there aren't vocal elements of the pagan community raising money and political parties intent on imposing their way on everyone. Can you say that about Christianity?
Homosexuality is not about religion or magic.
No, it isn't, but too often religion is about other people's sexuality.
O.
-
. . . when it is a mute point to the discussion.
Just a small point - ther word you want is "moot" = debatable not "mute" = reduce in volume.
Just saying.
-
You are, then, under the impression that effing and blinding is not personal abuse
If I were to say Bashful Anthony is a fuckwit. That would be personal abuse. If I say "fuck off" that is not personal abuse, it is telling you to go away.
when debating with someone.
If I tell you to fuck off, it is a signal to you that I have stopped debating with you.
and your "debating" standards.
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Very revealing. You seem to premise all your actions around a certain word. You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite. I wonder if you talk like this to family and friends, or whether you are just one of those Walter Mitty saddos who lives his life out on the Internet? This is not abuse, but a considered evaluation of your behaviour.
Bashful Anthony - Jesus loves hiim!
Which is just as well 'cos everyone else thinks he's a pompous arrogant blinkered deluded twit!
This is not a personal attack but a considered evaluation of his attitude to others, especially those who have the temerity to disagree with him or to question his statements.
:D :D The more you revile me, the more I know I am hitting the nail on the head, as far as you lot go. Nice feeling!
-
BA,
The more you revile me, the more I know I am hitting the nail on the head, as far as you lot go. Nice feeling!
Actually, the more people "revile" you - ie, dismantle your efforts and hand them back to you in pieces - the more you should realise that they think you to be an idiot.
Have it your own way though if that comforts you.
-
BA,
The more you revile me, the more I know I am hitting the nail on the head, as far as you lot go. Nice feeling!
Actually, the more people "revile" you - ie, dismantle your efforts and hand them back to you in pieces - the more you should realise that they think you to be an idiot.
Have it your own way though if that comforts you.
You're still here! Proving my point! Calm down, dear. :)
-
BA,
You're still here! Proving my point! Calm down, dear. :)
Actually this latest stupidity proves my point, but there you go I guess.
Ah well.
-
BA,
You're still here! Proving my point! Calm down, dear. :)
Actually this latest stupidity proves my point, but there you go I guess.
Ah well.
But you haven't!
-
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults[/b]. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Total lie!
Show me a post in which I deliver a personal insult and I'll show twenty in which I don't.
-
You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite.
That looks like a personal insult. You're breaking the rules of your ideal forum again.
Go on, tell us, how many posts did it take for them to kick you off?
whether you are just one of those Walter Mitty saddos who lives his life out on the Internet?
Another personal insult. You don'r seem to be able to live up to the rules that you espouse, for some reason.
-
That attitude has been around for thousands of years and is not limited to/procured by religious beliefs.
And do you think that makes it acceptable?
No religion can be held responsible for the existence of such beliefs.
I agree. It's the people that follow the religion and unquestioningly accept its outdated revolting teachings that are responsible.
-
BA,
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...
..."So fucking what?"
Of all the reasons not to say something, causing offence to the proponent is the weakest. Why? Because the moment you close down questioning and criticism all manner of evil can thrive behind the wall of silence.
While ad hominem is wrong (and pointless), that someone might take offence at having their beliefs dismantled is their problem alone.
The only one getting their beliefs dismantled is you.
Any progress on the probability of philosophical naturalism?
-
BA,
They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus. Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay. But I do not specifically object to that: it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic," and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange. This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people. It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs. This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.
I like Stephen Fry's response to, "You can't say that because I'm offended by it"...
..."So fucking what?"
Of all the reasons not to say something, causing offence to the proponent is the weakest. Why? Because the moment you close down questioning and criticism all manner of evil can thrive behind the wall of silence.
While ad hominem is wrong (and pointless), that someone might take offence at having their beliefs dismantled is their problem alone.
The only one getting their beliefs dismantled is you.
Any progress on the probability of philosophical naturalism?
You wish!
Progress? Yes! It has been summarily dismissed as pretentiuous bollocks.
-
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults[/b]. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Total lie!
Show me a post in which I deliver a personal insult and I'll show twenty in which I don't.
[/b]
:D :D Is that a serious comment, or are you joking? It's akin to saying, "There were twenty puppies in the room, and I only kicked one of them." You're absurd!
-
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults[/b]. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Total lie!
Show me a post in which I deliver a personal insult and I'll show twenty in which I don't.
[/b]
:D :D Is that a serious comment, or are you joking? It's akin to saying, "There were twenty puppies in the room, and I only kicked one of them." You're absurd!
From the first page of posting history these are the insults that BA has posted things that might be examples of bad attitudes and behaviour:-
Hypocrites! And, as usual, foul-mouthed with it.
You're absurd!
Nothing to do this evening? Run out of crayons or something?
he likes to represent me as an abuser, but he is precisely that himself,
You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite.
I'm consistently told I'm this that and the other, but the dummies still post to me!
Total lie!
your contribution would disgrace a six-year-old.
Take a long hard look in the mirror BA.
-
Unfortunately, the image he sees in the mirror will be only what he deludes himself he is.
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
The only one getting their beliefs dismantled is you.
Why would you ever waste the time to lie about that? I've set out the arguments perfectly clearly - BA could attempt a rebuttal or not as he wishes, but instead he's variously spat the dummy, used insult, avoided any question or challenge and generally swallowed wholesale the Vlad playbook. Then you pitch up and call that being "dismantled".
Really?
Good grief!
Any progress on the probability of philosophical naturalism?
I'll dismantle it on the latest wreckage of a thread you've started.
-
But it's very rare that I lose my patience to the point that I deliver personal insults[/b]. For you, however, insults are pretty much all there is.
Total lie!
Show me a post in which I deliver a personal insult and I'll show twenty in which I don't.
[/b]
:D :D Is that a serious comment, or are you joking? It's akin to saying, "There were twenty puppies in the room, and I only kicked one of them." You're absurd!
From the first page of posting history these are the insults that BA has posted things that might be examples of bad attitudes and behaviour:-
Hypocrites! And, as usual, foul-mouthed with it.
You're absurd!
Nothing to do this evening? Run out of crayons or something?
he likes to represent me as an abuser, but he is precisely that himself,
You are nothing but a foul-mouthed, pretentious hypocrite.
I'm consistently told I'm this that and the other, but the dummies still post to me!
Total lie!
your contribution would disgrace a six-year-old.
Take a long hard look in the mirror BA.
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite! Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
-
Unfortunately, the image he sees in the mirror will be only what he deludes himself he is.
What are you on about? Silly and infantile comment!
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
The only one getting their beliefs dismantled is you.
Why would you ever waste the time to lie about that? I've set out the arguments perfectly clearly - BA could attempt a rebuttal or not as he wishes, but instead he's variously spat the dummy, used insult, avoided any question or challenge and generally swallowed wholesale the Vlad playbook. Then you pitch up and call that being "dismantled".
Really?
Good grief!
Any progress on the probability of philosophical naturalism?
I'll dismantle it on the latest wreckage of a thread you've started.
Do you have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about? I haven't. I haven't swallowed any "playbook." It's ony the likes of you who are still at the playbook stage! :)
-
Vladdy Straw Boy,
The only one getting their beliefs dismantled is you.
Why would you ever waste the time to lie about that? I've set out the arguments perfectly clearly - BA could attempt a rebuttal or not as he wishes, but instead he's variously spat the dummy, used insult, avoided any question or challenge and generally swallowed wholesale the Vlad playbook. Then you pitch up and call that being "dismantled".
Really?
Good grief!
Any progress on the probability of philosophical naturalism?
I'll dismantle it on the latest wreckage of a thread you've started.
Do you have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about? I haven't. I haven't swallowed any "playbook." It'a ony the likes of you who are still at the playbook stage! :)
Idiot - "playbook" (as used by Blue) - a term used in American Football that shows the moves to be used in the game.
Vlad's playbook shows how to talk crap, and how to invent stupid words ending in "ism".
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
I wonder who that fatuous description is supposed to apply to?
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
I wonder who that fatuous description is supposed to apply to?
Go look in a mirror! You might even be able to spot your halo.
-
Is that a serious comment, or are you joking? It's akin to saying, "There were twenty puppies in the room, and I only kicked one of them." You're absurd!
Wait a minute.. you think that animal cruelty is only as bad as posting an insult on an internet forum? And you a dog owner too.
I notice you haven't even tried to meet the challenge. Obviously you realise you can't.
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
Your reply actually Tickled me! ::)
How would know if BA actually did have the truth or not?
Well! Just asking...
-
Is that a serious comment, or are you joking? It's akin to saying, "There were twenty puppies in the room, and I only kicked one of them." You're absurd!
Wait a minute.. you think that animal cruelty is only as bad as posting an insult on an internet forum? And you a dog owner too.
I notice you haven't even tried to meet the challenge. Obviously you realise you can't.
Are you deliberately missing the point...
It isn't about how many dogs were there. But the fact kicking one dog regardless of how many there are to kick, is WRONG. Whether 20 or 1 dog the kicking is wrong.
In other words you are trying to make a wrong right by saying " But there were 20 dogs there and I only kicked one" What you are not getting is that you were wrong and you cannot excuse yourself.
-
Are you deliberately missing the point...
Nope. I think you are missing the point. BA claimed that writing an insult on a forum is akin to kicking one puppy out of twenty. He's compared something that might, at worst, cause some hurt feelings to animal cruelty. Instead of merely pointing this out, I turned it around to show the speciousness of his comparison.
I should have realised it would be too subtle for some people.
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
Your reply actually Tickled me! ::)
How would know if BA actually did have the truth or not?
Well! Just asking...
Once again you miss the point!
It doesn't matter if I think he actually has a truth, much less THE truth - what matters is the HE thinks he has it and cannot stand the fact the the majority of others think he is full of crap!
-
Is that a serious comment, or are you joking? It's akin to saying, "There were twenty puppies in the room, and I only kicked one of them." You're absurd!
Wait a minute.. you think that animal cruelty is only as bad as posting an insult on an internet forum? And you a dog owner too.
I notice you haven't even tried to meet the challenge. Obviously you realise you can't.
Are you deliberately missing the point...
It isn't about how many dogs were there. But the fact kicking one dog regardless of how many there are to kick, is WRONG. Whether 20 or 1 dog the kicking is wrong.
In other words you are trying to make a wrong right by saying " But there were 20 dogs there and I only kicked one" What you are not getting is that you were wrong and you cannot excuse yourself.
Thank you, Sassy. I hope jeremy, and the other children, are suitably shamed by having the point of my comment spelled out to them by you. I
should have realised he wouldn't get it.
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
On the subject of that latter substance, it seems, according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end? :D
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
Your reply actually Tickled me! ::)
How would know if BA actually did have the truth or not?
Well! Just asking...
Once again you miss the point!
It doesn't matter if I think he actually has a truth, much less THE truth - what matters is the HE thinks he has it and cannot stand the fact the the majority of others think he is full of crap!
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
Your reply actually Tickled me! ::)
How would know if BA actually did have the truth or not?
Well! Just asking...
Once again you miss the point!
It doesn't matter if I think he actually has a truth, much less THE truth - what matters is the HE thinks he has it and cannot stand the fact the the majority of others think he is full of crap!
On the subject of that latter substance, it seems, according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end?
-
And you take a hard look at your own record. You are hardly an example of propriety in posting. Hypocrite!
Neither have I started a topic complaining about it.
Unless you have a record of never having posted an"insult," then criticise me: you haven't. The comments you have taken the trouble to gather there (surprised you have the time ) are not exactly criminal; and I do manage to avoid the ignorant use of expletives: do you?
Fuck no I don't have a problem with the odd expletive. I'm not criticising you for posting an insult I'm criticising you for starting a thread about 'bad attitudes and behaviour' and then behaving badly.
I repeat the examples I posted were from the first page of your post history, just one page.
I challenge you to find anyone with as many posts with bad attitudes and behaviour on the first page of their posting history as yourself.
Look BA your not a bad bloke and would love to debate more issues with you but I don't think debate with you is possible because it descends into trading insults.
It is also impossible to debate with someone who is convinced that all he says is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth imparted to him personally by his god. In fact he is so infallible that he should be proposed as the next Pope.
Your reply actually Tickled me! ::)
How would know if BA actually did have the truth or not?
Well! Just asking...
Once again you miss the point!
It doesn't matter if I think he actually has a truth, much less THE truth - what matters is the HE thinks he has it and cannot stand the fact the the majority of others think he is full of crap!
But the fact is that ATHEISTS wouldn't know... which is my point.
It is you who missed the point. The point is that you and the person answering BA are not in a position to be able to tell whether what he says is true...
Penny dropped...
-
But the fact is that ATHEISTS wouldn't know... which is my point.
Any more than you do!
Penny dropped?
-
. . . according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end?
On the grounds that I do not believe a word about witchcraft posted by a Christian without back-up - a link to Yahoo article please.
-
I hope jeremy, and the other children,
Anthony breaks his own rules again.
are suitably shamed by having the point of my comment spelled out to them by you.
I hope you are suitably shamed by me having to spell out the meaning of my comment to you — and Sassy.
I'm semi tempted to join your other forum to find out why you were banned from it, although it will obviously be because you are unable to carry on a conversation without resorting to insult.
-
I hope jeremy, and the other children,
Anthony breaks his own rules again.
are suitably shamed by having the point of my comment spelled out to them by you.
I hope you are suitably shamed by me having to spell out the meaning of my comment to you — and Sassy.
I'm semi temp
You are very precious - hardly abuse, especially when you are consistently worse.
Please look on the forum, and when you have ascertained I was not banned, I will expect an apology for that abusive suggestion. You would certainly have been given your marching orders, for your foul, gutter-snipe, language alone; not to mention your aggressive manner. You have only addressed my posts today to be confrontational: you are a first-class hypocrite!
-
I hope jeremy, and the other children,
Anthony breaks his own rules again.
are suitably shamed by having the point of my comment spelled out to them by you.
I hope you are suitably shamed by me having to spell out the meaning of my comment to you — and Sassy.
I'm semi tempted to join your other forum to find out why you were banned from it, although it will obviously be because you are unable to carry on a conversation without resorting to insult.
You are very precious - hardly abuse, and you are consistently worse.
Please look on the forum, though I doubt you will, as it will expose your unpleasant inclination to make vicious accusations, without grounds. Please, go ahead and when you have ascertained I was not banned, I will expect an apology for such an abusive suggestion. You would certainly have been given your marching orders, for your foul, gutter-snipe, language alone; not to mention your aggressive manner. You have only addressed my posts today to be confrontational: you are a first-class hypocrite!
-
Checked the RS forum yet, jeremy? Or are you ready for a retraction of your snide comment? I'm waiting.
-
Please look on the forum, and when you have ascertained I was not banned
Why are you back here then?
-
. . . according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end?
On the grounds that I do not believe a word about witchcraft posted by a Christian without back-up - a link to Yahoo article please.
Answer please!
-
. . . according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end?
On the grounds that I do not believe a word about witchcraft posted by a Christian without back-up - a link to Yahoo article please.
Answer please!
The article is not on Yahoo now: they change many of them daily. Try looking up the information yourself, and don't be so idle. I cannot really give a witch's about those cooks anyway.
-
. . . according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end?
On the grounds that I do not believe a word about witchcraft posted by a Christian without back-up - a link to Yahoo article please.
Answer please!
The article is not on Yahoo now: they change many of them daily. Try looking up the information yourself, and don't be so idle. I cannot really give a witch's about those cooks anyway.
cooks? What is that about?
-
. . . according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end?
On the grounds that I do not believe a word about witchcraft posted by a Christian without back-up - a link to Yahoo article please.
Answer please!
The article is not on Yahoo now: they change many of them daily. Try looking up the information yourself, and don't be so idle. I cannot really give a witch's about those cooks anyway.
cooks? What is that about?
I think he's giving you an example of a pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings. :)
-
. . . according to Yahoo, that there is an increasing amount of malign witchcraft current at the moment. What were you doing this week-end?
On the grounds that I do not believe a word about witchcraft posted by a Christian without back-up - a link to Yahoo article please.
Answer please!
The article is not on Yahoo now: they change many of them daily. Try looking up the information yourself, and don't be so idle. I cannot really give a witch's about those cooks anyway.
cooks? What is that about?
I think he's giving you an example of a pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings. :)
Hmm! I guessed, and now, of course, I cannot charge him with fabrication becasue "The article is not on Yahoo now: they change many of them daily."
How convenient.
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
-
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule
I don't know about believers in the Spaghetti Monster, but as a believer in and user of magic I know that I sure do!
How come it is that people who hold fast to their belief in a god that only exists in their belief reject with all kinds of abusive or denigratory comments the beliefs of others.
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
You do have a problem, a big one - your arrogance in your belief in your own omnipotence and infallibilty.
-
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Of course it is BA as your posts frequently infer it's always someone else with the problem ::)
Sorry to disappoint you but I spend as much time denying the existence of the god of your imagination as I do denying the existence of unicorns and pixies.. none, except of course when I have to put you right on dreams and reality
If Dougal from Father Ted can grasp it I still have hopes for you :)
-
BA implies not infers.
-
Just look at the above posts, and then tell me P'm the arrogant, abusive one. Talk about world-class hypocrites: I'm surrounded by them here. Well over 200 posts on this thread, and a great many of them abusing me.. You sad guys really do have a problem, don't you! Still, you give me a laugh, because, though you haven't the sensitivity to realise it, you are very laughable!! :D
-
BA implies not infers.
BA does NOT imply anything - he states it as a FACT - incontravertable FACT! Incontravertable because it is BA saying it!
-
BA implies not infers.
BA does NOT imply anything - he states it as a FACT - incontravertable FACT! Incontravertable because it is BA saying it!
Calm down old fella, you'll bust a gut soon! :D
-
BA implies not infers.
BA does NOT imply anything - he states it as a FACT - incontravertable FACT! Incontravertable because it is BA saying it!
I was merely pointing out that the correct term in KO's post about BA would be imply rather than infer
-
Just look at the above posts, and then tell me P'm the arrogant, abusive one. Talk about world-class hypocrites: I'm surrounded by them here. Well over 200 posts on this thread, and a great many of them abusing me.. You sad guys really do have a problem, don't you! Still, you give me a laugh, because, though you haven't the sensitivity to realise it, you are very laughable!! :D
If you weren't so arrogant you would see that most of the posts insulting you are the result of the people insulting you are doing so becasue you make them laugh and the more you post this "poor me everyone is attacking and insulting me" the more they are going to do it. And don't deny that you do this because anyone reading your responses can see that that is exactly what you are doing and the more you deny it the more obvious it is.
Let me put it another way - people are insulting you because you get wound up like a Clockwork Orange by the insults.
I know that is partly why I do it, and I have no doubt others see it the same way.
You are NOT always right and the more you protest that you are always right the bigger fool you make yourself look and the more we are going to insult you and laugh our heads off at your replies.
-
BA implies not infers.
