Quoting Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not seeing the problem.
.

That's obvious.
You don't mind being a big stripey humbug do you Shakes?

[Shaker]

That's obvious.
You don't mind being a big stripey humbug do you Shakes?

I certainly don't mind being sweet 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I certainly don't mind being sweet 

I'm a bit worried about those brown stripes though Shakes.

[Maeght]

No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist which if not an NPF is the equivalent of dry humping one.

Sassy posted a classic NPF plus a statement about it being the end of the matter. Whst is overdoing it about pointing that out on a discussion forum?

Look Meaeghtt

Its Maeght - no need to mess with that please..

No Christian bases his or her faith on the NPF

Of course not which is why I've never suggested they do.

...... but most atheists base their position of acting as if God doesn't exist on the inability of Christians to provide proof of God.

No, I don't think so, rather its because they have no belief in God. The reasons people give for being atheist vary but essentially I think the evidence discussion is secondary go personal belief or lack of belief.

Thus it is that when a forum antitheist claims a tiny victory on the NPF stakes the whole of the world, rational atheists, Aardvarks, Aliens Freemasons along with the whole company of heaven and earth allow themselves a modest titter.

Possibly, but I didn't titter - just wanted Sassy to understand what she saying.

[jeremyp]

No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist

No. People on here say because there is no evidence for God he/she/it can be treated as if he/she/it does not exist. If you want to believe in God even though there is no evidence for its existence, feel free.

[Sassy]

There's always one clown here who'll wheel out the negative proof fallacy, surely the go-to piece of bad reasoning of religionists.

Excuses! Excuses! Excuses!  It does not answer what was asked. Excuse Excuse Excuse... Hiding behind a false  dictamen .

[Alan Burns]

We usually find that's a job for scientists.

So that's Berlinski out, as he isn't one. Scientists ask the questions and with a great deal of patience, persistence and hard work sometimes come up with the answers - actual ones. Berlinski ... not really.

Unless of course you can name a single one of these questions of his that he has actually answered. Anything spring to mind?Or indeed thinking - using the word loosely - outside of science altogether.

Not tremendously useful in scientific matters.

There is much, much more to reality than what human scientific discovery has produced.

[Shaker]

There is much, much more to reality than what human scientific discovery has produced.

And yet you and your kind are conspicuously silent when it comes to stumping up with any alternative methodology for finding out about reality. You can't say you haven't been asked.

I'll stick with science, thanks. It works. You're welcome to your guesses.

[BeRational]

There is much, much more to reality than what human scientific discovery has produced.

How do know?

[Walter]

How do know?

he doesn't but he doesn't know that . and therein lies the blinding flaw, however I too look forward to his answer.

[Alan Burns]

And yet you and your kind are conspicuously silent when it comes to stumping up with any alternative methodology for finding out about reality. You can't say you haven't been asked.

I'll stick with science, thanks. It works. You're welcome to your guesses.

Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.

[Gordon]

Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.

Which isn't an issue since 'purpose', as I suspect you intend by this term, is outwith the scope of science.

Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.

See above: you've yet to demonstrate that there is either 'purpose' or 'meaning': both sound like yet more reification.

[BeRational]

Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.

We give ourselves purpose.

The only 'real' purpose in life is to procreate.

[Outrider]

Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.
Because science alone is incapable of defining or discovering purpose or meaning.

But science IS my purpose (well, one of them). To learn, to enquire, to explore, to discover, to tease apart the tiny distinctions that differentiate water from sulphuric acid, sunlight from sunburn, weather from climate...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But science IS my purpose (well, one of them). To learn, to enquire, to explore, to discover, to tease apart the tiny distinctions that differentiate water from sulphuric acid, sunlight from sunburn, weather from climate...

O.

Outrider! My main man!

[Shaker]

Stick with science and you will no doubt miss out on any purpose in life.

Actually no - I find my purposes (plural deliberate) in and of my life tend to sort themselves out quite naturally.

But the gut-churning arrogance of the smug and simpering passive-aggressive theist is certainly noted.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.

How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.

I could use the start of Luke's Gospel and the book of Acts, but what would be the point?

A blind person needs to be cured of their blindness before they can see.

[Shaker]

I could use the start of Luke's Gospel and the book of Acts, but what would be the point?

Quite. What would be the point?

[Walter]

Actually no - I find my purposes (plural deliberate) in and of my life tend to sort themselves out quite naturally.

But the gut-churning arrogance of the smug and simpering passive-aggressive theist is certainly noted.

to engage with them allows them to think they have value , stop doing it ,please .

[Shaker]

to engage with them allows them to think they have value , stop doing it ,please .

While I slightly agree and have a modicum of sympathy with this view, I can't go along with it. We have much too much of this clownish shit in the world and it needs to be challenged and challenged hard. Weeds only thrive when left alone.

[Walter]

While I slightly agree and have a modicum of sympathy with this view, I can't go along with it. We have much too much of this clownish shit in the world and it needs to be challenged and challenged hard. Weeds only thrive when left alone.

I hope you apply this thinking to all religions in this country

[Aruntraveller]

I hope you apply this thinking to all religions in this country

I've known him virtually for a number of years - I think I can safely say he does 

[Shaker]

I hope you apply this thinking to all religions in this country

No I don't, actually - not quite in the way that El Voyager du Trent is probably thinking.

There's no need, principally. It's a question of priorities, the priority being: who is trying to materially affect and influence the lives of citizens on the basis of their unevidenced belief in immaterial entities who supposedly have opinions on how people live? Some Christians are. They're a problem. Some Muslims are. They're a problem. I know of no evidence at all that Buddhists and neo-pagans (for example) are. They're not a problem. I'm not particularly bothered that people think that good karma will lead to a meritorious rebirth in the future if they're not (again for example) agitating on that basis to stop gay couples getting married or to prevent stem cell research. I don't believe a word of it; it would be preferable that people weren't silly sausages in such an egregiously pork-herb-and-oatmeal manner but hey ho.

Like I said: priorities.

[Aruntraveller]

No I don't, actually - not quite in the way that El Voyager du Trent is probably thinking.

There's no need, principally. It's a question of priorities, the priority being: who is trying to materially affect and influence the lives of citizens on the basis of their unevidenced belief in immaterial entities who supposedly have opinions on how people live? Some Christians are. They're a problem. Some Muslims are. They're a problem. I know of no evidence at all that Buddhists and neo-pagans are. They're not a problem.

Like I said: priorities.

Ah yes - slightly misrepresenting you. But on an individual basis if someone of any given faith is spouting harmful rubbish I've never known you to shy away from being forthright.

[Shaker]

Ah yes - slightly misrepresenting you. But on an individual basis if someone of any given faith is spouting harmful rubbish I've never known you to shy away from being forthright.

Shitsticks.

And there was me trying to keep it quiet