mudcat.org: BS: The God Delusion 2010
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: The God Delusion 2010

Richard Bridge 25 Aug 10 - 06:23 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM
Little Hawk 25 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM
Bill D 25 Aug 10 - 06:48 PM
Little Hawk 25 Aug 10 - 06:58 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Aug 10 - 07:08 PM
Slag 25 Aug 10 - 07:32 PM
Smokey. 25 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM
Rob Naylor 25 Aug 10 - 07:43 PM
Don Firth 25 Aug 10 - 08:02 PM
Joe Offer 25 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM
Leadfingers 25 Aug 10 - 09:06 PM
Bobert 25 Aug 10 - 09:10 PM
Slag 25 Aug 10 - 09:23 PM
Ron Davies 25 Aug 10 - 09:30 PM
Ron Davies 25 Aug 10 - 09:35 PM
jacqui.c 25 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM
Richard Bridge 25 Aug 10 - 10:00 PM
ranger1 25 Aug 10 - 10:06 PM
GUEST,number 6 25 Aug 10 - 10:21 PM
Smokey. 25 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM
Bill D 25 Aug 10 - 11:39 PM
Dave MacKenzie 26 Aug 10 - 04:08 AM
Stu 26 Aug 10 - 05:41 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 06:04 AM
MGM·Lion 26 Aug 10 - 06:37 AM
Richard Bridge 26 Aug 10 - 06:49 AM
Ron Davies 26 Aug 10 - 07:15 AM
Ron Davies 26 Aug 10 - 07:23 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 07:46 AM
bobad 26 Aug 10 - 08:05 AM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 09:06 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 09:34 AM
Richard Bridge 26 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM
Georgiansilver 26 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 AM
Mrrzy 26 Aug 10 - 10:51 AM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 10:57 AM
Mrrzy 26 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Aug 10 - 11:27 AM
GUEST,Wesley S 26 Aug 10 - 11:36 AM
Bill D 26 Aug 10 - 11:38 AM
mousethief 26 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM
Bill D 26 Aug 10 - 11:53 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 12:06 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM
Bill D 26 Aug 10 - 12:28 PM
Bill D 26 Aug 10 - 12:34 PM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 26 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 26 Aug 10 - 12:53 PM
Stu 26 Aug 10 - 01:00 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 01:03 PM
Bill D 26 Aug 10 - 01:06 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 01:23 PM
Will Fly 26 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM
Little Hawk 26 Aug 10 - 01:29 PM
Will Fly 26 Aug 10 - 01:33 PM
Richard Bridge 26 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 01:42 PM
MGM·Lion 26 Aug 10 - 01:44 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Aug 10 - 01:46 PM
Richard Bridge 26 Aug 10 - 01:50 PM
Little Hawk 26 Aug 10 - 01:54 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 26 Aug 10 - 01:58 PM
Joe Offer 26 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 26 Aug 10 - 02:43 PM
Joe Offer 26 Aug 10 - 03:17 PM
Richard Bridge 26 Aug 10 - 03:27 PM
GUEST,Wesley S 26 Aug 10 - 03:36 PM
Joe Offer 26 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 03:45 PM
VirginiaTam 26 Aug 10 - 03:51 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 26 Aug 10 - 03:54 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 04:27 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 26 Aug 10 - 04:42 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 04:52 PM
McGrath of Harlow 26 Aug 10 - 04:58 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 05:03 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 05:05 PM
Art Thieme 26 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM
MGM·Lion 26 Aug 10 - 05:20 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 26 Aug 10 - 05:31 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Aug 10 - 06:10 PM
Little Hawk 26 Aug 10 - 06:44 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 07:03 PM
John P 26 Aug 10 - 07:17 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 26 Aug 10 - 07:18 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 07:37 PM
Wesley S 26 Aug 10 - 07:39 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 07:44 PM
Bill D 26 Aug 10 - 07:52 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 08:01 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 08:05 PM
Art Thieme 26 Aug 10 - 08:15 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 08:24 PM
Bill D 26 Aug 10 - 08:33 PM
Slag 26 Aug 10 - 08:37 PM
Smokey. 26 Aug 10 - 08:45 PM
John P 26 Aug 10 - 09:37 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM
olddude 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 PM
mousethief 26 Aug 10 - 10:41 PM
Ebbie 26 Aug 10 - 10:54 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 12:46 AM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 01:01 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Aug 10 - 01:37 AM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 02:08 AM
Little Hawk 27 Aug 10 - 02:19 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 27 Aug 10 - 03:43 AM
Stu 27 Aug 10 - 04:10 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 27 Aug 10 - 04:11 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 27 Aug 10 - 04:14 AM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 04:19 AM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 04:33 AM
mousethief 27 Aug 10 - 04:42 AM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 05:00 AM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 05:44 AM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 06:01 AM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 06:16 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 27 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Aug 10 - 06:31 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Aug 10 - 06:38 AM
McGrath of Harlow 27 Aug 10 - 06:55 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 27 Aug 10 - 07:19 AM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 08:22 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 27 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM
Stu 27 Aug 10 - 09:39 AM
Stu 27 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM
Stu 27 Aug 10 - 09:42 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 27 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 10:48 AM
John P 27 Aug 10 - 10:49 AM
Stu 27 Aug 10 - 11:19 AM
bobad 27 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 27 Aug 10 - 11:33 AM
GUEST,Wesley S 27 Aug 10 - 11:39 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 27 Aug 10 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 27 Aug 10 - 11:47 AM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 12:07 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 12:11 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM
Paul Burke 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 27 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM
Mrrzy 27 Aug 10 - 12:29 PM
Stu 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM
John P 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM
John P 27 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM
Wesley S 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM
Little Hawk 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM
Bill D 27 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM
John P 27 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 27 Aug 10 - 02:09 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM
Bill D 27 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 02:39 PM
Bill D 27 Aug 10 - 02:45 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 02:49 PM
Little Hawk 27 Aug 10 - 02:56 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 27 Aug 10 - 03:02 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM
John P 27 Aug 10 - 03:28 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 27 Aug 10 - 03:39 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 27 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 04:07 PM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 04:38 PM
Mrrzy 27 Aug 10 - 04:55 PM
mousethief 27 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM
Mrrzy 27 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM
VirginiaTam 27 Aug 10 - 06:24 PM
Bill D 27 Aug 10 - 06:30 PM
Paul Burke 27 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM
Smokey. 27 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM
Smokey. 27 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM
Smokey. 27 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Aug 10 - 09:01 PM
Joe Offer 27 Aug 10 - 09:12 PM
Art Thieme 27 Aug 10 - 09:20 PM
Smokey. 27 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM
olddude 27 Aug 10 - 09:32 PM
Smokey. 27 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM
Smokey. 27 Aug 10 - 10:29 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 28 Aug 10 - 03:41 AM
Joe Offer 28 Aug 10 - 03:51 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Aug 10 - 04:50 AM
Stu 28 Aug 10 - 06:05 AM
MGM·Lion 28 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM
McGrath of Harlow 28 Aug 10 - 06:22 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Aug 10 - 06:29 AM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 08:25 AM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 08:44 AM
McGrath of Harlow 28 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM
Ron Davies 28 Aug 10 - 09:18 AM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 11:03 AM
Bill D 28 Aug 10 - 11:24 AM
Ebbie 28 Aug 10 - 11:49 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 01:55 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 28 Aug 10 - 01:56 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 02:03 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 02:10 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 28 Aug 10 - 02:14 PM
Wesley S 28 Aug 10 - 02:21 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 02:24 PM
Little Hawk 28 Aug 10 - 02:25 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 02:27 PM
Wesley S 28 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 02:35 PM
Wesley S 28 Aug 10 - 02:42 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 02:52 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 02:59 PM
Paul Burke 28 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 03:30 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM
Mrrzy 28 Aug 10 - 04:13 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM
Stringsinger 28 Aug 10 - 04:17 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 28 Aug 10 - 05:12 PM
Bill D 28 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM
pdq 28 Aug 10 - 05:52 PM
Smokey. 28 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM
Amos 28 Aug 10 - 06:07 PM
Mrrzy 28 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Aug 10 - 07:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 28 Aug 10 - 07:25 PM
Mrrzy 28 Aug 10 - 07:50 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Aug 10 - 07:54 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 07:55 PM
Little Hawk 28 Aug 10 - 08:03 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 08:08 PM
Little Hawk 28 Aug 10 - 08:19 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 08:47 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM
Amos 28 Aug 10 - 09:13 PM
Bill D 28 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 09:24 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 09:33 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM
Bill D 28 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM
Art Thieme 28 Aug 10 - 11:11 PM
olddude 28 Aug 10 - 11:45 PM
mousethief 29 Aug 10 - 12:31 AM
Amos 29 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM
Smokey. 29 Aug 10 - 01:13 AM
Joe Offer 29 Aug 10 - 02:36 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 29 Aug 10 - 05:15 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Aug 10 - 06:27 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Aug 10 - 06:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Aug 10 - 07:04 AM
Ron Davies 29 Aug 10 - 07:17 AM
bobad 29 Aug 10 - 07:18 AM
mauvepink 29 Aug 10 - 07:20 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Aug 10 - 07:26 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 29 Aug 10 - 07:28 AM
mauvepink 29 Aug 10 - 07:33 AM
VirginiaTam 29 Aug 10 - 07:41 AM
Ron Davies 29 Aug 10 - 07:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Aug 10 - 07:53 AM
Ron Davies 29 Aug 10 - 08:11 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 29 Aug 10 - 08:35 AM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Aug 10 - 08:43 AM
mauvepink 29 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM
Greg F. 29 Aug 10 - 09:13 AM
VirginiaTam 29 Aug 10 - 09:27 AM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 09:40 AM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM
olddude 29 Aug 10 - 09:44 AM
Stu 29 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 29 Aug 10 - 10:21 AM
Ron Davies 29 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM
Stu 29 Aug 10 - 10:40 AM
Ron Davies 29 Aug 10 - 10:41 AM
Bill D 29 Aug 10 - 11:07 AM
olddude 29 Aug 10 - 11:17 AM
mauvepink 29 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM
Greg F. 29 Aug 10 - 11:54 AM
Joe Offer 29 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM
Mrrzy 29 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM
Bill D 29 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM
Greg F. 29 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM
mauvepink 29 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 29 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 03:40 PM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 03:44 PM
pdq 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM
Mrrzy 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 29 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM
VirginiaTam 29 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM
Mrrzy 29 Aug 10 - 04:21 PM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 05:04 PM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 05:39 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 29 Aug 10 - 05:54 PM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM
Stringsinger 29 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM
Amos 29 Aug 10 - 08:16 PM
Bill D 29 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM
Mrrzy 29 Aug 10 - 10:42 PM
Ron Davies 29 Aug 10 - 11:57 PM
MGM·Lion 30 Aug 10 - 01:14 AM
Smokey. 30 Aug 10 - 01:32 AM
mousethief 30 Aug 10 - 02:22 AM
MGM·Lion 30 Aug 10 - 05:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Aug 10 - 05:50 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Aug 10 - 06:22 AM
Ron Davies 30 Aug 10 - 07:07 AM
Lizzie Cornish 1 30 Aug 10 - 07:20 AM
Ron Davies 30 Aug 10 - 07:35 AM
Ron Davies 30 Aug 10 - 08:02 AM
Ron Davies 30 Aug 10 - 08:03 AM
John P 30 Aug 10 - 09:58 AM
Amos 30 Aug 10 - 10:14 AM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Aug 10 - 10:15 AM
Greg F. 30 Aug 10 - 10:32 AM
Mrrzy 30 Aug 10 - 11:26 AM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Aug 10 - 11:30 AM
TheSnail 30 Aug 10 - 11:35 AM
Bill D 30 Aug 10 - 11:39 AM
John P 30 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM
VirginiaTam 30 Aug 10 - 12:14 PM
Ebbie 30 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM
VirginiaTam 30 Aug 10 - 12:52 PM
Amos 30 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM
Stringsinger 30 Aug 10 - 01:35 PM
mousethief 30 Aug 10 - 01:42 PM
TheSnail 30 Aug 10 - 01:47 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 30 Aug 10 - 01:55 PM
olddude 30 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM
Desert Dancer 30 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM
Desert Dancer 30 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Aug 10 - 02:13 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 30 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM
Stringsinger 30 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM
Desert Dancer 30 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM
Amos 30 Aug 10 - 03:56 PM
mousethief 30 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM
mousethief 30 Aug 10 - 04:46 PM
Amos 30 Aug 10 - 04:46 PM
Bill D 30 Aug 10 - 05:01 PM
bobad 30 Aug 10 - 05:03 PM
Smokey. 30 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM
VirginiaTam 30 Aug 10 - 06:20 PM
John P 30 Aug 10 - 06:35 PM
John P 30 Aug 10 - 06:40 PM
Joe Offer 30 Aug 10 - 06:44 PM
Bill D 30 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM
Amos 30 Aug 10 - 07:09 PM
Bill D 30 Aug 10 - 07:24 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Aug 10 - 07:51 PM
mousethief 30 Aug 10 - 08:31 PM
Ron Davies 30 Aug 10 - 08:39 PM
GUEST,heric 30 Aug 10 - 08:43 PM
GUEST,heric 30 Aug 10 - 08:48 PM
Smokey. 30 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM
mousethief 30 Aug 10 - 10:36 PM
Smokey. 30 Aug 10 - 10:44 PM
Greg F. 30 Aug 10 - 10:56 PM
Ron Davies 30 Aug 10 - 11:04 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 31 Aug 10 - 04:26 AM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Aug 10 - 06:56 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Aug 10 - 07:05 AM
Ron Davies 31 Aug 10 - 07:12 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Aug 10 - 07:27 AM
MGM·Lion 31 Aug 10 - 07:59 AM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Aug 10 - 08:17 AM
Donuel 31 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM
MGM·Lion 31 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM
Greg F. 31 Aug 10 - 09:05 AM
Stu 31 Aug 10 - 09:30 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 31 Aug 10 - 09:56 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 31 Aug 10 - 09:59 AM
Greg F. 31 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM
Mrrzy 31 Aug 10 - 10:45 AM
Amos 31 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM
Bill D 31 Aug 10 - 11:42 AM
Amos 31 Aug 10 - 12:23 PM
Ebbie 31 Aug 10 - 12:32 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 31 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM
Ebbie 31 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM
John P 31 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM
John P 31 Aug 10 - 01:31 PM
Smokey. 31 Aug 10 - 01:58 PM
Smokey. 31 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM
mauvepink 31 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM
mauvepink 31 Aug 10 - 02:31 PM
Smokey. 31 Aug 10 - 02:34 PM
Amos 31 Aug 10 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 31 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM
Greg F. 31 Aug 10 - 03:28 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM
mousethief 31 Aug 10 - 05:15 PM
GUEST,BS = Briceida Santiago 31 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM
Ron Davies 31 Aug 10 - 06:05 PM
Ron Davies 31 Aug 10 - 06:10 PM
Stringsinger 31 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM
Greg F. 31 Aug 10 - 06:37 PM
Bill D 31 Aug 10 - 06:54 PM
Ron Davies 31 Aug 10 - 07:04 PM
Bill D 31 Aug 10 - 07:35 PM
McGrath of Harlow 31 Aug 10 - 07:36 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Aug 10 - 07:38 PM
Smokey. 31 Aug 10 - 07:50 PM
Amos 31 Aug 10 - 08:22 PM
Bill D 31 Aug 10 - 08:39 PM
pdq 31 Aug 10 - 08:55 PM
mauvepink 31 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM
mauvepink 31 Aug 10 - 09:07 PM
mauvepink 31 Aug 10 - 09:15 PM
Mrrzy 31 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM
mousethief 31 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM
Bill D 31 Aug 10 - 10:22 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Sep 10 - 06:10 AM
TheSnail 01 Sep 10 - 07:13 AM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Sep 10 - 07:49 AM
Stu 01 Sep 10 - 09:38 AM
Ron Davies 01 Sep 10 - 10:11 AM
Ron Davies 01 Sep 10 - 10:32 AM
John P 01 Sep 10 - 10:49 AM
Donuel 01 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 01 Sep 10 - 12:31 PM
Greg F. 01 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Sep 10 - 12:59 PM
Greg F. 01 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 01 Sep 10 - 01:39 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 02:57 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM
Amos 01 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM
Bill D 01 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 04:05 PM
Amos 01 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM
Donuel 01 Sep 10 - 04:34 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Sep 10 - 04:43 PM
Donuel 01 Sep 10 - 04:51 PM
Bill D 01 Sep 10 - 05:05 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM
Bill D 01 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM
Mrrzy 01 Sep 10 - 05:50 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 06:39 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 06:55 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Sep 10 - 07:03 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 07:30 PM
Donuel 01 Sep 10 - 07:38 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 07:50 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 07:58 PM
Bill D 01 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM
TheSnail 01 Sep 10 - 08:04 PM
Mrrzy 01 Sep 10 - 08:06 PM
Donuel 01 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 08:18 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 08:52 PM
Mrrzy 01 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 09:01 PM
Ron Davies 01 Sep 10 - 09:11 PM
Donuel 01 Sep 10 - 09:16 PM
Ron Davies 01 Sep 10 - 09:16 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 09:38 PM
Ed T 01 Sep 10 - 09:48 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 10:29 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 10:45 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM
Ron Davies 01 Sep 10 - 11:43 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 11:52 PM
Smokey. 01 Sep 10 - 11:54 PM
mousethief 01 Sep 10 - 11:57 PM
Smokey. 02 Sep 10 - 12:16 AM
mousethief 02 Sep 10 - 12:32 AM
Smokey. 02 Sep 10 - 12:40 AM
mousethief 02 Sep 10 - 01:02 AM
Smokey. 02 Sep 10 - 01:31 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 10 - 06:49 AM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Sep 10 - 07:10 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 10 - 07:30 AM
Ron Davies 02 Sep 10 - 07:50 AM
Ron Davies 02 Sep 10 - 08:29 AM
Greg F. 02 Sep 10 - 08:46 AM
TheSnail 02 Sep 10 - 09:08 AM
Mrrzy 02 Sep 10 - 09:45 AM
John P 02 Sep 10 - 10:03 AM
Amos 02 Sep 10 - 10:13 AM
TheSnail 02 Sep 10 - 10:18 AM
Stu 02 Sep 10 - 10:40 AM
Stu 02 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 02 Sep 10 - 10:45 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM
Bill D 02 Sep 10 - 11:41 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 02 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM
Stu 02 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM
Stu 02 Sep 10 - 12:12 PM
Bill D 02 Sep 10 - 12:23 PM
Ebbie 02 Sep 10 - 12:29 PM
Greg F. 02 Sep 10 - 12:33 PM
Amos 02 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM
Smokey. 02 Sep 10 - 01:02 PM
Greg F. 02 Sep 10 - 01:04 PM
Amos 02 Sep 10 - 01:16 PM
Greg F. 02 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM
Stu 02 Sep 10 - 01:30 PM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Sep 10 - 01:33 PM
Stu 02 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM
GUEST,Mrrzy away 02 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM
mousethief 02 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM
Donuel 02 Sep 10 - 03:07 PM
mousethief 02 Sep 10 - 03:13 PM
John P 02 Sep 10 - 03:19 PM
Stu 02 Sep 10 - 03:20 PM
Bill D 02 Sep 10 - 03:25 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 10 - 03:59 PM
Mrrzy 02 Sep 10 - 04:30 PM
Amos 02 Sep 10 - 04:31 PM
Bill D 02 Sep 10 - 04:55 PM
mousethief 02 Sep 10 - 05:23 PM
John P 02 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM
John P 02 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM
TheSnail 02 Sep 10 - 05:49 PM
Bill D 02 Sep 10 - 05:57 PM
Ebbie 02 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM
Amos 02 Sep 10 - 06:02 PM
Lox 02 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM
Stringsinger 02 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM
John P 02 Sep 10 - 06:52 PM
Lox 02 Sep 10 - 06:59 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM
Lox 02 Sep 10 - 07:10 PM
Bill D 02 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM
Ed T 02 Sep 10 - 07:35 PM
Ed T 02 Sep 10 - 07:43 PM
Ebbie 02 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM
mauvepink 02 Sep 10 - 08:36 PM
mauvepink 02 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM
Ron Davies 02 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM
Mrrzy 02 Sep 10 - 09:26 PM
Smokey. 02 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM
Bill D 02 Sep 10 - 09:50 PM
Smokey. 02 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM
Amos 02 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM
mousethief 03 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Sep 10 - 04:57 AM
TheSnail 03 Sep 10 - 05:30 AM
Stu 03 Sep 10 - 05:33 AM
mauvepink 03 Sep 10 - 05:37 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Sep 10 - 06:34 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Sep 10 - 08:23 AM
Bill D 03 Sep 10 - 10:19 AM
Bill D 03 Sep 10 - 10:46 AM
Amos 03 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM
mousethief 03 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM
John P 03 Sep 10 - 12:12 PM
TheSnail 03 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM
mayomick 03 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM
Bill D 03 Sep 10 - 02:29 PM
Amos 03 Sep 10 - 02:42 PM
Bill D 03 Sep 10 - 03:09 PM
Amos 03 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM
Bill D 03 Sep 10 - 04:38 PM
Lox 03 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Sep 10 - 09:03 PM
Stringsinger 03 Sep 10 - 09:46 PM
Lox 03 Sep 10 - 09:57 PM
mousethief 04 Sep 10 - 12:06 AM
Smokey. 04 Sep 10 - 12:50 AM
TheSnail 04 Sep 10 - 05:38 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Sep 10 - 06:06 AM
mauvepink 04 Sep 10 - 06:17 AM
mauvepink 04 Sep 10 - 06:31 AM
Lox 04 Sep 10 - 06:43 AM
Lox 04 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM
mauvepink 04 Sep 10 - 06:56 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 04 Sep 10 - 07:01 AM
Lox 04 Sep 10 - 07:15 AM
mauvepink 04 Sep 10 - 07:18 AM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Sep 10 - 07:32 AM
mayomick 04 Sep 10 - 08:44 AM
Lox 04 Sep 10 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 04 Sep 10 - 09:17 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Sep 10 - 09:53 AM
Bill D 04 Sep 10 - 11:37 AM
Amos 04 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM
mousethief 04 Sep 10 - 08:14 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM
mousethief 05 Sep 10 - 12:10 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 05 Sep 10 - 02:50 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 05 Sep 10 - 02:56 AM
Joe Offer 05 Sep 10 - 03:26 AM
mousethief 05 Sep 10 - 03:30 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 05 Sep 10 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 05 Sep 10 - 05:03 AM
TheSnail 05 Sep 10 - 06:04 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 05 Sep 10 - 06:14 AM
mauvepink 05 Sep 10 - 07:29 AM
mauvepink 05 Sep 10 - 08:02 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Sep 10 - 09:47 AM
Amos 05 Sep 10 - 10:07 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 05 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM
Amos 05 Sep 10 - 11:38 AM
John P 05 Sep 10 - 02:42 PM
Stringsinger 05 Sep 10 - 04:12 PM
mauvepink 05 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM
Bill D 05 Sep 10 - 07:53 PM
Stringsinger 05 Sep 10 - 07:57 PM
mousethief 05 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM
Stringsinger 05 Sep 10 - 08:48 PM
mousethief 05 Sep 10 - 09:30 PM
Joe Offer 06 Sep 10 - 01:39 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 06 Sep 10 - 02:21 AM
Joe Offer 06 Sep 10 - 02:49 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 06 Sep 10 - 03:04 AM
Ebbie 06 Sep 10 - 03:22 AM
Lizzie Cornish 1 06 Sep 10 - 03:59 AM
Joe Offer 06 Sep 10 - 04:13 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 06 Sep 10 - 04:18 AM
Joe Offer 06 Sep 10 - 04:20 AM
TheSnail 06 Sep 10 - 05:36 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 06 Sep 10 - 06:50 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 06:53 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 07:09 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 07:21 AM
mayomick 06 Sep 10 - 07:28 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 06 Sep 10 - 07:45 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 09:17 AM
mayomick 06 Sep 10 - 10:04 AM
Stu 06 Sep 10 - 10:38 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Sep 10 - 10:56 AM
Bill D 06 Sep 10 - 11:08 AM
Stringsinger 06 Sep 10 - 11:09 AM
Stu 06 Sep 10 - 11:31 AM
Stringsinger 06 Sep 10 - 11:43 AM
mauvepink 06 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM
mauvepink 06 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM
mauvepink 06 Sep 10 - 01:23 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 03:11 PM
Joe Offer 06 Sep 10 - 03:14 PM
mousethief 06 Sep 10 - 03:24 PM
Mrrzy 06 Sep 10 - 04:24 PM
TheSnail 06 Sep 10 - 04:45 PM
mayomick 06 Sep 10 - 04:53 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 04:55 PM
mousethief 06 Sep 10 - 04:58 PM
GUEST,Tunesmith 06 Sep 10 - 05:08 PM
GUEST 06 Sep 10 - 05:14 PM
GUEST,Ron Davies 06 Sep 10 - 05:16 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 05:18 PM
Smokey. 06 Sep 10 - 05:22 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 05:23 PM
TheSnail 06 Sep 10 - 05:24 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 05:49 PM
TheSnail 06 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 06:13 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 06:16 PM
TheSnail 06 Sep 10 - 06:46 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 07:02 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 07:45 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM
Bill D 06 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM
mousethief 06 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM
Lox 06 Sep 10 - 08:44 PM
mousethief 06 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM
GUEST,josep 06 Sep 10 - 10:57 PM
GUEST,josep 06 Sep 10 - 11:04 PM
Ebbie 06 Sep 10 - 11:05 PM
GUEST,josep 06 Sep 10 - 11:15 PM
GUEST 06 Sep 10 - 11:20 PM
Ebbie 06 Sep 10 - 11:30 PM
Donuel 06 Sep 10 - 11:43 PM
mousethief 07 Sep 10 - 12:22 AM
mousethief 07 Sep 10 - 12:28 AM
Joe Offer 07 Sep 10 - 01:46 AM
TheSnail 07 Sep 10 - 04:05 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 04:23 AM
Joe Offer 07 Sep 10 - 04:26 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 04:28 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 04:33 AM
GUEST,Patsy 07 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM
Joe Offer 07 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM
Lox 07 Sep 10 - 04:52 AM
Lox 07 Sep 10 - 04:54 AM
Stu 07 Sep 10 - 04:57 AM
Lox 07 Sep 10 - 05:22 AM
mayomick 07 Sep 10 - 05:41 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 06:08 AM
TheSnail 07 Sep 10 - 06:18 AM
Lox 07 Sep 10 - 07:44 AM
Stu 07 Sep 10 - 09:49 AM
Mrrzy 07 Sep 10 - 01:38 PM
Stringsinger 07 Sep 10 - 01:48 PM
Amos 07 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM
Amos 07 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM
mousethief 07 Sep 10 - 05:09 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 05:33 PM
GUEST,josep 07 Sep 10 - 05:56 PM
Mrrzy 07 Sep 10 - 06:12 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 06:39 PM
mauvepink 07 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Sep 10 - 08:29 PM
mauvepink 07 Sep 10 - 08:41 PM
Donuel 07 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM
Amos 07 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM
Mrrzy 07 Sep 10 - 09:28 PM
TheSnail 07 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM
Joe Offer 08 Sep 10 - 12:18 AM
Ebbie 08 Sep 10 - 12:26 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Sep 10 - 06:01 AM
Lox 08 Sep 10 - 07:46 AM
TheSnail 08 Sep 10 - 07:53 AM
Mrrzy 08 Sep 10 - 11:21 AM
mauvepink 08 Sep 10 - 11:41 AM
GUEST,josep 08 Sep 10 - 12:27 PM
Amos 08 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM
Amos 08 Sep 10 - 12:41 PM
Stringsinger 08 Sep 10 - 12:56 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM
Lox 09 Sep 10 - 08:53 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Sep 10 - 10:23 AM
Jack the Sailor 09 Sep 10 - 10:48 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Sep 10 - 11:44 AM
Mrrzy 09 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM
Amos 09 Sep 10 - 11:56 AM
Stu 09 Sep 10 - 12:09 PM
Joe Offer 09 Sep 10 - 02:29 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 09 Sep 10 - 02:37 PM
Amos 09 Sep 10 - 02:49 PM
Jack the Sailor 09 Sep 10 - 03:08 PM
Mrrzy 09 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM
Lox 09 Sep 10 - 05:02 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM
Wesley S 09 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM
Lox 09 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Sep 10 - 06:05 PM
Stringsinger 09 Sep 10 - 07:54 PM
Wesley S 09 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM
GUEST,josep 09 Sep 10 - 08:17 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Sep 10 - 08:26 PM
Ron Davies 09 Sep 10 - 08:31 PM
Amos 09 Sep 10 - 08:39 PM
GUEST,josep 09 Sep 10 - 08:57 PM
Ron Davies 09 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM
Joe Offer 09 Sep 10 - 10:49 PM
Jeri 09 Sep 10 - 10:57 PM
Joe Offer 09 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM
Ebbie 09 Sep 10 - 11:33 PM
GUEST,josep 09 Sep 10 - 11:50 PM
Ebbie 10 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 10 Sep 10 - 03:36 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 10 Sep 10 - 03:53 AM
Lox 10 Sep 10 - 05:31 AM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 10 Sep 10 - 05:58 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Sep 10 - 06:06 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Sep 10 - 06:13 AM
Lox 10 Sep 10 - 06:49 AM
mauvepink 10 Sep 10 - 07:49 AM
Stu 10 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM
Amos 10 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM
Mrrzy 10 Sep 10 - 10:46 AM
Bill D 10 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM
Amos 10 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM
Jack the Sailor 10 Sep 10 - 01:45 PM
Paul Burke 10 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM
Paul Burke 10 Sep 10 - 01:57 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Sep 10 - 02:18 PM
Bill D 10 Sep 10 - 02:41 PM
Amos 10 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM
Mrrzy 10 Sep 10 - 03:54 PM
Ebbie 10 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM
Amos 10 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM
Bill D 10 Sep 10 - 05:46 PM
Amos 10 Sep 10 - 06:11 PM
Bill D 10 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 10 Sep 10 - 06:23 PM
Paul Burke 10 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM
GUEST,josep 10 Sep 10 - 07:41 PM
GUEST,josep 10 Sep 10 - 07:58 PM
GUEST,josep 10 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM
GUEST,josep 10 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM
Paul Burke 10 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM
Donuel 10 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM
Donuel 10 Sep 10 - 10:14 PM
Jack the Sailor 10 Sep 10 - 10:52 PM
GUEST,josep 10 Sep 10 - 11:29 PM
GUEST,josep 10 Sep 10 - 11:40 PM
GUEST,josep 10 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM
Mrrzy 11 Sep 10 - 01:32 AM
GUEST,Tunesmith 11 Sep 10 - 02:59 AM
Joe Offer 11 Sep 10 - 03:49 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Sep 10 - 06:06 AM
mauvepink 11 Sep 10 - 06:47 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 11 Sep 10 - 07:01 AM
mauvepink 11 Sep 10 - 07:10 AM
Lox 11 Sep 10 - 07:34 AM
Stu 11 Sep 10 - 07:39 AM
mauvepink 11 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM
Lox 11 Sep 10 - 08:04 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 11 Sep 10 - 08:05 AM
Bill D 11 Sep 10 - 12:06 PM
bobad 11 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM
Mrrzy 11 Sep 10 - 12:54 PM
Joe Offer 11 Sep 10 - 01:06 PM
Stringsinger 11 Sep 10 - 01:12 PM
Donuel 11 Sep 10 - 01:24 PM
GUEST,I always fill this box in before I type a m 11 Sep 10 - 01:27 PM
Ebbie 11 Sep 10 - 01:53 PM
Donuel 11 Sep 10 - 01:57 PM
Bill D 11 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM
Bill D 11 Sep 10 - 02:12 PM
Mrrzy 11 Sep 10 - 02:20 PM
romanyman 11 Sep 10 - 02:22 PM
Smokey. 11 Sep 10 - 03:15 PM
Ebbie 11 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM
GUEST,josep 11 Sep 10 - 05:07 PM
GUEST,josep 11 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM
Amos 11 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM
Jeri 11 Sep 10 - 06:08 PM
Smokey. 11 Sep 10 - 06:33 PM
GUEST,josep 11 Sep 10 - 11:22 PM
GUEST,josep 11 Sep 10 - 11:37 PM
Smokey. 11 Sep 10 - 11:48 PM
GUEST,josep 11 Sep 10 - 11:49 PM
Smokey. 11 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM
GUEST,josep 12 Sep 10 - 12:01 AM
Smokey. 12 Sep 10 - 12:04 AM
Ebbie 12 Sep 10 - 01:31 AM
Amos 12 Sep 10 - 04:47 AM
Lox 12 Sep 10 - 08:13 AM
Ebbie 12 Sep 10 - 12:16 PM
Stringsinger 12 Sep 10 - 12:32 PM
Stringsinger 12 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM
Amos 12 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM
Mrrzy 12 Sep 10 - 04:29 PM
Amos 12 Sep 10 - 04:47 PM
Joe Offer 12 Sep 10 - 04:54 PM
Paul Burke 12 Sep 10 - 05:15 PM
Smokey. 12 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM
Lox 12 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM
Smokey. 12 Sep 10 - 06:52 PM
Smokey. 12 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM
Lox 13 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM
Bill D 13 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 10:48 AM
Amos 13 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM
Bill D 13 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM
olddude 13 Sep 10 - 11:23 AM
Donuel 13 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM
3refs 13 Sep 10 - 03:29 PM
Lox 13 Sep 10 - 03:35 PM
Bill D 13 Sep 10 - 03:50 PM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 04:53 PM
Lox 13 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM
Lox 13 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM
Lox 13 Sep 10 - 05:56 PM
Lox 13 Sep 10 - 05:59 PM
Lox 13 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 06:03 PM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 06:05 PM
GUEST,josep 13 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM
Mrrzy 13 Sep 10 - 07:56 PM
GUEST,josep 13 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM
GUEST,josep 13 Sep 10 - 08:58 PM
GUEST,josep 13 Sep 10 - 09:05 PM
Mrrzy 13 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM
Smokey. 13 Sep 10 - 09:24 PM
Amos 13 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM
GUEST,josep 13 Sep 10 - 11:38 PM
GUEST,josep 14 Sep 10 - 12:08 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Sep 10 - 05:44 AM
Steve Shaw 14 Sep 10 - 06:19 AM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 07:42 AM
Donuel 14 Sep 10 - 07:57 AM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 08:08 AM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 08:34 AM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 08:41 AM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 08:47 AM
Amos 14 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM
Bill D 14 Sep 10 - 11:31 AM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 12:14 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 12:22 PM
Ebbie 14 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM
Stringsinger 14 Sep 10 - 12:47 PM
Bill D 14 Sep 10 - 12:52 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 01:07 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 01:21 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM
Paul Burke 14 Sep 10 - 01:36 PM
Bill D 14 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 01:50 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 14 Sep 10 - 02:04 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 14 Sep 10 - 02:09 PM
Crow Sister (off with the fairies) 14 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 02:14 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 02:17 PM
Paul Burke 14 Sep 10 - 02:18 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 02:38 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 02:47 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 02:50 PM
Lox 14 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 03:05 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Sep 10 - 03:07 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Sep 10 - 03:10 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 03:25 PM
GUEST,josep 14 Sep 10 - 11:14 PM
Amos 14 Sep 10 - 11:22 PM
Smokey. 14 Sep 10 - 11:29 PM
GUEST,josep 14 Sep 10 - 11:45 PM
GUEST,josep 14 Sep 10 - 11:57 PM
Amos 15 Sep 10 - 10:35 AM
Bill D 15 Sep 10 - 11:03 AM
Donuel 15 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM
Donuel 15 Sep 10 - 11:25 AM
Donuel 15 Sep 10 - 11:50 AM
Stringsinger 15 Sep 10 - 12:40 PM
Amos 15 Sep 10 - 01:06 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Sep 10 - 01:59 PM
Amos 15 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM
Lox 15 Sep 10 - 04:59 PM
Smokey. 15 Sep 10 - 05:15 PM
Bill D 15 Sep 10 - 05:31 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 15 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM
Bill D 15 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM
Smokey. 15 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM
Amos 15 Sep 10 - 08:38 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Sep 10 - 08:48 PM
Mrrzy 15 Sep 10 - 09:17 PM
Smokey. 15 Sep 10 - 09:34 PM
GUEST,josep 15 Sep 10 - 10:16 PM
Smokey. 15 Sep 10 - 10:50 PM
Amos 15 Sep 10 - 11:12 PM
GUEST,josep 15 Sep 10 - 11:34 PM
Smokey. 15 Sep 10 - 11:36 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 12:42 AM
Lox 16 Sep 10 - 05:04 AM
Steve Shaw 16 Sep 10 - 06:08 AM
Lox 16 Sep 10 - 08:55 AM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 12:19 PM
Ebbie 16 Sep 10 - 12:24 PM
Amos 16 Sep 10 - 12:38 PM
Bill D 16 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM
Amos 16 Sep 10 - 01:34 PM
Amos 16 Sep 10 - 02:07 PM
Paul Burke 16 Sep 10 - 02:35 PM
GUEST,mauvepink 16 Sep 10 - 02:36 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 04:16 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 16 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Sep 10 - 04:39 PM
Paul Burke 16 Sep 10 - 04:51 PM
Bill D 16 Sep 10 - 05:07 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 05:41 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM
Bill D 16 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM
Amos 16 Sep 10 - 06:28 PM
Amos 16 Sep 10 - 06:44 PM
Bill D 16 Sep 10 - 07:05 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM
Ebbie 16 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM
GUEST,josep 16 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM
Joe Offer 16 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM
GUEST,josep 16 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Sep 10 - 08:31 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Sep 10 - 08:35 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Sep 10 - 08:38 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 08:43 PM
GUEST,josep 16 Sep 10 - 09:10 PM
GUEST,josep 16 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 09:41 PM
GUEST,josep 16 Sep 10 - 09:49 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 10:01 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM
Bill D 16 Sep 10 - 10:32 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM
Smokey. 16 Sep 10 - 11:44 PM
Amos 16 Sep 10 - 11:52 PM
Joe Offer 17 Sep 10 - 02:10 AM
Lox 17 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Sep 10 - 05:03 AM
WalkaboutsVerse 17 Sep 10 - 05:52 AM
s&r 17 Sep 10 - 06:26 AM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Sep 10 - 09:38 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Sep 10 - 10:04 AM
Bill D 17 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM
Amos 17 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM
Bill D 17 Sep 10 - 10:50 AM
WalkaboutsVerse 17 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM
Stringsinger 17 Sep 10 - 03:01 PM
Stringsinger 17 Sep 10 - 03:11 PM
Joe Offer 17 Sep 10 - 03:36 PM
Smokey. 17 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM
GUEST,josep 17 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM
GUEST,josep 17 Sep 10 - 07:09 PM
Smokey. 17 Sep 10 - 07:22 PM
Paul Burke 17 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM
GUEST,josep 17 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM
Smokey. 17 Sep 10 - 08:05 PM
McGrath of Harlow 17 Sep 10 - 08:22 PM
GUEST,josep 17 Sep 10 - 08:46 PM
GUEST,josep 17 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM
Smokey. 17 Sep 10 - 09:34 PM
Smokey. 17 Sep 10 - 09:52 PM
Smokey. 17 Sep 10 - 11:33 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 12:05 AM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 12:13 AM
Smokey. 18 Sep 10 - 12:40 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Sep 10 - 04:23 AM
Paul Burke 18 Sep 10 - 05:46 AM
WalkaboutsVerse 18 Sep 10 - 06:19 AM
Lox 18 Sep 10 - 09:04 AM
Paul Burke 18 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM
Amos 18 Sep 10 - 10:47 AM
Ron Davies 18 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM
Smokey. 18 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM
Paul Burke 18 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM
Smokey. 18 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 02:27 PM
Ron Davies 18 Sep 10 - 04:06 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Sep 10 - 04:08 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Sep 10 - 04:17 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 04:56 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 05:24 PM
GUEST,josep 18 Sep 10 - 05:25 PM
WalkaboutsVerse 18 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM
Smokey. 18 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Sep 10 - 08:17 PM
Bill D 18 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM
TheSnail 18 Sep 10 - 09:14 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Sep 10 - 07:27 AM
Paul Burke 19 Sep 10 - 09:33 AM
Stringsinger 19 Sep 10 - 11:57 AM
Mr Happy 19 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM
Paul Burke 19 Sep 10 - 04:14 PM
Smokey. 19 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 19 Sep 10 - 06:08 PM
Mrrzy 19 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM
Ebbie 19 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM
Stringsinger 19 Sep 10 - 07:37 PM
bobad 19 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM
Amos 19 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM
Mrrzy 19 Sep 10 - 08:21 PM
Amos 19 Sep 10 - 08:51 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 09:41 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 09:43 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 10:03 PM
GUEST,josep 19 Sep 10 - 10:12 PM
Smokey. 19 Sep 10 - 10:51 PM
TheSnail 20 Sep 10 - 07:45 AM
Mrrzy 20 Sep 10 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM
Steve Shaw 20 Sep 10 - 11:55 AM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 10 - 12:01 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 10 - 12:43 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 10 - 12:53 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 10 - 12:56 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM
Mrrzy 20 Sep 10 - 01:20 PM
Bill D 20 Sep 10 - 01:56 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 02:13 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 10 - 02:38 PM
TheSnail 20 Sep 10 - 03:04 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 03:22 PM
Paul Burke 20 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM
Jack the Sailor 20 Sep 10 - 04:35 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 05:17 PM
Mrrzy 20 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Sep 10 - 07:24 PM
GUEST,josep 20 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM
GUEST,josep 20 Sep 10 - 08:15 PM
Ed T 20 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM
Ed T 20 Sep 10 - 08:40 PM
Smokey. 20 Sep 10 - 09:14 PM
Smokey. 20 Sep 10 - 09:17 PM
GUEST,josep 20 Sep 10 - 09:22 PM
GUEST,josep 20 Sep 10 - 09:46 PM
Amos 20 Sep 10 - 11:41 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 12:16 AM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 01:24 AM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 11:19 AM
Mrrzy 21 Sep 10 - 11:22 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 21 Sep 10 - 11:30 AM
Stringsinger 21 Sep 10 - 12:06 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM
Mrrzy 21 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM
olddude 21 Sep 10 - 02:15 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 02:17 PM