BA does NOT imply anything - he states it as a FACT - incontravertable FACT! Incontravertable because it is BA saying it!
Calm down old fella, you'll bust a gut soon! :D
Bust a gut for you? You must be bleedin' joking! There is nothing on this Earth that I would do for you - well, nothing that wouldn't get me permanently banned if I posted it!
-
BA implies not infers.
BA does NOT imply anything - he states it as a FACT - incontravertable FACT! Incontravertable because it is BA saying it!
I was merely pointing out that the correct term in KO's post about BA would be imply rather than infer
Oh I knew that - I have no quarrel with your explanation - merely with its accuracy when applied to BA's posts.
-
Mexican witchcraft. National Geographic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V5UBp0zyDw
-
Just look at the above posts, and then tell me P'm the arrogant, abusive one. Talk about world-class hypocrites: I'm surrounded by them here. Well over 200 posts on this thread, and a great many of them abusing me.. You sad guys really do have a problem, don't you! Still, you give me a laugh, because, though you haven't the sensitivity to realise it, you are very laughable!! :D
If you weren't so arrogant you would see that most of the posts insulting you are the result of the people insulting you are doing so becasue you make them laugh and the more you post this "poor me everyone is attacking and insulting me" the more they are going to do it. And don't deny that you do this because anyone reading your responses can see that that is exactly what you are doing and the more you deny it the more obvious it is.
Let me put it another way - people are insulting you because you get wound up like a Clockwork Orange by the insults.
I know that is partly why I do it, and I have no doubt others see it the same way.
You are NOT always right and the more you protest that you are always right the bigger fool you make yourself look and the more we are going to insult you and laugh our heads off at your replies.
Have you ever heard of commas? If you could learn to use them your posts might be a bit more intelligible, though I doubt it! :)
-
BA implies not infers.
BA does NOT imply anything - he states it as a FACT - incontravertable FACT! Incontravertable because it is BA saying it!
Calm down old fella, you'll bust a gut soon! :D
Bust a gut for you? You must be bleedin' joking! There is nothing on this Earth that I would do for you - well, nothing that wouldn't get me permanently banned if I posted it!
A very typically pagan attitude!
-
A very typically pagan attitude!
A very typical BA stupid attitude.
-
A very typically pagan attitude!
A very typical BA stupid attitude.
A very typical ignorant Leonard attitude.
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Why would anybody that thinks the whole idea of god or gods is only for deluded people, want to deny the existence of something that's not there in the first place; I'm not denying the existence any kind of god, they don't exist in the first place to deny, other than in peoples minds. Unless, of course, you can prove me wrong which would be necessary due to the present lack of credible evidence, like zero evidence, to support this cranky idea of yours BA.
ippy
ippy
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Why would anybody that thinks the whole idea of god or gods is only for deluded people, want to deny the existence of something that's not there in the first place; I'm not denying the existence any kind of god, they don't exist in the first place to deny, other than in peoples minds. Unless, of course, you can prove me wrong which would be necessary due to the present lack of credible evidence, like zero evidence, to support this cranky idea of yours BA.
ippy
ippy
it's not merely me, dear ippy, but a couple of billion others, too, many of whom are more likely to be correct than you: or, rather, all of whom are more likely to be correct than you. :)
-
but a couple of billion others
Ooh look ::) One for all you trainspotters.
The Earth must be flat.
-
but a couple of billion others
Ooh look ::) One for all you trainspotters.
The Earth must be flat.
Is that supposed to be funny, or perceptive? It's neither.
-
but a couple of billion others
Ooh look ::) One for all you trainspotters.
The Earth must be flat.
Is that supposed to be funny, or perceptive? It's neither.
Ooh you're exceptionally grumpy at the moment.
Merely pointing out that at one time if one relied merely on numbers the Earth would indeed be flat.
Your argument citing 2 billion counts for nothing despite the huge number.
-
but a couple of billion others
Ooh look ::) One for all you trainspotters.
The Earth must be flat.
Is that supposed to be funny, or perceptive? It's neither.
Ooh you're exceptionally grumpy sat the moment.
One is reminded of Dorothy Parker's comment about the announcement of Calvin Coolidge's death
-
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Oh BA your pure comedy gold.. or you would be if you didn't take yourself so seriously (fortunately you are the only one who does!).
So you want me to make the same points again?
OK might as well just cut and paste and hopefully this time you might get someone to read/explain it to you, any 5 year old handy? ;)
Of course it is BA as your posts frequently infer it's always someone else with the problem ::)
See that is the pattern of fundies.. they blindly just keep repeating the same things rather than actually questioning themselves and their "beliefs" who knows everyone else might be right and you might be wrong (if you can conceive of such a possibility) :o
Sorry to disappoint you but I spend as much time denying the existence of the god of your imagination as I do denying the existence of unicorns and pixies.. none, except of course when I have to put you right on dreams and reality
Again you don't seem to understand BA I spend the same amount of days denying unicorns as I do denying your personal unicorns/gods.
Of course you could make this conversation mute by actually supplying some evidence for either gods or unicorns... your choice ;D
You see my mentally challenged friend I don't have a problem with peoples personal beliefs unicorns or otherwise so long as they a) don't affect my life and b) you don't try and make out that they in some way a 'fact'.
As I have pointed out faith is faith, unicornist and theists can believe what they want but it doesn't make it real.
Take a leaf out of Gonnagles book and who goes on faith and it's personal to him something I can accept.
-
Dear Rabbac,
Take a leaf out of Gonnagles book and who goes on faith and it's personal to him something I can accept.
Tis true old son, my gripe is ( and has been for a long time ) organised religion telling us how to approach God.
Gonnagle.
-
Well if it's a personal relationship why would you need a middle man ;)
-
Well if it's a personal relationship why would you need a middle man ;)
All manner of things spring to mind here - all of them fun and filthy.
-
;D
-
Well if it's a personal relationship why would you need a middle man ;)
Where there's a middle-man, there's a 'finder's fee'...
O.
-
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Oh BA your pure comedy gold.. or you would be if you didn't take yourself so seriously (fortunately you are the only one who does!).
So you want me to make the same points again?
OK might as well just cut and paste and hopefully this time you might get someone to read/explain it to you, any 5 year old handy? ;)
Of course it is BA as your posts frequently infer it's always someone else with the problem ::)
See that is the pattern of fundies.. they blindly just keep repeating the same things rather than actually questioning themselves and their "beliefs" who knows everyone else might be right and you might be wrong (if you can conceive of such a possibility) :o
Sorry to disappoint you but I spend as much time denying the existence of the god of your imagination as I do denying the existence of unicorns and pixies.. none, except of course when I have to put you right on dreams and reality
Again you don't seem to understand BA I spend the same amount of days denying unicorns as I do denying your personal unicorns/gods.
Of course you could make this conversation mute by actually supplying some evidence for either gods or unicorns... your choice ;D
You see my mentally challenged friend I don't have a problem with peoples personal beliefs unicorns or otherwise so long as they a) don't affect my life and b) you don't try and make out that they in some way a 'fact'.
As I have pointed out faith is faith, unicornist and theists can believe what they want but it doesn't make it real.
Take a leaf out of Gonnagles book and who goes on faith and it's personal to him something I can accept.
In reply to your pig-ignorant and abusive post, I repeat: you are an anti-theist obsessive, and your lame excuses cannot hide that. But the fact is, you are here, and you sit in some dingy attic ladling out your cheap "rhetoric," to no avail. Can't your little mind see that nobody gives a witch's waddle what you say , or think? Have a good day. ;)
-
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Oh BA your pure comedy gold.. or you would be if you didn't take yourself so seriously (fortunately you are the only one who does!).
So you want me to make the same points again?
OK might as well just cut and paste and hopefully this time you might get someone to read/explain it to you, any 5 year old handy? ;)
Of course it is BA as your posts frequently infer it's always someone else with the problem ::)
See that is the pattern of fundies.. they blindly just keep repeating the same things rather than actually questioning themselves and their "beliefs" who knows everyone else might be right and you might be wrong (if you can conceive of such a possibility) :o
Sorry to disappoint you but I spend as much time denying the existence of the god of your imagination as I do denying the existence of unicorns and pixies.. none, except of course when I have to put you right on dreams and reality
Again you don't seem to understand BA I spend the same amount of days denying unicorns as I do denying your personal unicorns/gods.
Of course you could make this conversation mute by actually supplying some evidence for either gods or unicorns... your choice ;D
You see my mentally challenged friend I don't have a problem with peoples personal beliefs unicorns or otherwise so long as they a) don't affect my life and b) you don't try and make out that they in some way a 'fact'.
As I have pointed out faith is faith, unicornist and theists can believe what they want but it doesn't make it real.
Take a leaf out of Gonnagles book and who goes on faith and it's personal to him something I can accept.
In reply to your pig-ignorant and abusive post, I repeat: you are an anti-theist obsessive, and your lame excuses cannot hide that. But the fact is, you are here, and you sit in some dingy attic ladling out your cheap "rhetoric," to no avail. Can't your little mind see that nobody gives a witch's waddle what you say , or think? Have a good day. ;)
WTF is a witch's waddle
?
-
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Oh BA your pure comedy gold.. or you would be if you didn't take yourself so seriously (fortunately you are the only one who does!).
So you want me to make the same points again?
OK might as well just cut and paste and hopefully this time you might get someone to read/explain it to you, any 5 year old handy? ;)
Of course it is BA as your posts frequently infer it's always someone else with the problem ::)
See that is the pattern of fundies.. they blindly just keep repeating the same things rather than actually questioning themselves and their "beliefs" who knows everyone else might be right and you might be wrong (if you can conceive of such a possibility) :o
Sorry to disappoint you but I spend as much time denying the existence of the god of your imagination as I do denying the existence of unicorns and pixies.. none, except of course when I have to put you right on dreams and reality
Again you don't seem to understand BA I spend the same amount of days denying unicorns as I do denying your personal unicorns/gods.
Of course you could make this conversation mute by actually supplying some evidence for either gods or unicorns... your choice ;D
You see my mentally challenged friend I don't have a problem with peoples personal beliefs unicorns or otherwise so long as they a) don't affect my life and b) you don't try and make out that they in some way a 'fact'.
As I have pointed out faith is faith, unicornist and theists can believe what they want but it doesn't make it real.
Take a leaf out of Gonnagles book and who goes on faith and it's personal to him something I can accept.
In reply to your pig-ignorant and abusive post, I repeat: you are an anti-theist obsessive, and your lame excuses cannot hide that. But the fact is, you are here, and you sit in some dingy attic ladling out your cheap "rhetoric," to no avail. Can't your little mind see that nobody gives a witch's waddle what you say , or think? Have a good day. ;)
WTF is a witch's waddle
?
Witch's waddle is a saying in these parts, which simply means you don't care. I have no idea of it's origins.
-
In reply to your pig-ignorant and abusive post, I repeat: you are an anti-theist obsessive, and your lame excuses cannot hide that. But the fact is, you are here, and you sit in some dingy attic ladling out your cheap "rhetoric," to no avail. Can't your little mind see that nobody gives a witch's waddle what you say , or think? Have a good day. ;)
WTF is a witch's waddle
?
Witch's waddle is a saying in these parts, which simply means you don't care. I have no idea of it's origins.
You lying sack of shit - it is something you made up in order to create an insult containing the word witch!
"In these parts" - meaning in the parts that you are supposed to use for thinking that have atrophied due to reliance on insult and the bible.
-
In reply to your pig-ignorant and abusive post, I repeat: you are an anti-theist obsessive, and your lame excuses cannot hide that. But the fact is, you are here, and you sit in some dingy attic ladling out your cheap "rhetoric," to no avail. Can't your little mind see that nobody gives a witch's waddle what you say , or think? Have a good day. ;)
WTF is a witch's waddle
?
Witch's waddle is a saying in these parts, which simply means you don't care. I have no idea of it's origins.
You lying sack of shit - it is something you made up in order to create an insult containing the word witch!
"In these parts" - meaning in the parts that you are supposed to use for thinking that have atrophied due to reliance on insult and the bible.
I am not lying, and you are a very immature and foul-mouthed old guy. Go and wash your mouth out with carbolic soap. :D
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
-
I can't prove that he's lying, of course, but the a quick search of the internet finds no links for the phrase 'Witch's waddle'... just how small are 'these parts', BA?
O.
-
I can't prove that he's lying, of course, but the a quick search of the internet finds no links for the phrase 'Witch's waddle'... just how small are 'these parts', BA?
O.
It is of no particular, consequence. Actually, I last heard it used on an edition of "Mock the Week," a while back. End of.
-
In reply to your pig-ignorant and abusive post, I repeat: you are an anti-theist obsessive, and your lame excuses cannot hide that. But the fact is, you are here, and you sit in some dingy attic ladling out your cheap "rhetoric," to no avail. Can't your little mind see that nobody gives a witch's waddle what you say , or think? Have a good day. ;)
WTF is a witch's waddle
?
Witch's waddle is a saying in these parts, which simply means you don't care. I have no idea of it's origins.
You lying sack of shit - it is something you made up in order to create an insult containing the word witch!
"In these parts" - meaning in the parts that you are supposed to use for thinking that have atrophied due to reliance on insult and the bible.
I am not lying, and you are a very immature and foul-mouthed old guy. Go and wash your mouth out with carbolic soap. :D
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
-
In reply to your pig-ignorant and abusive post, I repeat: you are an anti-theist obsessive, and your lame excuses cannot hide that. But the fact is, you are here, and you sit in some dingy attic ladling out your cheap "rhetoric," to no avail. Can't your little mind see that nobody gives a witch's waddle what you say , or think? Have a good day. ;)
WTF is a witch's waddle
?
Witch's waddle is a saying in these parts, which simply means you don't care. I have no idea of it's origins.
You lying sack of shit - it is something you made up in order to create an insult containing the word witch!
"In these parts" - meaning in the parts that you are supposed to use for thinking that have atrophied due to reliance on insult and the bible.
I am not lying, and you are a very immature and foul-mouthed old guy. Go and wash your mouth out with carbolic soap. :D
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
-
Colour is spelled with a u to you and I Matty, but it is not spelled with a u to hundreds of millions.
Writing the Bible has proper rules to follow. And judging form your posts, I would think you would demand that the proper rules be followed.
Or are you one of the sinister that this fella writes about?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Spelling-Bible-With-a-Capital-B&id=3920921
-
Colour is spelled with a u to you and I Matty, but it is not spelled with a u to hundreds of millions.
Writing the Bible has proper rules to follow. And judging form your posts, I would think you would demand that the proper rules be followed.
Or are you one of the sinister that this fella writes about?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Spelling-Bible-With-a-Capital-B&id=3920921
PDNFCFR
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Why would anybody that thinks the whole idea of god or gods is only for deluded people, want to deny the existence of something that's not there in the first place; I'm not denying the existence any kind of god, they don't exist in the first place to deny, other than in peoples minds. Unless, of course, you can prove me wrong which would be necessary due to the present lack of credible evidence, like zero evidence, to support this cranky idea of yours BA.
ippy
ippy
it's not merely me, dear ippy, but a couple of billion others, too, many of whom are more likely to be correct than you: or, rather, all of whom are more likely to be correct than you. :)
Trouble with what you're saying BA is that if you've got it wrong, as it is at the present time where none of you believers have any evidence that could support these superstitious, mythical and magic happenings described in your manual
It really wouldn't matter if there were two hundred billion, billion that believe in your manual, there is still zero evidence that supports the extremely unlikely mythical, magical superstition based ideas contained within your manual; it's exactly similar to when there was a large number of people that thought the Sun orbited the Earth, just because of the large numbers of people that believed this, believing it didn't make them right as you must be aware?
Try multiplying zero by a billion, you guessed, it's still zero.
ippy
-
Well said, Ippy.
It is such a shame that BA does not realise at all how obvious it is from his posts, with their sneers and lack of warmth, that he is projecting his own falts onto others.
-
Well said, Ippy.
It is such a shame that BA does not realise at all how obvious it is from his posts, with their sneers and lack of warmth, that he is projecting his own falts onto others.
when ippy goes on about delusions and people being potty, is he doing something similar to BA?
-
Well said, Ippy.
It is such a shame that BA does not realise at all how obvious it is from his posts, with their sneers and lack of warmth, that he is projecting his own falts onto others.
when ippy goes on about delusions and people being potty, is he doing something similar to BA?
Yes
-
Well said, Ippy.
It is such a shame that BA does not realise at all how obvious it is from his posts, with their sneers and lack of warmth, that he is projecting his own falts onto others.
when ippy goes on about delusions and people being potty, is he doing something similar to BA?
Perhaps, but Ippy has never started a thread with a quotation from another forum's rules, demanding that this would be better place with them and then breaking the same rules all over the place.
-
Well said, Ippy.
It is such a shame that BA does not realise at all how obvious it is from his posts, with their sneers and lack of warmth, that he is projecting his own falts onto others.
when ippy goes on about delusions and people being potty, is he doing something similar to BA?
Perhaps, but Ippy has never started a thread with a quotation from another forum's rules, demanding that this would be better place with them and then breaking the same rules all over the place.
so? None of of that is covered in Susan Doris' post so is surely irrelevant to that judgement?
-
Where is BA now?
ippy
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
PDNFCFR
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
PDNFCFR
Whatever that tosh is, I suppose it contains the usual expletives, hence the sneaky avoidance.
-
I'm not sure if anything is actually being discussed here. It seems to have deteriorated into rather petty point scoring. I don't think this thread is sustainable any more... perhaps it should be closed.
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
PDNFCFR
Whatever that tosh is, I suppose it contains the usual expletives, hence the sneaky avoidance.
It contains no expletives at all - it is perfectly polite. I have registered its contents with the Mods so that it does not get moderated after your inevitable accusation of obscenity.
You are supposed to be the one with the superior intellect - work it out - the answer is in an earlier post from me to you. If I, according to you an idiot, can create it, you, super-brain, can solve it!
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
PDNFCFR
Whatever that tosh is, I suppose it contains the usual expletives, hence the sneaky avoidance.
It contains no expletives at all - it is perfectly polite. I have registered its contents with the Mods so that it does not get moderated after your inevitable accusation of obscenity.
You are supposed to be the one with the superior intellect - work it out - the answer is in an earlier post from me to you. If I, according to you an idiot, can create it, you, super-brain, can solve it!
Can't be bothered, chum. Say what you mean, or forever hold your peace! :) Anyway, it's dinner time.
-
Can't be bothered, chum. Say what you mean, or forever hold your peace! :) Anyway, it's dinner time.
BA's way of saying "I am not intelligent enough to work it out".
-
Can't be bothered, chum. Say what you mean, or forever hold your peace! :) Anyway, it's dinner time.
BA's way of saying "I am not intelligent enough to work it out".
No, it's BA's way of saying, he can't be bothered, and if he was, more than likely it's either trivial, or abusive.
-
Can't be bothered, chum. Say what you mean, or forever hold your peace! :) Anyway, it's dinner time.
BA's way of saying "I am not intelligent enough to work it out".
No, it's BA's way of saying, he can't be bothered, and if he was, more than likely it's either trivial, or abusive.
It is neither trivial not abusive - try agian, sunshine!
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
Going by your post BA, are you saying that you don't care for an Atheist (a non-religious person would be a more accurate description but Atheist if you must, it's OK), appraisal of your manual?
So if one person has got it wrong multiply that number by a couple of billion and they've got it right, is that what you were trying to convey, only if not it certainly looked as though that's what you were saying?
I didn't refer to this bible of yours I used the word manual, I thought it might be a good idea to check to see if manual was a good description of your book, so I had a look into my copy of the OED the shorter version 6th edition 2007, where in one part it does actually refer to 'ecclesiastical history', so although you might not care for me substituting manual for bible, non the less it's an accurate description of the book we both with pre knowledge from previous posts knew what book I was referring to when I used the word manual.
Oh and I noticed that when I spell checked my own mailing my spell checker, set to British English, picked up three spelling mistakes in that post of yours, namely: uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable; remember it was my spell checker, not me, that picked up your mistakes.
Hope you have a better day today BA.
ippy
-
BA,
I'm sure those letters stand for something in Matty's witchamacallit. But the elderly acting like 10yr olds, on purpose, is what I find to be like a trip to the dentist. I don't know for sure if this is just who he is or is turning into. So angry all the time, so dark.
-
I'm not sure if anything is actually being discussed here. It seems to have deteriorated into rather petty point scoring. I don't think this thread is sustainable any more... perhaps it should be closed.
If your intellect is as vast as you appear to think it is why do you demean yourself by reading blogs from underlings that still need to use our knuckles when we transport ourselves about our daily lives.
Having said that it's good to know that such as yourself think that it's worth the effort to try steering us in a better direction from time; thank you so much for giving us your time.
ippy
-
I'm not sure if anything is actually being discussed here. It seems to have deteriorated into rather petty point scoring. I don't think this thread is sustainable any more... perhaps it should be closed.
If your intellect is as vast as you appear to think it is why do you demean yourself by reading blogs from underlings that still need to use our knuckles when we transport ourselves about our daily lives.
Having said that it's good to know that such as yourself think that it's worth the effort to try steering us in a better direction from time; thank you so much for giving us your time.
ippy
Think your being a bit harsh here Ippy.
I agree with Samuel this thread isn't really going anywhere - although I wouldn't go as far as suggesting it be closed it is still not an unreasonable proposition, and I didn't detect the air of superiority you seemd to have picked up. Just maybe frustration at the general drift to "my dad's bigger than your dad" ism.
-
BA,
I'm sure those letters stand for something in Matty's witchamacallit. But the elderly acting like 10yr olds, on purpose, is what I find to be like a trip to the dentist. I don't know for sure if this is just who he is or is turning into. So angry all the time, so dark.
Please Defend Non French Canadians From Ridicule?
Like that one Woody? Anything to help, you know me.
ippy
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
Going by your post BA, are you saying that you don't care for an Atheist (a non-religious person would be a more accurate description but Atheist if you must, it's OK), appraisal of your manual?
So if one person has got it wrong multiply that number by a couple of billion and they've got it right, is that what you were trying to convey, only if not it certainly looked as though that's what you were saying?
I didn't refer to this bible of yours I used the word manual, I thought it might be a good idea to check to see if manual was a good description of your book, so I had a look into my copy of the OED the shorter version 6th edition 2007, where in one part it does actually refer to 'ecclesiastical history', so although you might not care for me substituting manual for bible, non the less it's an accurate description of the book we both with pre knowledge from previous posts knew what book I was referring to when I used the word manual.
Oh and I noticed that when I spell checked my own mailing my spell checker, set to British English, picked up three spelling mistakes in that post of yours, namely: uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable; remember it was my spell checker, not me, that picked up your mistakes.
Hope you have a better day today BA.
ippy
Well done Ippy - a prime example of how to give BA a whip to hit you with - the three mispellings you quote - uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable are not BA's but mine. According to my Third edition 2005 of the Compact OED notes that - page vii lines 13 to 17 inclusive - with -ise and ize - either spelling can be used. The spelling -ise is far more common in British English, while -ize is usually found in American writing. The other two, for your information, are not mispellings but typos.
Hope that the rest of today is better for you ippy.
-
BA,
I'm sure those letters stand for something in Matty's witchamacallit. But the elderly acting like 10yr olds, on purpose, is what I find to be like a trip to the dentist. I don't know for sure if this is just who he is or is turning into. So angry all the time, so dark.
PDNFCFR
-
Not in the Oxford Dictionary. Is it American slang or a witchamacallit black spell?
-
I'm not sure if anything is actually being discussed here. It seems to have deteriorated into rather petty point scoring. I don't think this thread is sustainable any more... perhaps it should be closed.
If your intellect is as vast as you appear to think it is why do you demean yourself by reading blogs from underlings that still need to use our knuckles when we transport ourselves about our daily lives.
Having said that it's good to know that such as yourself think that it's worth the effort to try steering us in a better direction from time; thank you so much for giving us your time.
ippy
Think your being a bit harsh here Ippy.
I agree with Samuel this thread isn't really going anywhere - although I wouldn't go as far as suggesting it be closed it is still not an unreasonable proposition, and I didn't detect the air of superiority you seemd to have picked up. Just maybe frustration at the general drift to "my dad's bigger than your dad" ism.
And how do you know that my dad isn't bigger than your dad then.
Seriously the man snipes from the background quite a bit, for his own reasons?
He also thinks they go unnoticed.
I'm not that serious or easily get upset by posts, saying that I don't get upset by any of the posts I have seen here on this forum, but I must admit BA's posts make me wonder about him, I would imagine he's like most of the people that post here he's probably an OK guy and I think most of us here may well get on with each other face to face.
Like I've said before and will say again it's the ideas not the person.
The worst I've seen on here was that Welsh football coach's with his terrible attitude toward gay people, I couldn't possibly have anything to do with him.
ippy
-
Not in the Oxford Dictionary. Is it American slang or a witchamacallit black spell?
PDNFCFR
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
Going by your post BA, are you saying that you don't care for an Atheist (a non-religious person would be a more accurate description but Atheist if you must, it's OK), appraisal of your manual?
So if one person has got it wrong multiply that number by a couple of billion and they've got it right, is that what you were trying to convey, only if not it certainly looked as though that's what you were saying?
I didn't refer to this bible of yours I used the word manual, I thought it might be a good idea to check to see if manual was a good description of your book, so I had a look into my copy of the OED the shorter version 6th edition 2007, where in one part it does actually refer to 'ecclesiastical history', so although you might not care for me substituting manual for bible, non the less it's an accurate description of the book we both with pre knowledge from previous posts knew what book I was referring to when I used the word manual.
Oh and I noticed that when I spell checked my own mailing my spell checker, set to British English, picked up three spelling mistakes in that post of yours, namely: uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable; remember it was my spell checker, not me, that picked up your mistakes.
Hope you have a better day today BA.
ippy
Well done Ippy - a prime example of how to give BA a whip to hit you with - the three mispellings you quote - uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable are not BA's but mine. According to my Third edition 2005 of the Compact OED notes that - page vii lines 13 to 17 inclusive - with -ise and ize - either spelling can be used. The spelling -ise is far more common in British English, while -ize is usually found in American writing. The other two, for your information, are not mispellings but typos.
Hope that the rest of today is better for you ippy.
Beg your pud looks like I was wrong, it must have been my new glasses, my mistake apologies.
ippy.
PS. By the way me making a mistake doesn't add anything to BA's case he's not that difficult.
I'm the last person to pick up on spelling mistakes I wouldn't have noticed, my spelling ability is so poor I don't know how I would survive without spell checker, which picked up the spelling in that post, I didn't pick it up, and can't argue with anyone about the inns and out of spelling, I'm sure you must be right about the spelling.
-
Bible has a capital B, by the way.
To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.
It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not. It is simply a correct use of English. Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
2 - the Jewish scriptures;
3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible
N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.
Ignoramus. You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun. I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun. Got it? It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.
Going by your post BA, are you saying that you don't care for an Atheist (a non-religious person would be a more accurate description but Atheist if you must, it's OK), appraisal of your manual?
So if one person has got it wrong multiply that number by a couple of billion and they've got it right, is that what you were trying to convey, only if not it certainly looked as though that's what you were saying?
I didn't refer to this bible of yours I used the word manual, I thought it might be a good idea to check to see if manual was a good description of your book, so I had a look into my copy of the OED the shorter version 6th edition 2007, where in one part it does actually refer to 'ecclesiastical history', so although you might not care for me substituting manual for bible, non the less it's an accurate description of the book we both with pre knowledge from previous posts knew what book I was referring to when I used the word manual.
Oh and I noticed that when I spell checked my own mailing my spell checker, set to British English, picked up three spelling mistakes in that post of yours, namely: uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable; remember it was my spell checker, not me, that picked up your mistakes.
Hope you have a better day today BA.
ippy
Well done Ippy - a prime example of how to give BA a whip to hit you with - the three mispellings you quote - uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable are not BA's but mine. According to my Third edition 2005 of the Compact OED notes that - page vii lines 13 to 17 inclusive - with -ise and ize - either spelling can be used. The spelling -ise is far more common in British English, while -ize is usually found in American writing. The other two, for your information, are not mispellings but typos.
Hope that the rest of today is better for you ippy.
Beg your pud looks like I was wrong, it must have been my new glasses, my mistake apologies.
ippy
No apology necessary - except perhaps for having mixed me up with BA!
Goddess forbid!
-
Hey ippy axe man,
Get educated. Most of us Metis are half French.
http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_metis/fp_metis1.html
-
Hey ippy axe man,
Get educated. Most of us Metis are half French.
http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_metis/fp_metis1.html
Oh well I did try to help.
Your lot are doing too well at rugby these days, we might have to be finding ways to sabotage your team soon.
ippy
-
Axe man,
Rugby? Rugby is for panty waists.
-
Hey ippy axe man,
Get educated. Most of us Metis are half French.
http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_metis/fp_metis1.html
Oh well I did try to help.
Your lot are doing too well at rugby these days, we might have to be finding ways to sabotage your team soon.
ippy
Football (Soccer) - 90 minutes of trying to convince the referee you are hurt
Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not - and without the armour used in Gridiron and Ice Hockey!
-
Axe man,
Rugby? Rugby is for panty waists.
At least you don't need to dress up as a gorilla to play rugby, shorts, shirt, a pair of studded boots and a gumshield, thats it.
ippy
-
Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not
Well, most of the time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate
-
Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not
Well, most of the time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate
Tom Williams did not have to convince the referee that he was hurt, merely that he was bleeding. The injury did not have to be anything but a minor cut, but, under the rules, he had to come off to have the extent of the bleeding investigated.
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch and a substitute on to it. It was not, Soccer like, to get a player on the other team penalised or disciplined.
-
Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not
Well, most of the time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate
I have to say I'm quite surprised you feel the need to defend what was obviously a flippant comment from another flippant comment, but here goes...
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch
I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.
It was not, Soccer like, to get a player on the other team penalised or disciplined.
In your post you never specified any reason why football players feign injury and it's not always to get the other team officially penalised.
-
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch
I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!
-
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding,
Yes I agree and he feigned an injury.
not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
No, he simulated a blood injury.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
Dean Richards admitted to using the same tactic on four other occasions.
-
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding,
Yes I agree and he feigned an injury.
not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
No, he simulated a blood injury.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
Dean Richards admitted to using the same tactic on four other occasions.
Four other occasions Prior to the one that he got caught - a flippant comment tarring everyone in rugby with one man's chicanery! Years ago!
For me - end of!
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Why would anybody that thinks the whole idea of god or gods is only for deluded people, want to deny the existence of something that's not there in the first place; I'm not denying the existence any kind of god, they don't exist in the first place to deny, other than in peoples minds. Unless, of course, you can prove me wrong which would be necessary due to the present lack of credible evidence, like zero evidence, to support this cranky idea of yours BA.
ippy
ippy
The truth in your case is twofold.
A. You do not seek or want to know the one and only true God, so why would you need evidence?
B. The bible clearly expresses that those who seek God with a good heart finds him.
So the reality is that you, Ippy, have no idea what the bible says. And cannot find proof because you don't want it. But you cannot dismiss the beliefs of those who have when you have neither the knowledge or want to know God.
That sums it up!
-
but a couple of billion others
Ooh look ::) One for all you trainspotters.
The Earth must be flat.
23 Dec 2012
2.2 billion Christians (32 percent of the world's population). • 1.6 billion Muslims (23 percent).
• 1 billion Hindus (15 percent.
• 500 million Buddhists (7 percent).
You atheists... ::)
Size 10 foot and mouth comes to mind... Could have trouble retrieving this one Euston. ;D
-
but a couple of billion others
Ooh look ::) One for all you trainspotters.
The Earth must be flat.
Is that supposed to be funny, or perceptive? It's neither.
Ooh you're exceptionally grumpy at the moment.
Merely pointing out that at one time if one relied merely on numbers the Earth would indeed be flat.
Your argument citing 2 billion counts for nothing despite the huge number.
Well explain why it counts for nothing when it is true. So it counts for truth and it counts that 32% of the worlds population disagree with you and Ippy.
Which makes you both likely to be on the wrong side. I think it counts for a lot...
-
So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.
Argument from numbers proves nothing.
Your posts prove even less.
-
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch
I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!
It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. ;)
-
So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.
Argument from numbers proves nothing.
Your posts prove even less.
Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.
-
So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.
Argument from numbers proves nothing.
Your posts prove even less.
Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.
PMSL - for you to define my ignorance as staggeringly deafening is complimentary on levels you can't even understand.
-
So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.
Argument from numbers proves nothing.
Your posts prove even less.
Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.
Are you saying that if more people believe something, it makes it more likely to be true?
If so, then you would have had to conclude the Earth was flat, and that the Sun orbits the Earth at various times in the past. Did the Earth become a sphere when more people believed that, or was it always a sphere and at one time most people were wrong?
-
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch
I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!
It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. ;)
Actually - no. It was called Soccer here - from Association Football. The Americans call it soccer because they refer to Gridiron as football.
-
So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.
Argument from numbers proves nothing.
Your posts prove even less.
Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.
PMSL - for you to define my ignorance as staggeringly deafening is complimentary on levels you can't even understand.
I see you are intellectually challenged so did not understand the sound of ignorance being deafening.... I wrongly assumed you were educated enough to know the original saying which my comment referred to. Seems you were limited in your knowledge and had you not been you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of admitting you pissed yourself laughing because your ignorance.
Even more embarrassing the fact the joke is on yourself.
Should have took time to think about it.
-
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch
I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!
It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. ;)
Actually - no. It was called Soccer here - from Association Football. The Americans call it soccer because they refer to Gridiron as football.
You are wrong.. Football has always been football here. The Americans called it soccer. They obviously could not tell the difference between our football and Rugby. As for baseball is basically our rounders played by women in this country.
I suppose basketball another version of our netball. I was captain of both our netball and rounders team before I left school.
I remember years ago Frank Bough talking to the Osmond Family, He asked them what they thought of English football. Maria Osmond replied; You mean soccer and he instantly replied... NO, I mean football.
Because it is football...
-
So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.
Argument from numbers proves nothing.
Your posts prove even less.
Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.
PMSL - for you to define my ignorance as staggeringly deafening is complimentary on levels you can't even understand.
I see you are intellectually challenged so did not understand the sound of ignorance being deafening.... I wrongly assumed you were educated enough to know the original saying which my comment referred to. Seems you were limited in your knowledge and had you not been you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of admitting you pissed yourself laughing because your ignorance.
Even more embarrassing the fact the joke is on yourself.
Should have took time to think about it.
Once again I have to change my underpants. To be called intellectually challenged by such an enlightened, logical and intelligent person as yourself is truly humbling.
PS You are wrong about Soccer though. Football was referred to by both the names "football" and "soccer" in this country, football is now the more predominant name though.
But I expect you were too busy thinking about things on a higher plane than to bother about the mundane, oh great guru.
-
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch
I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!
It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. ;)
Actually - no. It was called Soccer here - from Association Football. The Americans call it soccer because they refer to Gridiron as football.
You are wrong.. Football has always been football here. The Americans called it soccer. They obviously could not tell the difference between our football and Rugby. As for baseball is basically our rounders played by women in this country.
I suppose basketball another version of our netball. I was captain of both our netball and rounders team before I left school.
I remember years ago Frank Bough talking to the Osmond Family, He asked them what they thought of English football. Maria Osmond replied; You mean soccer and he instantly replied... NO, I mean football.
Because it is football...
Wrong - Soccer - fron Association football to differenciate it from Rugby football!
-
For info from Wiki:
Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer,[3] is a sport played between two teams of eleven players with a spherical ball. It is played by 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport.[4][5][6][7] The game is played on a rectangular field with a goal at each end. The object of the game is to score by getting the ball into the opposing goal.
-
All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings
Ah your talking about others?
For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.
Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours ::)
the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc.
I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?
Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion ;D
I don't have a problem - it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.
Why would anybody that thinks the whole idea of god or gods is only for deluded people, want to deny the existence of something that's not there in the first place; I'm not denying the existence any kind of god, they don't exist in the first place to deny, other than in peoples minds. Unless, of course, you can prove me wrong which would be necessary due to the present lack of credible evidence, like zero evidence, to support this cranky idea of yours BA.
ippy
ippy
The truth in your case is twofold.
A. You do not seek or want to know the one and only true God, so why would you need evidence?
B. The bible clearly expresses that those who seek God with a good heart finds him.
So the reality is that you, Ippy, have no idea what the bible says. And cannot find proof because you don't want it. But you cannot dismiss the beliefs of those who have when you have neither the knowledge or want to know God.
That sums it up!
Hi there Sass I would have given you some much needed guidance earlier, shame about the break.
Now, you're right why would I want to know about something like this god idea of yours that, has as near to zero as you can get chance, of a probability of ever having existed.
Well you talk about this god idea in your head as though it, whatever it might be really exists, all without a scrap of evidence that might make this idea of yours show that you're not just another god head babbling on about a load of rubbishy, magical, mythical superstition based beliefs.
Im sure your manual does say "those who seek God with a good heart finds him", there's no good reason to seek anything that's odds on non-existent in the first place, again no evidence that would support this unlikely idea/belief.
If there were evidence found that conclusively supports your idea/belief that there is something referred to as god it would be very much in my interests to learn all that I could about this god thing/idea, even if it meant reading/studying the manual.
Again since you have zero evidence that could or would support your ideas/belief in this superstition based magical, mythical whatever it is thing you refer to as god, I don't think it's worth the bother at the moment thank you Sass.
It is fascinating to think and then see that there really are still people about, that are so totally taken in by such a load of old cobblers/nonsense.
ippy
-
Once again I have to change my underpants. To be called intellectually challenged by such an enlightened, logical and intelligent person as yourself is truly humbling.
Sarcasm...the lowest form of wit. And if wit was shit you would be constipated so find it hard to believe your underpants required a change.