Paul Burke 21 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 02:37 PM
Mrrzy 21 Sep 10 - 03:10 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 03:13 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM
olddude 21 Sep 10 - 03:46 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM
Ed T 21 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 04:33 PM
Mrrzy 21 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM
Ed T 21 Sep 10 - 06:21 PM
Bill D 21 Sep 10 - 06:53 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 07:12 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM
Bill D 21 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 07:32 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM
GUEST,josep 21 Sep 10 - 07:56 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 08:12 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 09:07 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 09:22 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM
Amos 21 Sep 10 - 10:26 PM
Mrrzy 21 Sep 10 - 10:46 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 11:19 PM
Bill D 21 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM
Smokey. 21 Sep 10 - 11:34 PM
Amos 22 Sep 10 - 10:07 AM
Mrrzy 22 Sep 10 - 10:40 AM
Amos 22 Sep 10 - 11:04 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 22 Sep 10 - 12:20 PM
Paul Burke 22 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM
Jack the Sailor 22 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM
Amos 22 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM
Mrrzy 22 Sep 10 - 04:50 PM
Amos 22 Sep 10 - 05:11 PM
GUEST,josep 22 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM
GUEST,josep 22 Sep 10 - 06:44 PM
Mrrzy 22 Sep 10 - 06:58 PM
Jack the Sailor 22 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Sep 10 - 07:29 PM
GUEST,josep 22 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM
GUEST,josep 22 Sep 10 - 07:38 PM
Smokey. 22 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM
Bill D 22 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM
Smokey. 22 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM
Bill D 22 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM
Jack the Sailor 22 Sep 10 - 11:13 PM
Amos 22 Sep 10 - 11:20 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Sep 10 - 04:39 AM
TheSnail 23 Sep 10 - 09:15 AM
Amos 23 Sep 10 - 10:00 AM
Bill D 23 Sep 10 - 10:53 AM
Mrrzy 23 Sep 10 - 10:53 AM
Smokey. 23 Sep 10 - 01:12 PM
Amos 23 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM
Mrrzy 23 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Sep 10 - 05:01 PM
TheSnail 23 Sep 10 - 05:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM
TheSnail 23 Sep 10 - 06:34 PM
Ebbie 23 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM
GUEST,josep 23 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM
GUEST,josep 23 Sep 10 - 11:51 PM
GUEST,Mrrzy chez a friend 24 Sep 10 - 12:07 AM
GUEST,Mrrzy, confused 24 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM
GUEST,josep 24 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM
Amos 24 Sep 10 - 01:15 AM
Ebbie 24 Sep 10 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Sep 10 - 09:23 AM
GUEST,Bill D--testing new browser 24 Sep 10 - 10:18 AM
Stringsinger 24 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM
Amos 24 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM
Ebbie 24 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM
Paul Burke 24 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM
Paul Burke 24 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM
Mrrzy 24 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM
Amos 24 Sep 10 - 01:27 PM
Bill D 24 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM
Amos 24 Sep 10 - 03:17 PM
Bill D 24 Sep 10 - 04:05 PM
Amos 24 Sep 10 - 04:39 PM
Paul Burke 24 Sep 10 - 04:49 PM
Smokey. 24 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM
GUEST,Bill D 24 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM
Smokey. 24 Sep 10 - 06:10 PM
Smokey. 24 Sep 10 - 06:13 PM
Bill D 24 Sep 10 - 06:28 PM
GUEST,josep 24 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM
GUEST,josep 24 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM
Paul Burke 24 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM
GUEST,josep 24 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM
Mrrzy 24 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM
Smokey. 24 Sep 10 - 11:37 PM
Amos 25 Sep 10 - 02:06 AM
Paul Burke 25 Sep 10 - 04:37 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Sep 10 - 05:26 AM
Mrrzy 25 Sep 10 - 10:05 AM
Paul Burke 25 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM
Bill D 25 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM
GUEST,josep 25 Sep 10 - 01:42 PM
Paul Burke 25 Sep 10 - 02:02 PM
Smokey. 25 Sep 10 - 02:48 PM
Smokey. 25 Sep 10 - 02:55 PM
GUEST,Romans 14 v 25 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM
Amos 25 Sep 10 - 04:00 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Sep 10 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,josep 25 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM
GUEST,josep 25 Sep 10 - 06:04 PM
Smokey. 25 Sep 10 - 06:19 PM
Stringsinger 25 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM
Mrrzy 25 Sep 10 - 09:45 PM
Amos 25 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM
GUEST,josep 26 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM
Stringsinger 26 Sep 10 - 12:59 PM
GUEST,josep 26 Sep 10 - 02:14 PM
Bill D 26 Sep 10 - 02:53 PM
Amos 26 Sep 10 - 04:18 PM
Smokey. 26 Sep 10 - 04:44 PM
Amos 26 Sep 10 - 04:46 PM
Smokey. 26 Sep 10 - 06:08 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Sep 10 - 07:15 PM
GUEST,josep 26 Sep 10 - 10:45 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Sep 10 - 06:12 AM
TheSnail 27 Sep 10 - 09:43 AM
Mrrzy 27 Sep 10 - 12:02 PM
Amos 27 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM
Amos 27 Sep 10 - 02:12 PM
Mrrzy 27 Sep 10 - 05:14 PM
Ed T 27 Sep 10 - 07:19 PM
Bill D 27 Sep 10 - 08:12 PM
Amos 27 Sep 10 - 08:34 PM
Bill D 27 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM
Amos 27 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,Patsy 28 Sep 10 - 10:27 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 11:40 AM
TheSnail 28 Sep 10 - 11:51 AM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 11:56 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Sep 10 - 11:58 AM
TheSnail 28 Sep 10 - 12:11 PM
Mrrzy 28 Sep 10 - 12:26 PM
GUEST 28 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM
Bill D 28 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM
TheSnail 28 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM
TheSnail 28 Sep 10 - 02:02 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 02:10 PM
Stringsinger 28 Sep 10 - 03:17 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 03:19 PM
Stringsinger 28 Sep 10 - 03:21 PM
Stringsinger 28 Sep 10 - 03:24 PM
Stringsinger 28 Sep 10 - 03:40 PM
Stringsinger 28 Sep 10 - 03:44 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Sep 10 - 03:55 PM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 04:08 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 04:40 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 05:02 PM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 05:12 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM
Bill D 28 Sep 10 - 07:11 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 07:22 PM
Bill D 28 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 08:13 PM
GUEST,josep 28 Sep 10 - 08:22 PM
Bill D 28 Sep 10 - 08:25 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 08:35 PM
GUEST,josep 28 Sep 10 - 08:37 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 08:51 PM
TheSnail 28 Sep 10 - 08:58 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 09:03 PM
Smokey. 28 Sep 10 - 09:44 PM
Amos 28 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 29 Sep 10 - 12:08 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Sep 10 - 05:45 AM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 29 Sep 10 - 10:20 AM
GUEST,josep 29 Sep 10 - 12:19 PM
Amos 29 Sep 10 - 12:57 PM
Stringsinger 29 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 29 Sep 10 - 01:21 PM
TheSnail 29 Sep 10 - 01:33 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM
Smokey. 29 Sep 10 - 04:15 PM
Mrrzy 29 Sep 10 - 04:43 PM
Bill D 29 Sep 10 - 04:45 PM
Amos 29 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM
Amos 29 Sep 10 - 07:13 PM
Bill D 29 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM
GUEST 29 Sep 10 - 11:31 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Sep 10 - 05:37 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Sep 10 - 05:42 AM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 30 Sep 10 - 09:16 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 30 Sep 10 - 02:03 PM
Bill D 30 Sep 10 - 02:30 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Sep 10 - 03:30 PM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 30 Sep 10 - 05:05 PM
Smokey. 30 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,mauvepink 30 Sep 10 - 07:29 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 01 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,mauvepink 01 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM
Stringsinger 01 Oct 10 - 04:47 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 01 Oct 10 - 06:35 PM
Smokey. 01 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM
GUEST,josep 02 Oct 10 - 10:42 AM
GUEST,josep 02 Oct 10 - 10:48 AM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 02 Oct 10 - 11:06 AM
Smokey. 02 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM
GUEST,mauvepink 02 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM
Smokey. 02 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM
Wesley S 02 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,josep 02 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 02 Oct 10 - 06:14 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Oct 10 - 06:55 PM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 02 Oct 10 - 11:24 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 03 Oct 10 - 10:52 AM
TheSnail 03 Oct 10 - 07:43 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM
GUEST,josep 03 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM
Smokey. 03 Oct 10 - 09:39 PM
GUEST,josep 03 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM
Smokey. 03 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM
TheSnail 04 Oct 10 - 05:02 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Oct 10 - 09:16 AM
Smokey. 04 Oct 10 - 10:50 PM
The Fooles Troupe 04 Oct 10 - 11:27 PM
Mrrzy 05 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM
GUEST,josep 05 Oct 10 - 09:12 PM
Amos 05 Oct 10 - 10:44 PM
The Fooles Troupe 05 Oct 10 - 11:06 PM
The Fooles Troupe 05 Oct 10 - 11:25 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 06 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,josep 06 Oct 10 - 12:20 PM
Amos 06 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM
Mrrzy 06 Oct 10 - 02:39 PM
Amos 06 Oct 10 - 02:59 PM
Donuel 06 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM
Paul Burke 06 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM
Ebbie 06 Oct 10 - 04:41 PM
Mrrzy 06 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 06 Oct 10 - 05:59 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 10 - 06:37 PM
Amos 06 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM
GUEST,josep 06 Oct 10 - 07:19 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Oct 10 - 07:34 PM
The Fooles Troupe 06 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM
The Fooles Troupe 06 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM
The Fooles Troupe 06 Oct 10 - 09:08 PM
Donuel 07 Oct 10 - 12:44 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Oct 10 - 11:45 AM
Amos 07 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM
Mrrzy 07 Oct 10 - 02:24 PM
Amos 07 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM
GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting 07 Oct 10 - 02:40 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM
Bill D 07 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM
The Fooles Troupe 07 Oct 10 - 07:25 PM
GUEST,josep 07 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM
Amos 07 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 10 - 08:39 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 10 - 08:51 PM
GUEST,josep 07 Oct 10 - 08:51 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM
Mrrzy 07 Oct 10 - 11:15 PM
GUEST,josep 07 Oct 10 - 11:57 PM
GUEST,josep 08 Oct 10 - 12:11 AM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Oct 10 - 01:38 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 10 - 04:53 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 10 - 04:57 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM
Amos 08 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM
Paul Burke 08 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Oct 10 - 03:34 PM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Oct 10 - 11:17 PM
The Fooles Troupe 09 Oct 10 - 07:48 AM
Mrrzy 09 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Oct 10 - 12:31 PM
Bill D 09 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM
Mrrzy 09 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM
Bill D 09 Oct 10 - 01:28 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Oct 10 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 09 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM
Stringsinger 09 Oct 10 - 04:57 PM
Mrrzy 09 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Oct 10 - 07:46 PM
Mrrzy 09 Oct 10 - 08:02 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Oct 10 - 08:11 PM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Oct 10 - 02:43 AM
Mrrzy 10 Oct 10 - 11:22 AM
Ebbie 10 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Oct 10 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 10 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Oct 10 - 02:20 PM
Amos 10 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Oct 10 - 06:36 PM
Bill D 10 Oct 10 - 07:26 PM
The Fooles Troupe 10 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM
TheSnail 11 Oct 10 - 05:27 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 11 Oct 10 - 12:12 PM
Donuel 11 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM
Amos 11 Oct 10 - 12:40 PM
Amos 11 Oct 10 - 01:09 PM
Greg F. 11 Oct 10 - 01:21 PM
Stringsinger 11 Oct 10 - 05:22 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM
Mrrzy 11 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM
The Fooles Troupe 11 Oct 10 - 09:44 PM
Stringsinger 12 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM
Amos 12 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 12 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM
Mrrzy 12 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM
Sian H 12 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Oct 10 - 06:33 PM
The Fooles Troupe 12 Oct 10 - 07:37 PM
Stringsinger 13 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 13 Oct 10 - 03:06 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM
Joe Offer 13 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM
Mrrzy 13 Oct 10 - 05:55 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Oct 10 - 08:08 PM
Stringsinger 14 Oct 10 - 08:19 AM
Stringsinger 14 Oct 10 - 08:26 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 14 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM
Mrrzy 14 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM
Mrrzy 14 Oct 10 - 03:50 PM
Steve Shaw 14 Oct 10 - 06:11 PM
The Fooles Troupe 14 Oct 10 - 07:27 PM
Bill D 14 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM
Stringsinger 14 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM
Ebbie 14 Oct 10 - 11:20 PM
The Fooles Troupe 14 Oct 10 - 11:29 PM
Ebbie 15 Oct 10 - 01:04 AM
Jack the Sailor 15 Oct 10 - 01:12 AM
The Fooles Troupe 15 Oct 10 - 01:31 AM
The Fooles Troupe 15 Oct 10 - 01:40 AM
Ebbie 15 Oct 10 - 11:16 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 15 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM
Jack the Sailor 15 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM
Mrrzy 15 Oct 10 - 01:52 PM
Stringsinger 15 Oct 10 - 03:28 PM
The Fooles Troupe 15 Oct 10 - 06:29 PM
The Fooles Troupe 15 Oct 10 - 07:07 PM
Ebbie 16 Oct 10 - 02:28 AM
Ebbie 16 Oct 10 - 02:31 AM
The Fooles Troupe 16 Oct 10 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 16 Oct 10 - 04:50 AM
Ed T 16 Oct 10 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 16 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Oct 10 - 04:45 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Oct 10 - 01:22 PM
Jack the Sailor 17 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM
Mrrzy 17 Oct 10 - 02:10 PM
Ron Davies 17 Oct 10 - 10:18 PM
Amos 17 Oct 10 - 10:51 PM
Ron Davies 18 Oct 10 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,Patsy 18 Oct 10 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Oct 10 - 10:32 AM
Steve Shaw 18 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM
Ebbie 18 Oct 10 - 01:12 PM
Mrrzy 18 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM
Amos 18 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM
Ebbie 18 Oct 10 - 03:32 PM
Mrrzy 18 Oct 10 - 09:32 PM
Ron Davies 18 Oct 10 - 10:29 PM
Ron Davies 18 Oct 10 - 10:37 PM
Ron Davies 18 Oct 10 - 10:51 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Oct 10 - 08:32 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 10 - 08:55 AM
Mrrzy 19 Oct 10 - 09:03 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Oct 10 - 09:06 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Oct 10 - 03:38 PM
Amos 20 Oct 10 - 03:55 PM
Mrrzy 21 Oct 10 - 11:38 AM
Amos 21 Oct 10 - 11:44 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 21 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM
Amos 21 Oct 10 - 02:25 PM
Jack the Sailor 21 Oct 10 - 08:10 PM
Amos 21 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 22 Oct 10 - 06:35 AM
Amos 22 Oct 10 - 10:09 AM
Mrrzy 22 Oct 10 - 10:30 AM
Jack the Sailor 22 Oct 10 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 22 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM
Jack the Sailor 22 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM
Mrrzy 22 Oct 10 - 04:35 PM
John P 22 Oct 10 - 05:48 PM
Amos 22 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM
Ron Davies 23 Oct 10 - 08:41 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 10 - 09:40 AM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 10:01 AM
John P 23 Oct 10 - 10:22 AM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 10:31 AM
Ron Davies 23 Oct 10 - 10:45 AM
Ron Davies 23 Oct 10 - 11:01 AM
John P 23 Oct 10 - 11:03 AM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM
John P 23 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 01:18 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM
GUEST,Ebbie 23 Oct 10 - 03:07 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 10 - 03:41 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM
Smokey. 23 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 04:34 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 05:15 PM
Smokey. 23 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM
Steve Shaw 23 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 11:07 PM
Smokey. 23 Oct 10 - 11:23 PM
Jack the Sailor 23 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM
Smokey. 24 Oct 10 - 12:08 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 06:24 AM
Ron Davies 24 Oct 10 - 08:12 AM
Amos 24 Oct 10 - 10:05 AM
Stringsinger 24 Oct 10 - 11:59 AM
John P 24 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM
Jack the Sailor 24 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM
Jack the Sailor 24 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM
Mrrzy 24 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM
Jack the Sailor 24 Oct 10 - 04:47 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM
Ron Davies 24 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM
Smokey. 24 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 06:23 PM
Ron Davies 24 Oct 10 - 06:30 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 06:41 PM
Smokey. 24 Oct 10 - 06:42 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 06:56 PM
Ron Davies 24 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM
Smokey. 24 Oct 10 - 07:12 PM
GUEST,Ebbie 24 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 07:19 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM
Smokey. 24 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM
Smokey. 24 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM
John P 24 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 24 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM
Ron Davies 24 Oct 10 - 10:15 PM
Smokey. 24 Oct 10 - 10:32 PM
Jack the Sailor 24 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM
John P 25 Oct 10 - 09:55 AM
Jack the Sailor 25 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM
Ebbie 25 Oct 10 - 02:28 PM
Jack the Sailor 25 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM
John P 25 Oct 10 - 05:29 PM
Smokey. 25 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,Patsy 26 Oct 10 - 08:57 AM
Stringsinger 26 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM
Stringsinger 26 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM
Jack the Sailor 26 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM
Smokey. 26 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM
Jack the Sailor 26 Oct 10 - 02:50 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 10 - 08:37 PM
Jack the Sailor 26 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Oct 10 - 09:02 PM
Jack the Sailor 26 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM
Jack the Sailor 26 Oct 10 - 09:07 PM
Smokey. 26 Oct 10 - 09:51 PM
John P 26 Oct 10 - 10:20 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 10:06 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 10:32 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 10:39 AM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 11:13 AM
John P 27 Oct 10 - 11:58 AM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 12:28 PM
Mrrzy 27 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 04:05 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 04:21 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 04:33 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 04:39 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 04:43 PM
Amos 27 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM
Mrrzy 27 Oct 10 - 04:48 PM
Amos 27 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 05:16 PM
Smokey. 27 Oct 10 - 05:18 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 05:23 PM
Smokey. 27 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 06:03 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 06:05 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 27 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM
Smokey. 27 Oct 10 - 06:16 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM
Ron Davies 27 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM
Ron Davies 27 Oct 10 - 08:59 PM
Mrrzy 27 Oct 10 - 10:03 PM
Jack the Sailor 27 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM
Ron Davies 27 Oct 10 - 10:14 PM
John P 27 Oct 10 - 11:08 PM
Smokey. 27 Oct 10 - 11:16 PM
John P 27 Oct 10 - 11:25 PM
Mrrzy 28 Oct 10 - 11:33 AM
Smokey. 28 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM
Mrrzy 28 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM
Smokey. 28 Oct 10 - 03:54 PM
Smokey. 28 Oct 10 - 04:40 PM
Mrrzy 28 Oct 10 - 04:59 PM
Smokey. 28 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM
Stringsinger 28 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM
Stringsinger 28 Oct 10 - 05:25 PM
Smokey. 28 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM
GUEST,josep 28 Oct 10 - 07:35 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Oct 10 - 07:53 PM
GUEST,josep 28 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Oct 10 - 08:28 PM
John P 29 Oct 10 - 09:58 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Oct 10 - 12:36 PM
Smokey. 29 Oct 10 - 07:42 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Oct 10 - 08:08 PM
Ron Davies 30 Oct 10 - 11:25 AM
Ron Davies 30 Oct 10 - 11:40 AM
Ron Davies 30 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM
Ebbie 30 Oct 10 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,josep 30 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM
Stringsinger 30 Oct 10 - 05:27 PM
Ron Davies 31 Oct 10 - 10:34 AM
Ron Davies 31 Oct 10 - 10:52 AM
John P 31 Oct 10 - 11:26 AM
GUEST,josep 31 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM
GUEST,josep 31 Oct 10 - 12:00 PM
Joe Offer 31 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM
Stringsinger 31 Oct 10 - 06:07 PM
Stringsinger 31 Oct 10 - 06:29 PM
InOBU 31 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM
Ron Davies 31 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM
Ron Davies 01 Nov 10 - 12:27 AM
John P 01 Nov 10 - 09:33 AM
Jack the Sailor 01 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 01 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM
John P 01 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM
Mrrzy 01 Nov 10 - 03:28 PM
Mrrzy 01 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM
Jack the Sailor 01 Nov 10 - 04:19 PM
Mrrzy 01 Nov 10 - 04:46 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Nov 10 - 04:55 PM
Stringsinger 01 Nov 10 - 06:12 PM
John P 01 Nov 10 - 07:00 PM
Amos 01 Nov 10 - 08:30 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM
John P 02 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM
Mrrzy 02 Nov 10 - 12:53 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM
Sawzaw 02 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM
John P 02 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 02:05 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 02:55 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 03:11 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 02 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 03:36 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 03:59 PM
John P 02 Nov 10 - 04:04 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 04:29 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 04:41 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 04:57 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 05:00 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 05:10 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 05:15 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 05:22 PM
Mrrzy 02 Nov 10 - 05:46 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 07:40 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 10 - 08:30 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 10 - 09:07 PM
John P 02 Nov 10 - 09:38 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 10 - 09:39 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Nov 10 - 09:43 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 10:00 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Nov 10 - 10:23 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 11:01 PM
Smokey. 02 Nov 10 - 11:20 PM
Smokey. 03 Nov 10 - 12:14 AM
Sawzaw 03 Nov 10 - 02:14 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 06:42 AM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 12:11 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM
John P 03 Nov 10 - 12:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 01:05 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 01:20 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 03 Nov 10 - 02:08 PM
Mrrzy 03 Nov 10 - 02:13 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM
Mrrzy 03 Nov 10 - 03:34 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 03:56 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 04:28 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 04:38 PM
Mrrzy 03 Nov 10 - 04:38 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 04:42 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 05:16 PM
Ed T 03 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM
Smokey. 03 Nov 10 - 06:35 PM
Ed T 03 Nov 10 - 06:43 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 06:44 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 06:51 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM
Ed T 03 Nov 10 - 06:59 PM
Smokey. 03 Nov 10 - 07:06 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 07:09 PM
Smokey. 03 Nov 10 - 07:11 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 07:15 PM
Jack the Sailor 03 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 07:40 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 07:50 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM
Mrrzy 03 Nov 10 - 08:20 PM
Smokey. 03 Nov 10 - 08:44 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 09:11 PM
Ed T 03 Nov 10 - 09:15 PM
Ed T 03 Nov 10 - 09:18 PM
Ron Davies 03 Nov 10 - 09:20 PM
Ron Davies 03 Nov 10 - 09:28 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 09:30 PM
Ron Davies 03 Nov 10 - 09:37 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 09:43 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 09:47 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Nov 10 - 09:52 PM
Ed T 03 Nov 10 - 09:56 PM
Ed T 03 Nov 10 - 10:10 PM
Smokey. 03 Nov 10 - 10:50 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 06:25 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 06:43 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 07:09 AM
John P 04 Nov 10 - 09:00 AM
John P 04 Nov 10 - 09:34 AM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 04 Nov 10 - 10:29 AM
Ed T 04 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 10:56 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 11:08 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 11:15 AM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 11:36 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 12:02 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 12:05 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 01:04 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 01:07 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 01:32 PM
Ed T 04 Nov 10 - 02:10 PM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 04 Nov 10 - 02:22 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 03:27 PM
Mrrzy 04 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM
Ed T 04 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Nov 10 - 05:51 PM
Smokey. 04 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM
Smokey. 04 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM
Smokey. 04 Nov 10 - 07:16 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 07:21 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 07:25 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 07:44 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 08:05 PM
Ed T 04 Nov 10 - 08:15 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 08:33 PM
Smokey. 04 Nov 10 - 08:44 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 08:44 PM
Ed T 04 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM
Smokey. 04 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 09:06 PM
Ed T 04 Nov 10 - 09:27 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Nov 10 - 09:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 04 Nov 10 - 10:54 PM
Ed T 04 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM
Smokey. 04 Nov 10 - 11:42 PM
Ron Davies 05 Nov 10 - 12:46 AM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 12:51 AM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 12:56 AM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 02:57 AM
Mrrzy 05 Nov 10 - 10:30 AM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 11:14 AM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 11:19 AM
Mrrzy 05 Nov 10 - 11:33 AM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM
Ed T 05 Nov 10 - 01:17 PM
Ed T 05 Nov 10 - 01:43 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 02:09 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 10 - 02:20 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 02:31 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 10 - 02:35 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 03:46 PM
Mrrzy 05 Nov 10 - 04:54 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 04:58 PM
Mrrzy 05 Nov 10 - 05:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 05:49 PM
Ed T 05 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 05 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 07:16 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 07:21 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 10 - 08:51 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Nov 10 - 08:56 PM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 09:40 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 09:56 PM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 10:04 PM
Ron Davies 05 Nov 10 - 10:06 PM
Ron Davies 05 Nov 10 - 10:24 PM
Jack the Sailor 05 Nov 10 - 10:39 PM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 10:59 PM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM
Ron Davies 05 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM
Ron Davies 05 Nov 10 - 11:33 PM
John P 05 Nov 10 - 11:47 PM
Smokey. 05 Nov 10 - 11:53 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 12:14 AM
Mrrzy 06 Nov 10 - 12:29 AM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 02:46 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 07:03 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 07:24 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 07:30 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 07:37 AM
Ed T 06 Nov 10 - 08:22 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 06 Nov 10 - 08:52 AM
Mrrzy 06 Nov 10 - 12:16 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 01:44 PM
Mrrzy 06 Nov 10 - 01:53 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 02:01 PM
Little Hawk 06 Nov 10 - 02:05 PM
Ed T 06 Nov 10 - 02:23 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 04:46 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Nov 10 - 05:10 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 05:19 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Nov 10 - 05:31 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Nov 10 - 06:08 PM
Mrrzy 06 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM
Jack the Sailor 06 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 06:44 PM
Little Hawk 06 Nov 10 - 07:12 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 08:34 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 08:47 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Nov 10 - 08:57 PM
Smokey. 06 Nov 10 - 09:23 PM
The Fooles Troupe 07 Nov 10 - 12:17 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 12:35 AM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 12:47 AM
Little Hawk 07 Nov 10 - 12:49 AM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 12:55 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 01:06 AM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 01:21 AM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 01:17 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 10 - 09:17 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 09:27 AM
Mrrzy 07 Nov 10 - 10:37 AM
Ed T 07 Nov 10 - 11:00 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 11:13 AM
Ebbie 07 Nov 10 - 11:14 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 11:19 AM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 11:35 AM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 11:40 AM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM
Little Hawk 07 Nov 10 - 11:49 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 10 - 12:00 PM
Penny S. 07 Nov 10 - 12:29 PM
Little Hawk 07 Nov 10 - 12:33 PM
Ed T 07 Nov 10 - 12:34 PM
Little Hawk 07 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 01:06 PM
Stringsinger 07 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM
Little Hawk 07 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM
Ed T 07 Nov 10 - 02:40 PM
Mrrzy 07 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM
Little Hawk 07 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM
Stringsinger 07 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM
Little Hawk 07 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM
Mrrzy 07 Nov 10 - 05:36 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 05:43 PM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 10 - 07:10 PM
Mrrzy 07 Nov 10 - 07:22 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 07:27 PM
Ed T 07 Nov 10 - 07:37 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 10 - 07:50 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Nov 10 - 08:17 PM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 08:26 PM
Ebbie 07 Nov 10 - 10:23 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 11:32 PM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 11:34 PM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 11:37 PM
Jack the Sailor 07 Nov 10 - 11:49 PM
Smokey. 07 Nov 10 - 11:51 PM
Smokey. 08 Nov 10 - 01:44 AM
John P 08 Nov 10 - 09:29 AM
Mrrzy 08 Nov 10 - 10:06 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 10 - 10:15 AM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM
GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River 08 Nov 10 - 11:51 AM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM
The Sandman 08 Nov 10 - 01:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 01:32 PM
Little Hawk 08 Nov 10 - 01:51 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM
Mrrzy 08 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM
Little Hawk 08 Nov 10 - 03:04 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM
Mrrzy 08 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 04:11 PM
Smokey. 08 Nov 10 - 04:21 PM
Ed T 08 Nov 10 - 04:35 PM
Stringsinger 08 Nov 10 - 05:32 PM
Smokey. 08 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM
Mrrzy 08 Nov 10 - 05:53 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Nov 10 - 05:56 PM
Little Hawk 08 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 10 - 06:46 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM
Ed T 08 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM
Ed T 08 Nov 10 - 07:46 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM
Ed T 08 Nov 10 - 08:31 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 08:42 PM
Jack the Sailor 08 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM
Ed T 08 Nov 10 - 09:07 PM
Mrrzy 08 Nov 10 - 10:47 PM
Mrrzy 08 Nov 10 - 10:56 PM
Little Hawk 08 Nov 10 - 11:24 PM
Mrrzy 09 Nov 10 - 02:19 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 05:32 AM
Jack the Sailor 09 Nov 10 - 08:33 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 09:18 AM
Jack the Sailor 09 Nov 10 - 10:00 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM
Little Hawk 09 Nov 10 - 10:58 AM
Ebbie 09 Nov 10 - 11:18 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM
Jack the Sailor 09 Nov 10 - 01:16 PM
Smokey. 09 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM
Jack the Sailor 09 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM
Smokey. 09 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM
Smokey. 09 Nov 10 - 02:42 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 02:50 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 02:52 PM
Smokey. 09 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM
Amos 09 Nov 10 - 03:52 PM
Mrrzy 09 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM
Ed T 09 Nov 10 - 04:05 PM
Ed T 09 Nov 10 - 04:10 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 09 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 06:33 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Nov 10 - 06:58 PM
Ed T 09 Nov 10 - 10:00 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 10 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM
Mrrzy 10 Nov 10 - 03:26 PM
Jack the Sailor 10 Nov 10 - 03:34 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM
Mrrzy 10 Nov 10 - 09:14 PM
Jack the Sailor 10 Nov 10 - 10:18 PM
Mrrzy 11 Nov 10 - 12:18 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 12:25 PM
John P 11 Nov 10 - 12:28 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM
Mrrzy 11 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM
The Sandman 11 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 10 - 04:31 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 11 Nov 10 - 05:15 PM
John P 11 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 05:46 PM
Stringsinger 11 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM
Smokey. 11 Nov 10 - 05:51 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 06:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 06:02 PM
Mrrzy 11 Nov 10 - 06:24 PM
John P 11 Nov 10 - 06:25 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Nov 10 - 06:28 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 10 - 07:57 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 10 - 08:04 PM
John P 11 Nov 10 - 08:21 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 10 - 08:28 PM
Mrrzy 11 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Nov 10 - 08:52 PM
Jack the Sailor 12 Nov 10 - 12:01 AM
John P 12 Nov 10 - 09:52 AM
Mrrzy 12 Nov 10 - 11:39 AM
Jack the Sailor 12 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM
Jack the Sailor 12 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM
Ebbie 12 Nov 10 - 11:55 AM
Jack the Sailor 12 Nov 10 - 12:13 PM
John P 12 Nov 10 - 01:21 PM
Jack the Sailor 12 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM
John P 12 Nov 10 - 04:02 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 12 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Nov 10 - 08:05 PM
Steve Shaw 12 Nov 10 - 08:22 PM
Jack the Sailor 12 Nov 10 - 10:52 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 13 Nov 10 - 05:28 PM
Mrrzy 13 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM
Jack the Sailor 13 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM
Mrrzy 13 Nov 10 - 06:55 PM
Ed T 13 Nov 10 - 06:55 PM
Jack the Sailor 14 Nov 10 - 11:59 AM
Mrrzy 14 Nov 10 - 12:10 PM
Mrrzy 14 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM
Stringsinger 14 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM
Ed T 15 Nov 10 - 08:47 AM
Ed T 15 Nov 10 - 08:49 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 15 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM
Smokey. 15 Nov 10 - 07:08 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 16 Nov 10 - 11:21 AM
Stringsinger 16 Nov 10 - 11:46 AM
Mrrzy 16 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM
Amos 16 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Nov 10 - 07:46 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Nov 10 - 07:48 PM
Mrrzy 16 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM
Jack the Sailor 16 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 10 - 05:33 AM
Jack the Sailor 17 Nov 10 - 09:10 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 10 - 09:33 AM
Jack the Sailor 17 Nov 10 - 09:58 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 10 - 10:10 AM
Jack the Sailor 17 Nov 10 - 10:13 AM
Steve Shaw 17 Nov 10 - 10:21 AM
Mrrzy 17 Nov 10 - 10:31 AM
Jack the Sailor 17 Nov 10 - 11:31 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM
Jack the Sailor 17 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM
Mrrzy 17 Nov 10 - 12:59 PM
Stringsinger 17 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM
Stringsinger 17 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Nov 10 - 05:22 PM
Ed T 18 Nov 10 - 05:52 PM
Smokey. 18 Nov 10 - 06:02 PM
John P 18 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM
Ed T 18 Nov 10 - 07:04 PM
Ed T 18 Nov 10 - 07:09 PM
Smokey. 18 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM
Mrrzy 18 Nov 10 - 08:47 PM
Smokey. 18 Nov 10 - 10:40 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Nov 10 - 09:43 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM
Steve Shaw 19 Nov 10 - 12:29 PM
Mrrzy 19 Nov 10 - 12:56 PM
Jack the Sailor 19 Nov 10 - 01:35 PM
Ed T 19 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM
Ed T 19 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM
Stringsinger 19 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM
Ed T 19 Nov 10 - 04:39 PM
Steve Shaw 19 Nov 10 - 09:19 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM
Stringsinger 20 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 12:53 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 01:52 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 02:57 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 04:04 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 04:21 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM
Mrrzy 20 Nov 10 - 05:24 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 05:53 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 05:55 PM
Mrrzy 20 Nov 10 - 06:14 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM
Little Hawk 20 Nov 10 - 06:19 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 06:28 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 06:33 PM
Ed T 20 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM
Smokey. 20 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM
Mrrzy 21 Nov 10 - 12:04 PM
Mrrzy 21 Nov 10 - 12:08 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 21 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM
Mrrzy 21 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM
Smokey. 21 Nov 10 - 11:01 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 22 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Nov 10 - 07:06 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 23 Nov 10 - 07:40 AM
GUEST,Patsy 23 Nov 10 - 09:14 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 10 - 09:49 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Nov 10 - 09:55 AM
GUEST,Patsy 23 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM
Stringsinger 23 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM
Mrrzy 23 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM
Amos 24 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM
Amos 24 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM
Amos 24 Nov 10 - 10:45 PM
Amos 24 Nov 10 - 10:47 PM
Little Hawk 25 Nov 10 - 01:09 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Nov 10 - 11:05 AM
Amos 12 Dec 10 - 11:37 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 12 Dec 10 - 12:43 PM
Mrrzy 12 Dec 10 - 01:52 PM
Stringsinger 13 Dec 10 - 12:04 PM
Amos 13 Dec 10 - 01:25 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 13 Dec 10 - 01:38 PM
Amos 13 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Dec 10 - 06:32 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Dec 10 - 05:56 PM
Mrrzy 18 Dec 10 - 10:10 AM
Amos 18 Dec 10 - 11:10 AM
Ed T 18 Dec 10 - 11:52 AM
Stringsinger 18 Dec 10 - 01:15 PM
Ed T 18 Dec 10 - 01:38 PM
Amos 18 Dec 10 - 02:46 PM
Ed T 18 Dec 10 - 02:51 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Dec 10 - 03:16 PM
Ed T 18 Dec 10 - 03:45 PM
Amos 18 Dec 10 - 03:58 PM
Ed T 18 Dec 10 - 04:17 PM
Stringsinger 18 Dec 10 - 05:22 PM
Stringsinger 18 Dec 10 - 05:27 PM
Ed T 18 Dec 10 - 06:00 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 19 Dec 10 - 09:14 AM
bobad 19 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Dec 10 - 12:39 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM
Mrrzy 20 Dec 10 - 05:26 PM
Little Hawk 20 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM
The Fooles Troupe 20 Dec 10 - 07:48 PM
Mrrzy 21 Dec 10 - 12:47 PM
GUEST 21 Dec 10 - 01:32 PM
Stringsinger 21 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM
Stringsinger 21 Dec 10 - 04:07 PM
Ed T 21 Dec 10 - 04:36 PM
Stringsinger 21 Dec 10 - 05:06 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 10 - 05:09 PM
Ed T 21 Dec 10 - 05:39 PM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 10 - 07:41 PM
Ed T 21 Dec 10 - 08:31 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 10 - 11:49 PM
Stringsinger 22 Dec 10 - 11:45 AM
Stringsinger 22 Dec 10 - 12:05 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 22 Dec 10 - 05:29 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 10 - 06:11 PM
John P 23 Dec 10 - 09:50 AM
Amos 23 Dec 10 - 11:08 AM
John P 23 Dec 10 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Dec 10 - 12:36 AM
John P 24 Dec 10 - 08:08 AM
Brian May 24 Dec 10 - 10:34 AM
Stringsinger 24 Dec 10 - 02:37 PM
Brian May 24 Dec 10 - 04:34 PM
Jack the Sailor 24 Dec 10 - 07:28 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 25 Dec 10 - 05:35 AM
Brian May 25 Dec 10 - 06:05 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Dec 10 - 03:27 AM
Stringsinger 26 Dec 10 - 02:18 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 26 Dec 10 - 03:00 PM
John P 27 Dec 10 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 27 Dec 10 - 12:44 PM
Mrrzy 27 Dec 10 - 12:45 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:23 PM