PS You are wrong about Soccer though. Football was referred to by both the names "football" and "soccer" in this country, football is now the more predominant name though.
Not wrong at all.. Football has always ORIGINALLY been called football here.
Soccer is the Americans word for it.
But I expect you were too busy thinking about things on a higher plane than to bother about the mundane, oh great guru.
I have family who were football fans from it's start and so have a clearer notion and idea of what it was originally called. However it had many forms before the present day one. But my mothers family have been supporters since it became a known game in the 1800's. My family have been supporters of United since they first began my grandmother born in 1910 became a season ticket holder having watched with her Mother and grandparents since she was born.
I think Scotland was where the first real football started and I could be wrong. But soccer is not really English in that the Americans took it from here and obviously changed the name because of their American football. I think the words foot and ball give the game it's original name and reason it was called so,
You and I, know only what we are told. But my family know from their own personal history and love of football that they have always known it as, and called it football for generations.
One of my mothers ex-boyfriends was Dennis Viollet.
Look him up.... My family have a long history with football.
-
Once again I have to change my underpants. To be called intellectually challenged by such an enlightened, logical and intelligent person as yourself is truly humbling.
Sarcasm...the lowest form of wit. And if wit was shit you would be constipated so find it hard to believe your underpants required a change.
PS You are wrong about Soccer though. Football was referred to by both the names "football" and "soccer" in this country, football is now the more predominant name though.
Not wrong at all.. Football has always ORIGINALLY been called football here.
Soccer is the Americans word for it.
But I expect you were too busy thinking about things on a higher plane than to bother about the mundane, oh great guru.
I have family who were football fans from it's start and so have a clearer notion and idea of what it was originally called. However it had many forms before the present day one. But my mothers family have been supporters since it became a known game in the 1800's. My family have been supporters of United since they first began my grandmother born in 1910 became a season ticket holder having watched with her Mother and grandparents since she was born.
I think Scotland was where the first real football started and I could be wrong. But soccer is not really English in that the Americans took it from here and obviously changed the name because of their American football. I think the words foot and ball give the game it's original name and reason it was called so,
You and I, know only what we are told. But my family know from their own personal history and love of football that they have always known it as, and called it football for generations.
One of my mothers ex-boyfriends was Dennis Viollet.
Look him up.... My family have a long history with football.
I could be wrong.
Too right you might!
More often than not, quite frankly, especially in matters of believing that faith is the same as fact and that the bible is the unvarnished word of god and the ultimate truth.
Either you are a BA clone or he is a Sassy clone!
Neither of you can accept even the remote possibility that you could be in error on anything - if arrogance was wealth you two would own the world! And that would be a real disaster. For everyone other than you two.
-
Once again I have to change my underpants. To be called intellectually challenged by such an enlightened, logical and intelligent person as yourself is truly humbling.
Sarcasm...the lowest form of wit. And if wit was shit you would be constipated so find it hard to believe your underpants required a change.
PS You are wrong about Soccer though. Football was referred to by both the names "football" and "soccer" in this country, football is now the more predominant name though.
Not wrong at all.. Football has always ORIGINALLY been called football here.
Soccer is the Americans word for it.
But I expect you were too busy thinking about things on a higher plane than to bother about the mundane, oh great guru.
I have family who were football fans from it's start and so have a clearer notion and idea of what it was originally called. However it had many forms before the present day one. But my mothers family have been supporters since it became a known game in the 1800's. My family have been supporters of United since they first began my grandmother born in 1910 became a season ticket holder having watched with her Mother and grandparents since she was born.
I think Scotland was where the first real football started and I could be wrong. But soccer is not really English in that the Americans took it from here and obviously changed the name because of their American football. I think the words foot and ball give the game it's original name and reason it was called so,
You and I, know only what we are told. But my family know from their own personal history and love of football that they have always known it as, and called it football for generations.
One of my mothers ex-boyfriends was Dennis Viollet.
Look him up.... My family have a long history with football.
Quite a rational post about football there Sass, it shows that you can be rational, pitty the rational so rarely comes from your direction.
Ippy.
-
Not wrong at all.. Football has always ORIGINALLY been called football here.
Soccer is the Americans word for it.
Football has, but football in the 19th century meant many things including what we now call rugby. Soccer is a word meant specifically to describe one particular variety called "association football". "Soccer" as a word to describe the specific game we now call football predates the current usage of "football".
The word "soccer" was invented in England in the latter half of the 19th century.
-
The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch
I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.
All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.
He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.
However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.
AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.
The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!
It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. ;)
Actually - no. It was called Soccer here - from Association Football. The Americans call it soccer because they refer to Gridiron as football.
You are wrong.. Football has always been football here. The Americans called it soccer. They obviously could not tell the difference between our football and Rugby. As for baseball is basically our rounders played by women in this country.
I suppose basketball another version of our netball. I was captain of both our netball and rounders team before I left school.
I remember years ago Frank Bough talking to the Osmond Family, He asked them what they thought of English football. Maria Osmond replied; You mean soccer and he instantly replied... NO, I mean football.
Because it is football...
Wrong - Soccer - fron Association football to differenciate it from Rugby football!
Give that football is a game played by people kicking a ball with their foot it is pretty self evident that the name appropriately applies to football in a manner that it doesn't to either rugby or american football, which are games predominantly played with ball on hand (not on foot).
And given that football has been played for centuries, and centuries before either rugby or american football appeared, so the need to differentiate in the name is moot.
But actually I can't think of a single football fan who refers to their game as 'soccer' - indeed the only people who talk about soccer tend to be people who have no interest in the game whatsoever, and perhaps are rugby fans or american. So trying to redefine football as soccer really is the tail wagging the dog - i.e. fans of other sports which do not have the global presence of football trying to differentiate the global game (football) from their minority sports which erroneously use the term football even through they are predominantly played with foot to ball.
Sorry but it has to work the other way around. Football is football - the other minority sports need to differentiate themselves from football (if there is confusion), not the other way around.
-
Too right you might!
More often than not, quite frankly, especially in matters of believing that faith is the same as fact and that the bible is the unvarnished word of god and the ultimate truth.
Either you are a BA clone or he is a Sassy clone!
Neither of you can accept even the remote possibility that you could be in error on anything - if arrogance was wealth you two would own the world! And that would be a real disaster. For everyone other than you two.
Matthew Hopkins,
I see you have returned to an older name of yours.
I see you defer on to myself and BA, your own incapability of believing you could be in error. If you call faith arrogance then one can only assume that you are far wealthier than BA and I, in your arrogance.
The difference is BA and I, both discuss what we believe with the support of Christ and the bible. However, you have no grounds except your own personal choices. Now that is the real example of arrogance by an individual.
-
Give that football is a game played by people kicking a ball with their foot it is pretty self evident that the name appropriately applies to football in a manner that it doesn't to either rugby or american football, which are games predominantly played with ball on hand (not on foot).
That may be true now, but in the 19th century, there were many games called "football". "Soccer" is a term used to refer to one of the many varieties, one in which (unusually) you weren't allowed to pick the ball up.
And given that football has been played for centuries, and centuries before either rugby or american football appeared, so the need to differentiate in the name is moot.
The modern rules of football were codified in 1863. Prior to that, there were many different versions and the idea that there was a "one true football" where you couldn't pick the ball up is false.
Sorry but it has to work the other way around. Football is football - the other minority sports need to differentiate themselves from football (if there is confusion), not the other way around.
I would suggest that is the current state of affairs everywhere in the World except the USA.
-
Give that football is a game played by people kicking a ball with their foot it is pretty self evident that the name appropriately applies to football in a manner that it doesn't to either rugby or american football, which are games predominantly played with ball on hand (not on foot).
That may be true now, but in the 19th century, there were many games called "football". "Soccer" is a term used to refer to one of the many varieties, one in which (unusually) you weren't allowed to pick the ball up.
And given that football has been played for centuries, and centuries before either rugby or american football appeared, so the need to differentiate in the name is moot.
The modern rules of football were codified in 1863. Prior to that, there were many different versions and the idea that there was a "one true football" where you couldn't pick the ball up is false.
Sorry but it has to work the other way around. Football is football - the other minority sports need to differentiate themselves from football (if there is confusion), not the other way around.
I would suggest that is the current state of affairs everywhere in the World except the USA.
Regarding the history of the game - sure there were versions where you could pick up the ball - just as is the case now for the goalkeeper in their area. But self evidently any game that can realistically call itself football must largely involve foot to ball. And of course many of those earlier games did largely involve foot to ball, although throwing might have been allowed. And were played with a round ball. This is very different to rugby and american football where ball in hand predominates and the ball is shaped specifically to discourage kicking.
Sure the modern rules were codified in 1863, but this didn't suddenly create a new game, rather it codified a pre-existing game. Indeed there are earlier codes, e.g. the Cambridge code with are very similar to the codified version of 1863, and they were also based on earlier games.
-
For info from Wiki:
Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer,[3] is a sport played between two teams of eleven players with a spherical ball. It is played by 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport.[4][5][6][7] The game is played on a rectangular field with a goal at each end. The object of the game is to score by getting the ball into the opposing goal.
I obviously need to repost this for the benefit of those who are somewhat challenged by the task of comprehension.
-
Sassy said:
Soccer is the Americans word for it.
Would you like to rethink that darling?
The word soccer comes from an abbreviation for Association (from Association Football, the ‘official’ name for the game) plus the addition of the suffix –er. This suffix (originally Rugby School slang, and then adopted by Oxford University), was appended to ‘shortened’ nouns, in order to form jocular words. Rugger is probably the most common example, but other examples included in the Oxford English Dictionary are brekker (for breakfast), bonner (for bonfire), and cupper (a series of intercollegiate matches played in competition for a cup).
From here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/whats-the-origin-of-the-word-soccer
You'll note that it was British universities that invented the words rugger and soccer. No need to apologise - glad to help you to come to a new understanding of the origin of these words.
-
Regarding the history of the game - sure there were versions where you could pick up the ball - just as is the case now for the goalkeeper in their area. But self evidently any game that can realistically call itself football must largely involve foot to ball.
Unfortunately, in this case, history pisses on "self evident". The fact is that modern association football is a relatively recent invention and that most games called "football" in history had rules that allowed everybody to pick up the ball.
"Soccer" is a term that arose in Britain to distinguish Association Football from all the other versions. It's not wrong to call football soccer, and it is not an Americanism.
-
Since we are talking about origins of various football games, here is an article on the legend of William Webb Ellis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11843540/Rugby-World-Cup-William-Webb-Ellis-is-King-Arthur-figure-whose-reputation-as-games-inventor-may-be-a-myth.html
-
Unfortunately, in this case, history pisses on "self evident". The fact is that modern association football is a relatively recent invention and that most games called "football" in history had rules that allowed everybody to pick up the ball.
I disagree - if a word is a derivation of 'foot' and 'ball' and is a sport of game, self evidently it best applies to a game that predominantly uses the foot to move the ball. And actually many of the earlier games leading up to the codification had a key element that prevented running with the ball or passing from hand to hand. So although players were allowed to catch the ball, then then needed to pass by kicking the ball. Sure there is an evolution from that to the codified version (which was an evolution not a revolution), but the difference between those games and, for example, rugby is clear - that is a completely different game in which the key elements are passing the ball from hand to hand and running with the ball.
Hence the oft used quote about Webb Ellis as a boy "who with a fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time, first took the ball in his arms and ran with it"
"Soccer" is a term that arose in Britain to distinguish Association Football from all the other versions. It's not wrong to call football soccer, and it is not an Americanism.
I agree it isn't american in derivation, but actually associated with a public school Oxbridge slang - akin to rugger, Johnners, Blowers etc etc. And although football did evolve within an elite setting rapidly it became the game of the masses. And I think this may also be a reason why football fans across the decades have hated the term soccer. For a working class man from Sheffield I imagine using the slang of the Oxbridge elite must have sat pretty ill.
-
The Australians use football to describe their version of rugby league and their own Aussie rules football although it's still a version of football it's usually referred to as "Aussie rules", then our version of football is called soccer.
Anyway that's how my, now rather large, Australian family refer to those games.
They don't mention cricket to me because they know it induces severe attacks of narcolepsy.
ippy
-
I disagree - if a word is a derivation of 'foot' and 'ball' and is a sport of game, self evidently it best applies to a game that predominantly uses the foot to move the ball.
It doesn't matter whether it is best applied or not. The fact is that the term football has always been applied to games where you were allowed to handle the ball. It's still applied to games where you are allowed to handle the ball e.g. Rugby Football (two codes), American Football, Gaelic Football, Australian Rules Football.
Hence the oft used quote about Webb Ellis as a boy "who with a fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time, first took the ball in his arms and ran with it"
Ironically the rule he actually broke was not handling it but running with it and it wasn't actually Webb Ellis.
-
I disagree - if a word is a derivation of 'foot' and 'ball' and is a sport of game, self evidently it best applies to a game that predominantly uses the foot to move the ball.
It doesn't matter whether it is best applied or not. The fact is that the term football has always been applied to games where you were allowed to handle the ball. It's still applied to games where you are allowed to handle the ball e.g. Rugby Football (two codes), American Football, Gaelic Football, Australian Rules Football.
Hence the oft used quote about Webb Ellis as a boy "who with a fine disregard for the rules of football as played in his time, first took the ball in his arms and ran with it"
Ironically the rule he actually broke was not handling it but running with it and it wasn't actually Webb Ellis.
I think you are rather drifting away from the point. That was the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than, well, football.
And you will note that with the exception of american football, which due to the historical lack of proper football in the USA has come to be called just football there, the rest are never really referred to merely as 'football', but (at best) as 'something' football, as opposed to football (i.e. association football) which is known pretty well everywhere as just 'football' - and quite rightly too.
And the issue isn't whether you can handle the ball - actually within the rules (goalkeeper in the area) this is still part of the modern football game. No the key difference is the primary method to move ball from player to player - in football this is by kicking the ball (hence football) and was always the major route for transferring the ball between players even before codification, even if the ball was allowed to be caught and then kicked on to the next player. That is entirely different to rugby and american football where there main method of moving the ball is by passing from the hand to the hand.
-
I think you are rather drifting away from the point. That was the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than, well, football.
[/quote]
Nobody suggested that. Somebody suggested it shouldn't be called that, on the grounds that it is an Americanism. Then several other people pointed out that it is not an Americanism and it is fine to call it that.
-
Blimey, I only posted on Matt calling football 'soccer' because elsewhere on the same day we'd been discussing his low opinions of our cousins across the pond and I was pulling his leg. It's really not a big deal.
-
I think you are rather drifting away from the point. That was the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than, well, football.
Nobody suggested that.
[/quote]Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
And my earliest posts on the matter suggested that those that insist on calling the sport soccer (unless they are american) tend to do so because they aren't fans and often in a somewhat derogatory manner. Which was exactly the case in his post.
-
Jesus H fucking Kerist!
This place can be incredible! A 15 page thread most of which is dedicated to the definition of a word describing a game that pulls in enough money to pay stupid salaries to men who can kick a football but are virtually incapable of stringing together a cogent sentence!
It produces enough money to allow BRIBES that are big enough to make a very large dent in world poverty and what are 15 pages about?
Arguing over what the game is called in the UK.
I couldn't, to be honest, really give tuppeny damn what it is called except, perhaps, obscene in the amounts of money that allow those playing the game to live a life-style that most of the working people who pay their wages can only dream of.
Players are bought and sold - once upon a time if you bought or sold someone it was called slavery, but these poeople live like kings while there are kids who are homeless and starvng runnig up to the annual explosion of expediture that is called Christmas.
One weeks salary donarted by every soingle palyer in the Football Leagues four divisions could feed and clothe those kids for the whole following year!
Are they likely to ever do it?
I didn't post the cokmment about Soccer/Football in a derogatory manner, it was NOT the case in my post!
But the above is derogatory and those mentioned surely deserve derogation.
-
Matthew Hopkins,
I see you have returned to an older name of yours.
So what?
As to the rest of your post - do you really think that I care what you and BA think of my religious beliefs?
Yoiu consider them wrong - just as I consider yours to be rubbish - and as usual you and BA resport to insult when your values or comments upon any subject are questioned. Your god might, to you, be perfect, you and BA most certainly are not.
-
Jesus H fucking Kerist!
This place can be incredible! A 15 page thread most of which is dedicated to the definition of a word describing a game that pulls in enough money to pay stupis salaries to men who can kick a football but are virtually incapable of strining together a cogrnt sentence!
Be honest though, it is more interesting than listening to Bashful Anthony rant on about how we should have a set of rules that he, himself, can't keep.
-
Jesus H fucking Kerist!
This place can be incredible! A 15 page thread most of which is dedicated to the definition of a word describing a game that pulls in enough money to pay stupis salaries to men who can kick a football but are virtually incapable of strining together a cogrnt sentence!
It produces enough money to allow BRIBES that are big enough to make a very large dent in world poverty and what are 15 pages about?
Arguing over what the game is called in the UK.
I couldn't, to be honest, really give tuppeny damn what it is called except, perhaps, obscene in the amounts of money that allow those playing the game to live a life-style that most of the working people who pay their wages can only dream of.
Players are bought and sold - once upon a time if you bought or sold someone it was called slavery, but these poeople live like kings while there are kids who are homeless and starvng runnig up to the annual explosion of expediture that is called Christmas.
One weeks salary donarted by every soingle palyer in the Football Leagues four divisions could feed and clothe those kids for the whole following year!
Are they likely to ever do it?
I didn't post the cokmment about Soccer/Football in a derogatory manner, it was NOT the case in my post!
But the above is derogatory and those mentioned surely deserve derogation.
I sympathise and identify entirely with what you say, but I'm afraid that's the way humans are. We have evolved with the natural instinct to survive at all costs, and in general to put our families before everyone else.
Some people are more conscious of the plight of others and do what they can to help, but on the whole we are a selfish lot. We have dreamed up high ideals, totally ignoring the fact that nature has not equipped us to carry them through. All we can do is our best, but it will never be enough to solve our problems completely.
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And my earliest posts on the matter suggested that those that insist on calling the sport soccer (unless they are american) tend to do so because they aren't fans and often in a somewhat derogatory manner. Which was exactly the case in his post.
It's clearly true in his case that he has a low opinion of football but I've never met anybody who insists on calling football soccer, so I can't comment on the general case.
-
Jesus H fucking Kerist!
This place can be incredible! A 15 page thread most of which is dedicated to the definition of a word describing a game that pulls in enough money to pay stupis salaries to men who can kick a football but are virtually incapable of strining together a cogrnt sentence!
It produces enough money to allow BRIBES that are big enough to make a very large dent in world poverty and what are 15 pages about?
Arguing over what the game is called in the UK.
I couldn't, to be honest, really give tuppeny damn what it is called except, perhaps, obscene in the amounts of money that allow those playing the game to live a life-style that most of the working people who pay their wages can only dream of.
Players are bought and sold - once upon a time if you bought or sold someone it was called slavery, but these poeople live like kings while there are kids who are homeless and starvng runnig up to the annual explosion of expediture that is called Christmas.
One weeks salary donarted by every soingle palyer in the Football Leagues four divisions could feed and clothe those kids for the whole following year!
Are they likely to ever do it?
I didn't post the cokmment about Soccer/Football in a derogatory manner, it was NOT the case in my post!
But the above is derogatory and those mentioned surely deserve derogation.
I sympathise and identify entirely with what you say, but I'm afraid that's the way humans are. We have evolved with the natural instinct to survive at all costs, and in general to put our families before everyone else.
Some people are more conscious of the plight of others and do what they can to help, but on the whole we are a selfish lot. We have dreamed up high ideals, totally ignoring the fact that nature has not equipped us to carry them through. All we can do is our best, but it will never be enough to solve our problems completely.
Regrettably - too true!
-
Be honest though, it is more interesting than listening to Bashful Anthony rant on about how we should have a set of rules that he, himself, can't keep.
Indeed! There are few things more boring than the regurgitation of the religiously indoctrinated.
Hopefully, we will one day grow out of such primitive superstitions.
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And where did I ever claim that. Where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't. I claimed that this was about the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than football.
Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer - why - because that is the term he choses to use himself and when pulled up on it by Rhiannon justifies its use.
Now I'll happily accept americans using the term soccer, as this is the accepted term there and using football creates confusion with the game they call football. But there isn't the same excuse in the UK - anyone using the term soccer either uses it in ignorance of the fact that the football community (fans, players, teams etc etc) never uses it and don't like it, or in a kind of belittling and somewhat derogatory manner. Owswing seems to fit the latter rather well.
And my earliest posts on the matter suggested that those that insist on calling the sport soccer (unless they are american) tend to do so because they aren't fans and often in a somewhat derogatory manner. Which was exactly the case in his post.
It's clearly true in his case that he has a low opinion of football but I've never met anybody who insists on calling football soccer, so I can't comment on the general case.
I've met a fair few (in the UK) and they tend to fall into the categories I mentioned above.
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And where did I ever claim that. Where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't. I claimed that this was about the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than football.
Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer - why - because that is the term he choses to use himself and when pulled up on it by Rhiannon justifies its use.
Now I'll happily accept americans using the term soccer, as this is the accepted term there and using football creates confusion with the game they call football. But there isn't the same excuse in the UK - anyone using the term soccer either uses it in ignorance of the fact that the football community (fans, players, teams etc etc) never uses it and don't like it, or in a kind of belittling and somewhat derogatory manner. Owswing seems to fit the latter rather well.
And my earliest posts on the matter suggested that those that insist on calling the sport soccer (unless they are american) tend to do so because they aren't fans and often in a somewhat derogatory manner. Which was exactly the case in his post.
It's clearly true in his case that he has a low opinion of football but I've never met anybody who insists on calling football soccer, so I can't comment on the general case.
I've met a fair few (in the UK) and they tend to fall into the categories I mentioned above.
Just what are you a Professor of?
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And where did I ever claim that. Where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't. I claimed that this was about the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than football.
Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer - why - because that is the term he choses to use himself and when pulled up on it by Rhiannon justifies its use.
Now I'll happily accept americans using the term soccer, as this is the accepted term there and using football creates confusion with the game they call football. But there isn't the same excuse in the UK - anyone using the term soccer either uses it in ignorance of the fact that the football community (fans, players, teams etc etc) never uses it and don't like it, or in a kind of belittling and somewhat derogatory manner. Owswing seems to fit the latter rather well.
And my earliest posts on the matter suggested that those that insist on calling the sport soccer (unless they are american) tend to do so because they aren't fans and often in a somewhat derogatory manner. Which was exactly the case in his post.
It's clearly true in his case that he has a low opinion of football but I've never met anybody who insists on calling football soccer, so I can't comment on the general case.
I've met a fair few (in the UK) and they tend to fall into the categories I mentioned above.
Just what are you a Professor of?
Why is that relevant?
-
You might have an academic concern that names of games are strictly defined?
-
You might have an academic concern that names of games are strictly defined?
Nope.
Just your average football fan's loathing of people in Britain referring to football as soccer. As I've said before, I'll accept it from americans as there is genuine confusion. But not so in the UK - no-one in the UK is confused if you talk about football, they know perfectly well you are talking about the 11 player, round ball game (aka association football) and not any other kind of game. So why use a term that has no acceptance within the footballing community in Britain and, as I've said before, tends to be used only by people who show no interest in the sport, are often actively negative toward it and also often look down their noses at it (preferring 'rugger' of course).
It is kind of like referring to the olympic sport where Jonathan Edwards won gold for GB as 'hop, skip and jump' or the olympic sport often dominated by the Chinese as 'ping pong' or even 'wiff waff'!
-
Prof, you are probably right ... but I don't think anyone cares!
-
Prof, you are probably right ... but I don't think anyone cares!
Millions of football fans care.
-
Prof, you are probably right ... but I don't think anyone cares!
Millions of football fans care.
Prove it! Have yoiu actually polled millions of fans?
I rather doubt it!
-
Prof, you are probably right ... but I don't think anyone cares!
Millions of football fans care.
Prove it! Have yoiu actually polled millions of fans?
I rather doubt it!
I have to agree with the prof.
I mix with many football fans, and none of them call it soccer.
In the US I might refer to it as soccer (if I remember), but more likely forget and just call it football, then have to correct myself.
I would imagine anywhere else in the world, I could just say football, and it would cause no confusion.
-
Prof, you are probably right ... but I don't think anyone cares!
Millions of football fans care.
Prove it! Have yoiu actually polled millions of fans?
I rather doubt it!
I have to agree with the prof.
I mix with many football fans, and none of them call it soccer.
In the US I might refer to it as soccer (if I remember), but more likely forget and just call it football, then have to correct myself.
I would imagine anywhere else in the world, I could just say football, and it would cause no confusion.
Shrugs!
-
Prof, you are probably right ... but I don't think anyone cares!
Millions of football fans care.
Prove it! Have yoiu actually polled millions of fans?
I rather doubt it!
Why don't you try a little experiment owlswing.
Pop into a pub near to a football ground before or after a match. It will be filled with football fans enjoying a pre- or post- match drink. Ask them whether they are looking forward to the 'soccer', whether they watched a good 'soccer' match. Check out the response.
If you are lucky (and the fans are in a good mood) the response will be derision. If in a bad mood - well the response might be rather stronger.
Football fans in Britain refer to their game as football, not soccer, and their attitude toward use of the term soccer isn't merely neutral.
-
Prof, you are probably right ... but I don't think anyone cares!
Millions of football fans care.
Prove it! Have yoiu actually polled millions of fans?
I rather doubt it!
Why don't you try a little experiment owlswing.
Pop into a pub near to a football ground before or after a match. It will be filled with football fans enjoying a pre- or post- match drink. Ask them whether they are looking forward to the 'soccer', whether they watched a good 'soccer' match. Check out the response.
If you are lucky (and the fans are in a good mood) the response will be derision. If in a bad mood - well the response might be rather stronger.
Football fans in Britain refer to their game as football, not soccer, and their attitude toward use of the term soccer isn't merely neutral.
So fottball supportes are still a bunch of thugs?
I do not give a tuppeny stuff about who believes what - what I have argued is that "socce" stands for Association Football regardless of the current usage!
-
So fottball supportes are still a bunch of thugs?
Yet more ill-informed negative stereotyping of football supporters - then I guess that is exactly what I'd expect from someone who calls football 'soccer'.
I do not give a tuppeny stuff about who believes what - what I have argued is that "socce" stands for Association Football regardless of the current usage!
So what - what relevance has earliest etymology to do with current usage. There are thousands of words that might have been derived in Britain but aren't accepted use anymore.
And actually I think there is an interesting element to its etymology which may, to some degree, explain the negativity that football fans have toward it. Namely that the type of slang used is what is called The Oxford 'ers' which is synonymous with the public school and Oxbridge elite. Not surprising then that football which rapidly developed into a working class game wasn't going to have anything to do with it. And further that those from that elite, who were very likely to be disdainful of football, maintained the term in a kind off 'looking down your nose' way at a sport of the hoi-paloi.
The sort of attitude that persists to this day in people who look down their noses at football and assume that all football fans must be thugs ... hmm remind you of anyone?
-
So football supporters are still a bunch of thugs?
Yet more ill-informed negative stereotyping of football supporters - then I guess that is exactly what I'd expect from someone who calls football 'soccer'.
From the prof neatly edited out to make me look like I am using "ill-informed negative stereotyping"
Just what I would expect from a football supporter
-
So football supporters are still a bunch of thugs?
Yet more ill-informed negative stereotyping of football supporters - then I guess that is exactly what I'd expect from someone who calls football 'soccer'.
From the prof neatly edited out to make me look like I am using "ill-informed negative stereotyping"
Just what I would expect from a football supporter
Err ... is that supposed to make sense?!?
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And where did I ever claim that. Where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't. I claimed that this was about the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than football.
Reply #323
I think you are rather drifting away from the point. That was the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than, well, football.
That is clearly implying that you think somebody said that football would be called soccer instead of football.
Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer
No, that is not clear at all. Owlswing certainly thinks it is OK to call it soccer and has defended his rationale for doing so himself, but he has not said that football should be called soccer in general by everybody.
- why - because that is the term he choses to use himself and when pulled up on it by Rhiannon justifies its use.
The pulling up was incorrect. defending his own use does not mean he thinks everybody should use the term.
-
I wasn't even pulling him up - to do so would be both pedantic and rude - it was just a gentle tease over him using an Americanism in the context of another conversation we were having. As if it matters.
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And where did I ever claim that. Where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't. I claimed that this was about the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than football.
Reply #323
I think you are rather drifting away from the point. That was the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than, well, football.
That is clearly implying that you think somebody said that football would be called soccer instead of football.
Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer
No, that is not clear at all. Owlswing certainly thinks it is OK to call it soccer and has defended his rationale for doing so himself, but he has not said that football should be called soccer in general by everybody.
- why - because that is the term he choses to use himself and when pulled up on it by Rhiannon justifies its use.
The pulling up was incorrect. defending his own use does not mean he thinks everybody should use the term.
I ask again - where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't.
You are adding 2 plus 2 and making 5, Jeremy.
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And where did I ever claim that. Where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't. I claimed that this was about the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than football.
Reply #323
I think you are rather drifting away from the point. That was the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than, well, football.
That is clearly implying that you think somebody said that football would be called soccer instead of football.
Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer
No, that is not clear at all. Owlswing certainly thinks it is OK to call it soccer and has defended his rationale for doing so himself, but he has not said that football should be called soccer in general by everybody.
- why - because that is the term he choses to use himself and when pulled up on it by Rhiannon justifies its use.
The pulling up was incorrect. defending his own use does not mean he thinks everybody should use the term.
I ask again - where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't.
You are adding 2 plus 2 and making 5, Jeremy.
Post #334
quote- Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer - why - because that is the term he choses to use himself - unquote
NOW STFU!
It is your football - take it play whatever you want to call it
-
I think to bring light to this very significant argument, we should compromise and all call it soccerball.
-
Yes they did - owlswing - which was the start of the whole discussion.
You're going to have to point out the post in which he said that, because I can't find it. I did find a couple of posts in which he called it soccer and posts in which he defended his use of the term, but no posts in which he claimed everybody should call it soccer.
And where did I ever claim that. Where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't. I claimed that this was about the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than football.
Reply #323
I think you are rather drifting away from the point. That was the suggestion that football should be called soccer rather than, well, football.
That is clearly implying that you think somebody said that football would be called soccer instead of football.
Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer
No, that is not clear at all. Owlswing certainly thinks it is OK to call it soccer and has defended his rationale for doing so himself, but he has not said that football should be called soccer in general by everybody.
- why - because that is the term he choses to use himself and when pulled up on it by Rhiannon justifies its use.
The pulling up was incorrect. defending his own use does not mean he thinks everybody should use the term.
I ask again - where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't.
You are adding 2 plus 2 and making 5, Jeremy.
Post #334
quote- Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer - why - because that is the term he choses to use himself - unquote
NOW STFU!
It is your football - take it play whatever you want to call it
The issue isn't what I call it - I use the accepted term in Britain - the term used by and preferred by people who are part of the football community. No, the issue is the term you choose to you - a term that isn't an accepted term in the UK, one that isn't used by the football community, is disliked by the football community and is usually associated with a derogatory attitude toward the game.
So if I use the term 'triple jump' for the olympic sport but you insist on calling it 'hop,skip and jump' then the issue is with you, not me.
-
I think to bring light to this very significant argument, we should compromise and all call it soccerball.
No thanks NS - football works fine ;)
-
Moving on from the knockabout stuff - I think the origin of the term soccer and understanding the context within the game when it was coined may allow us to understand why football fans are so negative toward the term.
Remember the term arose from a public school and Oxbridge slang approach - i.e. associated totally with the elite in Britain. It was first coined in the 1890s and usually attributed to Charles Wreford-Brown, who was very clearly part of that elite (Charterhouse school, Oxford).
Now although it is not as well recognised as in rugby (schism between union-amateur vs league-professional) the same battle was raging in football at the time. In other words between those that wanted football to be a 'gentleman's sport played in a purely amateur manner and therefore only by the wealthy, as they were the only ones who could afford the loss of time/earnings associated with the elite sport and those that thought that the sport should be professional and allow working class to play at the top level. The former were linked to teams from public schools (Old Etonians, Old Carthusians etc) who remember dominated the early years of the FA cup.
The battle reached its peak at just about the point when soccer as a term was coined and would undoubtedly have become synonymous with the elite, public school, amateur, gentleman game. Indeed Wreford-Brown was apparently the leader of those trying to ensure that football was amateur and the fiercest critic of those trying to ensure the game could be professional. So he would, undoubtedly have been a bogey man, a figure of hate to those that felt he was trying to prevent the game being widened to the working classes, and in particular the northern working class clubs as he really wanted the sport restricted to the southern teams that were linked to public schools, universities etc and wanted it to be resolutely amateur (in the manner that rugby union was for decades).
Now those from the professional 'side' associated with clubs embedded in the working class areas won the day (and the public school clubs vanished from the elite game). At that point the game became a resolutely working class game, with the public school elite largely disowning the sport and shifting to rugby etc.
Given that background it is not surprising that even back at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries the majority of football fans (supporting as they did the professional working class clubs) would have seen those, including Wreford-Brown, as bogey men and therefore hated the term that was inextricably associated with the public school elite who had tried to prevent their clubs from succeeding and had wanted to restrict the sport to a small public school, elite. And of course that term was soccer.
So a brief glance at history explain why, even decades ago, football fans have always used the term football and be deeply suspicious of the term soccer. And that attitude remains to this day, albeit there has been a shift in the focus of the negativity - away from people trying to restrict their sport to a public school elite, but rather a view that the term is american. But actually a theme does remain - a view that those that use the term soccer in Britain do so in a derogatory manner, effectively looking down their nose at the sport, exactly as Wreford-Brown did about the professional game all those years ago.
-
Dear Prof,
Aye!! but why soccer, is it something to do with socks and more importantly, what is this thread about :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
I feel really bad now. It was only supposed to be a flipping joke. :(
-
Who was to know it was a vital issue in the class war?
-
I feel really bad now. It was only supposed to be a flipping joke. :(
I wouldn't feel bad.
I think the origins of the term and its link to the social history of football is quite interesting. That football was once the preserve of the public school, amateur elite seems rather strange to us now as we tend to consider it to be very much the game of 'the people' rather than the establishment.
But of course it was once dominated by the amateur clubs associated with public schools (check out the early winners of the FA cup) and there was a major battle between the gentleman, amateur view and the developing professional game which started off being dominated by the amateur view (professionals banned, or rarely picked for international matches, or even forced to wear different colours in matches), but ultimately was won by the developing professional clubs.
And I strongly suspect that the animosity toward the term soccer by British football fans down the decades actually has its origins in that battle.
-
I think there is an equivalent in rugby.
Remember that 'soccer' for association football has the same public school, Oxbridge slang derivation as 'rugger' for rugby.
And I think that just as 'soccer' probably was synonymous with the amateur, gentleman's game during the battle between amateur and profession, the same is true for 'rugger' and the amateur version. So in the case of rugby there was a complete split between the amateur rugby union and the professional rugby league. And I believe that 'rugger' remains a term used in conjunction with union (and specifically with a posh public school image of the sport) and shunned by league fans.
-
Dear Prof,
Late 19th century: shortening of Assoc. + -er.
Maybe we call it football because the above is bloody stupid.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Late 19th century: shortening of Assoc. + -er.
Maybe we call it football because the above is bloody stupid.
Gonnagle.
Indeed - but that's how the slang went in the 'Oxford - er' approach. See also breakers (for breakfast), shampers (for champagne), divvers (for divinity), bodders (for the Bodlean library), twickers (for Twickenham) etc.
Or even, err footer for football.
I can't remember people using footer when I was a kid - footy, yes, but not footer.
-
Dear Prof,
Late 19th century: shortening of Assoc. + -er.
Maybe we call it football because the above is bloody stupid.
Gonnagle.
Indeed - but that's how the slang went in the 'Oxford - er' approach. See also breakers (for breakfast), shampers (for champagne), divvers (for divinity), bodders (for the Bodlean library), twickers (for Twickenham) etc.
Or even, err footer for football.
I can't remember people using footer when I was a kid - footy, yes, but not footer.
Footer is a verb in Scotland - there has been a lot of footering about on this this thread
-
... something about putting your foot in it.... nobody thinks its funny... I sheepishly leave the thread feeling mildly embarrassed
-
Dear Prof,
Late 19th century: shortening of Assoc. + -er.
Maybe we call it football because the above is bloody stupid.
Gonnagle.
Indeed - but that's how the slang went in the 'Oxford - er' approach. See also breakers (for breakfast), shampers (for champagne), divvers (for divinity), bodders (for the Bodlean library), twickers (for Twickenham) etc.
Or even, err footer for football.
I can't remember people using footer when I was a kid - footy, yes, but not footer.
Footer is a verb in Scotland - there has been a lot of footering about on this this thread
;D
-
... something about putting your foot in it.... nobody thinks its funny... I sheepishly leave the thread feeling mildly embarrassed
Nope - I think it means fiddling or fidgeting with something, usually rather aimlessly or pointlessly. NS will confirm.
-
Indeed it covers slightly more than that, pointless discussions might be described as footering about. It's originally more physical meaning applies to anything now.
-
Indeed it covers slightly more than that, pointless discussions might be described as footering about. It's originally more physical meaning applies to anything now.
Although this thread may be 'footering about' rather more than some others, I think this term applies rather well to the whole MB ;)
-
Sassy said: Soccer is the Americans word for it.
Would you like to rethink that darling?
The word soccer comes from an abbreviation for Association (from Association Football, the ‘official’ name for the game) plus the addition of the suffix –er. This suffix (originally Rugby School slang, and then adopted by Oxford University), was appended to ‘shortened’ nouns, in order to form jocular words. Rugger is probably the most common example, but other examples included in the Oxford English Dictionary are brekker (for breakfast), bonner (for bonfire), and cupper (a series of intercollegiate matches played in competition for a cup).