Dawkins was on More 4 TV tonight (25th Aug 2010).

I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous.

In his programme the scariest were the extreme Muslims - but it's all in the editing and indeed who is selected for interview.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM

Everything is dangerous.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM

All political regimes and political parties are dangerous too! ;-) And then there are the bankers, industrialists, drug cartels, and lawyers!!!

Where will it all end? Nothing but danger on every hand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:48 PM

It is? Where do I hide?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:58 PM

Try under the bed, Bill. If that fails, barricade yourself in the closet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:08 PM

Closets can be prety dangerous. As for beds - don't most people die in beds?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Slag
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:32 PM

Anywhere someone can garner power over another person or a group of folks there is the potential for great danger. When people surrender the responsiblity to think for themselves there is great danger. Symbols, parties, ideologies, differences, any toehold for the greedy and grasping, there! There is the danger!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM

The biggest danger is people. The only ones who aren't are the very young and the nearly dead.

I just thought I'd cheer everyone up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:43 PM

Don't follow leaders (watch the parking meters).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 08:02 PM

My Daddy usta say, "The most unreliable part of an automobile is the nut the holds the wheel. . . ."

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM

Richard Bridge says: I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous.

I would say that the danger lies in all those who seek to suppress the thinking of others. Many religious people do this, it's true - but Mr. Bridge and Mr. Dawkins seek the very same thing. The "born-again atheists" are every bit as obnoxious as the "born-again Christians." Strange bedfellows - bigots on both ends of the spectrum. Both have the same hateful, rigid, know-nothing kind of thinking. No wonder so many rigid atheists convert to born-again Christianity - and vice-versa.

In other words, Mr. Bridge, your words are offensive - as usual. Ever notice how almost all the religion threads at Mudcat are started by people who hate religion? We religious Mudcatters rarely start one - we'd be quite happy just being left alone, but we also aren't about to remain silent when the bigots spew their crap.

If you were a religious person, how would you feel about the things Mudcatters post about religion?

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:06 PM

The danger is from ANY of the Extremists , wether the are classed as Religious , Political , Nationalist or even MUSICAL ! Beware the Folk Police !!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:10 PM

I've been involved with some fine Christain churches over the years where folks genuinely tolerate others and are filled with love and caring... I'm sure it is the same with all religions... Martin Luther King III said as much in an op-ed in this moring's Washington Post...

What hppens, however, is that politics can get into the church and when that happen's there's a problem... I recall my favorite minister being booted out of the chucrh O came up in for speakin' out against the Vietnam War... Was he right to do that??? I donno??? Wished he hadn't, at least from the pulpit, 'cause there were no winners in that deal... It split the church in half... Maybe I was niave and there may have been other problems, I donno... But it semed like a very tolerant church for 1965 standards...

Yeah, there is a tendency for some bad folks to use religion as an excuse to to bad stuff... I don't belive we can balme the religion... I mean, people can get into a car and drive it into a crowd and we don't blame the car???

Tell ya' what, ya'll... If bad people would just step up to the plate and say "Hey, I'm a bad person" and leave all religions outta their way we'd all be one heck of alot better off...

B~`


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Slag
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:23 PM

Right on Joe. Aside from that main point, however, is the vast number of people who do not want to think for themselves. Ignorant and proud of it! There are vast armies of people ready, willing and able to follow someone, anyone to whatever hell they have devised. power-mongers know this and are always scheming ways to exploit the same.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:30 PM

Joe has it right.

The "God-Delusion" people are brothers and sisters under the skin to those who lump all Moslems together as being responsible for the 11 Sept attacks.

Don't look for tolerance from either--or in fact anything but cherrypicking "facts" which fit their arguments--and ignoring anything that doesn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:35 PM

And somebody who mentions "in the editing" and "selected for interview" should know this.

Therefore it seems a reasonable conclusion that, rather than thinking, he is letting his own prejudices speak.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM

I started reading Dawkins' book - wasn't impressed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:00 PM

Funny, I just made a post here and it vanished.

It seems to me that Dawkins is right that science is based on evidence, whereas religions is based on belief and authority, regardless of evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: ranger1
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:06 PM

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I'm not religious, but I respect the right of other people to believe in what gives them comfort, as long as it doesn't impact my beliefs. So maybe a little less belief-bashing on Mudcat wouldn't be a bad thing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:21 PM

I think we have been through all of this before ... many times.

biLL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM

I don't think Dawkins himself is actually trying to suppress anyone's thinking but he's certainly attracted adherents who might. There is some danger in all beliefs that have not been freely arrived at through informed choice. I have to say I agree with Joe, even though I'm not a believer.

And someone should write a song called "When the Bigots Spew Their Crap", it's a great title..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 11:39 PM

Here is the dilemma: I also feel as ranger 1 does, that people's right to have & practice their religion needs to to be protected & respected.... but this leads to a very awkward contradiction about **rights**.

I understand tens of thousands of years of religion being embedded in human's attempts to make sense of the world...and now, of the Universe. Different cultures have interpreted religion and the idea of the Infinite differently. In the last 2-3 centuries, science and philosophy have studied facts and ways of thinking which has led many to skeptical attitudes about the 'factual' basis of religion. Not 'disproved' it... just shown that it IS possible to disagree and still be sane, decent folks.

Now the dilemma.... in some religions, it is a built in doctrine that it is not permissible to doubt or to make assertions which undermine the accepted doctrine.
Moreover, some parts of some general religions...(yes...especially Christianity), also have as a doctrine that members should actively recruit NON-believers, or seek to convert members of other religions.
The basic thought pattern is: 'We are right. Therefore almost anything done to promote what is 'right' is also right. Therefore, the very idea of 'Separation of Church & State' is flawed. We see 'state religions' in other countries, but *our* religion is even better and **SHOULD** be adopted and approved here!"

Now...in the USA, even with a specific line in the Constitution saying "You get freedom to practice your religion, but not to impose it on the country as a whole", many of these folks either refuse to accept it, or re-interpret it. They insist that "this country was 'founded on Christian principles'"...etc. Or they say:

'whatever that flawed document says, **IF** I am allowed to practice my religion freely, this means I can do it anywhere, anytime and in any way, and if I can round up enough votes, I can force YOU, no matter what you believe...or don't believe... to submit to my set of rules'

This is not some paranoid fantasy Bill D invented to attack religion(s), ..[read back at my first sentences]...people ARE doing this everyday with 'public prayer' being used in inappropriate places, with religion being used directly to elect or defeat political candidates, with TV evangelists exhorting...scuse me, hinting to their flocks to harass, injure ..or worse... those who break "God's Laws".

"Oh", you say.."but those are just extremist minorities...we don't take them seriously!" The problem is, THEY take themselves seriously, and there are enough of them to put certain health care providers in jeopardy. They feel that they have not only the RIGHT, but also the OBLIGATION to "practice their religion" as they understand it. There is a verse in the Bible, *Mark 1:17* "And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." This is taken VERY seriously by some demominations:

http://www.fishersofmen.net/
http://www.fishersofmen.org/

Thus...a restatement of the dilemma... how are those of us who are not religious to protest being proselytized, condemned and kept from political office by those who hold extreme views, without making remarks which, inevitably, refer to the concepts of religious belief in general? *IF* most religions were like the Quakers, or the Amish, to mention a couple of pretty devout but non-confrontational groups, there would be little problem. But, in order to get at the basic inconsistencies of radical, fundamentalist religious attitudes, we end up pointing at the basic inconsistencies of religion in general...and then we hear about 'religion bashing' and other complaints.

Ranger 1 said: "Religion and science are not mutually exclusive" It is better to say, they NEED not be. Unfortunately, as practiced and understood by some, religion and science are directly in conflict. Those who deny evolution on religious grounds are not only working hard, they are growing in number and in Texas it is now law that textbooks have to treat evolution as only 'one opinion'...as a theory....and the point they are trying to make is that 'theories are no BETTER than opinion'...which distorts the very idea of what scientific theories are about.

So... the dilemma remains, because there IS this assumption among many religious folk that they MUST, by virtue OF their belief, press for its universal adoption..... and 'moderate' religious folks who would be willing to practice their religion quietly, and not seek to impose it on others, get the overflow as those who don't wish their lives to be affected by stuff they don't accept...and who eventually say so in a grumpy manner.

It's like many are pleading with moderate Muslim clerics these days to HELP change the tenor of the hate-rhetoric by speaking out and calming things.

...........and that's the best I can do for one night.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:08 AM

I'm still trying to work out what, if anything, religion has to do with God.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:41 AM

I'm not much of a fan of Dawkins, who is as bad as anyone who tries to shove religion down your throat; in fact you have to wonder what the reaction would be if you allowed an equally vocal proponent of any religion on primetime TV.

But . . .

We have a real, long running and lethal problem here in our Islands with sectarianism and the alienation felt by religions whose followers are demonised by certain sections the press. To add fuel to the fire our government is allowing the establishment of faith schools; when we should be encouraging integration and understanding we are instead dividing them up along religious grounds and instilling the idea that we are different to each other because of our religion.

You could argue that these schools will teach tolerance and understanding, but in reality that's a cop out; without integration there is NO true understanding. Unless you go and meet, mix and talk to people then you're not going to get any real insight into what they're about. By denying our children that ability to mix, we're encouraging the sort of prejudices and ignorance that have cost, and are costing now so many people their lives. Faith schools should be banned - not because of some desire to persecute or oppress people's religious beliefs (one assumes you have churches/synagogues/temples/mosques etc for that very purpose), but because we should revel in our diversity and realise the followers of other religions are just people. We should free ourselves as a society from the ignorance and divisiveness that has plagued us for centuries, and indeed been responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.


"Unfortunately, as practiced and understood by some, religion and science are directly in conflict."

That is because the most basic aims of each are fundamentally irreconcilable. Both are the search for truths, but they're not comparable in any real sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:04 AM

"In other words, Mr. Bridge, your words are offensive - as usual. Ever notice how almost all the religion threads at Mudcat are started by people who hate religion? We religious Mudcatters rarely start one - we'd be quite happy just being left alone, but we also aren't about to remain silent when the bigots spew their crap."

Well thank goodness you don't have the right not to be offended! We non-religious mudcatters (and how I hate the way religion obliges me to define myself in the negative - even "a-theist" suggests that I'm without something) would also be very happy to be left alone, but alas organised religion doesn't allow this. All schools in England and Wales, for example, are obliged to include a daily act of collective worship. I can't go into my town without being regaled with large crosses, clanging church bells and wayside pulpits everywhere I go (we don't have a mosque in Bude otherwise I could have added those tedious calls to prayer). The archbishops and pope have no difficulty getting their pronouncements aired on all the public media (and my atheistic BBC licence fee helps to facilitate this). Religion is in our faces all the time and it's not a matter of choice. Even in secular nations such as ours religion is the public default position. So please don't ask to be left alone. That request is legitimate only for private, inner reflection, not for public religion, which needs all the opposition, for a change, that we atheists can muster. Anything else would be seriously unhealthy.




"The 'God-Delusion' people are brothers and sisters under the skin to those who lump all Moslems together as being responsible for the 11 Sept attacks."

Well excuse me but I'm a "God-Delusion" person and I abhor the way in which all Muslims are sometimes lumped together in the way you describe. Why, in my experience it's people of religions other than Islam who commonly do this lumping.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:37 AM

Right on, Steve.

As you say to the deluded, "Well thank goodness you don't have the right not to be offended!" ~~ But even that is quite a recent development. How long since the anti-blasphemy laws were repealed? Anyone know?

Two years! That's all! "The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008"{Wikipedia}. Until then, the deluded had the legal right not to be offended. And they are still squealing because now we are allowed to point out to them the absurdity of their persistent,[in-your-face, as you rightly say, Steve] fatuities.

~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:49 AM

Well I don't definitely say that I know or can prove that there is no God, and I don't really care if people want to believe that there is a God - whatever God it is - but I do object to the common religious assumption that the beliefs and rules of their religions are not to be rationally questioned, and that they justify acts (or omissions) that are prohibited by secular law.

I particularly object to the idiocies that prohibit statements derived from solid evidence - like the age of the earth, and how it was formed - and that in the name of "faith" require children to be indoctrinated - or effectively disentitle a gender.

I further object to the assumption that your God can tell me what to do (or not to do) - or that a set of people who believe in that God can tell me what to do on the basis of their "divine revelation". Dawkin's example of the assumption of Mary was quite telling (although I notice he held back from a similar criticism of Islam's belief in the uplifting (sorry if I have the wrong term) of Mohammed.

These religions are irrational beliefs. Believe in them if you wish: thought is not a crime. But using those beliefs to oppress others, now that can well be a crime. It is very troubling that it is such a widespread crime.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:15 AM

As I recall, the thread originator was the one who told us awhile back that Obama was an "oreo". As far as I know--perhaps I'm incorrect-- we've never heard that he has revised his opinion. I note with interest that his diplomatic skills are as sterling as ever.

It's also interesting that one can get a law degree and still be so ignorant. If I had to guess I'd say it's willful ignorance.

Sure seems to be Exhibit A for one of the main reasons lawyers are beloved the world over. Good thing we know there are lawyers who are decent human beings, not bitter old men.

But bigotry---yes even genteel bigotry-- by atheists is no more acceptable than bigotry by religious fundamentalists.   And, as already pointed out, is remarkably similar.

By the way, atheists do not want to get into a debate as to whether atheists or religious people have done more good--or more harm-- in the world.   In that debate, atheists have no chance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:23 AM

Thanks so much to him for stating that he had no proof there is no God. Agnosticism is an eminently reasonable stance for a thinking individual.

Now all he has do is brush up on his diplomatic skills a bit more, stop setting up straw men, and he'd be well on the way to being a likable person.

Congratulations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:46 AM

Agnosticism is not defined by the fact that God cannot be disproved. Were that to be the case there would be no atheists. Even Dawkins accepts that there cannot be certainty about the non-existence of God.

As for who does more good in the world, this one never fails to amuse me. It's like saying that this great country of ours was founded "on Christian principles," as if that somehow confers an extra layer of goodness. There are huge numbers people on this planet whose lives are not based on Christian principles but who are just as saintly as the most saintly Christian. Christianity has usurped (as with Christmas) that which is good about people and pretends that somehow these values are its own invention. Well, the good news is that the world would manage quite well without Christianity but the "Christian values" would live happily on, just as they did before Christianity was so much as a twinkle in Joseph's eye. It's worth remembering that a world full of Christian values has just delivered the most brutal, inhuman century the planet has ever experienced, and I don't recall Christianity exactly standing by whilst it happened.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:05 AM

There's nothing that divides people more than religion - but that was it's original purpose, wasn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:06 AM

1) math formula

This DE has order 2 (the highest derivative appearing is the second derivative) and degree 1 (the power of the highest derivative is 1.)

2) math formula

This DE has order 1 (the highest derivative appearing is the first derivative) and degree 5 (the power of the highest derivative is 5.)

3) (y")4 + 2(y')7 − 5y = 3

This DE has order 2 (the highest derivative appearing is the second derivative) and degree 4 (the power of the highest derivative is 4.)

General and Particular Solutions

When we first performed integrations, we obtained a general solution (involving a constant, K).

We obtained a particular solution by substituting known values for x and y. These known conditions are called boundary conditions (or initial conditions).

It is the same concept when solving differential equations - find general solution first, then substitute given numbers to find particular solutions.

Let's see some examples of finding solutions of first order, first degree DEs.
Example 1

a. Find the general solution for the differential equation

    dy + 7x dx = 0.

b. Find the particular solution given that y(0) = 3.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:34 AM

Is this part of the search for the God particle by any chance? :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM

Your recollections are as faulty as your reasoning and manners, Mr Badger. I would have been unlikely to use the word "oreo". I did however I think at one stage report that I had heard criticism (not that it was my opinion) of Obama that he was a white man in a a black skin. I thought I made it clear that it was a criticism of which I disapproved. If I had used a metaphor, it would probably have been "Bounty Bar" which I think is the vernacular in the UK, or "Coconut" which I think is the vernacular in the West Indies.

I am not clear of your point old dude.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM

God is in the equasion someplace .. now ya made me lose my train of thought and I gotta start over again , now where is my chalk :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM

can't type today either


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM

Godel was an athiest .. his math proof came up with the existence of God. I thought it was cool logic actually no matter how one looks at it. It was some good logic

Godels proof


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM

As a born again, bible believing Christian... I have no trouble at all with believing that scientific study is a great thing and that evolution is happening even now. What I can't get my head round in that context is the way things are.... The intricate make up of the human body... the make up of a tree from its roots to the tiny veins in every leaf.... to the diversity of different flora and fauna.. the aqua dwelling life... the make up of the air... and most of all 'The Balance' .... I can believe in a supernatural beginning... made by a great designer... but I can't get to feeling that mere chance caused the multiplicity of existing things on this earth. The thought that a cell (where did it come from in the first instance) decided to split into two and so everything living begun does not compute within my brain.
I didn't become Christian until 43 yrs of age and was definitely not indoctrinated. I became aware of something more in my life than just me.... Even before then when I had been feeling at my lowest.. I had prayed to God..... to ask Him to get me out of whatever bad situation I was in or to help someone in my family or a friend in distress... I now believe that to be an instinct to pray to my maker in times of difficulty. How many people will admit to having prayed when their lives have been at an extremely low ebb or for a member of the family or a friend..... how many have actually tried to make a pact with God... "God if you do X for me I will do Y for you".... I was not a Christian when I did those things.... and certainly not a believer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 AM

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:51 AM

Yes, power corrupts, and yes, the corrupt seek power.

But:

The pertinent issue with people who want to have power over others is that when they say an invisible power is behind them, and people *believe* that, the powermongers are quantum LEAPS more dangerous than when they say Here are my rational reasons, and those can be examined. That's why religious power (the priest/worshipper one) is so much harder to repel - it's *faith* that morphs an invisible power into such a strong, real one, for good or evil.

Another problem is that there are *rational* reasons for good, so you don't need faith or religion for it.

Yet another problem (which is restricted to the Middle East and the US, I think) is the govermental placing the right of adults to beliefs in supernatural explanations of natural phenomena before the rights of their children to learning the actual, known, accepted-throughout-the-world knowledge about those phenomena. And that one chaps my ass bigtime! Doctrine and dogma (Lore) should yeild the right of way in public schools to actual knowledge (Data).

Live long and prosper.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:57 AM

Georgiansilver

That is why God exists to me also.. And I don't spend my time talking to God when I get into trouble. You are so right. I spend most of my time thanking God for things I see everyday .. One only has to take a look at anything in nature and then get it. As I said many times before, I don't care who believes in what ... just don't want anyone telling me what I should or how I should believe ... that includes other Christians, non Christians and atheists also. Nor do I wish to tolerate ridicule for my beliefs. I don't do that to others, I do not allow others to do that to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM

But if some beliefs are silly, why *can't* they be ridiculed in this day and age? I'm talking about people who believe humans somehow didn't evolve, or that it's a cat eating the moon that made the eclipse, or other known-to-be-old superstitions things? And what about requiring respect to the point of preventing their children from simple everyday knowledge about how life works? That isn't even funny, it should be a crime, don't you think?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:27 AM

Richard Dawkins has probably done more to undermine the Faith of Atheism than just about anyone else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:36 AM

"But if some beliefs are silly, why *can't* they be ridiculed in this day and age?"

Perhaps because it's not polite?

And - silly to you doesn't mean silly to everyone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:38 AM

"...but I can't get to feeling that mere chance caused the multiplicity of existing things on this earth."

And that's not really what is claimed by those scientists who are not religious. They show how, once anything at all existed (in the 'beginning'), all combinations of atoms followed strict, but complex, laws of physics. To them...and to me... it is even harder to imagine some form of 'ultimate intelligence' setting out to design everything.

Once certain elements existed, it was inevitable that some would combine in ways that produced stars, planets, water, plants...and yes, even banjo players.

Now...since we can barely imagine when & how that first 'creation' happened..(the "Big Bang" of science).. it is simply a matter of personal feeling whether to say about the original moment..."God did it" or "I have no idea"...or something else even stranger.

To those who 'feel' oriented toward a scientific explanation, saying "God did it" just pushes the question back one step to "why was there a god?" To those science folks, adding 'God' into the calculation makes the study over-complicated, since we don't have any standard measures or math symbols to represent such a concept. We KNOW we have atoms and forces and such which we have mostly learned to measure and count, but no one can agree on how a 'god' might be factored in.
   Of course, this doesn't deal with the emotional/moral/psychological/aesthetic/social/practical...etc.. values of having a vision of a "supreme Being" to turn to in times of crisis and for comfort and solice. Once humans could even imagine the idea of a 'God'...(50,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago?), it helped them deal with all the scary aspects of life...and death.... and I'd frankly NOT like to see all the leaders of churches and countries suddenly declare "We hereby renounce religion and assert NO belief in a god". Whether there is, or is not one, the idea is too deeply embedded in humanity to just suddenly discard.
*IF* humans decide to move away from religion, (and I doubt that this will ever really happen), it would have to be very slowly and because they really developed in such a way as to no longer 'need' religion to sustain themselves as they cope with confusion and problems.
All we can hope for is that those who DO choose religion and those who do not can learn to either discuss the issue quietly, or ignore each other....and I kinda doubt the 'ignoring' part will happen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM

If you think Dawkins is all about free thinking, look up what happened on the chat board on his website richarddawkins.net. He is a shrill little hatemonger who can't stand to have people disagree with him.

People who lash out at religion are no more "rational" than the people they apparently despise. And the idea that there is ANYBODY in the WORLD who only believes things based on reason, logic, science, and math is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:53 AM

Dawkins...and Christopher Hitchens ...and before them, Madeline Murrey O'Hair... used a kind of 'hit 'em in the head with a 2X4' approach to their anti-religion campaigns.
No one is likely to get dedicated Christians..or Muslims..etc.. to give up religion by using ridicule and sarcasm. They just look as silly going out and giving "there ain't no god" interviews and writing books on it as some religious groups do knocking on doors to proclaim "there IS a god". (It's sort of "preaching to the choir" in reverse!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM

"Random" and "mere chance" are expressions frequently used by believers to dismiss the possibility of a world that got here without a God. They are concepts that most evolutionary biologists wouldn't recognise as characterisations of events.

The trouble with shoving a God into those perceived gaps in our understanding is that it stops us for looking for the real truth. In other words, God is mere intellectual stunting. There is the further illogicality of trying to explain a world of apparent great complexity with something which must be far more complex still and which is even more impossible to explain to boot.

Charles Darwin was equal to the task of confronting the difficulties his theory threw up, including such a matter, a favourite of the detractors, as the evolution of the mammalian eye. He writes clearly and elegantly. I suggest that all doubters of the theory should get a copy of the Origin Of Species and read it. While you're still allowed. The real thing, not some twisted interpretation of it by a demented evangelical. Go on. After all, we non-believers were forced to study the Bible, y'know!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:06 PM

stops us from looking


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM

I hear this constant backlash from some believers that Dawkins and his ilk are hate-mongers, militantly anti-religion, intolerant, shrill, given to ridiculing religion, sarcastic, etc. Well, I've read the book and am watching the series on the telly. Richard Dawkins comes across as a mild-mannered articulate fellow who speaks, and writes, in pretty measured tones. He commonly lets the evangelists have the last word and allows them to talk him down. Where does this vile, hate-spitting image come from? Can anyone illustrate this alleged Dawkins trait with a quote or any other example? I'm frankly puzzled.

As I understand it, his website, of which I was a member, was hijacked. All was fine, then one day it went read-only and then it just went. I suppose you had to be there really.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM

Then what you are trying to describe is shoving your belief system down the throats of others that do believe. Are you not .. if you go about ridiculing others thought process you are no different than any of the door knockers who want to toss a pamphlet in your face of the guys at the airport .. no different at all ... so rock on, hate mongers come in all sizes and shapes creeds and non creeds .. from the guy on TV saying all Jews are going to hell to the guys who sit behind a website telling Christians how stupid they are. The last time I looked you had no clue of life anymore than anyone else but so sure of your convictions that you can go about ridiculing others .. not worth my time for sure . Got far better things to do are far better people to discuss it with


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:28 PM

Yes, Steve...it does sorta "stop us from looking", but be mindful of how much work "looking" is! "Looking"...that is, serious exploration of all the alternatives, requires a LOT of time and energy and education to even comprehend what "looking" means.
Most of humanity has neither the time nor the background to do more than perfunctory looking...and they grow up with ready-made 'answers' handed to them. It is so much easier to just nod wisely when one's priest, Imam, preacher, cleric, father, teacher...etc. says: "We have already 'looked' and studied it, and here are the ancient books and temples and images that have been determined to be the 'answers'...oh, and by the way, there are serious penalties for doubting!"

Who has time...or stamina... to go "looking" elsewhere, when thousand year old answers are handed to you? And a lot of those answers come with fascinating, inspirational stories...along with ceremonies that create a fellowship with others and communities which provide support and 'meaning'. It is work to doubt & "look".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:34 PM

(I will tell everyone also that it is a LOT of work to walk this line in the middle like I try to do....agreeing that there is lots of 'doubt' about religion, while suggesting that we can't just condemn it out-of-hand. ....and we can't DISprove it any more than they can prove it. We MUST learn to have useful conversations about how to co-exist.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM

Joe offers the opinion that Dawkin is a born again aethiest.   I would agree that some people who fall under this banner are every bit as fundamental and whacky as similar fundamentalists who happen to have an imaginary friend.

However, it is interesting that Richard Dawkin is often lambasted in this way. Why?   I didn't see the program Richard Bridge refers to, but I have read the book, indeed many of his books. His angle is not a born again anything, it is as a scientist who is fed up of his work being belittled by people, some of whom should know better. He is a geneticist, and as a theoretical one, perhaps at the top of his profession. He has taken the observed conclusions of Darwin and applied them at the genetic level.

Now... this is concerning to people who wish to sustain religion as more than a personal moral compass. Why? because he has explained rather plausibly the reasons for altruism and community cohesion. And guess what? it isn't a benevolent gift bestowed on humans. It would appear that it is possibly an efficient means for genes to use larger organisms (fauna and flora) to their ends. Try reading his "Selfish Gene" and I guarantee it will leave you thinking.

The vitriol and accusations based on myth that are poured onto this amazing person defy logic. His mistake I suppose is to play up to his reputation. He set out to say that God is a way of describing that which we do not yet understand, but scientific advance chisels away at the God mists of understanding. Too many people profit from God getting bigger rather than smaller, so he makes powerful enemies.

If my PhD dissertation was ridiculed because my equations aren't substantiated in the Bible or Q'ran, I reckon I would be a bit frustrated too....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM

That hard work of doubting and looking is called science. All Dawkins asks you to do is to insist on evidence (which means a bit more than witness) for anything anyone presents to you as fact/truth. Yes, the stories and the customs and the fellowship are all nice - as long as you're in, of course. But don't try to oppose anyone else's customs and stories, etc., whatever you do!

Was that aimed at me, olddude? I don't think I know you, do I? I have no belief system, by the way. Believers like to characterise atheism as a belief system, which it patently isn't. I've never really worked out the motive for that. Don't forget, had religion never arisen, atheists wouldn't exist either! Would there still be an atheist belief system then, do you think?

"Shoving down throats:"

Group A: enforced signing-up to the club (christenings of tiny babies for example); severe threats of penalties for demurring (hell fire, social exclusion, etc); enforced participation in ceremonies; enforced indoctrination of children; mistreatment of women as second-class members of the faith; moralising standpoints about private matters such as abortion and contraception that precipitate thousands of people into misery; public showing-off of religious icons and symbolism irrespective of the faith, or not, of the captive bystander.

Group B: publishing of books that you don't have to buy and which don't get on school reading lists; an advert on the side of a bus that had the timid word "probably" in it; a few programmes on the telly (though nowhere near as many as Songs of Praise, etc.) that you don't have to watch (have I missed anything?)

Who exactly is ~really~ shoving things down whose throats?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:53 PM

I've nothing to add except everyone should see The Invention of Lying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:00 PM

" The thought that a cell (where did it come from in the first instance) decided to split into two and so everything living begun does not compute within my brain."

But it does compute in lots of people's brains, and those who dedicate their lives to finding out how and why these things have occurred and continue to occur can and do tell us. The whole thing is marvellously complicated, but the awe felt when contemplating the natural world and the universe we live in isn't the result of some deep intuitive revelation it's from the mind of a divine creator, it's the deeper understanding that we are the universe contemplating itself and understanding itself. Stop and think about that; we're made of the same stuff as supernovae and planets, interstellar gas clouds and comets - we are those things and we can recognise our own consciousness, contemplate the fact we are a product of a set of rules we are beginning to understand. A concept far more profound and beautiful any religion on earth has yet to get close to; all we have to do is recognise it ourselves and we can develop moral codes that recognise the sanctity and preciousness of all life (even that we don't even recognise at the moment) and the entire physical universe.

We're only scratching the surface at the moment with our infant sciences; it's going to be a whole lot more incredible in years to come. I can't wait.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:03 PM

Believers like to characterise atheism as a belief system, which it patently isn't. I've never really worked out the motive for that.

Because they can't discredit it on their own terms otherwise, and some feel a need to discredit it to lessen the insecurity of their own beliefs which are based on no more than faith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:06 PM

"All Dawkins asks you to do is to insist on evidence ..."

*smile*...yes...a fine idea! I'm convinced.... Please tell Dawkins he gets to explain that to these folks


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM

Exactly, Smokey. Militant believers are extremely uncomfortable taking on us, er, non-believers, or a-theists (you see? I have to define myself in their terms!) unless it's on their own ground. These days, if anyone asks me if I believe in God, I tell 'em they're asking the wrong question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:23 PM

I just can't do faith, my head won't let me. In the words of Gerald Bostock, "God is an overwhelming responsibility."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

Georgiansilver:
What I can't get my head round in that context is the way things are.... The intricate make up of the human body... the make up of a tree from its roots to the tiny veins in every leaf.... to the diversity of different flora and fauna.. the aqua dwelling life...

Then why not read about it? There are perfectly good, straightforward scientific explanations for of these things. The real no-brainer for most people is that the immense time scale over which genetic diversity takes place is almost impossible to imagine. A lot longer than the 6,000 years which some otherwise rational people would have you believe is the age of the earth.

mousethief:
the idea that there is ANYBODY in the WORLD who only believes things based on reason, logic, science, and math is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.

Which says more about you than anyone else, I'm afraid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:29 PM

Hark! I hear the sounds of the perpetual motion machine cranking on its endless round yet again. CREAK! CREAK! CREAK!

It can drive you crazy, that thing. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:33 PM

Yup - time to jump off...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM

The idea, however, that evidence can be dismissed on grounds of faith is surely not rationally defensible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:42 PM

...is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.

The cockles of my heart are truly warmed by such a display of charitable Christian tolerance. I must away to God's house and give thanks immediately, for I am divinely inspired.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:44 PM

Someone wrote a few posts back that a good reason not to ridicule religion, even if one thinks it a ridiculous concept, is that it would not be 'polite' to do so. Can none of you lot recognise that as the con-trick that it is?: if we question your tenets you come over all wounded, as if we had said we think your wife is ugly and your children boorish and stupid; we are made to feel we have committed an error of taste and etiquette. That is not fair dealing.

Why, please, has "God" got so many things manifestly wrong? Take that concept you all came up a few years ago of "Intelligent Design", which was supposed to be another name for God but one that wouldn't offend us. When I pointed out that the phenomenon of childbirth in its present form [which thank providence I shall never have to undergo], or the necessity for all of us creatures of whatever degree of sentience or development to piss and shit regularly, however disagreeable, inconvenient, or worse, the circumstances, all point rather to Unintelligent Design, I would generally get looked at, and the subject would change, or my interlocutors would go away.

~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:46 PM

"Religion and science are not mutually exclusive."

I have a strong feeling that they might be. You see religious people advance the hypothesis: 'there is a God' and a scientist is entitled to ask them to prove the hypothesis (probably not a wise thing to do - but there you go!). The scientist cannot prove that there is no God because you can't prove a negative (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Hence a true scientist, who must follow the laws of logic, can only be an agnostic - not an atheist. Note that, in a scientific context, the burden of proof lies with the religious person (it is he/she who has advanced, and who 'owns', the God hypothesis).

On the other hand religious people tend to assert that they don't need 'proof' of the existence of God because they have 'faith' in His existence. To my mind this assertion of faith negates any possibility of dialogue between the religious person and the scientist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:50 PM

If an atheist believes there is no god, even though he cannot prove it, he is in the mirror position of a believer. He may still be a scientist but his belief is not susceptible of scientific proof.

And to return to the irrationality of religious groups -

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:54 PM

CREAK! CREAK! CREAK!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:58 PM

I do find the idea of blasphemy or indeed taking offense at another's ridicule or dismissal of ones umm 'preferences' really daft. Eg: I like Modern Art but most people shout about it being total shit. Rather than being offended however I can retreat into my smugly self-satisfied awareness that I am right and they are just dumb. Christians of course have something even more brilliant to console themselves with, and that is the fact that they know everyone who disses them and their liking for god will burn forever in boiling blood and hell-fire...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM

It's interesting to see how quickly the usual pattern develops. The religion-haters make their foray, and those with religion make a response (which I consider to be a rational response).
Then the religion-haters make their counterattack - but notice that by this point, they have redefined all religious people as ludicrous fundamentalists.

As usual, the primary argument against religious people has to do with religion's rejection of the idea of evolution, and with the contention that religion is some kind of control mechanism designed to rule the lives of mindless people. But the fact of the matter is that there are few, if any, religious Mudcatters who reject evolution or who accept any sort of religious control over their lives.

Steamin' Willie says this about Mr. Dawkins:
    His angle is not a born again anything, it is as a scientist who is fed up of his work being belittled by people, some of whom should know better. He is a geneticist, and as a theoretical one, perhaps at the top of his profession. He has taken the observed conclusions of Darwin and applied them at the genetic level.
Well, if that's the case, Mr. Dawkins needs to learn that a vast number of religious people have no argument with the conclusions of Darwin, or with modern work in genetics.

We have a few new elements in this thread, like annoyance at being forced to see crosses (on church property) or hear church bells. Can't say I have any answer to that, other than to say, "Get over it."

But except for the addition of the complaint against the bell-hearings and cross-sightings, it's the usual argumentum ad absurdum - redefine all religion as fundamentalism so it's a sitting duck, and then shoot it down.

For shame.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 02:43 PM

"the complaint against the bell-hearings and cross-sightings" yeah, that's daft too. I might as well complain about the vast amount of bedding plants there are to be seen around my village.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:17 PM

Oh - I almost forgot to point out the silly contention that christening is somehow harmful to an infant. I suppose it's also wrong for parents to even discuss religious ideas in front of their children, for fear their little minds may be perverted.

That's what I'm talking about - the idea that people on both extremes seek the same thing: to suppress and control what people say and do.

There has rarely been any attempt at Mudcat to discussion religion as it is for the vast majority of people who take the middle road. Here at Mudcat, religion is almost always defined according to the actions of the extreme, fundamentalist minority.

Get this straight: most religious people are plagued by fundamentalists, too. In fact, they have a far greater effect on us, and we may dislike them even more than you do.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:27 PM

Hello? Religion depends on faith and authority. Those are not evidence. Believe what you like. Do not impose irrationality or your faith-based rules on others. Christening (or the equivalent if any in other religions) is trivial (although I'm not so sure about a briss) - but religious parents go much further than that when they sign their children up for indoctrination disguised as education.

Joe, it is you who is misrepresenting what critics of religion say.

I should, however, like to see more evidence of religious moderates disliking or disapproving of religious extremists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:36 PM

"Someone wrote a few posts back that a good reason not to ridicule religion, even if one thinks it a ridiculous concept, is that it would not be 'polite' to do so. Can none of you lot recognise that as the con-trick that it is?: if we question your tenets you come over all wounded, as if we had said we think your wife is ugly and your children boorish and stupid; we are made to feel we have committed an error of taste and etiquette. That is not fair dealing."


MtheGM - That was me a few posts back. My name is Wesley. I'm sorry that you feel that asking for polite behavior is a con of some sort. And - yes - I would feel all wounded if you were to say that my wife was ugly and my child was boorish and stupid. Even if it were true. Wouldn't you?

Why is it out of the question to ask that you respect my beliefs - whatever they are? It's not that I mind your disbelief. It's the ridicule that goes along with it. I can understand why someone would chose to be an athiest. It's a very logical choice to make. What I don't understand is why a few of the athiests here find that it's necessary to go out of their way to poke fun at others.

I don't like Swedish fiddle music. I've never felt the need to start a thread to say so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM

Give me a break, Richard. If you want to condemn religious fundamentalists, you'll get no disagreement from me. But if you want to continue paint your condemnations with the wide brush of condemning all religion, then all I can say is that you're as blind as the fundamentalists are.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM

indoctrination disguised as education.

The curious thing is that a big problem for such schools in England tends to be parents with no religious beliefs faking it so as to get their children in, because the educational results seem so much better than schools with no religious connection...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:45 PM

Well, as the chap who brought the ubiquitous bell-ringing and crucifixes into it ("I can't go into my town without being regaled with large crosses, clanging church bells and wayside pulpits everywhere I go" quoth I), let me just say that these things don't actually annoy me at all. In fact, I listen to "Bells On Sunday" on BBC Radio 4 every Sunday. I didn't say they annoyed me or that I was complaining about them per se. I was simply pointing out that we are expected to experience these things as part of the assumed default position of religion (even in our secular nation, in which fewer than one person in fifteen ever attends a regular church service). Whenever I get the chance to visit cities I never miss the opportunity to visit great cathedrals, and Bach's Mass in B minor is one of my desert island discs (conducted by Giulini, please). I wonder what the average believer would think of atheistic posters on billboards around every corner (one poster per church crucifix would be about fair). It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)

As for christening being harmful to infants, pray tell me what would be so wrong with waiting until the child is old enough, and informed enough about all the alternatives, to make their own mind up. That would be a far more moral approach. I'm not allowed to join the Campaign For Real Ale until I'm old enough (legally) to understand beer. I suppose I know the answer really. Religions are scared stiff of doing that because they know that very few people would ever sign up!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:51 PM

There was nothing offensive or oppressive in the original post. The fact remains horrible things have been and are still being done in the name of religion (pick one).

I neither like nor approve of Dawkins' style but I agree that religion can often be and is dangerous. And not just the acts of war and personal physical violence but the psychological damage it does to its own followers and non believers.

Any system that promotes intolerance, exclusivism, misogyny, to name a few, is unacceptable to my mind and makes no valuable contribution to society.

Not saying I DO or DO NOT believe in a supreme thinking creative energy (god if you like). I just do not and will not follow a religion.

I never felt more isolated, terrified and excluded than when I was a praying, bible reading, church going "believer."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:54 PM

As someone who holds to a very minority style spiritual belief system (Gnosticism) I find it impossible to be offended by atheists who scorn what I believe in. I'm more often offended by the BIG religions telling me I'm wrong or will burn in hell-fire of I don't convert, especially as historically they didn't bother waiting for spiritual fires but instead literally did burn people in the flesh and en masse who believed as I do!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM

Even tough-guy soldiers are not immune!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/us-soldiers-punished-for-_b_687051.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM

atheistic posters on billboards around every corner

Have you ever looked at the posters that are up on virtually every billboard? They might not be formally atheistic, but they certainly propagate a pretty hostile set of values.

As for children, the analogy with drink isn't bad, but I suggest it points the other way. Growing up in a family where drinking in moderation is part of the way of life is a better preparation for handling it in adult life then keeping it at arms length until you are suddenly exposed to it, and get overwhelmed by it.

The same can be true with religion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:27 PM

Good point. But you don't introduce drink to tiny babies! I'm not saying that children should be kept ignorant about religion until they reach the age of majority. Religion has been part and parcel of world history and no school education would be complete without an objective consideration of it. I am saying that I think it's wrong to give children a set of beliefs, presented to them as truth, without telling them that this is simply one set of beliefs that one body of people hold to be true, and here are some others that you may consider to be equally valid (or equally invalid even). And they should be listening to their science teachers telling them to accept nothing as fact/truth until they have been presented with evidence. Real evidence, not witness or hearsay. The Bible contains very little evidence.

I'm not sure I accept your juxtaposition of hostile values with informal atheism...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:42 PM

The equation is simple enough - it runs: They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong ergo, if one is wrong, they're all wrong. Truth on the other hand is that which is common to all and entirely falsifiable - the rest is just funny hats & hoo-hah; folklore, superstition, myth, mumbo-jumbo and other such cosmic debris that we could really do without taking too seriously.

Personally, I am an Athiest because I can't conceive of a greater divinity than Duke Ellington.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:52 PM

Pah. Chuck Berry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:58 PM

How would you set about "proving" that Duke Ellington (or Chuck Berry) is good? You believe he is, and so do lots of other people, but that's a matter of "faith"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:03 PM

"They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong ergo, if one is wrong, they're all wrong."

That seems to be a bit flawed, Sweeney.. One of them could be right. But I doubt it :-)

They could all be a bit right, though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:05 PM

McGrath, this is my universe, and I say so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

I'm a completely secular Jewish atheist who has been married to a Jehovah's Witness for nearly 44 uniquely great years.

Now, at age 69, I am finally able to see that I got married for the friction!

The friction is what informs my life--and myself. I've learned so much.

The mutual loving friction makes for incandescent orgasms.

Art


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:20 PM

Wesley S ~ Your post of 3.36 missed my point by so huge a distance that I hardly know where to begin to reply.

Of course I think one should be civil. I would regard it as very rude to insult anyone's wife or children, and would never dream of doing so.

BUT I regard the questioning of metaphysical concepts which I find absurd to be a different order of communication altogether; & I think it is cheating for a religious person, when his faith is treated with less than unquestioning respect, because 'religions must be regarded as sacrosanct, & it is unseemly to question them', to come on as if one had done something equivalent to being less than civil to his family. You made my point in asserting that you think it would be 'not polite' for anyone to question the truth of your beliefs. I consider the appeal to the concept of 'politeness' a feeble evasion, a pusillanimous cop-out, in this context: but one which the religious are only too prone to resort to. THAT was my point.

Can you really not see this distinction?

~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:31 PM

Chuck Berry? In what way is My Ding-a-Ling a manifestation of the divine?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM

He moves in mysterious ways.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:10 PM

Tommy Cooper:

Two blokes knocked on my door last Sunday morning. They only wanted to talk about vacuum cleaners.



That's all I need, I thought. Bloody Jehoover's Witnesses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:44 PM

Dear Guest, Suibhne Astray - If you understand the nature of a hologram, each tiniest part of it contains the essential structure and nature of the entire hologram. If the hologram sprang out of something deemed "divine" then every least part of it is likewise deemed divine. This would include the song "My Ding-a-Ling". You are now free to debate about what the word "divine" means, and I happily leave you to it, not particularly caring one way or the other whether your view of it resembles mine... ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:03 PM

If you play it backwards at 16rpm, you get to hear the subliminal messages.. And I wouldn't tell that to just anyone..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:17 PM

I wish there were better words than "atheist" or "agnostic", since both of these carry lots of connotations that don't apply to me. What's the word for "I've never been given any reason to even consider it" or "it really doesn't make any sense to me"?

I suppose I would consider myself an atheist if I could get away from the "atheism is a belief" bullshit. The fact is that I pay more attention to my little toe than I do to my lack of belief in god, in that I wash and clothe my toes.

I do think it's odd for Christians in the USA to complain about being discriminated against or insulted. This country, and its laws, are overwhelmingly slanted toward Christianity. As a non-Christian, I have often felt strong prejudice against me. I gave up any hopes of a political career long ago -- no non-religious person will be elected to high office any time soon. That IS political discrimination, and one that is supported by many otherwise "good" Christians.

I like my Christian friends, all of whom are good, moral, honest people. I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence. But I suppose most of us have our own irrational quirks . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:18 PM

'Turn me Tender' - Martyn Joseph

"Turn me tender again, fold me into You...Turn me tender again, through Union with You...."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:37 PM

Lets see, all blacks are lazy right and all polish are stupid
and all Irish are drunks and all Christians are Jerry Falwell

ya know you are no better than those you preach against with your anti faith constant bashing .. absolute generalizations no better then those who make such comments as above .. what a sham ... the great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked and now it is your mission to preach to the rest of us or enlighten the rest of us on the folly of our faith ...

exactly the same thing as the door knockers .. maybe worse what a sham.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:39 PM

"You made my point in asserting that you think it would be 'not polite' for anyone to question the truth of your beliefs."

And you're missing my point. I have no objection at all that you question the truth of my beliefs. You are of course welcome to your views.In my memory I've not seen a thread where people of faith tried to convert those of you who are happy in your athiesm. What I find interesting is that so many non-believers here feel it's their duty to start threads and get in the face of those people who belive in a higher power of some sort - just to tell them how wrong they are. IF people of faith were to take ACTIONS against you for your beliefs that would be wrong. But it seems to me that many of the athiests here find THOUGHTS objectionable. And I've been told that before - that my thoughts are offensive to another Mudcatter even though we've never met - and I've taken no actions against them. It appears that some of the athiests here would love to become the thought police.

It's the difference of thoughts vs actions.

Can you see the difference?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:44 PM

WELL SAID WES EXACTLY MY POINT.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:52 PM

Besides what I posted in 5-6 earlier posts last night and today..(and which seem to have been WAY too long and 'middle of the road' for most others here)... I agree very much with John P about "This country, and its laws, are overwhelmingly slanted toward Christianity. As a non-Christian, I have often felt strong prejudice against me...." and "...no non-religious person will be elected to high office any time soon. That IS political discrimination, and one that is supported by many otherwise "good" Christians."

That IS the way much of the situation exists currently....no matter how you view the relevance of it.... and one of the consequences of that situation is that non-religious persons are mostly relegated to writing, technical advice, blogging...etc. and other less visible posts. There is an enormous amount of experience and competence among these folks which very seldom is available thru elected officials, simply because they would never be elected once the hired 'diggers' discover they are either atheist or non-Christian. This has bothered me for 30 years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:01 PM

When you cannot justify your actions you cry predjuice .. exactly where? I live in the same country you do ... I do not see any laws saying you go to jail if you don't go to church or if you are a non believer you get public whipping or something .. By the way the F'in country was founded by mostly people of no faith or very non christian faith ... It just so happens most of the people of faith are Christians that somehow that bothers you and now it is your mission to preach your religion of non belief to those of us that don't buy into it .. yet it is ok cause it is a non-belief .. but you cry like a little girl if someone knocked on your door with a pamphlet of the 10 commandments

AHHH try the 1st Admendment .. that existed since day 1 .. no one at no time has predjuiced you because of your non faith ... but you sure as HELL want to do that to us ..

Again what a Joke


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:05 PM

And what the hell laws are you talking about that are based on christian belief ... ahhhh stuff like not being allowed to steal or kill or things like that ... oh is that ok for an athiest??? or are those laws only Christian laws ...

Yea about 100 years ago there were laws you couldn't do business on sunday .. ya know what that was for .. not to go to church , to try and get folks to spend some time with their family ... ya and those laws were removed .. probably a good thing ..

Wow ... tons of Christian laws .. yup .. probably that drinking and driving one also .. is that ok to do as an atheist also

Why do I bother ..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:15 PM

As I've said, faith necessitates a leap into thought processes that I cannot make. I usually try to say I "think" something is true rather than merely leap unthoughtfully to a place where a thing is truth because I want it to be that. To me, it's just wishful thinking!

Art


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:24 PM

Nothing wrong with that Art. You also don't go around putting your religion or beliefs in others face like many do here. Like I don't preach mine to others , I don't want others with their faith (and yes non belief is a faith) preaching to me.

If one thinks Christians are prejudiced to them as someone here wrote, maybe it is because they came into someone's face preaching your own concept of life over and over again and then wonder why they take grief from others ....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:33 PM

"And what the hell laws are you talking about that are based on christian belief "

The attorney general of Virginia has issued an 'opinion' that it would be appropriate to enact laws requiring abortion centers to fall under the exact same rules and standards that hospitals do. This means they would have to widen hallways to "acommodate 2 gurneys", when they don't USE gurneys. It is estimated this would cost about $1.2 million per facility, and result in closing 17 out of 20 in the state. There are already laws in other states that strive to 'combat' abortion thru cleverly designed laws.

Whether you agree with abortion or disapprove of it, this 'suggested' law is precisely based on and fueled by Christian belief. This one of the areas I mentioned earlier in my comment at 11:39PM last night about the opinion of many Christians that the 'truth' of their religion justifies almost any law, procedure or propaganda which advances their agenda.

If I had a couple hours, I could dig up many, many laws from many states which implicitly reflect religious attitudes.
No, I don't know of any "...any laws saying you go to jail if you don't go to church or if you are a non believer you get public whipping or something "....but that is a straw man argument, Dan...neither I nor anyone else has made such a claim. But I DO remember in 1952 how Dwight Eisenhower had to quickly 'find a church' to be seen in, as his advisors doubted he could beat Adlai Stevenson if he could not show 'membership'.

Dan....none of this invalidates the Christian religion, and *I* have argued in THIS thread that religious freedom MUST be preserved and that religious faith is a major force for strength & comfort in the lives of many people...but it IS still the case that NON-religious people are frowned on and directly rejected in many ways in this country....no matter how honest, sane and decent they are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Slag
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:37 PM

Blanket inclusions are as offensive as blanket dismisals with regards a a person's belief system(s). So much has to do with how one incorprates information and experience into their reality. The limitations, inherent or learned, of any such view serve those who may differ as an anvil or a hammer for THEIR particular view. And don't we tend to all be "right" in our own eyes? On and on it goes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:45 PM

Non-belief isn't necessarily a 'faith', olddude, mine certainly isn't. When I said my head 'won't do faith', I didn't just mean it one sidedly. I've known some highly irritating atheists whose preaching was as unwelcome as any, regardless of agreement or disagreement. I try to not have rigid beliefs, I see them as a constriction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:37 PM

olddude, Calm down!! I'm not sure what it is that I wrote that got you so riled up, but I really didn't mean to insult anyone.

Things I don't do:
-Proselytize, except sometimes about traditional folk music.
-Get any more bothered by a Christian at the door than I do by any other salesperson.
-Knowingly insult anyone.
-Get my conclusions about whether or not there's a god from some outside source.
-Think that laws against theft and violence are based on Christianity.
-And, as I said, I don't spend much time thinking about it.

And, can I just say, here it is again: you say that atheism is a belief structure. I'm pretty tired of encountering that statement every time there's a discussion on Mudcat about religion. The statement is logically and semantically specious. Saying that a lack of belief is belief is doublespeak at its best. As I made clear earlier, I don't believe in God because I've never been given any reason to do so. I've also never been given any reason to think the sky is bright red. "Belief" simply doesn't enter the equation.

You go farther to say that I fail to have belief because some "great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked". This is another tactic I'm sick of in Mudcat discussions. It is dismissive: since I'm obviously too stupid to make up my own mind about something, I must be getting my ideas from some outside source, and therefore I don't need to be taken seriously. This is really, really bad discussion/debate/conversation technique, and makes you largely useless as a conversation partner. I wish you'd talk to individuals instead of to a perceived wide-spread agenda.

As for prejudice against non-religious people and laws that are based on religious beliefs, I'm not going to start making a list for you. I'm sure there are many websites run by the atheist proselytizers, who I also find distasteful. I can just say that as an outsider looking in, the laws and attitudes are widespread. I can also say, thankfully, that I'm not much personally affected by any of it, since I live in Seattle and not Kansas or Texas. I know I once failed to get a job because I didn't profess my faith at the verbal opening in the interview that was created for that purpose. That's one example of prejudice that was directed at me.

I'd enjoy continuing to talk about this, but really don't want to have an argument.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM

Wasn't singling you out John. It was more of a shotgun blast then a precision shot ...

It all started with the term DELUSION ... that phrase sure is going to make friends and influence people .. yup .. and then when someone gets pissed off and calls it like it is .. they are just a Christian bigeot trying to stop free speech. No actually it is others trying to force their belief system on people like me... I don't start fights .. I don't walk away from them either .. but I should


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 PM

and if someone wanted you to profess their faith to get a job .. I would have a lawyer so far up their ass I would end up owning the company ... that is about as illegal as it gets. I share your concern with places like Texas where a group can edit textbooks based on their version of the bible ... People like that are as far from Christian as one can get and never understood a thing they ever read about the teachings of Christ. Cause that ain't him..

But that is local school board and if people are that stupid to elect those folks as school board members I can only cry for the children. But trying to blame everything on the stupid actions of a few is a mistake.

It is always a mistake to generalize anyone for that matter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:41 PM

Golly, I go away and work on the deck all afternoon, and y'all have been having fun here without me! I didn't write who said each of the things in italics, but I hope whoever said one of them knows who they are and can attack respond as appropriate.

The cockles of my heart are truly warmed by such a display of charitable Christian tolerance.

I didn't say I don't tolerate stupid people. Hell, if I couldn't tolerate them I'd die, because this country right now seems to be chock full of stupid people. The vast majority of the stupid people saying stupid things in the news tend to be Christians, or claim to be. They do make my teeth hurt, I'll admit.

What most people know about epistemology can be fit into a thimble. They then make big pronouncements about science this and reason that, and to somebody who has actually studied epistemology, they come off looking like fools. But if you say that, you're attacked as not being a good little Christian. What-the-fuck-ever.

Oh, and people who say, "I don't have a belief system" are also deluded. Everybody has a belief system. Unless you are using the term "belief system" to mean "religion" -- which you're allowed to. But if you use words that way be sure to pay them extra, like Humpty-Dumpty. That said, I won't say that atheism is a belief system. Atheists have belief systems, which is to say, a system of interlinked beliefs in their heads. One of those beliefs may be "God does not exist" or a watered-down derivative thereof. I'm not saying atheism is a belief system.

You see religious people advance the hypothesis: 'there is a God'

This is where you're wrong. We do not advance that as a hypothesis.

Which says more about you than anyone else, I'm afraid.

Yes, it says I am familiar with epistemology and you're not, I'm afraid.

Do not impose irrationality or your faith-based rules on others.

I agree with this. Probably makes me a bad Christian, and somebody will be along to make an arch-sarcastic comment about how they find me an inferior Christian and are therefore unlikely to go to my church because of me.

I should, however, like to see more evidence of religious moderates disliking or disapproving of religious extremists.

I disapprove of religious extremists. I think nobody should be forced to do anything because of somebody else's religion. This is one reason why I am in favour of pro-choice laws even though I personally believe abortion is wrong.

Now, when will atheist moderates show evidence of disliking or disapproving of atheist extremists? If anybody even hints that Dawkins might be an extremist, a whole phalanx of hysteria comes out of the batteries and is broght to bear. You Christians this, you religious people that. Poor Mr Dawkins, he just thinks that raising a child in your own religion is worse for a child than being the victim of pedophila. Yes he said that. He took it back, but I'm skeptical that that means he doesn't still believe it. It just means he got caught saying something out loud he shouldn't. THAT is extremism, friends.

It's also really really really really stupid to think that bringing up a child in one's own religion means that they will stay there.

It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)

Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with.

Personally, I am an Athiest because I can't conceive of a greater divinity than Duke Ellington.

Who, ironically, could. Still, a clever line.

BUT I regard the questioning of metaphysical concepts which I find absurd to be a different order of communication altogether;

For my part, I have no problem with people questioning "metaphysical concepts" (you mean like the existence of matter? Oh wait, not that kind of metaphysical concept) (grin) all they want. But using words like "sky fairy" are just blatant attempts to be insulting/disrespectful/rude/funny. They can't possibly taken seriously as an attempt to civilly discuss religious issues. And people who insist on the propriety of using them are hard to take seriously.