From here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/whats-the-origin-of-the-word-soccer
You'll note that it was British universities that invented the words rugger and soccer. No need to apologise - glad to help you to come to a new understanding of the origin of these words.
We are not talking origins of word. It is a fact that Soccer is the American word for our FOOTBALL the true football. Now I could go through all the additions to the Oxford dictionaries but they WON'T give you origin of word or when first used. It will say when first added, I have to go from my experience and the fact that football was always football here and in America Soccer.
It does not and never can equate to the fact our language has changed both here and in the USA. If you look at grave stones in graveyards you will find our words in old English were spelled differently. But each was acceptable to every area.
I believe you are trying to make something acceptable NOT acceptable in English football. It is football never soccer for the English.
Sorry if it hurts you. But fact is fact not assumption as you reflect on this from your own living and modern writings in books. English is FOOTBALL. IN America it is soccer. Use of both words would be acceptable here and everywhere but it won't change the fact FOOTBALL is English and Soccer American in use for the English football game. Both used world wide but FOOTBALL represents different games in both countries What is foortball in America.
-
Oh piss off sassy.
I have only ever pointed out that the two words exist to describe the same game. You denied it. You were wrong.
And this site certainly testifies to the fact that the word soccer was widely used by the sport itself in the 60's.
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/World_Soccer_1960.html
-
Indeed, the message board is a bit of footering about, but one that has brought me a number of friends, some footering is almost a necessity. No footering and I dread to think what would happen.
-
Indeed, the message board is a bit of footering about, but one that has brought me a number of friends, some footering is almost a necessity. No footering and I dread to think what would happen.
Life gets dull without some footering now and again.
-
Just to note that rather like using ashet for a dish, I suspect footer or fouter is based on the French foutre.
-
Oh piss off sassy.
I have only ever pointed out that the two words exist to describe the same game. You denied it. You were wrong.
And this site certainly testifies to the fact that the word soccer was widely used by the sport itself in the 60's.
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/World_Soccer_1960.html
I must admit I can't remember soccer being a term actually used by fans in my lifetime, and certainly none of the people of my father's generation (born 1934) I knew who were football fans used it. Nor did my grandparents (born 1902 and 1910 and supporters of Burnley and Man C respectively). I think (as you point out) there was some use of the term in the media - news, magazine's etc but that's a bit different to it being the accepted term or a regularly used term by fans themselves. And you might want to ask who was running those media outlets that took an editorial decision to use soccer rather than football.
-
Dear Prof,
Late 19th century: shortening of Assoc. + -er.
Maybe we call it football because the above is bloody stupid.
Gonnagle.
Indeed - but that's how the slang went in the 'Oxford - er' approach. See also breakers (for breakfast), shampers (for champagne), divvers (for divinity), bodders (for the Bodlean library), twickers (for Twickenham) etc.
Or even, err footer for football.
I can't remember people using footer when I was a kid - footy, yes, but not footer.
Oh dear - a Professor who can't spell - breakers (for breakfast) should read "brekkers", shampers (for champagne) should read "champers" and "twickers" is capitalised.
-
Dear Prof,
Late 19th century: shortening of Assoc. + -er.
Maybe we call it football because the above is bloody stupid.
Gonnagle.
Indeed - but that's how the slang went in the 'Oxford - er' approach. See also breakers (for breakfast), shampers (for champagne), divvers (for divinity), bodders (for the Bodlean library), twickers (for Twickenham) etc.
Or even, err footer for football.
I can't remember people using footer when I was a kid - footy, yes, but not footer.
Oh dear - a Professor who can't spell - breakers (for breakfast) should read "brekkers", shampers (for champagne) should read "champers" and "twickers" is capitalised.
Sack me then - oh I forgot I'm not a professor of spelling.
Actually you are right on brekkers (and this was an autocorrect anomaly), and also, sure Twickers not twickers - but not shampers which (according to wikipedia) is a accepted Oxford 'er' for champagne, although champers is also an alternative spelling.
-
Oh piss off sassy.
I have only ever pointed out that the two words exist to describe the same game. You denied it. You were wrong.
And this site certainly testifies to the fact that the word soccer was widely used by the sport itself in the 60's.
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/World_Soccer_1960.html
I must admit I can't remember soccer being a term actually used by fans in my lifetime, and certainly none of the people of my father's generation (born 1934) I knew who were football fans used it. Nor did my grandparents (born 1902 and 1910 and supporters of Burnley and Man C respectively). I think (as you point out) there was some use of the term in the media - news, magazine's etc but that's a bit different to it being the accepted term or a regularly used term by fans themselves. And you might want to ask who was running those media outlets that took an editorial decision to use soccer rather than football.
I'm not making the argument that it is used by fans - I never have used it - but was always aware that it was an alternative name for football which is what I have tried (in vain) to explain to Sassy.
-
Oh piss off sassy.
I have only ever pointed out that the two words exist to describe the same game. You denied it. You were wrong.
And this site certainly testifies to the fact that the word soccer was widely used by the sport itself in the 60's.
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/World_Soccer_1960.html
I must admit I can't remember soccer being a term actually used by fans in my lifetime, and certainly none of the people of my father's generation (born 1934) I knew who were football fans used it. Nor did my grandparents (born 1902 and 1910 and supporters of Burnley and Man C respectively). I think (as you point out) there was some use of the term in the media - news, magazine's etc but that's a bit different to it being the accepted term or a regularly used term by fans themselves. And you might want to ask who was running those media outlets that took an editorial decision to use soccer rather than football.
I'm not making the argument that it is used by fans - I never have used it - but was always aware that it was an alternative name for football which is what I have tried (in vain) to explain to Sassy.
Sure - but (as far as I can see) not one that was ever accepted by British football fans. Perhaps not even a term that was ever acceptable to British football fans.
-
Presumably it was acceptable to those fans having brekkers with or before champers /shampers maybe on their way to Twickers, possibly stopping off to piss on someone's bonners?
-
I ask again - where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't.
You are adding 2 plus 2 and making 5, Jeremy.
I have pointed it out once. I'm not going to do it again. You may think your words do not say what they say, but they do.
-
Presumably it was acceptable to those fans having brekkers with or before champers /shampers maybe on their way to Twickers, possibly stopping off to piss on someone's bonners?
Do they count as British? Maybe they could be considered to be the degenerate offspring of the old Norman overlords? Or German?
:)
-
Presumably it was acceptable to those fans having brekkers with or before champers /shampers maybe on their way to Twickers, possibly stopping off to piss on someone's bonners?
Do they count as British? Maybe they could be considered to be the degenerate offspring of the old Norman overlords? Or German?
Buggered if I know.
-
Presumably it was acceptable to those fans having brekkers with or before champers /shampers maybe on their way to Twickers, possibly stopping off to piss on someone's bonners?
In other words Charles Wreford-Brown and his amateur, gentleman's game, public school chums. Which is perhaps why it never caught on with the largely working class fans of the developing professional clubs that came to prominence during the 'battle' between the amateur and professional visions of the game in the 1880s and 1890s. And perhaps why Wreford-Brown and the term he coined were maybe seen as the villains of the piece.
Perhaps check out some of his antics that show how much he despised and derided the notion of professional football.
-
I ask again - where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't.
You are adding 2 plus 2 and making 5, Jeremy.
I have pointed it out once. I'm not going to do it again. You may think your words do not say what they say, but they do.
No they don't - again where have I ever claimed that owlswing (or anyone else for that matter) claimed that everyone should use the term soccer. I didn't.
Perhaps read what I actually said, not what you think I said. And perhaps if you are confused why don't you simply ask me to clarify what I meant.
-
Dearest Diary,
Soccer, Rugger, Gonners :P :P hell those Oxford chaps had no imagination, and yes this is a very weird thread.
Gonnagle. AKA, Gonners.
-
I ask again - where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't.
You are adding 2 plus 2 and making 5, Jeremy.
I have pointed it out once. I'm not going to do it again. You may think your words do not say what they say, but they do.
No they don't - again where have I ever claimed that owlswing (or anyone else for that matter) claimed that everyone should use the term soccer. I didn't.
Perhaps read what I actually said, not what you think I said. And perhaps if you are confused why don't you simply ask me to clarify what I meant.
AGAIN - see posts 334 and 352 - I repeat - ypou posted in 352
{quote] Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer - why - because that is the term he choses to use himself - [/quote]
Now admit you said it!
-
I ask again - where did I say that this discussion was about someone thinking that everyone should use the term soccer - I didn't.
You are adding 2 plus 2 and making 5, Jeremy.
I have pointed it out once. I'm not going to do it again. You may think your words do not say what they say, but they do.
No they don't - again where have I ever claimed that owlswing (or anyone else for that matter) claimed that everyone should use the term soccer. I didn't.
Perhaps read what I actually said, not what you think I said. And perhaps if you are confused why don't you simply ask me to clarify what I meant.
AGAIN - see posts 334 and 352 - I repeat - ypou posted in 352
{quote] Clearly owlswing thinks football should be called soccer - why - because that is the term he choses to use himself -
Now admit you said it!
[/quote]Admit what?
Sure I said that you thought that football should be called soccer, for the obvious reason that that's the term you have chosen to use. If you'd have thought hat football should be called ... err ... football, then you'd have called it football instead of soccer.
What I never claimed (yet what Jeremy P seem to think I did) was that you thought that everyone should call football, soccer, rather than ... err ... football.
Seeing as you seem to be wading in too - please point out where I ever claimed that you (or anyone else for that matter) claimed that everyone should use the term soccer. I didn't.
-
Oh piss off sassy.
I have only ever pointed out that the two words exist to describe the same game. You denied it. You were wrong.
And this site certainly testifies to the fact that the word soccer was widely used by the sport itself in the 60's.
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/World_Soccer_1960.html
Now you are telling pure untruths... You cannot stand being found in the wrong...can you.
-
Now you are telling pure untruths... You cannot stand being found in the wrong...can you.
You do know red wine late at night or early in the morning makes you post to threads that were dead and buried weeks ago.
I told no untruths - I gave evidence that football was called soccer, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar.
I don't actually care what its called - but ftr I have always called it football. I was only commenting on it because some people (you) seem to have an appallingly poor understanding of the English language.
-
So BA wants special privileges for Christians but expects to insult pagan beliefs with impunity.
Nothing new there.
ippy
-
BA has been quiet for almost a month. Whilst I find his constant b*tching very annoying, to say the least, I hope his health hasn't taken a turn for the worst.
-
BA has been quiet for almost a month. Whilst I find his constant b*tching very annoying, to say the least, I hope his health hasn't taken a turn for the worst.
Not a very likeable person but I don't wish him any ill, has he got a problem Floo?
ippy
-
Is anybody in contact with him personally and in a position to find out? Floo used to be but that was some time ago.
-
Wasn't he suspended for some time?
-
Wasn't he suspended for some time?
Yes but not for long.
-
I am no longer in personal contact with BA. He turned on me in a most unpleasant way, even though I had tried to be there for him. :(
He has significant physical health problems, but it is not for me to divulge them.
BA was given a 10 day suspension in December.
-
December 11th to be precise, and he was last active on the 21st.
-
You do know red wine late at night or early in the morning makes you post to threads that were dead and buried weeks ago.
I told no untruths - I gave evidence that football was called soccer, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar.
I don't actually care what its called - but ftr I have always called it football. I was only commenting on it because some people (you) seem to have an appallingly poor understanding of the English language.
The argument was not if the term soccer was used for football.
The argument was that it was an American term used for our English football. Which is football because their football cannot be called football in their country. We know and Knew the term soccer is what the Americans used to refer to our English football. But the fact remains I pointed out that FOOTBALL is the correct name in this Country and Americans football is really a form of our Rugby. That football was invented here and the term soccer came from America.
SO you were in the wrong because you said English football was called soccer here. But it has always been football here.
Americans invented their own variant of the game that they simply called 'football' in the early 1900s. 'Association football' became 'soccer' in America, and what was called 'gridiron' in Britain became simply 'football' in America
Soccer was invented as a word to differentiate between Association football and rugby football. However we call rugby...rugby and we call football ... football. It is mainly abroad like America and Canada who use the term Soccer for association football.
Football is football and rugby is rugby...
Oh and to be clear.. I am practically T-Total. I have to be alert for my daughter 24/7 as a carer.
-
Sassy
and the term soccer came from America.
Soccer is an English word created in England in the same way that Rugger was created. Do you not read what people post - not only me - but everybody else but you.
See also this for further proof:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/
Now please STFU.
-
Sassy
Soccer is an English word created in England in the same way that Rugger was created. Do you not read what people post - not only me - but everybody else but you.
See also this for further proof:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/
Now please STFU.
\
You still DON'T get it do it.... The USA and Canada use the word soccer. Where it started is immaterial.
We do not use the word it says.... MAN UTD FOOTBALL CLUB not SOCCER CLUB. Man City Football club NOT soccer club
Arsenal football club.... In America they do not use FOOTBALL they use the word soccer.
-
It should all be renamed
"Lots of men chasing a ball "
Sorted! ;D
As one man said
Football is a simple game. Twenty-two men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win.
Gary Lineker
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/garylineke422219.html#qHFktrvfhW8zqKXv.99
-
Sassy
Soccer is an English word created in England in the same way that Rugger was created. Do you not read what people post - not only me - but everybody else but you.
See also this for further proof:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/
Now please STFU.
I fully agree that the term 'soccer' was created in England, but I have also posted extensively the reasons why it very gained acceptability in the football community within the country which invented it. For reasons that are reasonably obvious (to avoid confusion) it has gained acceptance in the USA and a few other countries.
There are, of course, other examples - we often think in the UK we get a taxi, while in the USA we get a cab - yet cab is just as much an English origin word as taxi. But for some reason taxi developed into the normally accepted term this side of the pond and cab on the other.
But the key point is that 'soccer' is not an accepted word (for the game football) amongst football fans in England - if someone talks about 'soccer' and is English you know instantly that they aren't really interested in football, and usual have a derogatory attitude to football.
-
\
You still DON'T get it do it.... The USA and Canada use the word soccer. Where it started is immaterial.
We do not use the word it says.... MAN UTD FOOTBALL CLUB not SOCCER CLUB. Man City Football club NOT soccer club
Arsenal football club.... In America they do not use FOOTBALL they use the word soccer.
Sass
So were you wrong when you typed the following:
and the term soccer came from America
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Changing the goalposts now (see what I did there).
It's you who doesn't get it. I am not, never have argued that Soccer was used that widely - all I argued was that it was an English word created in England. That you have denied it previously and now changed the parameters by waffling on about american football (as if that's inportant at all) shows the paucity of your argument.
Prof please stop restating your point - I have not ever disagreed with you. ALL I have tried to point out is that Soccer is an English term created in England and was used here sometimes to refer to what the majority of us refer to as football.
-
Soccer was used a bit in this country at least in some publications;
Soccer: The Official Journal of the Football Players Union (FPU)
Started in December 1947 and ran until at least March 1950.
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/Soccer__The_Official_Journal_of_the_Football_Players_Union_1948.html
About Soccer Review (Football League Review)
The Official Journal of the Football League
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/About_Soccer_Review__Football_League_Review.html
There are some others but its interesting that the two above were associated with those involved in the game itself.
-
Soccer was used a bit in this country at least in some publications;
Soccer: The Official Journal of the Football Players Union (FPU)
Started in December 1947 and ran until at least March 1950.
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/Soccer__The_Official_Journal_of_the_Football_Players_Union_1948.html
About Soccer Review (Football League Review)
The Official Journal of the Football League
http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/About_Soccer_Review__Football_League_Review.html
There are some others but its interesting that the two above were associated with those involved in the game itself.
The use of the term 'soccer' seems rather restricted to the 'strap line' on these publications. Indeed as you look at the headlines on articles and the text it seems that the term 'football' is actually used - so on one of the links the headline is 'They're black marketing in football'.
I've never been convinced that use went much beyond headline writers - who are often journalists responsible to editorial teams who may have had no interest in football, rather than an interest in selling papers and magazines.
From a headline writer's point of view Soccer is preferable to Football - it uses less space on the page (always important) and goes rather well with words like 'sensation', 'star' etc 'Soccer star love rat' just scans better than 'Football star love rat'.
But I really don't think soccer was ever really an accepted term in the real football community (i.e. fans, players etc) - certainly I cannot remember fans of my father's generation (born 1934) or his parents (born 1902 and 1910) and all football fans ever talking about soccer. It was always football, footie or just 'the match'.
-
The use of the term 'soccer' seems rather restricted to the 'strap line' on these publications. Indeed as you look at the headlines on articles and the text it seems that the term 'football' is actually used - so on one of the links the headline is 'They're black marketing in football'.
I've never been convinced that use went much beyond headline writers - who are often journalists responsible to editorial teams who may have had no interest in football, rather than an interest in selling papers and magazines.
From a headline writer's point of view Soccer is preferable to Football - it uses less space on the page (always important) and goes rather well with words like 'sensation', 'star' etc 'Soccer star love rat' just scans better than 'Football star love rat'.
But I really don't think soccer was ever really an accepted term in the real football community (i.e. fans, players etc) - certainly I cannot remember fans of my father's generation (born 1934) or his parents (born 1902 and 1910) and all football fans ever talking about soccer. It was always football, footie or just 'the match'.
I'm not disagreeing with your general premise, just though that the publication names were slightly interesting.
Although we do up here have the additional option to use an even shorter word than 'soccer' to write headlines;
"Fifteen Fife fitba fans fling fireworks. Fiscal furious, all fined a fiver."
-
I'm not disagreeing with your general premise, just though that the publication names were slightly interesting.
Although we do up here have the additional option to use an even shorter word than 'soccer' to write headlines;
"Fifteen Fife fitba fans fling fireworks. Fiscal furious, all fined a fiver."
The best of course is a very, very long word (or perhaps two words), namely:
SuperCaliGoBallisticCelticAreAtrocious
-
The best of course is a very, very long word (or perhaps two words), namely:
SuperCaliGoBallisticCelticAreAtrocious
There was one last year about the other part of the Old Firm when it looked as if Mike Ashley had got Ibrox as part of his loan which went Today's the day the Teddy Bears got their pitch nicked
-
And not a headline, also difficult to do on the page, but Celtic at one time had a player called Annoni, and the claim is that at one time when he was brought on as a substitute, one fan not enamoured of the choice or indeed the progress of the match exclaimed 'Aw naw, no Annoni oan an'a noo!'
-
And while we are oan Sellic
The scene is a Glasgow court and a witness (a ned) is being questioned by a rather plummy mouthed Advocate Depute (AD)
AD 'You say you went to your friend's house that night. Why did you go there?'
WITNESS 'Tae get a tap.'
AD 'Is your friend a plumber?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
AD 'Are you a plumber?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
The witness is a bit bewildered by this line of questioning and the AD realises it, but notices that the court police officer is rubbing his fingers of one hand together in the universal gesture of money. Daylight apparently dawns on the AD and he changes his line of questioning accordingly.
AD 'So you went to the house to borrow money?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
AD 'Ah. You went to the house to lend money?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
In exasperation the AD says, 'You told the court you went to your friend's house for a tap. What kind of a tap was it?'
WITNESS 'A Sellic tap.'
-
It should all be renamed
"Lots of men chasing a ball "
Sorted! ;D
As one man said
The truth is there is more than one ball and all could say it is a game for 22 men and it's all balls to some... ;D :-[
-
Sass
So were you wrong when you typed the following:
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Changing the goalposts now (see what I did there).
It's you who doesn't get it. I am not, never have argued that Soccer was used that widely - all I argued was that it was an English word created in England. That you have denied it previously and now changed the parameters by waffling on about american football (as if that's inportant at all) shows the paucity of your argument.
Prof please stop restating your point - I have not ever disagreed with you. ALL I have tried to point out is that Soccer is an English term created in England and was used here sometimes to refer to what the majority of us refer to as football.
I also said all the things quoted below...
We are not talking origins of word. It is a fact that Soccer is the American word for our FOOTBALL the true football. Now I could go through all the additions to the Oxford
dictionaries but they WON'T give you origin of word or when first used. It will say when first added,
I have to go from my experience and the fact that football was always football here and in America Soccer.
Not wrong at all.. Football has always ORIGINALLY been called football here.
Soccer is the Americans word for it.
I think Scotland was where the first real football started and I could be wrong. But soccer is not really English in that the Americans took it from here and obviously changed the name because of their American football.
I think the words foot and ball give the game it's original name and reason it was called so,
Note it does NOT say they made the word up...
So maybe you should read all my posts for contents...
-
I also said all the things quoted below...
Note it does NOT say they made the word up...
So maybe you should read all my posts for contents...
Ah the sound of shifting goalposts. (As I previously pointed out)
PS There is no discernible content in most of your posts.
-
Ah the sound of shifting goalposts. (As I previously pointed out)
PS There is no discernible content in most of your posts.
Which CHristian bits are you referring to?
Or are you unable to discern this bit...
King James Bible
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Your reason for not being able to discern the contents of my posts is your lack of ability to see the truth or retain it in your brain. Of course the cross and Christ would appear foolish to you. As a Christian writing you shudda thunk that it would reveal the truth to you, albeit that you would see it as foolish.
I guess even up against Gods word you lose....
-
Sass, you really must try to understand the fact that the human mind can be fooled, especially when the delusion is implanted during infancy and continually hammered home.
That is exactly what you suffer from.
-
You seem confused?
You do know your one of the most obnoxious posters on here don't you BA?
Didn't read you OP as usual it will just be you whining about how no-one takes you seriously and how disrespectful we are if we don't agree with your view of the world. ::)
Samo samo.
-
Sass, you really must try to understand the fact that the human mind can be fooled, especially when the delusion is implanted during infancy and continually hammered home.
That is exactly what you suffer from.
Human minds are deceitful and deceptive... they offer their double standards.
But God doesn't he offers love and truth when all around people are full of hatred, lies and loathing for others.
The only true delusion is man thinks no one else can see the real hatred for their fellow man which they hide behind empty words. The tell you they love you as they gently stick the knife in your back.
The delusions and illusions are mans own deceptiveness and unwillingness to admit their own attitude and behaviour is wrong.
God gives man a choice. Man will act on it according to his own heart and thoughts,.
-
Human minds are deceitful and deceptive...
So how do you know the writers of the bible can be trusted?
ht
-
Human minds are deceitful and deceptive... they offer their double standards.
But God doesn't he offers love and truth when all around people are full of hatred, lies and loathing for others.
The only true delusion is man thinks no one else can see the real hatred for their fellow man which they hide behind empty words. The tell you they love you as they gently stick the knife in your back.
The delusions and illusions are mans own deceptiveness and unwillingness to admit their own attitude and behaviour is wrong.
God gives man a choice. Man will act on it according to his own heart and thoughts,.
Assertions, not facts. ::)
-
Sass, you really must try to understand the fact that the human mind can be fooled, especially when the delusion is implanted during infancy and continually hammered home.
That is exactly what you suffer from.
And, of course Len, there would seem to be an increasing number of children who are having the delusion that there is no such thing as a god 'implanted during infancy and continually hammered home'.
-
You seem confused?
You do know your one of the most obnoxious posters on here don't you BA?
Didn't read you OP as usual it will just be you whining about how no-one takes you seriously and how disrespectful we are if we don't agree with your view of the world. ::)
Samo samo.
It might be worth your reading the OP, then KO. It might also be worth your noting that BA hasn't posted/been active here since December 2015.
-
And, of course Len, there would seem to be an increasing number of children who are having the delusion that there is no such thing as a god 'implanted during infancy and continually hammered home'.
If you could supply even a hint of evidence or reasoning to support the idea that there is a god, then you might be in a position to describe disbelief and an delusion, until then....
-
And, of course Len, there would seem to be an increasing number of children who are having the delusion that there is no such thing as a god 'implanted during infancy and continually hammered home'.
As there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, you have never present any, that is the default position. However, as I have stated before, kids should be permitted to make up their own minds about the topic.
-
If you could supply even a hint of evidence or reasoning to support the idea that there is a god, then you might be in a position to describe disbelief and an delusion, until then....
SKoS, good to see the 'cracked record' being dragged out yet again. Put mildly, the evidence is all around you; the orderedness that science is continually producing evidence of is just one of the bits of evidence.
However, perhaps more pertinent to Len's post that I was responding to, I have yet to see any evidence that supports what such children are having 'implanted during infancy'. It is one thing to use the argument of uncertainty for yourself, a completely different thing to use that as the basis for teaching the next generation.
The fact that there are those who never professed a faith in their youth, let alone were brought up in one, but who are now religious suggests that the honest way ahead is for children to be presented with the full range of understandings and allowed to make up their own minds.
-
Put mildly, the evidence is all around you; the orderedness that science is continually producing evidence of is just one of the bits of evidence.
Why?
-
SKoS, good to see the 'cracked record' being dragged out yet again. Put mildly, the evidence is all around you; the orderedness that science is continually producing evidence of is just one of the bits of evidence.
In what way is that evidence of any god(s)?
-
SKoS, good to see the 'cracked record' being dragged out yet again. Put mildly, the evidence is all around you; the orderedness that science is continually producing evidence of is just one of the bits of evidence.
That isn't evidence for the existence of a deity.
-
Put mildly, the evidence is all around you; the orderedness that science is continually producing evidence of is just one of the bits of evidence.
Since science is naturalistic then it seems that you are claiming its findings as being evidence of 'god' - so what is your method of demonstrating that the natural is a consequence of the divine?
-
That isn't evidence for the existence of a deity.
There is a clear indication of intentional design running through the whole of the natural world, Floo. This runs counter to the more naturalistic 'chaos theory' understanding that would apply if everything had simply occurred by coincidence - or 'accident'. Mind you, the way that Western society seems to be disintegrating could indicate that this 'chaos' understanding has more to it than people might care to admit. ;)
-
Dear Stranger,
In what way is it not evidence, all Gods creatures got a place in choir, some sing low some sing higher.
From the tiny quark to whole Universe it all works.
Gonnagle.
-
Since science is naturalistic then it seems that you are claiming its findings as being evidence of 'god' - so what is your method of demonstrating that the natural is a consequence of the divine?
See #426
-
There is a clear indication of intentional design running through the whole of the natural world, Floo.
Design for what? How do you know it's design?
This runs counter to the more naturalistic 'chaos theory' understanding that would apply if everything had simply occurred by coincidence - or 'accident'.
What has chaos theory got to do with anything?
-
See #426
Which is no more than a mix of fallacious assertions, such as begging the question.
-
In what way is it not evidence, all Gods creatures got a place in choir, some sing low some sing higher.
The universe is ordered - if it wasn't then it would be impossible to have observers in it.
That order came about somehow.
God(s) don't explain order - they would already be ordered.
What is the evidence that order came about in the form of a god (or gods) rather than in the universe (or some other "larger" framework)?
-
There is a clear indication of intentional design running through the whole of the natural world, Floo. This runs counter to the more naturalistic 'chaos theory' understanding that would apply if everything had simply occurred by coincidence - or 'accident'. Mind you, the way that Western society seems to be disintegrating could indicate that this 'chaos' understanding has more to it than people might care to admit. ;)
So all of the following things were intentionally designed were they?
A bee.
A rock.
A tree.
A heart.
-
Dear Hope,
I think design is the wrong word, go down that road and someone will smack you with a watch, is purpose a better word?
Dear Stranger,
Are you admitting that the Universe has order?
Is evolution ordered? not came across that word when reading about it!
Gonnagle.
-
Are you admitting that the Universe has order?
I don't see how it's an admission. Surely it's self evident that the universe operates according to certain patterns (which we approximate with physics)?
Is evolution ordered? not came across that word when reading about it!
Only in the sense that it needs inheritance with variation and that needs biology, which needs chemistry which needs physics.
-
There is a clear indication of intentional design running through the whole of the natural world, Floo. This runs counter to the more naturalistic 'chaos theory' understanding that would apply if everything had simply occurred by coincidence - or 'accident'. Mind you, the way that Western society seems to be disintegrating could indicate that this 'chaos' understanding has more to it than people might care to admit. ;)
It might be clear to you Hope, but not to many others on this forum.
-
Dear Hope,
I think design is the wrong word, go down that road and someone will smack you with a watch, is purpose a better word?
Dear Gonnagle,
I think you are very wise, however I don't think purpose gets you away from the obvious questions.
So again to Hope,
Let's take the female birth canal as an example!
Tearing during childbirth is very common.
According to this data (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599825/), around 85% of women receive some damage, some others receive very serious damage indeed. I didn't even realise there was a 4th degree tear up till now.
I would put it to him, that if he were the manufacturer of polo neck sweaters and for 85% of the ones he sold the stitching came apart when someone tried to put their head though the neck hole, he would soon go out of business.
-
Dear Stephano,
I think purpose is a excellent word,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/purpose
What obvious questions are you referring to?
Childbirth, are we still evolving? given that modern man is but a blip on the map, a microscopical blip in evolutionary terms, are we interfering with the natural order of things with our modern medicine.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stephano,
I think purpose is a excellent word,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/purpose
Still implies intent though.
What obvious questions are you referring to?
That if all that is around us is there as a result of intentional design, then when we see such things as tearing in childbirth, is it because that it was the best the designer could come up with, or is he a bit sadistic.
Childbirth, are we still evolving? given that modern man is but a blip on the map, a microscopical blip in evolutionary terms, are we interfering with the natural order of things with our modern medicine.
Gonnagle.
Pretty sure tearing has been going on well before the arrival of modern medicine. Also, pretty sure it is a lot less dangerous now.
-
There is a clear indication of intentional design running through the whole of the natural world, Floo.
No there isn't.
The evidence points to everything in the natural world arising through processes that are described by physical law. The are stars and planets thanks to the mindless processes of gravity and quantum mechanics. There are trees and flowers thanks to the mindless processes of evolution.
Imagine you are walking through a desert. You come across a watch on the ground and you immediately realise it was designed. This implies that designed things like watches possess a quality that natural things like sand dunes, cacti and scorpions do not have.
-
Dear Hope,
Told you so :P
Gonnagle.
-
So how do you know the writers of the bible can be trusted?
ht
It is the God and where the writings came from which can be trusted.
Do any of us in this life time know the writers?
We know the author and giver of the Words to man.
-
It is the God and where the writings came from which can be trusted.
Do any of us in this life time know the writers?
We know the author and giver of the Words to man.
You want to believe god was the influence behind the Bible, but you have no evidence it is so. Besides which as much of what is attributed to the deity is wicked, it should be ignored.
-
So all of the following things were intentionally designed were they?
A bee.
Of course it keeps us alive with the pollinating they do on the planet. We would not have a lot of the food crops.
A rock.
Would there be anything to protect us if the world was flat?
A tree.
Apples, pears etc and of course the paper and wood to build houses. Oxygen....
A heart.
Is the centre of the human matter.... it keeps all the other organs going by pumping the life giving blood.
In creation we know that everything has a purpose....
But not everything is always built for a purpose. Where would the ark have landed if Mount Ararat did not exist.
-
Of course it keeps us alive with the pollinating they do on the planet. We would not have a lot of the food crops.
Would there be anything to protect us if the world was flat?
Apples, pears etc and of course the paper and wood to build houses. Oxygen....
Is the centre of the human matter.... it keeps all the other organs going by pumping the life giving blood.
In creation we know that everything has a purpose....
But not everything is always built for a purpose. Where would the ark have landed if Mount Ararat did not exist.
What is the purpose of the Influenza virus?
-
Dear Stephano,
I think purpose is a excellent word,
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/purpose
What obvious questions are you referring to?
Childbirth, are we still evolving? given that modern man is but a blip on the map, a microscopical blip in evolutionary terms, are we interfering with the natural order of things with our modern medicine.
Gonnagle.
What exactly do you mean, Gonners? Without 'modem medicine' my daughter would at best have had severe disabilities due to birth asphyxia. The doctor informed me st the time that they had ten minutes to get me into theatre and perform a section otherwise they wouldn't be able to save her. The natural order would be that she would most likely be dead.
-
Childbirth, are we still evolving? given that modern man is but a blip on the map, a microscopical blip in evolutionary terms, are we interfering with the natural order of things with our modern medicine.
Yes, we are in one sense. We are using medical knowledge to save people who are genetically unsuitable to survive in the environment without it. This will automatically be detrimental to the human gene bank in the long run.
However, we can argue that our medical knowledge is part of the environment, and thus "natural". Add to that the instinctive need to consider ourselves more important than any other life form, and that justifies our 'interference'.
Eventually we are going to reach a point when the medical attention needed to keep everybody alive is going to be too great to maintain. Hopefully genetic engineering will stave off doomsday. :)
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Simply putting the question out there, in my own bull in a china shop way, I am fascinated by the way modern science is now looking more at how nature works and learning from it, copying it, nature, evolution has been at it for billions of years, but please don't get me wrong, I am a champion of modern science, we this little blip on the map, man who Auditors tell me are nothing special striving to become little gods, the ability to preserve and enhance life but also the ability to take it away with a push of the button, we are a fascinating species but we need to keep a close eye on our achievements.
Gonnagle.
-
What is the purpose of the Influenza virus?
We don't know yet.
That should be a perfectly acceptable answer especially for the guffers on about the virtue of answering in the agnostic.
It should also in their books shut down any thought on the matter.
-
We don't know yet.
That should be a perfectly acceptable answer especially for the guffers on about the virtue of answering in the agnostic.
It is fine by me.
However, I would think that if you hold the view that all is intentionally designed by the a (3 x Omni) God then it would give pause for thought regarding the omnibenevolent claim since influenza is something that we all seem to want to try and eradicate.
Not saying that it proves God doesn't exist but it's the kind of thing that makes me think anyway.
It should also in their books shut down any thought on the matter.
As a professional scientist if that were my view I would put myself out of a job.
-
We don't know yet.
...
It should also in their books shut down any thought on the matter.
Why should it 'shut down thought', when the obvious response is 'then let's find out'?
ht
-
It is the God and where the writings came from which can be trusted.
That's what the authors claim, but how do you know they can be trusted?
Do any of us in this life time know the writers?
Exactly. They are all dead and gone.
We know the author and giver of the Words to man.
No, you know what the authors *claim*, but you haven't yet said how you know they can be trusted.
ht
-
It is fine by me.
However, I would think that if you hold the view that all is intentionally designed by the a (3 x Omni) God then it would give pause for thought regarding the omnibenevolent claim since influenza is something that we all seem to want to try and eradicate.
Or I could believe that God has provided overall laws(more than ten BTW) and a universe in which things can work themselves out.
The influenza question is a favourite of holders of an arseclenchingly narrow reductionist view of biology or life espoused
by Dawkins and popularised by the likes of Adams and Fry.
Ecology is part of biology as is novelty and conscious human agency.
Such atomisation allows the above people to forget an ecological and human interventionist approach to focus on things like, the influenza virus and use it as the standard of the creation......forgetting, of course, to celebrate the immune system.
That the universe involves getting caught up in machinery which has redundancy is the universe we have been given. It is not all bad though.
-
......forgetting, of course, to celebrate the immune system.
While the immune system is really rather impressive as a product of evolution; as the creation of an omni-god, it's a bit rubbish.
-
While the immune system is really rather impressive as a product of evolution; as the creation of an omni-god, it's a bit rubbish.
irrelevant. You are putting evolution in place of God. That is a category blunder. However, if you are ascribing bad things as proof of God not existing or that God is the most evil thing rather than the least then your argument hasn't taken good things into account.
-
While the immune system is really rather impressive as a product of evolution; as the creation of an omni-god, it's a bit rubbish.
Omni God eh, I think you've been watching too many marvel films , hasn't our Lord and Saviour Stephen Fry warned us against that?
-
irrelevant. You are putting evolution in place of God. That is a category blunder.
I was only comparing two possible causes for the immune system. That is not a category mistake - you should really find out what that term means - you keep on making an arse of yourself, by misusing it.
However, if you are ascribing bad things as proof of God not existing or that God is the most evil thing rather than the least then your argument hasn't taken good things into account.
I wasn't. I was arguing that if the immune system is the best immune system god can come up with, then god is a bit rubbish.
-
Why should it 'shut down thought', when the obvious response is 'then let's find out'?
ht
It's just me being sarcastic at those who guff on about 'Not knowing' and the rest of us should shut up, being the virtuous position. Good to see you aren't in that number.
-
It's just me being sarcastic at those who guff on about 'Not knowing' and the rest of us should shut up, being the virtuous position. Good to see you aren't in that number.
I don't know anyone who is in that number.
-
Or I could believe that God has provided overall laws(more than ten BTW) and a universe in which things can work themselves out.
In which case he is entirely responsible for how things pan out. He mad the rules and set it in motion.
The influenza question is a favourite of holders of an arseclenchingly narrow reductionist view of biology or life espoused
by Dawkins and popularised by the likes of Adams and Fry.
Ecology is part of biology as is novelty and conscious human agency.
No, it's just a reasonable questions when told that everything in the univers has intentional design running through it.
[/quote]
Such atomisation allows the above people to forget an ecological and human interventionist approach to focus on things like, the influenza virus and use it as the standard of the creation......forgetting, of course, to celebrate the immune system.
That the universe involves getting caught up in machinery which has redundancy is the universe we have been given. It is not all bad though.
[/quote]
Indeed it is not all bad. Never suggested it was.
However, it doesn't all seem good either, and as Christians tend to ascribe this design to a 3 x Omni God, this seems a bit odd.
Some of the alleged design seems a little ropey to say the least, see my earlier posts to Gonnagle re the female birth canal. As I said if the tear rate for a jumper manufacturer was as high as it was for the aforementioned system the business would soon be out of business.