In what way is My Ding-a-Ling a manifestation of the divine?

Doesn't God have a penis?

I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence.

See, this is an in to a conversation about what it is reasonable to believe, and what counts as "evidence" for any given proposition. I would love to have a real discussion with any atheist about what is required for a working epistemology that can take into account the ways people actually work vis-a-vis believing, knowing, etc. It's almost impossible to do that online, and without a little background reading. So I'll be polite here: thinking that you have "evidence" for everything you believe, and that they don't have "evidence" for believing in God, is a weeny teeny bit naïve.

As I've said, faith necessitates a leap into thought processes that I cannot make. I usually try to say I "think" something is true rather than merely leap unthoughtfully to a place where a thing is truth because I want it to be that. To me, it's just wishful thinking!

Very few people become believers via the "leap" route. That's a trope invented by Kierkegaard that has little bearing on 99% of believers. I don't understand your "think" thing -- who doesn't think that certain things are true? I must be missing something.

@BillD: I agree that the fudge laws trying to worm out abortion clinics by regulating them to death are wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:54 PM

That's all I need, I thought. Bloody Jehoover's Witnesses

hahahha Now, that's funny.

Bill D, you say: "Whether you agree with abortion or disapprove of it, this 'suggested' law is precisely based on and fueled by Christian belief"

You may be right, Bill, but I'll bet you good money that there are non-religious, non-Christian people in this world who are against abortion. I personally uphold the right to abort- believing it to be a matter between the mother and her doctor - but at the same time I would feel better if I knew when a thinking life begins. I do NOT believe that human life begins at conception.

You also say: "But I DO remember in 1952 how Dwight Eisenhower had to quickly 'find a church' to be seen in, as his advisors doubted he could beat Adlai Stevenson if he could not show 'membership'.

Again, that is undoubtedly true but in my opinion a lot of that belief (no offense) comes from so few people having the courage to try it. I would have no trouble voting for a good man or woman who frankly said that they were agnostic. Now, on the other hand, if they said adamantly that they are atheist and don't see how anyone could believe in such claptrap- NO. I would not vote for them, because it reveals a mindset that I am not comfortable with.

John P, you say: "I know I once failed to get a job because I didn't profess my faith at the verbal opening in the interview that was created for that purpose."

I have no idea what kind of employment field that was; I certainly have never been asked in a job interview about my religious beliefs. I did, however, once lose a job offer at a city Chamber of Commerce because my Letters to the Editor revealed that I was "not in harmony with them".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:46 AM

completely agree with Ebbie. anti abortion is not the exclusive domain of the religious. My doc is an atheist, he WILL NOT do an abortion. He believes it is against the oath of a doctor to do no harm and he frankly says it is killing a child ..

That is from an atheist .. you don't have to be religious to be against abortion. ME i let people make the call as to what they can do to their own bodies ... I hate the idea of abortion but want no law to stop it .. period ..

again the same exact clinches that I see all the time here to justify your own belief system and to justify converting us to the way of the atheist ..(your religion) yet I see no christian doing that here on a daily basis

preach on ... I ain't buying it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:01 AM

and much to the chagrin of many, women do have the right to choose. And doctors have the right to choose not to do it also ... and I support their right. One cannot get an abortion in my town. You can go down the road to another hospital but not here .. Why, no doc will do it .. some because of their faith .. others because they feel it is wrong ... like Ebbie said it is way beyond religions beliefs ... but ya know something else ... IT IS LEGAL .. so much for the CHRISTIAN LAW THAT DISTURBS YOU SO .. but I go back to my original assumption. Does atheists think stealing and murder and other such Christian laws are bad HUH .. is it because you have NO foundation to believe in anything then why not allow murder ... or stealing or pretty much anything else you want to do ... is that your argument?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:37 AM

Many of your arguments hold water, Dan: but not this last bit ~~ laws against murder, theft &c, are not CHRISTIAN laws, specifically ~ and please don't cop out by saying you didn't say they were, just look back at your last sentence above: they are ones which must, & do, exist in all societies, not just Christian societies, just to enable them to function at all. You will find these two specified in the 10 Commandments e.g., btw, which are some 12 centuries pre-Christian, you know. Are you not in danger here of confusedly claiming all social morality to be Christian-based? Think about it.

~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:08 AM

Virginia Tam says: Any system that promotes intolerance, exclusivism, misogyny, to name a few, is unacceptable to my mind and makes no valuable contribution to society.


....and I agree wholeheartedly.

And along with Bill D, "I agree very much with John P about This country, and its laws, are overwhelmingly slanted toward Christianity. As a non-Christian, I have often felt strong prejudice against me.... and ...no non-religious person will be elected to high office any time soon. That IS political discrimination, and one that is supported by many otherwise "good" Christians."
-It's quite true that Americans in positions of leadership are expected to practice some sort of religious creed. As a result, churches are plagued with nominal believers, people whose only belief is that God is on their side and supports their views and prejudices.
One reason I became disillusioned with the Boy Scouts of America was their insistence that members and leaders believe in God - again, this led to a number nominal believers who tended toward right-wing "God is on my side" practices. Their opposition to homosexuals was another thing that caused me dismay, and I finally gave up believing they would change.

And JohnP, I agree that there is a semantic problem with the term "atheist." Some atheists just don't believe in a God, and I have no quarrel with them. The people who trouble me are those who are actively antireligious - especially those who insist on defining what it is that I believe and then condemn me for it, not bothering to find out what actually it is that I do believe.

-Joe Offer-

Interesting to see mention of Ellington above. He did some terrific sacred music - (click).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:19 AM

Laws against murder and theft are common to (virtually) all societies, though people find various ways around it...like murdering and thieving from the neighbouring tribe or society. That's called "war". ;-)   It is also true that virtually all societies, if not all societies without exception, were religious in the ancient times when they first began to form, and they were all openly religious up until quite recent historical times. You can therefore either claim that...

1. laws against common crimes like murder and theft arose because of religion or you can claim that...

2. they would have arisen regardless even if there had been no religion.

To argue about it and blame religion for everything that's gone wrong in the past 20,000 years or to say that religion played no useful part in the development of human societies, seems worse than stupid to me. It would be just as stupid as saying that religion is the only thing that's ever made anything go right for people in the past 20,000 years.

And to attack anyone with an opinion different from your own and try to shoehorn them into one of these exaggerated fanatical positions is to erect a straw man. That's what happens on these threads. People erect a straw man (the religious fanatic or the atheist fanatic) to suit their particular brand of prejudice, and then they attack that straw man continuously, and rave on about how awful he is, and they pretend (or imagine) that anyone who doesn't agree with them on every point must be just like that straw man.

And that's just a big waste of hot air. Too bad we don't have a big balloon to inflate. ;-) This thread and others like it would then serve a useful purpose of sorts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:43 AM

Ok, a few observations..

Joe Offer (scroll up a few...) takes a sentence of my admiration of Dawkin and sadly takes it out of context. Come on Joe, we can all do a bit better than that. I do have sympathy (empathy? Have to think about that,) with your frustration that people judge religious belief at the fundamentalist level. ie., you have faith therefore you are a fundamentalist.

I can see where Joe is right in saying "Don't judge me with that yardstick." I am a huge football fan and my support for my team has parallels with religious faith. In the '70s and to a much smaller degree since, violence within crowds at matches has been evident. Therefore, the term football fan has been successfully crossed with football hooligan. I'm still a huge fan of my team and get to as many matches as I can. But I resent being tarred with the same brush as the idiots. I guess this is Joe's point regarding religion?

Mind you, by swelling the crowds at the match, could I be seen as encouraging the idiots? Moot point.... some could, (unfairly I know..) say that people like Joe give respectability to the dangerous fundamentalist looneys who profess their take on religion in a way that goes well beyond the moral compass and metaphor.

I like the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." as put forward by Shimrod. However, the invisible goo monster behind my chair right now would have to possibly exist if we thought that through enough. I prefer Einstein's take that atheism cannot be the ultimate answer as that infers chaos, and the laws of physics work every time, so chaos cannot be the answer.

I notice bell ringing has cropped up. Here's one for you. My wife is a bell ringer, and many of our friends are. Funnily enough, once the service starts, you will find most bell ringers either in the cafe (mornings) or the pub (evenings.) It may be a service to the church from the church's perspective, but it is a hobby on the mathematical and (in their opinion) musical level to many of the people who practice it. Being a Christian or not is quite irrelevant. (A cathedral not too far away has a family of a father and a daughter ringing and they are Muslim. They love the hobby, tradition etc. and why not?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:10 AM

I love churches, the sound of a peal of bells (I'm lucky enough to be able to hear them from my house) but I'm not a Christian, or even religious (although I like to think of myself as spiritual). Personally, I've no problem with mosques, temples or any religious building as I think they add to our urban and rural landscapes; they represent a continuity of expression of human spirituality that is quite fantastic.

"is it because you have NO foundation to believe in anything then why not allow murder ... or stealing or pretty much anything else you want to do"

Don't fall into the trap that because you don't adhere to a religion you can't have a moral code; read my earlier post on that subject, or Little Hawk's. People don't require a supernatural explanation for the way the world works and it is, and that doesn't make them amoral miscreants. Like Joe says, don't judge everyone with the same yardstick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:11 AM

"I like the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." as put forward by Shimrod. However, the invisible goo monster behind my chair right now would have to possibly exist if we thought that through enough."

Thanks for the acknowledgement 'Steamin' Willy'. My point was though that if you postulate an "invisible goo monster", AND EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IN IT, it is your responsibility to prove that it exists - it is not my responsibility to prove its non-existence (which it is impossible for me to do). The only logical thing for me to do is to remain 'agnostic' with respect to invisible goo monsters until you prove that they exist. My further point was that religion does not appear to operate according to the laws of logic (this is not a value judgement, just a fact) hence there can be no real dialogue between religion and science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:14 AM

LH - I wasn't suggesting My Ding-a-Ling wasn't a manifestation of the divine, I was was just asking in what way it was. I think I've got the answer now - the song is about God's demonstration of the Thrusting Masculine Generative Force of the Universe couched entirely in Occult Gnostic Symbolism.

As for Duke Ellington - all his music was sacred, not just the religious stuff. In fact I'd argue the secular stuff was a good deal more sacred because it addresses the Human Cause of which religion is entirely bereft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci7Q8d66_oI


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:19 AM

How would you set about "proving" that Duke Ellington (or Chuck Berry) is good? You believe he is, and so do lots of other people, but that's a matter of "faith"...

Kevin, that is not a matter of 'faith' it is a matter of taste, which is what religion or any other system people will group themselve into, is. People follow what appeals to them on some level for whatever reason.

I wish there were better words than "atheist" or "agnostic", since both of these carry lots of connotations that don't apply to me.

John, that is the nature of all labels that lump people together. Some will view with disdain the Catholic, others, the Jew, another the diasbled child, the black youth or the unmarried mother. No getting around it as long as any group or person excludes another group or person.

the great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked and now it is your mission to preach to the rest of us or enlighten the rest of us on the folly of our faith ...

Dan, not all unbelievers are trying to push their nonbelief down the believer's throat. As I stated before, Dawkins' television style I find repugnant. I purposely do not call myself an atheist or agnostic because; 1) I don't like labels, 2) I won't be defined by a group "The mob is the untruth." because it impedes my ability to think for myself and displaces my personal responsibility for word and deed committed within and without the group. But I would never tell anyone else they should or should not believe this or that. What I would do is let a person know when a specific word or deed, harms or excludes another human being.

What I find interesting is that so many non-believers here feel it's their duty to start threads and get in the face of those people who belive in a higher power of some sort - just to tell them how wrong they are. IF people of faith were to take ACTIONS against you for your beliefs that would be wrong. But it seems to me that many of the athiests here find THOUGHTS objectionable. And I've been told that before - that my thoughts are offensive to another Mudcatter even though we've never met - and I've taken no actions against them. It appears that some of the athiests here would love to become the thought police.

It's the difference of thoughts vs actions.

Can you see the difference?


Wesley, the original post was not a slap in the face to believers. It was mearly a statement of personal opinion and one that I interpreted as a developing opinion, based upon his phrasing. By your own description, it was his THOUGHT and not an ACTION. But on an electronic forum where ACTION is not possible THOUGHT will stand as ACTION if the reader wishes to view it as such, as you have demonstrated in the diatribe cited above.


BillD and JohnP - I agree there is a worrying discrimination in politics and business towards ahteist and agnostic as there is to some religions, which is why many people do not aswer the reigious affiliation part of job applications. Again labels and sorting individuals into groups is what is destructive and unfair.

Let's make this clear... the thread title is the name of the book written by Dawkins, the presenter of television "documentary" viewed by the OP.   It was not made up by the OP in order to inflame sensibilities of anyone on this forum.   That was just an accident (happy to some and unhappy to others).



This forum could and should be the perfect tool for understanding and accepting each other whatever we believe or don't. Instead it devolves like so many others into division.

love to all from tamara, the naive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:33 AM

Well, Willie, maybe I should should listen to Richard Dawkins directly, instead of getting him filtered through people like Richard Bridge, who says he's "inclined to go with [Dawkins] that religions are all dangerous." - which is painting religion with the broad brush I complain about.

But on the other hand, I watched this video from Dawkins promoting his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth (which is about evolution) - and I agree with everything Dawkins has to say on the video.

Here's another video from Dawkins on The New Atheism. Can't say I agree with everything he says, but he's certainly far more diplomatic and far more rational than he is portrayed by his supporters (not to mention his detractors). In listening to fifteen minutes of Dawkins, I didn't hear any of the broad antireligious generalizations that his supporters attribute to him.

In his talk on The New Atheism, Dawkins pokes fun at Pope John Paul II's claim to have been saved from assassination by "Our Lady of Fatima." I agree with Dawkins - I always thought that was JPII's silliest moment (and many progressive Catholics share my views on that).

I'll pay more attention to Dawkins in the future, and let you know later what I think. I have to say that I enjoyed and appreciated what he had to say.

So, did Dawkins actually say that "religions are all dangerous," or is that the Richard Bridge interpretation of Dawkins?

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:42 AM

Don't fall into the trap that because you don't adhere to a religion you can't have a moral code;

Agreed. I know a good number of atheists through my stepson, and they are all both (a) much nicer than I am, and (b) no less moral than any of the Christians I know (and more moral than some of the Christians I know).

My further point was that religion does not appear to operate according to the laws of logic (this is not a value judgement, just a fact) hence there can be no real dialogue between religion and science.

I dunno. Most religions have an internal consistency -- like most novels, even the most fantastic or science-fictionny, have an internal consistency. That doesn't mean that you have to believe them, but I don't think that they are totally devoid of logic. Of course the bits of religions that are taken "on faith" are not going to be scientifically provable (by definition, wot?), and so in that sense they are not "in dialogue" with science. But I can easily balance belief that my wife loves me, which is not provable by logic or science, with my understanding (lame as it is) of quantum mechanics or string theory. I think they are complementary rather than contradictory.

In fact I'd argue the secular stuff was a good deal more sacred because it addresses the Human Cause of which religion is entirely bereft.

Can you explain what you mean please? What is this "Human Cause" of which religion is entirely bereft? Sounds (forgive me) like a distinctly unscientific thing.

People follow what appeals to them on some level for whatever reason.

Yes and no. CS Lewis famously said that if he was picking a religion on what appealed to him, he'd pick Norse Mythology. He became a Christian because it impressed itself upon him as true.

diatribe

The insults continue. Time to stop now?

This forum could and should be the perfect tool for understanding and accepting each other whatever we believe or don't. Instead it devolves like so many others into division.

As it is likely to do. As Joe stated, most of the religious people on this board are very reserved. The atheists come out like a bull in a china shop, flinging insults left and right. Accepting and understanding don't seem to be in sight. Things like (I'm paraphrasing and combining here) "I won't tell anybody what to believe but you're all a bunch of irrational bullies" don't help any. (Nor, to be sure, was my insult, and I apologize for coming across so strong. One does get tired of being battered about the head, and sometimes the battering in one place isn't so bad but it puts one in mind of earlier batterings. I'll attempt to be more evenhanded.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:00 AM

Religion bereft of the "human cause"? How about this?
    'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me'....‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'
    (Matthew 25, NRSV)
To me and to many Christians, this sort of compassionate God is the central focus of our belief - that the essence of God is within everyone and everything. Virgins who spare popes from bullets and deities who damn homosexuals don't really fit into the picture for us. I believe that all those who show this sort of compassion will "inherit the kingdom," no matter what they do or don't believe...but don't ask me what the "kingdom" is. I don't really know...some sort of absorption into all that is good, I think.

Why do I believe? It doesn't have anything to do with doctrine or authority - that's just the institutional structure intended to serve those who share the faith. And to my mind, theories of creation or the origins of things, have very little to do with the essence of faith. I believe because all my life, I have experienced glimpses of a profound goodness. I see that goodness embodied in Jesus Christ, and I call that goodness God. Other people don't have that same experience, and that's fine with me. I cannot and will not impose my experience of what I call God on others. I respond to that experience through my (Catholic) religious tradition, and other people respond differently. If people see that this has a good effect on me, maybe that will make a difference to them - or not. Whatever the case, it's good for me, and it's sacred to me - and I don't want to argue about it, or impose it on anyone else, or allow somebody to back me into a corner and beat me on the head about it. It's part of who I am, part of my essence. If you don't like who I am, leave me alone and go talk to somebody else. I don't want to force anything on you, and I don't want to prove myself to you, and I don't want to defend myself to you. Why should I have to?
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:44 AM

di·a·tribe   [dahy-uh-trahyb] –noun
a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism

Mousethief, insult is a matter of interpretation. I found Wesley's tone fit all of the things stated in the definition. If I was on the Christian right, I would still think so. If I was an extraterrestrial with no prior knowledge of belief systems, I should still think it so. But alright, perhaps the term is too strong so for the sake of peace, I retract it with a genuine apology for offending anyone with it.


'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world......

Joe, never did I feel more bereft, unwanted and unloved by God than when I was amongst fellow believers.

This verse (written by a man) indicates that God has already chosen the blessed and encourages the same exclusivity in religon, that I find so unpalatable.

I won't deny it sounds lovely, ideal and poetic, but it never applied to me. And if it doesn't apply to me, what about all the others to whom it does not apply? Indeed, how can anyone really know they are on the blessed list. All I can do is live each day trying to do more good than harm to the world and my fellow man. And then just take what comes after life (if anything) as it comes. If it be damnation, then there was nothing I could do differently in life to change that, because the decision was a done deal before I was born.

In my experience (granted it was limited - raised up moderate southern baptist) religion made me despair. The more I learn about others historically and currently, the more I despair.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM

Well, Tam, my interpretation is that they were blessed because they showed compassion. I know that some religious traditions define an exclusive, elite group of those who are saved, but that's not what this passage says. The passage is quite clear - the rest of it says that those who fail to show compassion, are damned. And the list of compassionate acts is repeated four times in a very short passage. It's the only description of the Last Judgment that is attributed to Jesus, and it's all about compassion.

And I'll be the first to agree that many so-called "religious" people are the very antithesis of compassion. Jesus had the same problem with the Pharisees. I believe in a God who is "slow to anger and rich in kindness and abounding in mercy and love" - these words appear six times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). I don't believe in a God of judgment - those who fail to show compassion, pass judgment on themselves. All that simplistic shit about being "saved" has little scriptural basis. If you're not compassionate, it doesn't mean a thing.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:01 AM

Oh dear. Pharisee.   Like the "good" Samaritan parable. Another divisive label. :~)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:16 AM

Whatever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM

Hey Joe,

You have done what some of us would wish to do but don't get around to always, ie seeing what all the fuss is about. Dawkins does have many strong comments on those who hide ignorance behind religion, but his comments on God are more benign. after all, how can you be angry about something you don't think exists?   

I am with him on the subject of God being a convenient metaphor for what we don't yet understand. I am also with him when he loses patience with those who reckon they have interpreted that which we don't understand without scientific research. ie., putting substance to the God metaphor, hence denying the idea that one day scientific understanding will chisel that bit of God away.

Like I said before, the reason why so many see him as a threat, (and the propaganda war against him is immense!) is that he has put forward (with others, I must admit) a reason why altruism exists and it ain't the love of any God. Ants sacrifice themselves for the perpetuation of the community. Our good deeds as humans can do the same. Why? well, to date, I can't see a better reason than his idea of genes demanding it as the best vehicle for perpetuation.

That is hugely dangerous to the idea of religious faith and the supremacy of humans. Not as devastating as Darwin, but certainly up there, and strengthening Darwin whilst at it....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:31 AM

" 'It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)'

Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with."

Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey, and, even worse, you then go on to extrapolate that I'm somehow against free speech. Nowhere have I said that the public show of religious iconography, or wayside pulpits, or even those bells, should be curtailed. Pointing to the arrogant presumption by a religion that the whole world, including the non-religious or otherly-religious, deserves exposure to their wacky notions is not the same at all as my saying they should be stopped from doing it. As a result of this misreading you go off half-cock about free speech. I think you'd like me to be against free speech to help make your case but I can't oblige, sorry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:38 AM

"People don't require a supernatural explanation for the way the world works"

There isn't a supernatural explanation and there never will be. There may well be a supernatural ~imposition~ on the science (by exceptionally non-supernatural people), but an explanation it can never be. You can't explain something by ascribing it to something else infinitely complex, infinitely rule-breaking and infinitely inexplicable in itself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:55 AM

Actually it's quite true that religion is dangerous. So is electricity. So is gravity. So are people.
.................................

"...how can you be angry about something you don't think exists? " Very easily indeed, it would appear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 07:19 AM

To some of us a television is inexplicable; I'm writing this on my laptop which I couldn't explain either. To all of us Stonehenge is inexplicable, likewise, to some of us, it's 21st Century cousin the Large Hadron Collider. Same goes for the world; if it works, there is an explanation, just we haven't got there yet. Instead we make up gods to account for all the stuff that bugs us until we figure it out, but then the Religious hang on to the gods because it gives them power over people & the smugness of righteousness. At the heart of every Christian is the stinking evil that they believe they are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. As with God, then so with Foghorn Leghorn, Captain Ahab, Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin, Don Quixote, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Borg, Greggary Peccary - we made them all up, along with so much else, just no one's committed any mass atrocities in the name of Top Cat, so that'll do for me. In lieu of so-called Spirituality I will watch Top Cat on a Television that I find inexplicable safe in the certainty that there is an explanation for everything. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be accounted for, nor is there anything more Sacred than the joy of the material world in Human terms, which are, of course, the only terms we've got. Meanwhile....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB0qbcQXEyE&feature=related


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:22 AM

yea but it is perfectly ok to preach your religion isn't it .. ashtray
yup ... the version of the world as you see it .. The in your face I have all the answers so I am going to point you to the light of the atheist dogma .. and you say Christians are evil ... you cornered the market on that one.

Someone tell me why I engage with bigots ... I must be nuts - hope you have a great life .. maybe we can get rid of some of those pesky Christian laws for you ... need something , go steal it cause that is a Christian law and you wouldn't want a Christian law ..

makes me sick. Got it all figured out do you. Oh and the science, lets don't forget that ... well I have worked with some of the best minds in the world (Including a professor who won the Nobel prize) some are atheists .. most are Christians , I guess the great atheist non god didn't reach those guys yet .. maybe that is your religious charge to convert them to your belief system also as you do here everyday on the Cat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM

I have no religion, olddood - Humanity is the whole of the case and all religion was made up by human beings. You only find religion in a human context - I gaze up at the stars, look at the trees or listen to the birds and there's nothing there in least bit religious, although the religious might tell you about this wrathful/benign/all-loving/all-hating/all-powerful creator who made it all, and gave us free will only to send us to hell if we actually use it. The spiritual is the consequence of inadequate sensory aperatus coupled with our instinctive fear of death and the unknown, all of which seems fair enough to me. Otherwise, I take a keen interest in the cultural & human manifestations of religion & spend a good deal of time rooting around medieval churches & listening to otherwise 'sacred music'; I have sung plain chant and Gelineau Psalm Tones with the Benedictine monks of Worth Abbey and told of fantastic miracles acounted for in the Cantigas de Santa Maria. It's rich and fascinating for sure but no more or less so than Foghorn Leghorn or the animations of Max Fliescher.

There is no Atheist Dogma though - only the common Truth that all religions are as wrong as they are manifestly absurd.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:39 AM

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan


Amen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.

Carl Sagan"


Double amen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:42 AM

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.

Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address"


Amens x 100


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM

"Christian laws for you ... need something , go steal it cause that is a Christian law and you wouldn't want a Christian law .."



NO IT ISN'T DAN!!! Again, it's a human law. You'll find laws against stealing in Tibet & Israel & Egypt ~~ none of them Christian countries. And back when in Babylon & Assyria, & among the Aztecs & the Incas ~ & ~ & ~ &....

Again: ~~ NONE OF THEM CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES OR SOCIETIES.

What the hell has come over you, Dan? Who has shaken your trolley so hard as to make you so unwontedly THICK, for goodness' sake!?


~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM

Can I just add that I see Religion in much the same way as Folklore? They're manifestations of human irrationality we're all prone to, to a greater or lesser extent. Thus I delight in many aspects of our culture that have a religious vibe - churches, festivals, Christmas, Easter, Catholic Statuary, Green Men, Misericords, churches, cathedrals, etc. etc. but all of these I see purely in terms of their humanity; Folklore likewise, and other so-called Spirituality. So whilst I don't do hocus-pocus, I wouldn't deny another person's right to partake if that is their desire. I will, however, oppose the Mormons, JWs, Christians or any other rancid cult who comes knocking at my door intent on saving my soul in the sincere hope they end up in the hell they've dreamed up for the rest of us. So whilst I see Atheism as the ultimate objective of Humanity, it still remains a high Ideal, as with Anarchy - we've a long way to go, but we've also come a long way too and we're getting there, by slow and steady degrees.

Love those Carl Sagan quotes, SJ - that says it all! Amen indeed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:48 AM

Ok here is my point one more time. If a Christian started a thread on a daily basis quoting Scripture ... people here would be on them like flies on shit ...

Since there cannot and never can be proof of the existence or non existence of God .. it comes down to a belief system. Atheism is by definition a belief system ... hence it is a religion just as Muslim, Jew or Christian is.

yet on mudcat it is ok for others to jam their belief system on others and we are suppose to take it cause it is a belief system in non belief ... it is a religion plain and simple and the attempt to convert others to that thinking who don't agree is as odorous as the door knockers handing out fliers to people who don't want to hear it.

yet it is hidden under this idea that it is only free thinking ... bunk ..it is a religious doctrine that people are trying to push on others who don't want to keep hearing it plain and simple.

X's and Y's don't lie .. it is what it is


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:49 AM

olddude, Calm Down!!

Why are you feeling so attacked? Why are you seeing hatred and bigotry in every other post here? Perhaps a good technique for you would to respond very specifically to specific statements, instead of making blanket comments. That way, you might actually find out that people aren't putting you down before you start blasting away. I get the feeling that there is a whole other side to this conversation that is only taking place in your head. I'm afraid you're responding in the external world to the internal dialog.

And if you don't get off the "atheism is a religion" thing, I will start attacking you. But I'll do so because you're being a jerk, not because you're a Christian.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:19 AM

"Atheism is by definition a belief system ... hence it is a religion just as Muslim, Jew or Christian is."

That is a profoundly wrong statement. In no way, shape or for is atheism a religion, not matter how you couch it. That is simply very wrong olddude mate!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM

Me, I prefer opiates but chacun à son goût.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:33 AM

Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other. No matter what we are there is an ultimate Atheistic Unity in our Individual & Cultural diversity. There are countless idioms and genres of music - not one of these claims to be any truer than any other, just different. Same goes for language, art, sexuality, dance, craftsmanship, literature - all is done in the glory of the unversality of idiomatic diversity that is entirely Human. I might bring in Folklore, I might even bring in Spirituality, but the reason why Atheism is most assuredly not a Religion is because Religion is not about Reality, nor is it about Inclusivity - it does not celebrate the commonality of Humanity, nor yet does it acknowledge that there is Unity in our Individual and Cultural Diversity. Atheistic Truth is manifestly self-evident in the universality of acceptance; Religious Truth is crammed away in the narrow minds of denial. That Humans aren't perfect is a fact largely measured by our propensity for righteousness, which is invariably religious, or else something very like it. Atheism isn't about Righteousness, it is simply about Right, which is measured by the Right of each and every single one of us.

What about the right to be religious? To quote Bakunin, if I may: I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation. As with Anarchy, then so with Atheism. No religion would ever say such a thing, much less allow it; Christ came pretty close but - and here's a crazy thought - imagine anyone being so stupid as to found a religion on his teachings and example! Just ain't going to happen...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:39 AM

Religion - noun : A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Notice that it says "especially" - not "exclusively". "Usually" and not "always".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:44 AM

"Christ came pretty close but"

Buddhism is a second to none religion.
No dogma and no concept of blasphemy. In fact it encourages introspection and questioning.
Zen in particular, is really just a set of tools for cultivating self-mastery. And you don't have to be religious, devote yourself to any supernatural agency, or even aspire to the notion of 'self-realisation' to make use of them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:47 AM

I tend not to like to be called an atheist. Reading oldude's diatribe, there is no wonder...

Why do superstitious people get all precious over their delusion? Is it because deep down they realise the imaginary friend bit is in fact just a metaphor for the whole mindset? or is it because again deep down, they either knowingly or otherwise resent being told how to behave by people in charge of their faith?

Nobody is denying anybody's right to be religious. the problem is that many interpretations of religion are profoundly jealous of either other religions or lack of religion so try to impose their religion on others.

That and that alone is reason enough to laugh in the faces of those who try and ram it down your throat. Next time a Jehovas Witness knocks on your door, ensure they waddle back down the drive, with a copy of their Watchtower protruding and causing the wobbly walk.

Anyway, I have had occasion recently to fill in a few forms where my religion has been asked for, (I thought it was illegal to do so, but there you go...) rather than a box with none in it, there was a "rather not say." This was not satisfactory, but there was a "other" box with a field for you to fill in. I trawled the net and signed up to The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am a Pastafarian! Whats more, I ruin silly ethnic monitoring forms by stating the fact.

That makes me so happy, I suppose it is a little bit sad really.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM

Buddhism is technically a philosophy not a religion but you are spot on about it being a good positive guide on how to conduct one's life. The example of Jesus is too for that matter. It is all the other stuff attached to Christianity that I find too bitter a pill to swallow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:07 PM

well here is what the Supreme Court ruled it as a religion
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:11 PM

Anyway my point is made. And you maybe right .. I could just be pissed off at the world at the moment and taking it out on everyone .. but I do get rather pissed at the religous comments I read all the time. I don't do that to others .. but it does seem to be ok for others to do that to me and everyone else here that does have a belief system .. anyway .. I will agree to disagree and leave it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

I think I will feel much better after I hunt that skunk down that sprayed me last night and kill his ass. And many thank to Bobad, his concoction worked.

Then I won't be so crabby at everything I read


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

I don't think Buddhism sits well on its pedestal, CS. Remember the recent war in Sri Lanka. And the oppressors in Burma are just as Buddhist as the oppressed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

Whole article from Dan's link posted here for convenience

LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com


A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.


The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.


What I get from this is that it was a ludicrous thing for the court to do and it in no way legitimises the argument that atheism is a religion. Sorry Dan. I loves ya man, but I can't agree with you on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM

No dogma and no concept of blasphemy. In fact it encourages introspection and questioning.

I wouldn't be so sure, CS. I've known a few Buddhists in my time hung up on such bollox concepts as Karma and reincarnation. One was a bus driver who went sailing passed an old woman who was running for the bus stop struggling with her shopping. He excused this on account of karmic justice - that she somehow deserved it! Buddhism is the same old bullshit in a different box basically; it aspires to enlightenment, elitism and fabricates a spiritual hierachy the same way Christianity believes such hierachies were ordained by God or Hindus believe in the Caste System. Buddhism is no different really - it has its monks, disciples, and more funny hats and hoo-hah that you could shake a prayer wheel at. I may dig Tibetan Buddhist music, art & culture (a very fine display in the Liverpool Museum - we'll be popping in tomorrow!) but again on human terms. Amazing how all this Zen & Taoist stuff becomes New Age vacuity when adopted by the west - reduced to so much Cosmic Debris, though the basic writings of the Koans, the I Ching, Tao Te Ching et al would imply something very different, rather like the way the teachings of Christ bear no relationship to Roman Catholic theology I suppose. Anyway, introspection is all very well, but it's no substitute for a night in with the TV, or a game of footy with your mates, or a wander around The Trafford Centre, or a few pints and good old blow down your local singaround.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:29 PM

But isn't it time to stop being polite to peole who insist on damaging their children's education?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

" He excused this on account of karmic justice - that she somehow deserved it!"

This attitude of 'blame the victim' is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the way karma works. In fact, it's possible for a buddhist to ignore the law of karma completely and concentrate on developing compassion which will in the end address the whole issue of karmic debut; you don't have to believe in karma or reincarnation to be a buddhist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

mousethief: See, this is an in to a conversation about what it is reasonable to believe, and what counts as "evidence" for any given proposition. I would love to have a real discussion with any atheist about what is required for a working epistemology that can take into account the ways people actually work vis-a-vis believing, knowing, etc. It's almost impossible to do that online, and without a little background reading. So I'll be polite here: thinking that you have "evidence" for everything you believe, and that they don't have "evidence" for believing in God, is a weeny teeny bit naïve.

I have some questions:
What do I believe that I don't have evidence for?
How is it polite to call me naive and tell me I can't understand the subject matter?

What evidence can you offer that:
God talks.
God listens.
God has a personality, in that it takes notice of individual humans.
Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus died and came back to life.
God is everywhere.
God is in heaven.
God is, in some way, three beings in one. Did that arrangement pertain before the birth of Christ?
The Bible is divinely inspired.
Anyone knows what happens to us after we die.
Hell exists.
Heaven exists.

You'll notice that I'm not talking about what place religion or belief has in peoples' lives, or whether or not it inspires them to good deeds. I'm also not talking about spiritual experience, which is a well-documented phenomenon and is available to anyone. "Christianity" is defined primarily by a belief in the resurrection of Christ, by the concept that he died for your sins, and by the notion that he is part of a Trinity. Why do you believe that?

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM

Sorry, the last sentence should be: What evidence can you offer for these ideas?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

JohnP
Faith means you believe without having evidence. So to ask a person of faith for evidence is apart from being pointless is ummm impolite and inconsiderate no matter how gently it is worded.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
---------------------------------------------------------------

Unless one follows a leader instead of the God they worship, why would anyone need to explain their personal belief system that is quite private to anyone else ? That I don't get ... Likewise I don't expect an atheist to explain their reasoning to me either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

"But isn't it time to stop being polite to peole who insist on damaging their children's education? "

Mrrzy - More details please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

No, faith means you have confidence in something. ;-) For instance, I have faith that my car will get me safely to town, because it has already done so on hundreds of previous occasions. No one can guarantee that it will do so next time, but I have faith that it will.

*****

No one thinks that God is physical. No one thinks that one's dreams for the future are physical either. No evidence can be provided for something that is not physical. But one's dreams for the future can serve as a very real motivator that can have real and tangible effects on the progress of one's life. Shall we, therefore, object to people having dreams for the future merely on the basis that no evidence can be provided to prove that those dreams exist?

If a human being's concept of "God" proves useful or comforting to him in some way, what business does anyone else have disparaging it on the basis that there is "no evidence" to support it? Why should there be any evidence for something which is, by definition, NOT physical?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM

Atheism acts LIKE a religion if people organize, hold regular meetings, creat websites and publish documents promoting it in order to 'sell' the idea.... that is, anti-theistic proselytizing.
This is a silly, useless activity in my opinion,,,but it is still basically protected as 'free speech'.

Just replying "I guess I'm an atheist." when asked does NOT make it a religion, and that court may have had a point if a group was trying to form an organization in prison specifically to tout their DISbelief....not a good point, but if someone acts like many religious groups do, lines get fuzzy.

Most atheists do not 'join' anything, and the word is just shorthand for "I don't accept all the stuff churches tell me."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM

Little Hawk, I'm not disparaging anyone. If asking questions and sharing thoughts is disparagement, then we might as well conclude this conversation. I was responding directly to mousethief's assertion that I can't know what the evidence is that supports a belief in a higher being. Also defending my position that I've never been given any reason to think that gods exist, a position which has drawn some fire. You are, once again, using the word "belief" in a way that is not supported by the current context. I was very specific that I wasn't referring to the fact that "a human being's concept of "God" proves useful or comforting to him in some way". You do, by the way, have a lot of evidence that should lead you think that your car will start when you turn the key. Blindly expecting that it will happen would be stupid, but that's not the same as a lack of evidence that it will. The stupidity would be the conviction that a fallible mechanical object will always work. That's not what we're talking about.

All I'm saying is that I don't see any evidence for the existence of gods. I've been told that such evidence exists, and I want the people who say so to support their assertion. If it is based on personal experience, that's well and good; I have no problem with personal spiritual experience. But perhaps we can find other conclusions that could be drawn from those experiences, ones that don't make the logical leap to a supreme being that thinks and acts. I just want things to make sense and to understand why things make sense to other people. For me, gods don't make sense. Apparently they do to many other people. I just want to know why.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

Wesley please read back through the thread for Mrzzy's posts for more info.

LH That definition of faith is merely the first and simplest definition and your example is based on evidence in that the car has worked in past so you are confident it will continue to work.

However, I agree that it is not ON to disparage an individual for what he or she does or does not believe. The question on the table implied by the opinion of the OP is 'Does organised religion cause more hurt than good?' In my opinion it does cause more harm. But that is my opinion. It may not be Joe's or Dan's or anyone else's who does not agree with me. That does not mean I don't respect them, their beliefs and their right to have em.

And yes Mrzzy any system that denies a full comprehensive education to children does damage them in the sense that they will be ill equipped to think and decide things for themselves. So they need non- indoctrinating exposure to main religions as well as philosophies, and scientific theory and facts. Best in a tone of acceptance and celebration of diversity. Put it all on the table repeatedly and let them come up with their own conclusions.

Do I think the law should impose this? Ideally yes, but impossible to put in practice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

And the thing about it Bill, if by definition it is or isn't a religion people have the right to believe in the non existence of God. It is their right. And that belief should be respected .. as long as the respect goes both ways for those who have faith in a God also .. The problems occur when my God can beat up your God or your non-God can beat up my God that people get upset, and go off on others even when they regard as friends and I do . I think I have proved it time and time again by actions here and not words..

I freely admit I am a crabby son of a bitch lately .. maybe I need a smoke .. but I tend to respect others and their path in life. I ask that others do that for me and the rest of us that do have a chosen path and pretty much mind our own business. You see for me, my faith is intensely personal .. and for those who knock on doors they couldn't be more wrong doing that .. Free will is the single most important concept in my faith .. Likewise It is wrong to berate others for their personal choices in life .. no belief system or non system is any better than another. It is all personal. When one tries to step on the others rights, then it becomes an issue of contention.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:09 PM

Neil Young, on Marriage, Faith, Christianity, Islam and well...Life! (no mention of skunks though) ;0)

Neil...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Lizzie
Skunks are Gods creatures also .. but I am going to kill his ass ... sorry but I am .. that was uncalled for. I wasn't going to hurt him but he felt the need to blast me and make my life a living hell last night LOL ... so sorry God be he is going down !!

ya know when I was sick, I got a PM from a pagan who wanted to light a candle for me .. I cherished that, it touched my heart .. why, because even though that is not my faith and is opposite of my faith, they believed it doesn't matter what I believe, they believe it would help me.. and they offered that out of love for someone they never met face to face .. I was honored and touched by that.. it is all about respect for others that is what I been trying to say. Although I may have been a jerk in the manner which I said it. I am a work in progress


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM

Dan... you & I have different 'personal' belief..or non-belief ..systems, and sometimes our opinions hit rocky impasses, but I see you, in all these discussions, trying to 'think' and be reasonable and find the best path thru awkward situations. Sometimes we don't exactly disagree, we are just looking at different sides of the same coin. We DO both seem to agree that imposing ones views on everyone else is a bad practice....we are just sensitive to different instances of that behavior.

We can discuss touchy, but important topics reasonably with a little effort....

....and nawwwww... a smoke ain't what you need...maybe a nice song..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:39 PM

You Bill are one of my favorite people in the world. I will argue with you but that is all it is ... just disagreement .. I don't fight or argue with those I don't care about ... I tend to just walk away .. I only fight with those I truly care for


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:45 PM

.....*blush*.... ok, then


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:49 PM

Gotta remember also, I am a hot headed Irish shithead who got out of the hospital got sprayed by a skunk and is trying to quit smoking ... terrible combination ... doesn't mean it is right to go off on my friends... it is just something right now I can't control ... my family is going to heaven putting up with me at the moment


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:56 PM

John, you said: "All I'm saying is that I don't see any evidence for the existence of gods."

Neither do I. Nor do I see any evidence against the existence of gods either. (shrug) So? What evidence would one expect?

I've noticed all my life what most people base faith on. They base it on:

1. familiarity - If they're quite familiar with something...then they usually have faith in it being as they think it is. That something can be an idea. People repeat and have faith in those ideas they are most familiar with. This includes both scientifically-based and religiously based ideas as well as, for example, political ideas or ideas about what clothing one should or should not wear and what words one should or should not use in a given situation.

2. social customs - see "familiarity" above... ;-)

3. what their parents told them and acted out in front of them: familiarity

4. what their schools told them

And so on...

So, suppose you have a generation of young people growing up in Maoist China, and their government which is vehemently against religion teaches them all to be militant atheists. Well, then that's certainly what most of them will become, unless their parents quietly teach them otherwise, in which case maybe they won't.

Likewise, suppose you have a generation in a staunchly religious country, growing up in schools where they are all taught the religious assumptions common in that culture. Well, then most of them will grow up to follow that religion, because they're familiar with it...unless their parents teach them otherwise. My parents taught me nothing about religion, and I naturally didn't have faith in it as a consequence. We never went to church.

As for science...virtually every organized society on Earth now teaches science to its youngsters in school (maybe a couple of exceptions), so young people everywhere grow up believing in science...but not because they have been confronted with or because they understand much of the evidence. They believe in it because they are familiar with it! ;-) Most of them, if questioned carefully, would soon reveal that their actual awareness of scientific evidence is extremely limited, fragmentary, and quite vague. They have merely accepted it on the basis of faith, because it was all around them and they saw no reason not to.

The exception to the above would be the few people who seek a career in science. Those people know a good deal more about the evidence, obviously.

The rest of the populace, however, just takes their word for it, much like the religious populace takes the word of the religious authorities.

Most of the people out there are proceeding primarily on faith, regardless of whether they are religious or not, and their faith is built upon familiarity with some viewpoint they have become emotionally attached to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:02 PM

Dan, don't shoot him...write a song about him.

He didn't ask to be a skunk, it was just his 'karma' this time round... :0)   

He probably has many skunk babies to support and protect, so maybe that's why he over-reacted and viewed you as an attacker...Maybe he's a Grandaddy Skunk?

Or, maybe he's just quit smoking too... ;0)


Skunk Love


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM

You maybe right Lizzie,
you kinda got me with the grand baby skunk thing ... but that was un-called for .. dang .. it was just mean of him ... mean .. I will let it go .. maybe he did stop smoking ... hell there is enough butts in my yard .. maybe he was addicted also .. but I better not see his skunk face around for awhile ... I am still very pissed. Last night was hell on earth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:28 PM

Little Hawk, on science: The rest of the populace, however, just takes their word for it, much like the religious populace takes the word of the religious authorities.

Sorry, Little Hawk, you are once again out to lunch. People take the word of scientists because they know that there is evidence to back up the stuff that scientists say. That's nothing at all like religion. I'm not a scientist but I have no problem at all with the concept that scientists use a methodology that doesn't let in ideas for which there is no evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:39 PM

Cool Dude Dan!   Vive le Skoonk! :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM

"Buddhism is the same old bullshit in a different box basically; it aspires to enlightenment, elitism and fabricates a spiritual hierachy"

It suggests that if you already aspire to self-realisation and you want to put in the work you then can find out for yourself. There are no special individuals, only people who have an inner impulse to change, simply because they want to. The proof is in the pudding. It's not a matter of faith but observable results to techniques that have been developed over thousands of years. Anyone can choose to suck it and see if they want to, or not if they don't. Buddhists don't proselityse or seek to covert people, or tell them that they will suffer in any way if they don't happen to share that impulse. I don't aspire to climb mount everest or sail the world solo, that drive isn't in me and I don't get it, but it doesn't bug me that other people do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:07 PM

Dan since you surprised the skunk enough to spray, maybe s/he won't return. I am sure hoping so for the skunk's sake.

I am having a crisis in faith in my old ability to learn new instruments quickly.

Recently bought a pair of bones.... cannot get to grips (hahaha) with them. I have no rhythm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM

For many "believers," a primary aspect of their religion is their belief in their own superiority, and their condemnation of others for this and that and the other thing. Most times, you wonder what it is that they do believe, because most of their time and energy seems to be spent condemning others. Perhaps one could say the primary aspect of their faith is xenophobia, the fear of anyone and anything other than themselves. They insist that they have certain knowledge of whatever it is they know, and contend that anything other that what they know for certain, is false.

We see this same kind of thinking expressed in a number of the posts above - except that it comes from people who actively profess that all religious belief is false.

Both sides profess that only they know the truth, and that all others are wrong and need to be suppressed and controlled - even to the point of suggesting that there should be control over what people teach their children and what rituals they celebrate in their own homes.

I can tolerate most things and most people of good will, but I draw the line at the point where people think they have a right to control or condemn what I am and who I am and what I think.

John P gave a list of beliefs-
    What evidence can you offer that:
    God talks.
    God listens.
    God has a personality, in that it takes notice of individual humans.
    Jesus died for your sins.
    Jesus died and came back to life.
    God is everywhere.
    God is in heaven.
    God is, in some way, three beings in one. Did that arrangement pertain before the birth of Christ?
    The Bible is divinely inspired.
    Anyone knows what happens to us after we die.
    Hell exists.
    Heaven exists.
And all I can answer is that I can offer no evidence that he would accept, but that most of these things make sense to me within the context of who I am - although I also must insist that people have vastly different understandings of these beliefs. I can offer no evidence or proof, but yet I have experienced most of these "beliefs" within the context of my life. I wouldn't expect John to believe any of these things because he does not share my faith perspective.


Suibhne says, Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other.
Funny thing....that's exactly the same thing I hold, but within my theistic, religious context. If that's what atheism is, then why should atheism have any conflict with me?
But then, Suibhne spoils the unity by talking about folklore, superstition, myth, mumbo-jumbo and other such cosmic debris that we could really do without taking too seriously.
How is he so sure that these things are without worth, that only Reason reigns supreme?

Suibhne says something else: Can I just add that I see Religion in much the same way as Folklore? They're manifestations of human irrationality we're all prone to, to a greater or lesser extent. Thus I delight in many aspects of our culture that have a religious vibe - churches, festivals, Christmas, Easter, Catholic Statuary, Green Men, Misericords, churches, cathedrals, etc. etc. but all of these I see purely in terms of their humanity; Folklore likewise, and other so-called Spirituality. So whilst I don't do hocus-pocus, I wouldn't deny another person's right to partake if that is their desire.

I'd agree that there is a very close relationship between religion and folklore. To my mind, much of religion IS folklore, wonderful folklore. The Old Testament stories of Job and Jonah are two of the best examples of folklore in Scripture, as are the creation and flood stories. But I don't see them as "manifestations of human irrationality." Rather, I see them as "manifestations of that which is beyond human rationality."

Pure rationality cannot capture the fullness of what some of us see as the transcendent mysteries of life: love, beauty, life, death, peace, evil, and the reason for existence, for example. If you're in love, you know that no rational explanation can approach the reality of the experience - although the experience is indeed intensely real. Likewise with the beauty of a tree or a sunset - intensely real, but beyond the capabilities of rational explanation.

In about 2005, I worked for about a year as an employee of my Catholic parish, teaching people who wanted to become Catholic. During that year, I was under constant scrutiny by right-wing Catholics. They filed a formal complaint to the bishop, and I had to attend a hearing and go through the process of being exonerated. The pastor told me he had to lay me off "for financial reasons," but last year he finally admitted he terminated me because of pressure from right-wing forces.

I tried to reason with these right-wing ultra-Catholics, but it did no good because we spoke a totally different language. From their religious perspective, they sought Absolute Truth and claimed to possess Absolute Truth; while my religious perspective directs me to explore that which is beyond understanding or definition. I found that if I tried to explain things in their language and their terms, I went places where I did not want to go. When I tried to speak in their terms, I found myself getting defensive and angry and limiting. I found myself closing doors, instead of opening them and exploring what was inside.

I have the same experience when I try to respond to non-believers who seek to force me to defend my beliefs. They, like the ultra-Catholics, want to speak in the language of certainty and argument and combat, while the essence of my being is to drift through life without certain knowledge, exploring the wonders I encounter with an open mind. They place a primary importance on proving others wrong, while all I want to do is explore. How can there ever be any depth of communication between us?

So, I try to be polite to those who insist on certainty, and I try not to rattle their cages.

But it's difficult, especially when they seek to control or limit or suppress or silence me.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:38 PM

I have 12 patents under my name, all owned by corporations I did business with but my design. I have worked with scientist of all walks of life in a host of various fields. Everything from Nuclear attack subs to fighter jets to voting machines to encryption algorithms to speech recognition to semantic database system to artificial intelligence and the list goes on ... I developed a software facility that is used in every PC today and I gave it to the world for free via publishing instead of patenting it... my mistake , I would be a rich man instead of struggling ... in short .. if you look to science to prove your position in no God you are petting the wrong dog.

Scientists like everyone else are trying to figure out life. The scientific method doesn't apply to the search for the creator or the non existence of a Creator. That is a belief system, one that most atheists seem to deny they have (IE a belief system).

It is ok to have whatever belief system you choose, but not ok to try and dictate what others should or should not believe. Joe is absolutely correct.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:55 PM

Details on what? Happy to provide...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey,

If the message fails to come across, blame the recipient. Nice. I'll remember that general principle.

At the heart of every Christian is the stinking evil that they believe they are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell.

Incorrect. There are Christian universalists.

Atheism is by definition a belief system

Can't agree. Atheism is by definition lack of belief in God. You might as well say not-stamp-collecting is a hobby.

Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other.

That sounds an awful lot like a belief system. Better to say that atheism means lack of belief in God.

Buddhism is a second to none religion.

Is Buddhism a religion? I've heard Buddhists argue both ways.

Why do superstitious people get all precious over their delusion?

See, this kind of rhetoric just doesn't move the conversation forward. By the way, something is a delusion only if it's false. By saying it's a delusion you're saying you KNOW God doesn't exist. How would you know that?

Is it because deep down they realise the imaginary friend bit is in fact just a metaphor for the whole mindset? or is it because again deep down, they either knowingly or otherwise resent being told how to behave by people in charge of their faith?

This is just Bulverism.

It is all the other stuff attached to Christianity that I find too bitter a pill to swallow.

This is a respectful statement that one could have a discussion over, because Virginia isn't starting out by insulting Christianity or saying she knows it's false.

well here is what the Supreme Court ruled it as a religion

The Supreme Court also overturned the Florida Supreme Court in order to make George Bush president. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time.

But isn't it time to stop being polite to people who insist on damaging their children's education?

Why, what would being rude do? Would it help them to see the error of their ways and do something else? Like hell. It will only make them feel justified in their doings by the "persecution", and make the snarky ones feel glibly self-righteous.

Why do you believe that?

JohnP: that is a decent approach to go about. But before you can ask for evidence we need to back up one step (at least) and talk about what counts as evidence. Otherwise we may be using the word in two different ways, and talking right past each other. I usually don't give reasons for what I believe online, because I have found that when I do, people pounce on them as if I were presenting a hypothesis in a scientific or logical debate. I don't expect anybody to go along with my beliefs, and greatly appreciate being treated in the same way. What I try to point out are inconsistencies and insufficient attention to the underlying principles of someone's statements.

And the problem with the whole "evidence" thing is that evidence for belief in God isn't scientific evidence. There is no experiment (yet?) one can do and say, "See? God exists." Most people's belief in God (those who have thought about it philosophically) probably rests on a combination of personal experience, historical evidence, and trust in the reports of persons they find trustworthy. None of that is scientific in nature. The existence of God is NOT a scientific question, and treating it as such is a category error.

See, when you say:

I'm also not talking about spiritual experience, which is a well-documented phenomenon and is available to anyone.

you're pre-defining the constraints of the discussion. It's like me saying, "Explain to me why you think light is both a particle or a wave. But no dragging in scientific experiments." Horses for courses. Belief in God and belief in the findings of science just aren't the same kind of thing.

Faith means you believe without having evidence.

See, this is just wrong-headed. It have faith my wife will not have an affair. I don't know she won't, but I believe it. It is not without any evidence, but it is certainly without scientific evidence. So with people's faith in God. They don't have scientific evidence (as I said that is impossible) but that doesn't mean they don't have any evidence at all. Maybe not evidence that you will accept, which is fair enough but not the same thing.

I was responding directly to mousethief's assertion that I can't know what the evidence is that supports a belief in a higher being.

I don't think I said that, and if I did I was mistaken and I apologize.

Also defending my position that I've never been given any reason to think that gods exist, a position which has drawn some fire.

Not from me. If you have no reason to think X, then there is certainly no call to expect you to think X.

People take the word of scientists because they know that there is evidence to back up the stuff that scientists say.

Which they know because the scientists tell them so. Few of us are in the position to replicate the experiments that led to the majority of scientific beliefs. Hell, few of us would even understand them. Truly, most people's understanding and faith in science is based on trust in authority.

Recently bought a pair of bones.... cannot get to grips (hahaha) with them. I have no rhythm.

Bones are impossible. Don't feel bad. I think there must be a bone-playing gene that I failed to inherit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM

Of course faith means believing without evidence... if there is evidence, you don't need faith to believe it. You can conclude it instead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM

Hey Tam
I love you to hon

Thank you


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM

Of course there's evidence - just not evidence you'd accept, Mrr. I usually attribute the beginnings of my faith to my grandmother, although there have been many others since her. My grandmother was a woman permeated with faith, and it all made sense in her and the way she lived and who she was. She was full of joy and generosity, without guile or prejudice. Her faith was an integral part of her life, the essence of her integrity. And seeing her, faith made sense to me.

That's my evidence. It doesn't follow all the rules of logical argument - but it's valid evidence, nonetheless. And as I've said before, I want to stay out of the realm of argument. I live my faith, I don't preach it - and it's part of my integrity.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:24 PM

Genetics? My dad was raised Quaker, ran away at 15 to join the army and was not religious all my life. (Mom was the baptist) But he was a great spoon player.   It may not be the rhythm it is the grip. I am going to start a thread on how to hold bones, finger placement, arm and wrist movement, how not to knock innocent bystanders senseless with flying musical missiles. Yes I've searched no real direction on how to.

Going to say goodbye to this thread with a great big hug to all who have posted here for aiding my understanding of you good people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:30 PM

ok, Joe... *grin* in honor of the genteel tone, I will refrain from my usual 12 paragraph lecture about the linguistic equivocation on 'valid' and 'evidence'....

Mind you, it's a strain... I may have to drink something alcoholic


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM

That's my evidence.

And of course you know it's not evidence at all, Joe. There are people like your grandmother in every belief - which would make it evidence for every belief- and they can't all be "true" in any useful sense of that elastic word. I'd posit Brother Gregory as counter- evidence to your grandmother. There are Brother Gregories in every belief as well.

As for belief or not, I couldn't give a frankly my dear. It's what you take from that belief that matters. And I can't see how the profession of a religion or the opposite has made the slightest difference to people's social values. As I've said before, show me your St. Francis and I'll show you my Torquemada.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM

Do we actually have any choice in what we believe or don't believe? I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't. Never could, even as a child.

Is this the same for believers?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM

Pardon my abiguity..

I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM

I give up - even my spelling's gorn to the twilight zone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:01 PM

"Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey,

'If the message fails to come across, blame the recipient. Nice. I'll remember that general principle.'"

Sorry, mate, but my message was very clearly not an attack on free speech, so yes, I can confidently blame you for misreading it. Go and read it properly and stop trying to make it fit your attack mindset. You will find it to be a complaint about the arrogance of religion but quite clearly not a call to stop religions from doing the things I pointed to. Neither explicitly nor implicitly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:12 PM

I dunno, Paul. It seems to me that a life of faith lived in integrity and joy, is wonderful evidence.
It just doesn't fit YOUR criteria. If I were trying to convert you, then I'd have more of an obligation to meet your criteria. But I have no desire to proselytize, and I see no obligation to defend what I believe. If people see something valuable in the way I live life and want to share my faith, that would be wonderful - but that's entirely up to them. I don't want to push nothin' on nobody.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:20 PM

It might be the hard times, but I simply have no invisible means of support!

Art


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM

I have strange inclinations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:32 PM

I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't.

and I have never seen you write anything Smokey that criticizes others that do .. and you have my respect for that


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM

Thanks, olddude - I've criticised religions often enough, but I don't consider that the same as criticising the individuals. Some do, but it's never my intention.

If I have a religion, it's music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:29 PM

And all music really is, is wobbling air - the rest is all in the mind. That probably makes me irrational :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:41 AM

Just about to heartily concur with the wobbling air when I see in Google ads box a link to "Atheist Beliefs" which made me smile. In the light of that, and so much more, I think if Joe's evidence is anything to go by then it's that our humanity is defined by Joyful Integrity no matter what our personal beliefs might be, and that Joyful Integrity is the right and entitlement of all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:51 AM

Could be so, Suib - but I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. At the very least, however, if I live my life with integrity, perhaps people could leave me alone and lay off the condemnation.


-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:50 AM

"If I were trying to convert you, then I'd have more of an obligation to meet your criteria. But I have no desire to proselytize, and I see no obligation to defend what I believe."

That's fair enough, Joe, and you and I (and, I hope, other 'unbelievers') have no quarrel. I would never seek to belittle your faith or to tell you what you should or should not be believing. Trouble is there are many 'people of faith' in the world who are desperate to proselytize and to convert others. The other day I ran into some members of a Christian sect on my local high street. I got into conversation with a very articulate and rather eloquent young man who, at one point, informed me that anyone who didn't accept 'Jesus as his/her saviour' was going to Hell (including Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc.). In fact I was left with the impression that anyone who didn't belong to the young man's particular sect was going to Hell. Now you could write such views off as some sort of loony aberration - but fundamentalist religion is on the rise all over the world - yes, even here in relatively godless Britain. Sadly, especially for good people of faith, such as yourself, the time may have come to have a good hard look at all religions and the things that they preach.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:05 AM

"No one thinks that God is physical."

Huh? Surely if someone believes in intelligent design then God has to be physical, or am I missing the point? How would the process of creation work if God were not physical?

Good link Suibhe. The subject of transcendence is one that interests me (both in the bacchic and delphic sense) and is a state of mind which obviously is felt and desired by all people. Yet it's workings are mysterious . . . the very first time I stood in front of Rothko's Seagram murals I experienced a state of transcendence that I certainly wasn't expecting, a moment of epiphany followed and in some way my world outlook was changed at that instant in time. The same happened when I picked up my first ceratopsian fossil in the North Dakota badlands in the summer, when I stood in Arbor Low one sunny day years ago etc etc. What do these moment mean? We all experience these states in a fleeting sense and we wonder if these states could be experienced for longer, and here the more thoughtful mystical branches of religion have some fascinating philosophys (I believe Christian Gnostics call the feeling 'At Play in the Fields of the Lord', a buddhist would call it 'Nirvana').

But . . . scientists also experience these moments (the badlands - yes!) too and the Sagan quotes which are couched in quasi-mystical terms demonstrate this brilliantly. Obviously these moments of transcendence touch individuals differently, we draw different conclusions from the experience. However, it is a common experience (a musicians we all understand that) so what is going on?

It might be simply a firing of synapses in a particularly unusual order; a pleasurable spark of electricity in the biological machine we call 'the brain'. It might be a flash of insight into the divine nature of the universe, or it might be the physical universe contemplating and marvelling at itself through one of it's conscious manifestations . . . us.

I'll go with the last one.*






* But I might be wrong ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM

We all indeed, I take it, experience these moments of numinosity, 'Mystic experience', call it what you will, when we feel as if some profound thought or experience is hovering on the verges of the mind if only one could just grasp what it was ~~ it is how I always interpret Edward Thomas's exquisite poem "Adlestrop"*. But I have always taken it that there is some neurological explanation for it, rather than that it is proof of the existence of any sort of Divinity.

~Michael~

[* The name of a small village in Gloucestershire in the west of England, where, it appears, Thomas once had such a thought-process as his train stopped for a few moments in its station.]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:22 AM

"Trouble is there are many 'people of faith' in the world who are desperate to proselytize and to convert others.

And sometimes the "faith" involved is proselytising atheism.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to share what you believe in and value, but it can't be imposed. "If I have a religion, it's music" said Smokey just there. amd that's a good analogy. You're happy to share your music and give people a chance to hear it, but you can't force it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:29 AM

"If people see something valuable in the way I live life and want to share my faith, that would be wonderful - but that's entirely up to them. I don't want to push nothin' on nobody."

That is very laudable (and I'd like to say the same thing about my atheistic self as it happens). But every Christian/Muslim/Jew/whoever who ever sent a child to a religious school, or connived in their receiving religious instruction in any school, or took them to religious services, or said prayers with them before bed, or had them christened at a very young age, or confirmed, or whatever the equivalents are in the non-Christian religions, is pushing somethin' on somebody, and big time with it. No matter how benign it may seem, no matter what feelings of community or fellowship it bestows, it is dishonestly perpetuating myth as truth in their impressionable minds. Doing this to children is the ultimate in pushing somethin' on somebody and there's simply no escaping that fact. And millions and millions of people do it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:25 AM

Joe Offer,

I think you are very wrong about Dawkins. He doesn't hate religion, he just thinks it's
a delusion. There is a difference.

There are those out there who do express hate for religion but these are basically ex-religious people who are still in the throes of religion and are overreacting.

Then there are those who have left religion to those who want it and see no need for it
in their lives. They also see no need to convince anyone of their views.

But remember Joe that the majority of Americans polled statistically don't believe in evolution because of their religion. There are also plenty of religious people out there who justify killing and destructive behavior using their religion as a pretext to do this.

The percentage of Freethinkers and non-believers are not given to violence compared to
the believers. This may be due to the fact that this is a growing minority.

Hate doesn't equate with atheism.

I also see that Mudcat is not always respectful of secular views and sometimes people
impose their religious views on others here and you don't object to that. This is
a double standard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:44 AM

On the abortion issue, it is always assumed that if you are pro-choice you are also pro-abortion. This is not true. Abortion is always a last ditch effort and not a first choice
for any woman. It's a very hard decision to make in the mind of a healthy woman.

However, to outlaw abortion is to deny a woman not only the right to choose but to
negate the very difficult decision as irrelevant. In that sense, it's a dismissal of
women and their needs by ideologues who are general white, overweight males who have at the bottom of their reasoning a political agenda. They don't really care about women or
babies but are using the abortion issue as a political tool.

It is true that many of the outspoken critics of abortion are women. But they all have
a political agenda whereas the pro-choice women may not.

Having an abortion is not an easy decision and the so-called "pro-life" groups trivialize
this by their close-minded political agendas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM

Americas really is more like a different planet than a different country in some ways...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:18 AM

So after more than 200 posts--on Mudcat's most dead horse--what do we have? Looks to be a gaggle of dyspeptic (thanks for the opportunity to use that word) old geese honking madly about the heinous crimes of church bells, baptism---(so sorry you were forced to be baptized, especially for the lifelong trauma it has evidently caused you), being forced to see on busses advertisements you don't agree with, etc.   And I expect some Jehovah's Witnesses have further shattered your life forever by knocking on your door. The lives of the non-believers on Mudcat must be a living hell--so sorry for inflicting religious terminology on you.   Somehow I wasn't aware that Torquemada was in charge in the UK.

Interesting that many of the same players are here as were earlier telling us about the incomparable crime of a nurse praying for a patient--never mind that the patient herself did not seem to have any objection.

The vaunted British sense of fair play is scarcely in evidence here--only McGrath and Leadfingers representing it. US atheists are also not helping their cause--with the exception of Bill D, they also appear incapable of rational thinking. and reasonable debate.

I don't consider myself in the least religious but I do believe in fair play for all points of view--and on Mudcat religion seems to be the #1 scapegoat for most ills of the world.".

"..inclined to go with Dawkins that all religions are dangerous". You can tell us about how all religions are dangerous when you are willing to explain how atheism has worked out when in power.   Start with Hitler, Stalin and Mao---together responsible for more deaths than anybody else in human history.

Atheism has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind. Religion has had much misery inflicted in its name.   But atheism wins this contest hands down.    Congratulations to all you atheists.

And religion, for its believers, is a very real source of comfort.   Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you.


As I noted earlier, agnosticism is an eminently reasonable stance for a thinking person to take. Atheism is not--for the same reason that fundamentalist religion is not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:03 AM

This seems to happen a lot. I was thinking last night. The last thing I want to do is go off on people that I do very much regard as friends. I don't think you can talk to people every day for 5 years and not figure out how they tick and become close to them. This is why I regard such threads as not productive. If one knows that there are a large segment of catters that do have faith, that regard their faith as deeply personal and a very important part of their life. Then why would you want to upset your friends to the point of wanting to explode. I don't get it. If someone is preaching to you, confront them and ask them to politely stop you are not interested. But what is the point of causing hard feelings to those who have done nothing but offer their hand in friendship. I don't get it .. God to those who believe is no a delusion but very real in spirit to them and people like me. It is a glue that holds meaning to a persons life and it is a very personal thing. Everyone can find their own path. But most of these types of threads are nothing more than attacks .. I feel it is wrong and not something that is productive but you are free to do so. Likewise, you have to understand when good people go off on you for it . And you run the risk of losing people who care about you. Kinda messed up thinking to me. But anyway .. no hard feeling from me. I do apologize for blowing up .. like I said I have a few issues right at the moment .. (anyone got a cig)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:24 AM

sure Dan... here you go

(the only kind I ever tried)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:49 AM

Dear Dan, except for the last time, when I really did quit smoking, I was so angry the whole time I could have bitten the heads off nails. It was not logical, of course, because I was doing it to myself, but the fact remains that I was plain mad.

And also, of course, I didn't make it. I didn't make it because I had turned into a person I couldn't stand.

My question: Is there any group, club or person that you could go to get over this patch? The deprivation is real; you are asking yourself to change what seems to be your whole life while giving yourself what seems to be very little in return.

Now back to the thread...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM

"This is why I regard such threads as not productive."

Amazing, then, how many times you've posted to it, considering.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM

Dear Steve
that is exactly why I posted so many times if you can understand my drift here. But hey you are welcome to your opinions .. it is highly unlikely that I will post again to another one since I said my piece.

Bill, my dear friend you are sooo right .. gotta ask my doc buddie, there has to be a group around here that I can join .. I went from 2 packs a day to 0 ... not fun


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM

because of faith
I don't work for scary government agencies
I don't build weapon systems
I don't teach hand to hand fighting or handgun use

I make grape juice
I build charity website for sick kids

I study war no more ..

I thank God for my faith .. it changed my life and that is my path forever
be well my friend, leaving the thread now


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:55 PM

"Somehow I wasn't aware that Torquemada was in charge in the UK."

It's alive and well in the U.S.   Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:56 PM

"No matter how benign it may seem, no matter what feelings of community or fellowship it bestows, it is dishonestly perpetuating myth as truth in their impressionable minds. Doing this to children is the ultimate in pushing somethin' on somebody and there's simply no escaping that fact. And millions and millions of people do it."