-
I don't know anyone who is in that number.
Well I do, though the people around here are generally ''We don't know, but we know it can't be God'' people.
Then of course there are the dogmatic agnostics...we know, we can never know brigade.
-
In which case he is entirely responsible for how things pan out. He mad the rules and set it in motion.
Then you can't believe in personal responsibility then
Or the evolution of it even.
-
We don't know yet.
That should be a perfectly acceptable answer especially for the guffers on about the virtue of answering in the agnostic.
It should also in their books shut down any thought on the matter.
Sassy said 'In creation we know that everything has a purpose....' hence the question to her I should think - perhaps she does know.
-
In which case he is entirely responsible for how things pan out. He mad the rules and set it in motion.
No, it's just a reasonable questions when told that everything in the univers has intentional design running through it.
Such atomisation allows the above people to forget an ecological and human interventionist approach to focus on things like, the influenza virus and use it as the standard of the creation......forgetting, of course, to celebrate the immune system.
That the universe involves getting caught up in machinery which has redundancy is the universe we have been given. It is not all bad though.
Indeed it is not all bad. Never suggested it was.
However, it doesn't all seem good either, and as Christians tend to ascribe this design to a 3 x Omni God, this seems a bit odd.
Some of the alleged design seems a little ropey to say the least, see my earlier posts to Gonnagle re the female birth canal. As I said if the tear rate for a jumper manufacturer was as high as it was for the aforementioned system the business would soon be out of business.
I need to chide you for your refusal to accept my belief in universal aseity in favour of churning over a caricature calvinistic determinist Christianity investigated by a caricature Intelligent design based biology. You have thus made several spurious statements on the back of that error .
In aseity God does not specifically design stuff....although in theism he is perfectly free to do so.
I must also pull you up on your 3 x Omni schtick which somehow yields something you call Omnibenevolence( whatever that is ). We are left to ask which therefore of the classical omnis have you discarded....Omnipotence, Omniscience or Omnipresence? (although even these are not explicit in the Bible)
-
I think Sassy demonstrates a more old-fashioned view, that everything has a purpose. This view has changed a lot in Christianity, I suppose under pressure from skepticism and scientific knowledge, so to say that earthquakes or flu have a divine purpose, seems odd today. Of course, there are Christians who do say that.
One of the interesting consequences of moving away from that is that you start to approach deism. I'm not sure where many Christians are on the spectrum from deism to 'total purpose'.
-
Then you can't believe in personal responsibility then
Or the evolution of it even.
If there is a 3 x Omni God then yes you are right I don't.
I don't believe in one though so I do (up to a point).
-
Sassy said 'In creation we know that everything has a purpose....' hence the question to her I should think - perhaps she does know.
That's the theists equivalent of the atheists ''We don't Know but we know it isn't God.
It is a belief that there is no waste nor lack of knowledge about anything by God even though it might sometimes look that way from the atheists POV.
So although we believe in purpose we need not know what it is and some us certainly are of the disposition that we can ask God in prayer.
-
In aseity God does not specifically design stuff....although in theism he is perfectly free to do so.
Take it up with Hope. He is the one who said:
"There is a clear indication of intentional design running through the whole of the natural world, Floo."
-
That's the theists equivalent of the atheists ''We don't Know but we know it isn't God.
It is a belief that there is no waste nor lack of knowledge about anything by God even though it might sometimes look that way from the atheists POV.
So although we believe in purpose we need not know what it is and some us certainly are of the disposition that we can ask God in prayer.
So can you ask him what the purpose of the influenza virus is please.
-
I think Sassy demonstrates a more old-fashioned view, that everything has a purpose. This view has changed a lot in Christianity, I suppose under pressure from skepticism and scientific knowledge, so to say that earthquakes or flu have a divine purpose, seems odd today. Of course, there are Christians who do say that.
One of the interesting consequences of moving away from that is that you start to approach deism. I'm not sure where many Christians are on the spectrum from deism to 'total purpose'.
You seem to be talking about a kind of ''right on'' type of Christianity where we must shut up about purposes etc. But in the evolution of these modern ideas all we are doing is going back to a kind of fatalism. Just chucking in scientific knowledge doesn't detract from it being old fashioned fatalism.
''New christian'' Giles Fraser summed it up when he took the BBC's shilling to talk about The creation something he didn't see as particularly relevant to his largely social Gospel. By the end he came round to saying that this trad old idea was in fact very relevant to what he was saying.
I believe he has therefore taken a greater step in changing view than Dawkins who frequently guffs on about his preparedness to do.
For me it's the all right in the end and the aseity God has granted to the universe to make itself what it is....although, as a theist I would say he is perfectly at iberty to design anything he likes.
-
So can you ask him what the purpose of the influenza virus is please.
Yes......and so can you.
-
Vlad wrote:
For me it's the all right in the end and the aseity God has granted to the universe to make itself what it is....although, as a theist I would say he is perfectly at iberty to design anything he likes.
Sounds like a form of deism.
-
Take it up with Hope. He is the one who said:
Yessssssssss............What about this ''Omnibenevolence'' malarkey then. Stephen?
-
Yes......and so can you.
I did, no response yet though.
-
Yessssssssss............What about this ''Omnibenevolence'' malarkey then. Stephen?
What about it?
It's not a controversial view amongst Christians:
" For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence
Can you honestly say that you have never heard this view expressed?
Hence a God of the 3 omnis could only produce a world that it wanted to. (I use the word want, but it is not clear to me how a god who is perfect would "want" anything).
If God is perfect (as claimed by Christians) then the world must be perfect i.e the only world that could exist.
Now it could be that the influenza virus and the female birth canal are perfect, but they don't seem it to us. In fact most of us try to eliminate the first and make the second less dangerous. Which is a strange thing to attempt on things which are already perfect.
Maybe we should cease flue jabs and never perform C-sections.
-
That's the theists equivalent of the atheists ''We don't Know but we know it isn't God.
It is a belief that there is no waste nor lack of knowledge about anything by God even though it might sometimes look that way from the atheists POV.
So although we believe in purpose we need not know what it is and some us certainly are of the disposition that we can ask God in prayer.
If its clear it is part of a religious belief - 'I believe there is a purpose to everything although I don't know what it is' - then its fine by me. Stating it as a known fact is best avoided though.
-
What about it?
It's not a controversial view amongst Christians:
" For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence
Can you honestly say that you have never heard this view expressed?
Hence a God of the 3 omnis could only produce a world that it wanted to. (I use the word want, but it is not clear to me how a god who is perfect would "want" anything).
If God is perfect (as claimed by Christians) then the world must be perfect i.e the only world that could exist.
Now it could be that the influenza virus and the female birth canal are perfect, but they don't seem it to us. In fact most of us try to eliminate the first and make the second less dangerous. Which is a strange thing to attempt on things which are already perfect.
Maybe we should cease flue jabs and never perform C-sections.
Good.............. perfection.
How would the imperfect be able to judge perfection?
Benevolence equated with moral perfection? Not sure about that, it is different since we know we are recipients of benevolence but we can never be sure we are dispensing benevolence....I feel you are a bit confused here also in respect of confusing the creation with the creator.
He could be morally perfect and we aren't. That would definitely militate against him appearing benevolent to us but rather judgmental and condemning and no doubt the processes of the universe would appear also to reinforce our dim view of him.
If we are going to put in omnibenevolence then he is the God of the 4 omnis and this extra one also isn't explicit in the Bible.
-
Good.............. perfection.
How would the imperfect be able to judge perfection?
Why not?
Benevolence equated with moral perfection? Not sure about that, it is different since we know we are recipients of benevolence but we can never be sure we are dispensing benevolence....I feel you are a bit confused here also in respect of confusing the creation with the creator.
He could be morally perfect and we aren't. That would definitely militate against him appearing benevolent to us but rather judgmental and condemning and no doubt the processes of the universe would appear also to reinforce our dim view of him.
If we are not morally perfect then we are a flawed creation of a perfect being (how is it perfect if it creates flawed things).
Or
We only appear to be morally imperfect (from out point of view) and in fact are perfect creations (God still perfect).
It could be that all the things that appear to be not good about the world (influenza etc, etc) are good really but we just can't see the bigger picture.
However, it could be that they are the result of a creation by a god who is not perfect.
I don't see how you could tell the difference between these scenarios from looking at the world. Hence as I said earlier I don't think this is an argument for the non existence of God , but it certainly should give serious pause for thought to those who prescribe intentional design and purpose to all things in the natural world,
If we are going to put in omnibenevolence then he is the God of the 4 omnis and this extra one also isn't explicit in the Bible.
Actually I would agree that it is better to stick to the traditional three and use moral perfection / perfect goodness as the other. However, as the term is used by theists and non theists it crops up from time to time. I think it's meaning is clear though.
-
If we are not morally perfect then we are a flawed creation of a perfect being (how is it perfect if it creates flawed things).
There is a Jewish school of thought that we learn from God, but God learns from us also.
-
There is a Jewish school of thought that we learn from God, but God learns from us also.
Yep. That wouldn't jar so much against the natural world we observe.
-
Why not?
If we are not morally perfect then we are a flawed creation of a perfect being (how is it perfect if it creates flawed things).
Or
We only appear to be morally imperfect (from out point of view) and in fact are perfect creations (God still perfect).
It could be that all the things that appear to be not good about the world (influenza etc, etc) are good really but we just can't see the bigger picture.
However, it could be that they are the result of a creation by a god who is not perfect.
I don't see how you could tell the difference between these scenarios from looking at the world. Hence as I said earlier I don't think this is an argument for the non existence of God , but it certainly should give serious pause for thought to those who prescribe a intentional design and purpose to all things in the natural world,
Actually I would agree that it is better to stick to the traditional three and use moral perfection / perfect goodness as the other. However, as the term is used by theists and non theists it crops up from time to time. I think it's meaning is clear though.
We are not morally perfect though because are fallen through our own choice.......Be holy...as God is holy...is the scriptural exhortation.
I think you are mixing Greek,Jewish and modern atheist idiom up here Stephen.
-
We are not morally perfect though because are fallen through our own choice.......Be holy...as God is holy...is the scriptural exhortation.
I think you are mixing Greek,Jewish and modern atheist idiom up here Stephen.
Not mixing anything up. It might be what the scripture teaches, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
So creating humans with the freedom to choose to be fallen was better than creating ones which could not.
-
We are not morally perfect though because are fallen through our own choice.......Be holy...as God is holy...is the scriptural exhortation.
I think you are mixing Greek,Jewish and modern atheist idiom up here Stephen.
Nothing good about being holy if that is what god is supposed to be.
-
Nothing good about being holy if that is what god is supposed to be.
Everytime you come on as the Angel of light Floo millions are consoled by there being something far better."...............than you.
-
Everytime you come on as the Angel of light Floo millions are consoled by there being something far better."...............than you.
Not one of your better ones.
Were you feeling a bit funny?............ :-\
-
Not mixing anything up. It might be what the scripture teaches, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.
So creating humans with the freedom to choose to be fallen was better than creating ones which could not.
But the Jewish idea may not make sense because you have not really considered it.
What scripture says is that we were morally perfect but uses the word holy to denote that unlike platonic perfection, moral perfection existed within humanity, that we fell and repeatedly fall, but that holiness will be restored.
Moral imperfection is not being given the choice but making a certain choice.
Giving choice and exercising the correct moral choice is love.
What is the virtue of not giving moral choice?
-
But the Jewish idea may not make sense because you have not really considered it.
What scripture says is that we were morally perfect but uses the word holy to denote that unlike platonic perfection, moral perfection existed within humanity, that we fell and repeatedly fall, but that holiness will be restored.
I don't see that if you have moral perfection you can lose it. Unless you are using perfection in a non standard way. I am using it in the same sense that I am applying it to God, i.e. without fault, flaw.
Moral imperfection is not being given the choice but making a certain choice.
Giving choice and exercising the correct moral choice is love.
Not sure what you mean here.
What is the virtue of not giving moral choice?
If by this you mean what would be good about God not giving us freedom to make choices, the I would have thought the virtue would be a lack of suffering through bad moral choices.
Not sure if that is what you mean though.
However, you seem to be determined to drive of at a tangent. The point is that if we are the creation of the tri-Omni perfect God then this is the only world that can exist. How could such a being generate a state of affairs that it found displeasing or not perfect? If you want to introduce choice/free will into this then all you are saying is that God thinks such a world is better than one without it.
-
1. I don't see that if you have moral perfection you can lose it.
2. If by this you mean what would be good about God not giving us freedom to make choices, the I would have thought the virtue would be a lack of suffering through bad moral choices.
3. you seem to be determined to drive of at a tangent.
1: Why can we not lose moral perfection. Only in a platonistic framework could we not lose moral perfections. Other, namely the jewish framework
would see it differently....
2: Good point however my response to it would be to question that anything which eliminates love is not, in fact, virtuous.......and you are saying that anything that causes suffering is not in fact virtuous.
3:I am trying to drive you of your addiction to platonic thought in debates about God.
-
1: Why can we not lose moral perfection. Only in a platonistic framework could we not lose moral perfections. Other, namely the jewish framework
would see it differently....
2: Good point however my response to it would be to question that anything which eliminates love is not, in fact, virtuous.......and you are saying that anything that causes suffering is not in fact virtuous.
3:I am trying to drive you of your addiction to platonic thought in debates about God.
1: IMO the meaning of perfection, in human terms, is dependent on whether or not we are the creation of a tri-Omni God.
I have been playing the piano a lot lately, part of the enjoyment I get from it is the beauty of the piano itself. Mine is not a particularly expensive one, but take something like the Bosendorfer Imperial Grand. Years and years of development to achieve a distinct and wonderful full bodied sound. Is it perfect? Well you will need to get it tuned regularly, and it will likely be succeed in years to come by another one that will be regarded, at least by some, as better.
You could describe this drive to make things even better and less corruptible to be perfection for human beings. The drive to be the best possible.
However, consider a piano made by God. Could one be made in future that would be better, would it go out of tune? I would say no to both of these questions. It would be perfect. It would be the best it could possibly be. Swap piano for humans and that is my point. Humans created by a tri-Omni perfect God should be the best they can be. If they have a feature of being able to fall and sin then this must be a feature that adds to their perfection otherwise it would not have been included in the design.
2. I don't see any logic that can get you from eliminating suffering necessarily eliminates love. Can good come out of suffering? I suppose the answer can be yes, I don't think that suffering is necessary though.
Two examples off the top of my head that seem to undermine your view are:
a) The police. Most people think that having a police force is a good thing. One purpose of the police is to prevent suffering caused by human behaviour. Most people would say that is a virtuous pursuit.
b) Heaven, I am led to believe that there will be no more suffering there. Will there be no love then?
3) I'm fine thank you. Am I a swivel-eyed Platonist or a Stalinist one ;)
-
1: IMO the meaning of perfection, in human terms, is dependent on whether or not we are the creation of a tri-Omni God.
I have been playing the piano a lot lately, part of the enjoyment I get from it is the beauty of the piano itself. Mine is not a particularly expensive one, but take something like the Bosendorfer Imperial Grand. Years and years of development to achieve a distinct and wonderful full bodied sound. Is it perfect? Well you will need to get it tuned regularly, and it will likely be succeed in years to come by another one that will be regarded, at least by some, as better.
You could describe this drive to make things even better and less corruptible to be perfection for human beings. The drive to be the best possible.
However, consider a piano made by God. Could one be made in future that would be better, would it go out of tune? I would say no to both of these questions. It would be perfect. It would be the best it could possibly be. Swap piano for humans and that is my point. Humans created by a tri-Omni perfect God should be the best they can be. If they have a feature of being able to fall and sin then this must be a feature that adds to their perfection otherwise it would not have been included in the design.
2. I don't see any logic that can get you from eliminating suffering necessarily eliminates love. Can good come out of suffering? I suppose the answer can be yes, I don't think that suffering is necessary though.
Two examples off the top of my head that seem to undermine your view are:
a) The police. Most people think that having a police force is a good thing. One purpose of the police is to prevent suffering caused by human behaviour. Most people would say that is a virtuous pursuit.
b) Heaven, I am led to believe that there will be no more suffering there. Will there be no love then?
3) I'm fine thank you. Am I a swivel-eyed Platonist or a Stalinist one ;)
Stephen
Thank you for your considered reply. I am on a flyer today and cannot give it its full justice reply wise.
However your piano analogy looks like just a sophisticated way of stating humanity was made with a flaw in morality. That is not the scriptural view as I have previously pointed.out. Is free will to or against morality essential for loving God yes. Does suffering happen when we choose to hate ,you suggested that yourself.
Are you a platonic or Stalinist swivel eye?
Platonic definitely and maybe even the perfect swivel eye in whom all other swivel eyes partake.
-
Stephen
Thank you for your considered reply. I am on a flyer today and cannot give it its full justice reply wise.
However your piano analogy looks like just a sophisticated way of stating humanity was made with a flaw in morality. That is not the scriptural view as I have previously pointed.out. Is free will to or against morality essential for loving God yes. Does suffering happen when we choose to hate ,you suggested that yourself.
Are you a platonic or Stalinist swivel eye?
Platonic definitely and maybe even the perfect swivel eye in whom all other swivel eyes partake.
Same here, not going to be around much today. I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal.
I don't think you got the piano analogy. Have another read when you have more time. Effectively I am saying that if we are made by the perfect tri-Omni God. Then what appear to us to be flaws are not really, they are just part of the perfect creation.
-
I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal.
Should we warn women and children to avoid the canal today? :-\
-
Dear Seb,
Should we just restrict it to woman and children ::) ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Seb,
Should we just restrict it to woman and children ::) ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
It is quite weird that people get so hung up about seeing any part of the human body.
-
Dear Leonard,
Human body?? we are talking about Stephens fishing tackle :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Human body?? we are talking about Stephens fishing tackle :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
He didn't say that. Here is what he said :-
"I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal."
;D
-
He didn't say that. Here is what he said :-
"I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal."
;D
It was a frustrating session.
The top part of my pole kept sliding back into the butt section. Reducing its length by half a metre.
However, once I got my other whip out I did a lot better and ended up catching something.
(before anyone calls the police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRuCCq6Frk4)
-
Aye well, as long as it wasn't crabs
-
Dear Stephano,
Reducing its length by half a metre.
Yeah yeah!! men are always bragging, mind you I have heard there is a market for tackle that size, in the prawn business, sure it's prawn, could be pawn, one of the two.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stephano,
Yeah yeah!! men are always bragging, mind you I have heard there is a market for tackle that size, in the prawn business, sure it's prawn, could be pawn, one of the two.
Gonnagle.
Hello to the member from Up North!
Never caught a prawn but I do like fishing for carp during the summer months.
Once I wash fishing near the locks on a canal where the water runs quite fast and my rod tip pulled round. It seemed a fairly sluggish fish until I got it in and found that I had caught a plastic bag that had been discarded by a dog walker who had clearly been cleaning up after the hound.
So I didn't catch a carp but I did catch a .....well I'm sure you can rearrange the letters.:(