Bang goes Father Christmas then... ;0)


Look, I saw this programme. It was very interesting...sadly they've removed it from Youtube at present, else I'd have linked to it. Richard Dawkins is as passionate about evolution being the 'answer' as others are about religion being the same thing.

Bottom line, NONE of us will *ever* know, ever, ever...EVER.

Most of the 'religous' folks he met were slightly extreme, to say the least..There was 'Bible Bashing Ted' and the eerily aggressive 'Once I was a Jew now I'm TWICE the Muslim you ARE!' bloke, who had steam coming out of his ears and was almost writing the name Dawkins in his new 'Hit List 2010 Diary'

What made me chuckle was when Richard and Bible Bashing Ted got talking...and each was as arrogant, angry and aggressive as the other. Hormones were flying, swords were being laid down with visual expressions alone! I've *never* seen two men who looked more as if they wanted to kill each other than those two...

Now of course, the interesting thing is that Bible Bashing Ted Haggard has been Bashing Gays with the Bible for a long time, encouraging many others to do the same...but then, I find on Youtube, 'Oh dear, Woopsie, Ted' admitting to having had homosexual relationships in the past...and being a little confused about his wife, although he now loves her passionately, apparently.   Ted was falling over himself, following therapy (and a 'lover' who basically sold his story) to apologise from the bottom of his hypocritcal heart, fully admitting he'd been a hypocrite and had done much damage to some gay people with his attitude and preachings...

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but of course, those who need to believe their preachers 1000 percent will have taken his words of hatred on board...especially if they're little children, whose Mums and Dads put them to bed singing anti-gay songs each night..and oh yes, those are out there on Youtube too..

Religious extremists of ALL religions do terrible damage to decent people whose religion is about love, kindness and helping each other, nothing else..

I think Christianity has become so hated because of the issue over gay people, and imo, the Gay Rights Movement has done a great deal to try to damage Christianity because of that issue.   I guess many can understand their anger, for to be gay and to be told that you cannot be a Christian because God deems you to be kinda weird and wrong, must hurt to the very core. Add to this the crazy folks who use that to whip up hatred and horror for gay people and well...it's just not good, really, is it?

Now, I don't believe that God hates Gay people, or Black people, or Short people or Tall people, because I believe that the Bible was written by *people*, many of whom had their own personal hang ups...I believe that of the other Holy Books too.

Soooo...I think that's why Christianity gets so attacked in here, although I could, of course be wrong.

Yes, most wars start over religion, but...we're changing that now, and starting them over oil and water, so that's er...a step forward...or at least it will be when all religions join together 'cos no-one has any oil or water left...and finally we all become ONE religion....., which is The Spirit of Faith, I guess...

I love God, but he's my god...and he has a whacking sense of humour. I silently curse him at times though, but I also feel sorry for him, b ecause in forgetting to explain to humans where we came from, how the Big Bang happened, where the first atom appeared from, he's created one helluva stink...

But then, maybe he likes that...maybe he likes sitting up there with Darwin beside him watching this Game of Life To Infinity and Beyond, being played out below...

I tell you what though, as Dan says, you only have to look to Nature, to the Beauty of this Planet, to realise that something, somewhere, somehow, sometime is 'out there', but we all have to be patient and wait until we die to find out exactly what the answer is.

Hopefully, there's a Heavenly Big Bang Mudcat board up there, to which we can all post "I ***TOLD*** you ***SO!***" messages to...and Joe can sit there, zapping the Heavenly Guests from it, day after day, ad infinitum... :0)

The main thing is that Pastor Ted is probably earning EVEN MORE from his TV appearances than he did from his Bible Bashing meetings...so er...that's OK then!

Faith, to me, is all. No rules, no regulations, no Pastor Ted's, no hang ups...just faith and beauty and peace..

Pastor Ted comes clean


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:03 PM

Ron you are under misapprehensions about atheism.

"Interesting that many of the same players are here as were earlier telling us about the incomparable crime of a nurse praying for a patient--never mind that the patient herself did not seem to have any objection."

First of all, nothing fails like prayer.

" US atheists are also not helping their cause--with the exception of Bill D, they also appear incapable of rational thinking. and reasonable debate."

This is patently false.

"I don't consider myself in the least religious but I do believe in fair play for all points of view--and on Mudcat religion seems to be the #1 scapegoat for most ills of the world.".

I wouldn't call your bias against atheism as fair play. I'd call it intolerance.

" Start with Hitler, Stalin and Mao---together responsible for more deaths than anybody else in human history."

Religion has been responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin and Mao put together.
Also, Hitler was raised a Catholic and he condemned atheism.

"Atheism has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind. Religion has had much misery inflicted in its name.   But atheism wins this contest hands down.    Congratulations to all you atheists."

This statement is blind prejudice and nothing else. It's complete propaganda.

"And religion, for its believers, is a very real source of comfort.   Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you."

Actually atheism can be very comforting because it frees the mind from the shackles
of dogma. It's like being released from a prison.

" agnosticism is an eminently reasonable stance for a thinking person to take. Atheism is not--for the same reason that fundamentalist religion is not."

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic atheists as well as many kinds.

McGrath, atheism is not a "faith" or belief. It is a lack of faith or belief in religion and
that's all it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:10 PM

mousethief,

I have followed Richard Dawkin's speeches and find no hatred in them but there is
plenty of hatred for those who criticize religion in a dispassionate and analytical way.

There are all kinds of atheists and some of them are shrill and mean but Dawkins is not
one of them. He is a rational thinker and though critical of religion, he has religious
friends and supporters. Dawkins is an ethologist, a biologist and a proponent of Darwin and one of the few who really understands Darwin's contributions to humanity.

Man, there sure is a lot of prejudice on Mudcat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:14 PM

"Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you."

As a non-atheist this is what I'd posit: No afterlife = no eternity of damnation and torment?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:21 PM

"Man, there sure is a lot of prejudice on Mudcat."

So Frank - just to clarify the matter. Your belief is that the folks who have to put up with the bulk of the prejudice here at the Mudcat are the athiests?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:24 PM

I think it exists here Wesley about atheists as well as other points-of-view.

Prejudice is prejudice regardless of who is the recipient of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:25 PM

The main comfort people take in adopting any firm opinion, no matter what it is, is the absolute certainty that they are right, and that anyone who doesn't see it their way is wrong...as well as being a prat, a fool, an idiot, etc....   

And there you have this thread. In a nutshell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:27 PM

Most of the people here are too rational to condone this. But this is where religion can
lead many people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfL7GvWsHAA&feature=related


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM

It reminds me of the age old question: "Do you want to be happy - or right?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:35 PM

I think it's possible to have a rational discussion about religion without resorting to passionate reactionary opinions. I can see that religion for some people has more of a benign effect and that not all religious folk are violent, prejudiced or behave destructively.

In the end, it comes down to personal opinions about the value of religion. It will not change anyone's mind to argue pro or con but it can be illuminating to present a different point-of-view. I'm happy that we don't all think alike.

I think that the figures given by the media for the rise of atheism in the US are too low.

Although religion for me is a delusion, I don't think religious people are necessarily crazy.
It would be crazy to say that. Delusion may sound like an attack to some but the word is clear.

delusion
noun
was her belief in his fidelity just a delusion? misapprehension, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief; fallacy, illusion, fantasy.

No where does it say that the holder of a delusion is crazy.

Tolerance, people. Atheists are treated worse than Muslims or Gays today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:42 PM

"Atheists are treated worse than Muslims or Gays today."

Probably correct there. That's why their rights need to be respected. Both of the other groups you mentioneded have organizations that come to their aid when their rights are infringed upon. It seems that by nature - athiests don't belong to groups that have the power to protect their rights. The ACLU comes to mind - but the answer to this and other problems where rights are trampled is to organize.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:52 PM

Wesley, atheists do have one major ally, the U.S. Constitution. Separation of Church and State. There are organizations that do protect the rights of atheists. The Freedom From Religion in Madison, Wisconsin is doing a great job.

There will continue to be court battles around such Separation issues.

Thank you Wesley for acknowledging that atheist's rights need to be respected.
This is the first voice of tolerance that I've heard on Mudcat among those who
are believers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:59 PM

"The main comfort people take in adopting any firm opinion, no matter what it is, is the absolute certainty that they are right, and that anyone who doesn't see it their way is wrong...as well as being a prat, a fool, an idiot, etc....   

And there you have this thread. In a nutshell."

LH, I have to disagree here. There is a possibility of having a rational and analytical
discussion about religion without dissing anyone. The purpose of this thread is no
different from other threads that I've seen promoting religious views.

As a supporter of the rights of freedom of speech, I think that many different points-of-view can and should be presented on Mudcat. I am not in favor of censorship. That's what I like about this BS section and Mudcat in particular. Keep 'em coming.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM

I don't work for scary government agencies
I don't build weapon systems
I don't teach hand to hand fighting or handgun use


And because of not-faith, I do the same, though it's cost me.

And other people do the opposite because of faith, and still others because of not-faith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:30 PM

I was talking my path personally Paul .. not anyone elses that is their choice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM

And Frank, the so called Christian right that is really Christian wrong has peddled more hate in this country than any 10 other groups combined .. I can fully appreciate people going off on them. I DO THAT MYSELF

however, those of us here on mudcat ... well WE AIN'T THEM
when did you ever here me do that .. or Jerry or anyone else for that matter. And when one of those nut cases go off on gay people. I am the f irst one to kick their ass for them ..

Mudcat isn't rev TED .. one need to understand who they are talking to and why some people do tend to get upset


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM

One of the scary things is the fundamentalist Christianization of the US military.
McChrystal was one of the culprits, here. Boykin was another. Not sure of Petraeus
but I am suspicious that he is another.

There are many reasons to question the efficacy of religion practically. I see no harm
in thoughtful criticism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM

You point is well take Frank. Those groups are not christian groups. They are power groups. Preachers who call themselves preachers who are in it for the dollars, the power, the votes for candidates of their choosing. To control the thoughts the words the actions of others .. to divide and then control.   Feeble minds who would followed anyone is their prime targets. They use half truths, distorted views of the faith to proceed with their plan.

I do not work for the military, ever again .. why .. it is against my faith .. it is wrong .. one cannot believe in Christ and build weapons that kill .. it is wrong .. so I walk away a better person. But others follow these leaders .. right into a dark place because they cannot think and understand the words of God .. if they read their own bible they would know it is wrong .. you cannot peddle hate against others .. you cannot demonize gay people or women. I understand atheist people getting so upset. Those people peddled so much hate that it is completely understandable to hate back. But hate bring hate bring more hate .. people who understand their God understand there is no place for hate towards anyone .. only compassion and love .. that is the only path in Christianity .. but understand also that evil people calling themselves Christian use half truths for their own gain.   The Taliban is not Muslim .. that is a great faith a faith of peace for 500 years they lived in peace with everyone .. but now some weak minds follow not their God but their self appointed leaders ... Much like you see today in the modern fundamentalist movement in this country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010Reason A
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:13 PM

Ok, this is an interesting question: if information A leads Person A to believe in Answer A, then that information is being considered as evidence for that answer by that person. BUT - if Answer A is known to be demonstrably false, OR if information A leads everybody else to answer B, or doesn't lead anybody else anywhere, THEN - is that information still evidence?

There are people who say the beauty of the world is evidence for deity, for instance. Most of us data folk restrict the word Evidence to replicable data, as in an increase in reaction time is Evidence for an increase in cognitive function. Also most of ua atheists consider the beauty of the world inevitable to us since we all evolved together, and would not consider it to bear on the existence of deity.

Evidence I would accept, Joe, would be replicable. But I would argue that semantically, what you have that you call evidence I wouldn't accept is rather not, to me, evidence at all.

Kinda like the word Theory. Evolution may be a theory but it is not theoretical, like gravity, which is also a theory.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM

Doesn't get more clear than this:

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:17 PM

I am glad that you are consistent in your Christian belief system. I think that this has to be respected regardless of whether I agree with it's "truth" or not. Although I am not in accordance with their belief system, I respect the Quakers for what they do.
I totally agree that our military system is corrupt just like our Senate and Congress.

I think that the Taliban is not Al Quaeda and that should be emphasized in our foreign policy.

I can understand why certain Christian believers do not identify with the war-mongering and loud-mouthed preachers, politicians and moral dictators. I try to respect the individual in his/her actions rather than in his/her belief system. When it comes down to the wire, in my view, human kindness and humanity trumps ideology every time.

Olddude, keep on pickin'. You have a fan here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:12 PM

Just found this rather interesting programme...Hope some of you may enjoy it....

Richard Dawkins versus the fundamentalists.

Did Darwin Kill God - BBC Documentary in 6 parts


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM

Mrrzy.. you have just enlarged on my kidding post to Joe Offer a ways back. Yes...there ARE strict, technical ways to use words like 'valid' and 'evidence', but those words are like 'folk' and 'traditional'; they are just too handy and convenient shorthand for "concepts that I like and agree with".

When words get used, as Humpy-Dumpty said to Alice, "to mean exactly what I choose them to mean..", it is an example of Equivocation.

This is SUCH a common problem when folks get to arguing past one another in a "yes it is"/"no it isn't" exercise in futility. They simply, flatly have different meanings in mind, and often, neither side figures it out.....and when the topic is about arcane, metaphysical matters, it is not always easy to even untangle enough rhetoric to show where the equivocation lies. It is even harder to get everyone to agree to **agree** on a common definition in order to continue the debate on level ground.

People say: "Well, MY God is not X" or "The 'spirit' of humanity is..." and often, even the one speaking cannot even find alternate language to explain his 'inner meaning'.

And we wonder why, after 10,000 years and variations in 10,000 languages, we fail to communicate!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:52 PM

A "theory" which has been proven may be called a "law", "rule", "principle", and in math and (perhaps) classic logic, a "theorem".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM

The lesson of Humpty Dumpty was to ask what people mean before reacting to our own meaning of what they said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:07 PM

Semantics surrounding words like "evidence" and "theory" are purely context-driven. They mean different things on the street than they do in th elab.

Faith and religion are far from being synonymous.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM

Until it's been proven (upheld beyond a reasonable doubt), it isn't a theory. To be called a theory it already has to be well-established.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:18 PM

Er, not really. There is no way that in science a theory is something that is proven beyond reasonable doubt. You're not a scientist, are you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:25 PM

The distinction is between a hypothesis, which is an idea that doesn't as yet have much evidence to back it up, and a theory which does. All theories are still to some extent provisional.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:50 PM

Yes, but that extent is tiny - like, yeah, there MIGHT not be gravity, but all the evidence is that there *is*. That's why I said Upheld beyond a reasonable doubt. No, not proven, in science, you're right, I should have been more clear. But upheld beyond a reasonable doubt, absolutely. That is then an Accepted theory, like gravity, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:54 PM

The word evidence is the thing. A word, sadly, usurped by religion (religion loves to usurp) to mean, well, things that ain't evidence. Like writings in an ancient book with loads of authors, dodgy translators and even more "editors." Like witness statements (Bernadette for example). Like people who say they've had visions/prayers answered/miracle cures that were nothing of the sort. Like "look around you at the wonders of nature! What more evidence do you need!" I hate it when religion talks of evidence. There isn't the slightest scrap of evidence for the existence of God and there never will be. There's faith and there's evidence. The twain cannot meet in a religious context, ever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:55 PM

Thank you Frank. You have been a music hero to me for over 40 years. And a good friend to me here on Mudcat. I always respect your opinions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:03 PM

We all know there is gravity, Mrrzy. What we have theories about is what causes it and exactly how it works and whether there are any anomalies or variances in how it works. There are some very interesting theories now about gravity, and probably a great deal yet to be discovered concerning it.

Now, about "beyond reasonable doubt"....

Prior to the 1950s, the general science community felt sure beyond a reasonable doubt that continental drift did not and could not have ever occured. A scientist named Alfred Wegener thought otherwise and proposed his theory in 1905 about the breakup of an original enormous continent "Gondwanaland" into the present separate continents (plate tectonics...continental drift). He was scorned utterly by the mainstream science community who felt that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that continents do NOT move around, but have a permanent, fixed position on the globe.

They were wrong. ;-) Evidence since the 1950s has confirmed that Wegener was correct in his theory.

The conventional and popular view in any era NEVER doubts itself one iota...but it frequently turns out to be dead wrong after the passage of some time. The society of each century has the fun of debunking the sacred cows of the previous one...including the scientific sacred cows. I doubt we've seen the end of that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:08 PM

Throughout history most religion has not been any gift to mankind at all. Usually just the opposite because it is corrupted by others who call themselves leaders.

If your faith is personal based.. it cannot be corrupted by others .. I have said it many times before, there is a huge difference between faith and religion ... Amos said it also , he is 100% correct.

it is like my friend who is minister and wanted me to check out his new church when I went to San Diego. Gary is one of the kindest and gentlest people one could meet. He said, isn't the church beautiful, I said sure is. I will show you mine when you visit. He visited me last summer and I took him out to a lookout point where you can see the valley, the grape vineyards and a perfect view of the Lake and told him
"this is my church" he said, you win, yours is more beautiful


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:19 PM

Religion is procedural, hierarchichal, historical, organizational, formal, and political.

Faith is personal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:47 PM

I always find it so hard to understand. I see all of the people following a guy like Hagee, he stands there spewing hate at gays and Catholics and atheists and pretty much everyone else and calls himself minister and has this big following of "fellow Christians" when you open up the New Testament and read "That which you do to the least of my brothers you do to me" and then you read the post I did earlier about what love is .. and then how they wanted to stone a woman for adultry and he said "let you with no sin throw the first stone" and they walked away and he tell her anyone left to condemn you and she answers no one. And he says nor do I go and sin nomore ..

What don't they get .. why would you follow those guys and turn your back on God if you are a Christian.. so far from faith that it makes those of us who do believe cry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM

The very heart of faith is this:



    One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:13 PM

Dude, that is the heart of some faiths; the essence of Faith as a condition of person does not depend on mandates or names. I have to distinguish between the spiritual state of faith as a unique mode of consciousness, and the targeted faith each religion holds about its own vocabulary and cast of characters.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM

Theory ...(many definitions...see why it is difficult to debate these things?)

1: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

2:A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

"a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"; "a scientific possibility that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

3:A belief that can guide behavior

4:An unproven conjecture.

5: (logic) A set of axioms together with all statements derivable from them.
A theory is consistent if it has a model.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:24 PM

You are correct Amos and each faith has their own version but it is all pretty much consistent on a personal level. That is where the leaders all start to corrupt, they will interpret for you .. toss in their opinions .. then it all goes down the tubes into some evil abyss.

I confront these guys with the bible they profess to understand and it is amazing how the topic changes back to gay bashing or something else .. Then I quote the least of my brethren and then subject is changed again .. That is what a professed leader does to it.

In centuries past, the Catholic church outlawed bible ownership to anyone but the priest. Why, exact reason, they would lose power had people been able to read the message themselves and question why the church acted like it did at that time frame since it was a political organization controlling all land and wealth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:33 PM

The Buddhist faith has some beautiful passages .. I remember one that reads to forgive rather than to hurt . all life is sacred and cannot be replaced. Muslim faith and Jewish faith same ...

But when men enter the picture .. corruption, hatred, death ..
amazing to me


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM

And Native Americans

NATIVE AMERICAN SPIRITUALITY

Robert Staffanson
Executive Director, American Indian Institute

While Native American spirituality is not easily defined, it has
several defining characteristics:

    a) Recognition of the interconnectedness of all Creation, and the
responsibility of human beings to use their intelligence in protecting
that inter- connectedness. That applies particularly to the lifegiving
elements: water, air and soil.

    b) A belief that all life is equal, and that the presence of the life
spark implies a degree of spirituality whether in humans, animals or
plants. In their view the species of animals and birds, as well as forests
and other plant life, have as much "right" to existence as human beings,
and should not be damaged or destroyed. That does not mean that they
cannot be used but that use has limitations.

    c) Their primary concern is with the long-term welfare of life rather
than with short-term expediency or comfort. They consider all issues and
actions in relationship to their long-term effect on all life, not just
human life.

    d) Their spirituality is undergirded by thankfulness to the Creator.
Prayer, ceremonies, meditation and fasting are an important part of their
lives. But they ask for nothing. They give thanks: for all forms of life
and for all the elements that make life possible, and they are concerned
with the continuation of that life and the ingredients upon which it
depends.

~~ excerpted from http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/sbcr072


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM

ah, Dan, my friend...men have always been in the picture. From all those thousands of years ago, cowering in caves and wondering about the lightning and thunder to Popes and Imams issuing edicts to frighten the 'flock', men have both 'believed' and manipulated the belief of others in order to suit an agenda.
Whether any of them stumbled on bits of the 'truth' in the process is hard to know.
We have, at least, the freedom to glean from the heaps of 'wisdom' something to suit almost every taste. I see beauty and goodness... as well as sadness and hate ...in the paths various people have chosen from the 'tower of Babel'.....which is about all we can hope for, I guess.
It is comforting to read about those who have found happy & pleasant pieces.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:11 PM

Dan,
Try to stay out of the way of the stuff when it's flying all around you. I wish us all luck in doing that. Also: Center on here and now and the details thereof. Thinking too much will do ya in.

With admiration--mostly.

Art


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:45 PM

So true Art, thank you my friend


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:31 AM

The word evidence is the thing. A word, sadly, usurped by religion (religion loves to usurp) to mean, well, things that ain't evidence. Like writings in an ancient book with loads of authors, dodgy translators and even more "editors." Like witness statements (Bernadette for example). Like people who say they've had visions/prayers answered/miracle cures that were nothing of the sort. Like "look around you at the wonders of nature! What more evidence do you need!" I hate it when religion talks of evidence. There isn't the slightest scrap of evidence for the existence of God and there never will be. There's faith and there's evidence. The twain cannot meet in a religious context, ever.

If, at 5:00 in the afternoon, I come into the house and my wife's hat, which she wore to work this morning, is on the table, it's evidence she's home. If you don't agree than you are using "evidence" in a very specific way and it's no wonder you don't recognize "writings in an ancient book" as evidence. How do you know the visions/prayers/whatever were nothing of the sort? Because there's no God so those things don't happen? That's arguing in a circle. Witness statements sure are evidence in a court of law!

There are a lot of meanings to the word "evidence". You don't get to outlaw all the uses you don't like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM

MT has the rights of the matter--what constitutes evidence varies with the kind of knowing and the context being treated. Law, physics, social science and mysticism all use the word to suit their fields.

But it is foolhardy to grab the scientific use and misapply it, for example, to the theory of evolution.

Anyone who has touched the infinite wind of creation knows about the aspect of existence people call God whether they bother buying a brand or not.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:13 AM

I think what most atheists or at least agnostics require is empirical evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 02:36 AM

Yeah, but there's a difference between evidence and proof. The word evidence has a rather broad spectrum of meaning. I'd say that in general, evidence is information or something observable or palpable that leads one to assume, believe, conclude, or prove something.
But proof is a logical and incontrovertible conclusion based on a body of evidence.

I acknowledge that there are many believers who want to "prove" the correctness of what they believe, but I see very few Mudcatters who seek to prove their beliefs. They see their beliefs as more....intuitive. They acknowledge some element of doubt and uncertainty in what they believe - but they believe nonetheless, and wish only to be free to believe unmolested. Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here.



I don't think I have ever seen a post here that shows disrespect to Native American beliefs, legends, stories, rituals, and traditions. People seem to be able to grasp that although these elements of Native American belief may not be "factually" true, they can often lead to profound truth and insight. Well, I think that the same can hold true for the beliefs, legends, stories, rituals, and traditions of a wide variety of other belief systems, from Christianity to Zen. By keeping an open mind, I have learned wonderful things from a wide variety of religious and philosophical traditions, not only from my own tradition. These traditions may not always be rational or logical or "factual," but they can be good and true if they open people to a deeper understanding and respect for that which surrounds us. If they lead people to closed minds and intolerance and exclusionism, then I think they can be harmful or dangerous.

And despite all the good and sacredness in the elements Native American beliefs, there are other Native American belief elements that can lead people to closed minds and intolerance and exclusionism; and yes, even to violence.

So, what I ask for is tolerance and respect for all that can lead people to openness and generosity and wisdom - even to people who do not share your particular ideology. And yes, even legend and myth can lead people to openness and generosity and wisdom.


Stringsinger, you said something that I don't completely understand:
    I also see that Mudcat is not always respectful of secular views
    and sometimes people impose their religious views on others here
    and you don't object to that.
    This is a double standard.


I wonder if you could explain that more, because I don't completely understand what you're saying. Mudcat has a policy of generally allowing people to say what they say, as long as it isn't a direct and personal attack on another Mudcatter. We expect people to express their secular views and their religious views without restriction, and I think we're pretty good at adhering to that free-speech policy.

Now, as far as my personal views, I admit that I myself may have a double standard. I expect nonbelievers to be rational and tolerant and respectful, because they usually are. And yes, when they are disrespectful or when they paint a condemnation with too broad a brush, I object.
On the other hand, I do NOT expect religious fanatics to be rational or tolerant or respectful, because they usually aren't. I usually don't object to what they say, because I do not believe they are capable of rational discussion. I just keep quiet and hope they go away, and I've found they're more likely to leave if people don't respond to them. But yet, as a moderator I feel bound to allow what they say because we have a free-speech policy.
In general, I respect nonbelievers, but I do not respect religious fanatics. I have profound respect for you and for most of the values you say you hold dear, and I espouse almost all the same values you claim as your own. But I am a religious person, and you are not - so if you condemn my beliefs when I think we share mostly the same values, it hurts. I ask only that you respect my beliefs as sacred to me, even though you do not hold those beliefs. That, I believe, is tolerance - if we respect a person, then we must also respect (but not necessarily espouse) what that person holds sacred.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:15 AM

"Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you."

Atheism is not an absence of anything other than the inane belief in the supernatural; it is a celebration of the infinite wonders of what is rather than the somewhat warped fantasies of what, most evidently, isn't. Atheism is about life and reality; it rejects hocus-pocus and spirtuality as being, at best, Folklore and treats them accordingly. The comforts of Atheism, therefore, are not effected by absence of God, Sprituality, Funny hats, Hoo-Hah, Tarot, Astrology, Ley lines, Elightenment, Nirvana, Karma, Holy Toast, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Fairies, Jungian Archeytypes, Rosary Beads, Prayer Wheels, Reincarnation, and other such arcticles of faith, rather they are enriched by the presence of a far greater and more meaningful material reality. In my case the list is endless - Frank Zappa, M R James, The Marx Brothers, sex, food, Folk Song, Fiddles, Organology, Sun Ra, Don Cherry, Bitches Brew, Jordi Savall, Rene Zosso, Phil Rickman, Liverpool, Manchester, the AA, the Trafford Centre, Studio Ghibli, Beat Takeshi, Kraftwerk, New Order, Tim Westwood, Subway, McDonalds, Davie Stewart, Edgar Allen Poe, Friedrich Nietzsche, IKEA, ASDA, Morrisons, Wetherspoons, penguins, Larry David, Godzilla, Willie Scott, canals, Thelonius Monk, ducks, Becks, vintage pornography, Peter Bellamy, pigs, jelly fish, The Fall, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, Top Cat, Vic Reeves, Rolf Harris, clouds, hedgerows, Green Men, Misericords, Magma, Will Hay, Jim Eldon, the Herefordshire School of Romanesque Sculture, the Soft Machine, Art Tatum, Rahsaan Rold Kirk and, of course, Duke Ellington.   

Real Life is all the comfort I need, and in my experience the Cosmic Debris of Religion just gets in the way of living so I reject it. The Human Dimension is all there is, so believe whatever you like, just don't go telling me it's a) real b) true or c) worth killing or dying for. The universe is so much bigger than religion; I tell you ASDA is bigger than religion, and Life really is too short for doing anything else but living it. As for Death - I was Dead once upon a tie; before my birth I didn't exist. Non-existense didn't bother me then so I doubt very much it'll bother me again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:27 AM

"Human Dimension is all there is, ..."

My immediate reaction to that, Suibhne, is: "Oh no it isn't!" There's a lot more to existence than humans, and if we don't start acknowledging that soon we'll all be well and truly scundered! Besides us (and our petty concerns) there's various classes of micro-organisms, plants, fungi, molluscs, crustaceans, insects (countless thousands of beetles, for example), birds and mammals (plus loads of stuff I've missed). There's the various components of the Earth's interior and plate techtonics and volcanoes and oceans, rivers and lakes. There's weather, clouds and thunder and lightning and various other atmospheric phenomena. There's the Sun (an on-going thermonuclear explosion held together by gravity) and planets, moons, asteroids and comets, the Oort Cloud and the complex boundaries of the Solar System. There are the terrifying gulfs of interstellar space and other suns (at least 100 billion of them in our galaxy alone); these include red and brown dwarfs and blue and red giants giants and it appears now that many of these have planets - some of which could be earth-like; I believe that there are suns that are so big that it would take a modern jet airliner several thousand years to circumnavigate them. There are black holes - collapsed stars with such intense gravitational fields that they swallow light. There is the galaxy itself: a vast, lens-shaped conglomeration of stars around 100,000 light years in diameter. There are the even more terrifying gulfs of intergalactic space and countless billions of other galaxies. Finally there is the Universe itself: I one saw a representation of it which looked like a 3-dimensional filigree or net - with inconceivably vast, empty 'cells' between the skeins of galaxies. And all of this is composed 'stuff' we call 'matter' which has a complex structure on a sub-microscopic scale governed by the outre laws of quantum mechanics.

Where do you and I fit into all of this? Do you know, I haven't got the faintest clue!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:47 AM

OK, mousethief. Never mind the hat. This is more like it. I drop into your local and proclaim to you that the Large Blue isn't extinct in Cornwall after all, contrary to all received wisdom. Now which of the following would you accept as evidence from me?

(a) I saw it written in a book.

(b) I claim I saw one fluttering around in my garden.

(c) I claim I dreamed about them flying over the clifftops at Newquay.

(d) I claim I'd had a vision that it had returned in great numbers.

(e) I tell you that a bloke had told me his granny had seen one.

(f) I show you a dead specimen in a jar.

(g) I claim it had to be back because I'd seen one of its food plants nibbled.

(h) I show you a close-up photo of a Large Blue I'd taken.

(i) I show you a set of dated digital photos clearly showing the butterfly in an appropriate habitat and showing that the habitat in question was located in Cornwall.

If you didn't know me you'd accept (i) only, and then only provisionally. You can fake photos. You'd ask me to take you to the place to see for yourself and confirm my sightings and take your own photos (there's your link with evidence in the scientific sense). I could hardly accuse you of being unreasonable/treading on my beliefs. Once several people have done that you could start to build on the evidence - you look for appropriate food plants and for colonies of the ant that the Large Blue needs for its life-cycle and you might look for the caterpillars in the ants' nests. If you knew me well and trusted me you might just take (b), (f) and (h) as supporting evidence, sufficient even for you to go to take a look for yourself (with little real expectation at best, perhaps) but you would never accept them on their own. If you did, and you went around telling people that the Large Blue was back just on my say-so, you could very well end up looking a fool. We all know about people who build up trust in others then betray them (like teachers building trust in kids in faith schools then teaching God to them as truth).

With religion you can never get past the level of (e). Because of this, religion resorts to reliance on faith. Now that faith, based on (a) to (e), is pretty well all faith and nothing remotely resembling reliable, repeatable, corroboratable evidence. Everyone of religion accepts their God on the basis of nothing more than this, because there is nothing more than this, and they are quite happy to pass this faith on robustly, expressed as spurious certainties, to their children. "Our Father who art in heaven..." is not "Our Father, if he or she (!) actually exists, who may or may not be in heaven, if there is a heaven at all..." Thank goodness atheists don't deal in such certainties, not even Dawkins. The atheist is like you in the pub. You demand a certain level of evidence before you'll even agree to take me seriously. Religion can never reach that minimum level of evidence, because what it comes up with isn't evidence in any real sense at all.

Oh, and I forgot that last resort of the believer. We could call it (j). "Just go outside, look at the sky, the trees, feel the wind and the sun...what more evidence do you need!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:04 AM

I suffer from this delusion.
I tend to believe in a "magic fairy in the sky" as Foolestroupe likes to call the deity.
I say "tend" because my faith is shaky.
I have doubts.
Most people of faith, apart from the fanatics, also have doubts.

I am amazed at the arrogant certainty expressed by many here.
Remember that many, most even, of the greatest intellectual giants our species has produced have had some form of faith.
That is true still today and includes great scientists and cosmologists.
That does not make us right, but it should make you ponder.
What great insight do you have that a lifetime's consideration failed to give them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:17 AM

Gee, it seems atheists might possibly not like being described as "a gaggle of dyspeptic old geese honking madly..."   ( And setting up straw men--mind you, these are very talented geese.) Can't understand why they would object to that depiction. But if they in fact object, perhaps they might start to appreciate how the religious feel when their beliefs are caricatured with terms like "imaginary friend" and the like.

By the way, atheists, don't try to crawl away. If you call yourself an atheist, you buy the whole ball of wax. After all that's your attitude to Christians.


Unless you prefer to identify with the Red Queen, words mean something. There is a difference between atheism and agnosticism. On Mudcat the difference appears to primarily manifest itself in the fact that atheists feel free to ridicule the beliefs of the religious. Agnostics do not.

And why is this?   It seems that it's because atheists feel a degree of certainty on the question of God's existence which agnostics do not.

Sure enough, my dictionary defines agnosticism as follows:   'believing that the human mind cannot know if there is a God or an ultimate cause or anything beyond natural phenomena".   Dictionary on atheism:   "the belief that there is no God or denial that God or gods exist."

If words mean anything there is a clear difference in degree between the two on the question of God's existence.

Agnostics are rather more humble--admitting they don't know. Atheists are not so humble on the question--as we have richly seen on Mudcat. And on Mudcat the difference seems to manifest itself in the attitude of the writer.

It seems blazingly clear which of the two is the more sensible position for any thinking person.   It ain't atheism.



To be continued


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:18 AM

Leading scientists still reject God

Originally appeared in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313

The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.org/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:20 AM

I used to have a great deal of respect for Dawkins. In some scientific areas I still do. I have all his books and found the first three or four extremely facinating and wonderful. After Darwin he was the nearest thing I had to a biological master. Then it started. What used to be the occasional comment or explanation why religion and God cannot be became almost a battlecry in his books. He harped on and on in order to to 'prove' there was no God.

At the time I was happily calling myself an agnostic and had no God in my life. All was well with the world if I put no God in charge of things. If I allowed evolutions to take it's randon course I could explain all things (except those first microseconds of the beginning of time/the universe we know today). I was satisfied with my lot.

Something happened that deeply upset all my thinking. Someone I loved dearly died and it became important to me for me to find she had a chance to be 'alive' somewhere and having a better life than she had here. I started looking toward religion for some answers, while remaining open minded on God and trying to find answers I could sit comfy with scientifically and spiritually. I had a wonderful mentor who had the patience of a saint and he was so helpful in assisting me along my own path to try and find answers. I attended an Alpha course. This was a wonderful experience but I came away with more questions than answers.

I became what I call a Christian Agnostic. Emotionally I am spiritual but academically I am skeptical. I started getting splinters in my bottom from the fence I was sitting on. Once I started putting an all powerful, micromanaging God in charge of the world, I became unsettled and unhappy. Putting God in charge of everything threw me, as I then had to explain how he could be so cruel and power crazy. I sought to not go along with orthodox doctrine and teaching. If I was to have God in some way in my life I had to make hime a kind God.

Jesus I have no trouble with. I could happily go along with his teaching and his ways. He seemed such a well balanced guy, considering his parent, and I so believe in the values that it is said he handed down. I was finding a balance and an equilibrium.

The Dawkins got involved with the adverts on the buses "There is PROBABLY no God" and I was sunk. Here was a man who I had listened to, respected, put on a pedestal, and I had put up with him calling agnostics as he did for sitting on fences. Then he happily subscribes to the word PROBABLY. Where was.is his certainty all of a sudden. Then I saw that he is just as much extreme in his thinking as some religious extremists are. It is also dangerous to be spreading what appears to me to be an anti-Muslim ethic. They get blamed for all iniquitous things these days. it is WE (al of us humans) who are responible throughout history, for the wars and carnage. Our interpretation of whatever faith we follow can be as bad as the next persons... or as good.

My respect for Dawkins has gone. My wanting to get to know God better is gone (though I have not given up on wanting to find out answers). I have not given up a kind of belief in Christ's teachings. I remain agnostic but with a deep spiritual quest allowable. I do not believe in God... but I do not NOT believe in him. I still await proff of one thing or the other.

For those who have faith and belief I almost envy them their comforts. Not the extreme versions but the ones just wending their way through their lives who are trying to follow something they believe in. They are not a danger to me. The ones with true open minds, even with faith, are not the dangers. What is a danger is people who preach the message of hate, in one form or another, and get you believing in their message only to find later thet have changed they tack again and are not so solid as it first seemed.

Intellectually I believe true science (I use true to define it from false science) will find us the answers eventually to our beginnings: our roots. Spiritually I find I need a Jesus as much as he needs me. I am hoping to find my way along this path and still keep an open mind as to what I may find art the end. Answers or just more questions?

Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?

Hope this in some way helps the debate and my own personal stance. In the end we have to make decisions based on our own personal stance. Ww need to learn to allow others to do it there own way too. Doctrine and Dogma aside, power and possesions removed, it is not religion that is the threat. It is our interpreations of what is given us by the men at the top.

mp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:26 AM

Atheism does not deal in certainties, Ron. Dawkins will admit that he can't be certain that there is no God. What he will tell you is that any "evidence" for God's existence falls way below his minimum requirements for evidence. All he can try to do is to show you that those requirements are reasonable (I tried to demonstrate that in my last post). Atheists live their lives quite happily with a disregard for God. Agnostics have more serious doubts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:28 AM

There's a lot more to existence than humans

Everything you mention we understand in human terms; names, concepts, taxonomy, our whole understanding of the natural world is entirely human. It is this understanding that has given us Atheism. Indeed, we sacrificed our very naturalness for cognition, language & culture - things that set us apart from the natural world which enable us to understand, celebrate and exploit it in terms of either Spiritual delusion or scientific classification. I'm not so sure about certain scientific concepts such as homocentricity, but otherwise I see what you're getting at, just the Universe is ours in terms of concept and actuality - thus is the Large Hardon Collider the Stonehenge of our day and Green Notions of Ecology all too prone to as much small minded Religiosity as Christianity and Folk Music. I think David Bellamy is saying some interesting things right now, especially in the light of certain Orthodoxies - the human tendancy to Orthodoxy & Compliance scares me to be honest, but I accept humanity mostly in terms of its imperfection - likewise my own - which is I don't think we're ready for Atheism just yet, just as we're not ready for Anarchy. God knows I've never met anything so restrictive and conservative as so called alternative Hippy Ideology which rests on a greater compliance to a restrictively Orthodox norm than anything you find in so-called straight society. But as Kipling says, the people, Lord, thy people... - and we're getting there.

Meanwhile, back to reading the latest Fortean Times whilst listening to field recordings of Tibetan Buddhist temple music. Sweet!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:33 AM

Last para from the bottom of my last should red

"Probably no God could also mean there could probably be one too?"

if a Mudcat magician can change it and then delete this is may be useful

Thanks :-)

mp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:41 AM

Right on Mauvepink

Suibhne - your last post is the first time I was able to understand every single bit of what you were saying. What's more, I agree with it, at least at this stage of my learning journey.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:51 AM

Furthermore, I'd pursue my earlier point.   Atheism has been a complete disaster for mankind. Religion has not.

Anybody who this is invited to give evidence to the contrary.

Reason is also obvious: in an atheist state it is easy for the leader to take on himself the attributes of God. Makes it not easy, to say the least, to contradict the leader.

In addition to defending the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, atheists are also requested to provide names of hospitals founded by atheists, charitable orders started by them, and books saved by them.

Also on Mudcat there is another aspect worth discussing:   music.    Admittedly I am not an unbiased observer, since I have been a choral singer in an excellent group for about 20 years.

Atheists are requested to give names of pieces of choral music composed by atheists.

Religion, especially Christianity, has given us the most sublime vocal music known to man--everything from choral masterpiece to spirituals. . Examples are far too many to count.   Just for starters:   Mozart Requiem, Brahms Requiem, Verdi Requiem, Faure Requiem, virtually all of Tallis' and Byrd's choral music. And spirituals--all of them.

All unthinkable without Christianity.

And don't bother to whine that these accomplishments are due to religion often being organized. My argument is at least as fair as the tarring and ridiculing of religion which goes on constantly on Mudcat.



And to further address an earlier issue:

The opening poster, it seems, might possibly think describing candidate Obama as a "coconut" is just fine since it was not "oreo".

If he learns to read anytime soon he might possibly discover that "oreo" and "coconut", in this context mean exactly the same thing.   According to his own definition:   "white on the inside" (Identikit thread:   10 Jan 2008, 5:43 PM).

As I said earlier, genteel racism is no more acceptable than the more blatant sort. Though with his just so slightly supercilious attitude, he may think that it is. Wrong.   Open mouth, insert foot.   And he is indeed a past master at this.

Sorry, it is not at all clear that this definition of Mr. Obama is "a criticism of which I disapproved". .

What is clear is that he thought he was being witty.

No surprise that he wants now to conveniently-- ex post facto (perhaps he understands Latin)-- claim that he disagreed. No surprise there.

Nice try, but no cigar. As anybody who reads the opening post of the thread in question will see.

I wonder how he is with "Stepinfetchit."

But he might want to actually start thinking before hitting "send". Would be a pleasant change.

Just a friendly suggestion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:53 AM

Bobad, a more recent survey.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:11 AM

"Anybody who disagrees with this..."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:35 AM

Anybody who this is invited to give evidence to the contrary.

The Roman Catholic church has too long & bloody a history to detail here; the inquisitions & exterminations of The Albigensian Crusade is a good place to start. Hitler was acting in the name of Religiosity and as compliance to Absolute Truth; Stalin & Mao likewise. The Theology of Roman Catholicism still accounts for suffering of millions and the mission of Mother Theresa doesn't bear to close a scrutiny either.

Be it Music or Atrocity - it's human beings who are doing these things, not God or some Higher Spiritual Being but they generallyu so in the name of Absolute Truth. Henry Purcell composed transcendant secular and sacred music in equal measure; Sun Ra spoke of being a member of the Angel Race and Don Cherry addressed his entire output to the service of God, as did John Coltrane.

And besides - no Religion has ever come up with a cure for disease, advanced medicine, pain killers, the invention of electricity, steam engines, motorcars, washing machines, power stations, violins, trumpets, CDs. MP3s or any of the other billions of technological and medical advances that make life increasingly worthwhile.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:43 AM

The opening poster, it seems, might possibly think describing candidate Obama as a "coconut" is just fine since it was not "oreo".

When did he say that? Not in the opening post anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM

"And besides - no Religion has ever come up with a cure for disease, advanced medicine, pain killers, the invention of electricity, steam engines, motorcars, washing machines, power stations, violins, trumpets, CDs. MP3s or any of the other billions of technological and medical advances that make life increasingly worthwhile."

In any given generation Life has always been worthwhile. From a purely evolutionary point of view, life is always worthwhile. Without life there is no progress in any species.

The things you make mention of above may not have been done/created by any one religion BUT they have often come about in the light and faith of religious conviction. Many of the people involved in many good works have belief and believe they are doing what they do in the eyes of God or under Jesus' divine instruction. Can there be any harm in that? These people are not 'preaching the Gospel' so to speak, but are carrying out what they believe is God's will. Should they be denied such inspiration or have no right to do that?

Whether or not they actually are is open to interpretation dependant on on'es own belief system. Anyone doing good and using their spiritual base with it cannot possibly be doing anything bad.

Likewise many who do bad also believe they are doing God's work or are under divine instruction. They are two sides of the same coin I suppose. One cannot have one without the other (though you would wish you could).

And then there are atheists and agnostics who also do good and bad under no spiritual banner. All are part of the fabric of Life. Perhaps one day we will evolve far enough to manage to have one without the other. I would hope the good survive, but the chances are there will always be power mongers willing to get it in any way possible who use other things in life to get it.

Get rid of religion and something else would take it's place. Imagine a world without a religion. Do you see a world of peace then? Probably not. Because humans hide behind banners of various labels and names. Politics, business, military, tribal, supporters of this team or that.... no religion there but there is plenty of competition and power grabbing. Money is at the bottom of a lot of it.

Let those who do good have their hopes, faith and belief. In whatever they believe. That very force is often what drives many a discovery just as much as someone who is not religious is just as capable of great works. We need them all.

mp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:13 AM

When did he say that? Not in the opening post anyway.

One is not permitted to contradict The Oracle, Fount of All Knowledge, and Simple Seeher Afrer trutn..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:27 AM

Ron if you think Richard is a racist you could not be more wrong.    Clearly you have an axe to grind against the OP evidenced by citing a post from more than 2 years ago on another thread. You have been digging for something to use in your attack on him and you take it out of context and misapply it to this thread. This type of behaviour invalidates your entire argument. I won't say any more on that point.

Back to the topic ... are you saying that all these people who have created beautiful choral music and attributed it to God would not have created it if they had never been exposed to the concept of God through religion? Surely, the melodies, harmonies might have been laid against a libretto that honoured the glory of nature or a saga of real human heroes and still have been as beautiful.

I don't think that is how the creativity of man works. I would say that it is the wonderful creativity in humans which made the concept of God and built upon that with religions. Respectfully to others, this is my feeling. (and I use the term 'feeling' quite literally).

Wonder and problem solving are the driving forces behind creativity. Creativity is not the remit of only the religious.

Now I am really going to leave this thread, because it is taking too much of my time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:40 AM

Here's something to think about.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:44 AM

Ron
I may not agree with Richard, but I regard him as a friend and he is a very very good person. It is wrong to accuse him of that. You also are a good person and know you shouldn't do that .. please refrain from such things ..

I will disagree with people here about their views on faith. I will sometimes, as now, be a jerk in the way that I disagree but there are no bad people here .. only people who disagree and it is ok to disagree .. hell it is ok to fight .. but not ok to call someone racist .. that is wrong ..

like Tam, I have to leave this .. Art is right .. by the way Art you always come up with one liners that make me burst out laughing. You would have had a successful career as a comedy writer. How can someone come up with one liners on the fly that make ya fall over laughing

I am admire you (mostly) LOL ... what a line !!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM

"the Trafford Centre"

Omigod! I can honestly say that I've never really equated the Trafford Centre with the enriching of life . . . I do go to visit the Apple Store (but I can avoid that now there's one in the Arndale, a cock's stride from the epicurean delights of the Northern Quarter), and I can see the attraction in the Selfridges food hall (but only when I'm flush), but I rather identify the place with one of the circles of Hell Dante missed the door to.


". . . atheists are also requested to provide names of hospitals founded by atheists, charitable orders started by them, and books saved by them.

Er, are you seriously suggesting that atheists are not involved in any good works? That's quite ridiculous. You don't personally know the religious (or otherwise) views of everyone involved in working for the common good.

"Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here.

Which the above post proves wrong, Joe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:21 AM

Did I just read that atheism has caused more trouble than religion?

Apparently, that phrase is in the "How to knock on doors" guide for Jehovah's Witnesses. (I know, a mate of mine was one till he discovered beer, loose sex and horse racing.) also, I had a girlfriend who had "seen the dark" as she put it, leaving after being one all her life.

Apparently, because Hitler and Stalin weren't religious, so the waffle goes. Interestingly, of course they were very religious. Just that instead of following a cult, they invented their own. Mind you, I have been reliably informed that using Hitler on a forum is a sign of having admitted losing the argument...

I reckon the whole you vs me, them vs us etc diatribe can be summed up in my mind as follows;

In our so called enlightened society, there are those, including those in power, who would wish to force their way of life on the rest of us. Sunday trading, charity breaks for religious organisations, Bishops in the upper house of legislature, (in our case House of Lords.) In the face of this unacceptable state of affairs, normal rational people will rebel, and rebel strongly.

I love being accused of blasphemy, the victimless crime. Why? because it stops superstition taking over completely. Look at Islam, debased and made useful by those who wish to subjugate others. You know what? So do most Christian churches...

I read above something about a court in the USA stating that atheism is a religion. Doesn't surprise me. USA courts can be guilty of conspiracy to murder when they execute their citizens, so other strange judgements don't even make me blink.

And you know what? When I was last in Georgia, I sent a postcard to my mate saying "greetings from Dumbfuckistan." I thought it was funny, but sometimes, the laughter is hollow. That's why I jump in on these threads. I would hate the civilised world getting deeper in medieval superstition. Not quite so bad here in England just yet, but the bible bashers and Q'ran pushers are waiting in the wings... Sod the lot of 'em. I have no time for hypocrisy, preying on weak minds or jam tomorrow.

I get my jam today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM

I regard no racists--blatant or genteel-as my friend.   

Mudcat is not Love Story.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:40 AM

It just seems Ron you're doing to atheists what you say atheists are doing to Christians, and that's gotta be wrong Ron Ron Ron, plain wrong Ron Ron.*





*Sorry. Couldn't help myself. This has become a great thread and if one good thing has come out of it (in my case, a little more understanding), it's the fact olddude isn't going to kill the skunk.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:41 AM

Also, the poster in question, as Joe has pointed out, has a long history of similarly delightful attitudes and postings on an array of subjects.   It seems reasonable to point it out.   Who knows, maybe he's capable of learning.

We can but hope.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:07 AM

mauvepink said: "Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?"...well, that's not exactly a correct 'logical' translation. It's not the same structure as saying "no one knows".


In about 1964, my hometown newspaper,The Wichita Eagle, removed the BC comic strip from the paper for over a year because of a strip where BC asks Peter,"Do you believe in God?" "Yes..."..."Why?"..."Because there might be one..."

This was a very conservative town, and although Jonny Hart, creator of the BC strip was a dedicated and 'witnessing' Christian who was just using humor to make HIS point, the paper got myriads of call & letters demanding that this 'blasphemous' strip be removed! I 'think' it was not replaced until Hart wrote personally to the paper and 'explained' and apologized for the confusion.

All discussions about 'maybes' and 'probably' lead inevitably to "Pascal's Wager", which asserts that IF you admit the possibility of a god, it's smart to act on it and believe.
   The problem is, Pascal's little chart only lists 4 possible outcomes, and itself assumes too much about what a god, if there is one, does and thinks and requires...etc. There are far more than 4 scenarios if we begin allowing 'possible' truths in our calculations. (God MAY like Jehovah's Witnesses more than Catholics!)

Being an agnostic is sort of a formal way of saying "I don't think we can ever know the answer, one way or another." On a practical level, there is not much difference in being agnostic or atheist, except in how you act & argue. If you don't get into discussions, the exact label you give yourself is almost irrelevant....and if you DO adopt a label, you open yourself to all the interpretations of it....as we have just seen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:17 AM

Ron
I never seen any posts that indicate any type of racist, but I admit I don't read every post from everyone either ... I would just be shocked to see it. Richard like many others have strong feelings against organized religion .. and that is ok , it sets me off sometimes but they are entitled to their opinion as I am to my faith.

so i guess what I am saying is I never saw it ..

anyway .. I hope everyone has a good day .. pretty nice here in Western NY .. today .. not so stinking hot as it has been. Grapes are coming into season and people are starting to pick .. love the smell of grapes this time of year. it is a good thing I do, I got 7 miles of them behind my house


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM

"Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?"...

I knew as I pressed the "submit" button that someone, if not many, would point out that this statement was not quite so logical as it sounds. It's not, I know it, but in my way of thinking I need to make space for things I do not KNOW for sure and leave it open to the possibility. Logically, and using Occam's razor, the chances are there is no God. But even Occam's Razor is quite drastic as sometimes there are illogical reasons for things being in place too.

In short: I'm not sure at all, one way or the other, but I am not scared of either possibility. Whether I believe or not is also not as relevant as allowing in my life for those who do have faith. I detest football but can also allow for the true football fan without giving in to the hooligan element that spoils the true fan's reputation so often.

The point you make is fair. I know it. Thank you for pointing it out so eloquently.

mp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:54 AM

The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth is NEVER wrong, oh blasphemous disbeliever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM

Well....the Seeker After Truth has a darn good chance of being wrong, once he/she claims to have captured the truth.
Those who seek, usually aren't wrong.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

Right, Little Hawk. That is precisely why it is so unreasonable to posit the necessity of deity for *any* natural phenomenon, nowadays.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM

"... sometimes there are illogical reasons for things being in place too."

More often than not, it's just that we haven't worked out the proper logic/connections yet.

I think the term 'counter-intuitive' is what you may be thinking of...like the guy who 'proved' that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. *grin*

The first people who saw bread dough 'rise' didn't understand it either...I'd wager they prayed and made 'offerings' before they learned about yeast. To this day there are Belgian breweries who allow 'natural' yeast to settle into open kettles to create Lambic beer, and NO ONE is allowed to clean the room where the kettles are, for fear of messing up the formula. They know THAT it works, and they have some idea 'how' it works...but......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM

Well....the Seeker After Truth has a darn good chance of being wrong, once he/she claims to have captured the truth.

Ah, but Joe, "our" Ron, the All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth has ALWAYS claimed not only to have captured, but to be the sole purveyer of, ALL truth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

Well, I am a seeker without doubt. But nowhere do I think I said, nor do I believe, that I cannot be wrong. It is VERY possible I am but if we never sought answers....

Sometimes asking the right question helps.

Counter-intuitive indeed ;-)

mp


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

I've never really equated the Trafford Centre with the enriching of life

Let me tell you - we live about an hour's drive away from the Ladywell Park & Ride, by which means we make our invariably joyful entry into Manchester, there to sample the delights of The Rylands Library, Forsyths, Cathedral, Afflecks, Northern Quarter, Arndale, Picadilly, Fopp, Subway, Art Gallery, China Town, etc. etc. in a number of well trodden routes all of which have us suitably footsore by closing time, when like ravenous corbies we invariably ask ourselves whaur shall we gan and dine the day-o? The answer to which is usually The Trafford Centre! - which looms like a heavenly Bethlehem as painted by Paul Klee as we cross the ship canal on the M60. Once within, I am transported by the Post-Modern excess of it all; Selfridges & all, but my chief delight is partaking of a Subway / McDonalds beneath the painted skies of the foodhall wherein I am as humbled as in any cathedral & just as joyful. It is the perfect end to an invariably perfect day - like yesterday when we went to Warrington IKEA after a day in Liverpool.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:40 PM

"Whether or not they actually are is open to interpretation dependant on on'es own belief system. Anyone doing good and using their spiritual base with it cannot possibly be doing anything bad."

"Doing good" is often a matter of interpretation. There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that
you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates
Christianity.

Don't the military generals at the Pentagon think they are doing something good for humanity based on their spiritual beliefs? Hence, Iraq and Afghanistan.

When you get into the area of "spiritual beliefs" you can run into trouble.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:44 PM

"The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth is NEVER wrong, oh blasphemous disbeliever."

This is the kind of rhetoric that really ticks people off.

I would paraphrase, "The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker after Truth
is often wrong."

Arrogance comes in neat little packages of bumper-sticker statements.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM

"Don't the military generals at the Pentagon think they are doing something good for humanity based on their spiritual beliefs? Hence, Iraq and Afghanistan."

That statement is idiotic.

The generals do what they are told by the govennment which is run by politicians. The vote to take down the Taliban and retaliate against al-Qaeda was the decision of the US Congress.

The Senate vote was 98 to 0.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM

I sought, I found, now I seek to apply. Wow, what a pun, there!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM

"whaur shall we gan and dine the day-o?"

The Trafford Centre is pretty 'nur' compared to other interests of Manchester. Including the abundance of eat all you can Chinese Buffets in China Town. If you enjoy indulging in "proletarian common-folk" culcha then you can't beat the all you can eat Chinky's in China-town with their paper lanterns and piped cheesy Chinese pop music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM

just saw comedienne on channel 4+1 told of a woman who approached her on the street and asked, "Will you let Jesus into your heart today?" After a pregnant pause the comedienne answered

"No! If Jesus fancies he me, he should come and ask me himself."

Well, guess you actually had to see it for it to strike as funny.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:21 PM

LOL!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:04 PM

The generals in the Pentagon are as much in touch with their "spiritual" selves as anyone else. They are attempting to Christianize the U.S. military. They think it's fine what they are doing.

Of course the Senate vote was that high. The Senate has been corrupted. So?

What is idiotic is beating the drums for war and further expansion into the Mid-East.

This has to be laid at the feet of the Congress, the President and the Pentagon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:39 PM

I must qualify my previous statement. There are some politicians who are not corrupted
by the war-mongers. Dennis Kucinich is one. Bernie Sanders, another. There are responsible members of Congress who are not going along with the generals and their
interest in extending troops. They haven't fallen for the jingoism that's out there today
about Mr. Obama's War. The Senate and Congress may have been hoodwinked by the
Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex but if you poll Americans today, you will
see by the numbers that Iraq and Afghanistan wars are not popular.

There should be a cautionary tale about LBJ's foray into Vietnam. We see how that ended.

The "delusion" is that "god is on our side". It goes along with the religious-right who are the religious-wrong. The GOP is hopping on the religious bandwagon as well as some Democrats. The point is that religion has intruded into politics as a bad house guest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:54 PM

all you can Chinese Buffets in China Town

You tumble my not-so-secret vice, CS; trouble is I take all you can eat as a personal challenge & like nothing better than quenching an MSG thirst with gallons of ice-cold lager. Not good health wise of course, but there are times... Actually the best Chinese buffet in the NW is Buffet@Preston - seriously good. China in Lancaster does a lot of western stuff too - all you can eat fried fish, pizza, Yorkshire Puddings & roast lamb.

In answer to an earlier question, food is among my comforts, one of them; it keeps me alive & brings me ever closer to the eternal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM

"Get rid of religion and something else would take it's place. Imagine a world without a religion. Do you see a world of peace then? Probably not. Because humans hide behind banners of various labels and names. Politics, business, military, tribal, supporters of this team or that.... no religion there but there is plenty of competition and power grabbing. Money is at the bottom of a lot of it."

I think that the point can be taken that religion is not the only delusion. Greed and power are forms of delusion as well. The problem is that today, the latter are tied to the former.

Answer: Separation of Church and State. As for world peace, this is something that has to be taken seriously without infusing it with religious belief. World peace and religious belief is almost an oxymoron. However, in a free democracy, people have the right to worship their shoes if they so desire so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The problem that is being presented is that churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals do infringe on these rights sometimes. They need to stop doing that.

One of the big problems is the evangelical movement in the U.S. There is an arrogance,
here, in which a religious group actively tries to impose their religion on others whether
they like it or not. This has carried over into U.S. foreign policy. Don't think for a moment that the concept of a Christian "crusade" is not out there.

Also, religious evangelizing is exacerbating the problems in the Mid-East between Israel and Palestine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM

This one really is drifting...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM

It's the public that is drifting.....off to sleep. Many non-believers have connected the dots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:16 PM

As far as I am concerned any belief system that informs a civil and courteous interaction with others in the world is earning its keep. Any belief system that can be used to justify the eradication of human lives without provocation (including some warped versions of materialism AND of Christianity) is a risky belief system.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010---and more
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM

I've been mulling this over all day, and re-reading one of the rare threads I personally started ...5½ years ago, called "Thinking about recent threads"

I considered refreshing it, but some people never note the date, so I will just let those who choose read what they will. The title is still appropriate, and many of the comments folks added are quite valuable. If you DO read it, please remember it IS 5 years old and consider whether to post to it. (should I have it closed?)

It is interesting that 5 years ago, I 'worked harder' to say what I wanted...perhaps advancing age is relevant *wry grin*. I have no idea how much energy I'll devote to it all in another 5 years.

What is it about? It is about thinking and believing and knowing and relevance and pausing and.... other things...by many famous, and not-so-famous, writers.

It made me (mostly) feel good to re-read it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:42 PM

(Quoting from a fictional world without religion) ***Kill the wise one!***


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:57 PM

"doing to atheists what... they do to Christians..."

Bingo.

Go to the head of the class.

And if by some chance atheists don't like it, they may, as I noted--did you not read what I wrote earlier?-- start to realize what the religious feel like with the singularly absurd smears and sneering remarks they aim at all Christians.

The shoe is on the other foot.   Fair is fair.

And, not being bound by the Golden Rule, since I am not religious, I will opt rather for the Code of Hammurabi.

If the atheists stop their smearing of Christianity and Christians in toto, I will withdraw my requests of the illustrious atheists we are honored to have on Mudcat. And not before.

All I am interested in is fair play.   But if the other side does not believe in it, I can live with that.   And act accordingly.

Though, as I have said, it's obvious to anybody with any grasp of history that atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples.

Still waiting for the requested contributions by atheists in the categories I cited.



And the opening poster's remark I cited on Obama is from another thread--which I also cited. Does nobody here read anything?

I think 'genteel racist' fits rather snugly.   The alternative might be "clumsy and boorish prig". Perhaps you prefer that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:14 AM

"atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples."

& you have had some pretty exact examples back of where it HAS, for all your "has not" ~~ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St Bartholmew's Day Massacre, the Holocaust, the concept of jihad leading to current militant Islamism, &c &c &c: but in typically fair-minded 'religious' fashion you have elected to ignore those bits.


~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:32 AM

When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:22 AM

"Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here.

Which the above post proves wrong, Joe.


One post can't disprove that something is rare. It can disprove a claim that it doesn't exist, but not that it's rare.

repeatable, corroboratable evidence

That's one type of evidence. There is no repeatable, corroboratable evidence for anything that happened in the past because the past is not repeatable. Much of archaeology, evolution, history are that way. As is some of astronomy. There is evidence, just not repeatable evidence. But really you're treating the question of the existence of God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and accepting only scientific evidence (and of a particular kind as used in many but not all sciences) for it.

Most of what Science tells us, the vast majority of us accept on faith -- faith in the scientists doing the experiments, or making the observations, or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether or not most propositions in science are true, and don't have the time or inclination (or funds or time off work) to do the sort of research/experimentation it would require to settle the matter before my own eyes. But mostly I just accept what those people say. It's all about trust.

If I really trusted you as an ornithologist, then I would trust you when you said you had found the Large Blue (that is a bird, right?). There was a story on NPR a few years back about a person that had a recording of some woodpecker thought to be extinct (ivory bill? does that sound right?), and went into the wild and played the recording. At one point he said he heard a sound in the bush like the same call being repeated back. Maybe, he suggested, there are some of this kind of woodpecker still left. Unfortunately he didn't have recording equipment running, so all we have is his word to go on. Also there was no sighting. Did he really hear it? It all depends on what you think about him as a person: primarily his honesty and his aural acuity (and the reliability of his memory of course).

Thank goodness atheists don't deal in such certainties, not even Dawkins.

Any atheist who says "delusion" of belief in God is dealing in certainty. Delusion implies that you know it is wrong. It is an insult word, and it is used by someone wanting to insult somebody because they believe something the insulter knows to be false. Despite what he may protest at some times, Dawkins acts at other times as if he is certain there is no God. At which point the evidence trail leads from quacking and walking to duckosity.

There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates Christianity.

It predates Christianity but not the Bible. It is the saying of a 1st Century Rabbi (I want to say Gamaliel but I'm not sure of that).

The GOP is hopping on the religious bandwagon as well as some Democrats.

Is hopping? The GOP hopped on the religious bandwagon in 1979 and hasn't hopped off yet. Some evangelical Christians are hopping off the GOP bandwagon, which can only be a good thing, IMHO. I want religion and the US government to be watertight separate compartments. Theocracy/caesaropapism never ends well -- especially for people with minority beliefs, which includes mine (a little enlightened self-interest going on here!).

The problem that is being presented is that churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals do infringe on these rights sometimes. They need to stop doing that.

I agree they need to stop doing that. I disagree that presenting that problem is all that the non-theists are doing on this thread. I'm with Joe: I have no need to try to convert people here, and am perfectly willing to listen to and learn from atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Pastafarian, and would expect them to respectfully listen to me (whether they learn from me, I can't require, and it's probably unlikely even so). But also I will not ridicule somebody for being an atheist or Jew or whatever. I will tell them their belief (or lack thereof) is stupid or a fantasy or a delusion. If you catch me doing so, give me a boot to the head. (Saying somebody's logic/argument is stupid, by the way, is not saying their belief is stupid. Maybe you can stomp on my foot if I do that, but not boot my head.)

When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?

Stalinist Russia. Not all of the people killed under Lenin and Stalin were killed because of their religion, but many were. Churches were looted and burned, nuns were raped and killed, priests and bishops and monks and laypeople were killed because they were Christians by people whose motivation for doing so was their atheism. Others were thrown into the Gulag system to rot and die. Note that I don't say that all of the people killed under Lenin or Stalin were killed because of religion. That's clearly not the case. But some were, especially in the early days of the October Revolution/Civil War in Russia.

[tangent] (People always want to give Lenin a break and make out that all the bad stuff was Stalin -- but it was under Lenin that the NKVD (precursor to the KGB) was formed, and it was Lenin who said that the country must be ruled via a state of constant and continual terror.) [/tangent]

Also whoever said that Religion has killed more people than Hitler and Stalin and Mao put together was deluded. There weren't enough people alive before the 19th/20th centuries to make that even possible. And Stalin's policies/rulings alone are responsible for the deaths of between 25 and 50 million non-combatants.

I question whether or not Hitler was an atheist; but I don't have enough evidence to say. He certainly used people's belief in God to further his own aims (remember "Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer") but that doesn't mean he believed in God himself, so it leaves the question open (to me -- I will always look at evidence one way or the other, if time allows (I'm not going to read some big tome -- I have too much other reading to do!)).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:29 AM

>>There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates Christianity.

It predates Christianity but not the Bible. It is the saying of a 1st Century Rabbi (I want to say Gamaliel but I'm not sure of that).<<

FYI, I think it is generally attributed to Rabbi Hillel.

~Michael~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:50 AM

Suppose all religion really is a delusion.
Dawkins should apply his understanding of selection and evolution.
The principles apply to ideas also.
If a belief did not confer any advantage on the believers, it would be supplanted by a belief that did.
Religion probably gave tribal groups cohesion and encouraged co operation.
Don't do to others what you would not like.
If you can persuade people to behave like that your group will prosper.
Without CCTV cameras or belief, people would just seek their own advantage and be in perpetual conflict.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM

"That's one type of evidence. There is no repeatable, corroboratable evidence for anything that happened in the past because the past is not repeatable. Much of archaeology, evolution, history are that way. As is some of astronomy. There is evidence, just not repeatable evidence. But really you're treating the question of the existence of God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and accepting only scientific evidence (and of a particular kind as used in many but not all sciences) for it.

Most of what Science tells us, the vast majority of us accept on faith -- faith in the scientists doing the experiments, or making the observations, or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether or not most propositions in science are true, and don't have the time or inclination (or funds or time off work) to do the sort of research/experimentation it would require to settle the matter before my own eyes. But mostly I just accept what those people say. It's all about trust."

There's plenty of verifiable (better word - OK?) evidence from the past. You can go and see fossils or visit archaeological sites. YOu can study geological formations and carry out radio-isotope dating. None of it will ever yield certainty and every scientist will cheerfully admit that, but the evidence is verifiable. That's the basis of scientific progress. Same with astronomy - you may not be able to corroborate evidence personally but that is not to say it can't be verified by people qualified to do so who are in the right place with the right gear. A story told by someone long-dead in a heavily-edited and translated book is not verifiable (unless you can somehow find several different completely independent sources, and verify that independence). Even then it's still a story and you can't grill the bloke who wrote it. There is a difference.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate