Council prayers to continue (From Daily Echo)

Goldenwight wrote:
The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church.

I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was.

The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century.

Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing.

We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was.

The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century.

Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing.

We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was.

The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century.

Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing.

We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

Goldenwight wrote:
The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church.

I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If even in 2012 voters have not realised the facts and keep on believing in unscientific stuff and to continue electing those who believe in opium of religion, then there right to attend prayers should not be questioned, provided they also respect rights of those who do not believe in misguided mumbo jumbo to stay away from these ceremonies . In fact in most councils that is exactly how the system has worked for a very long time . But sadly some silly character decided to challenge the ‘live and let live’ based approach in court of law, and the judge has passed the judgment which has created the current situation . Now religious prayers, which in most councils are very poorly attended; probably because most councillors have developed bit of intelligence, can not solve the financial problems of virtually all local authorities . That can only be achieved when national government starts providing sufficient funding to local councils. As current ConDem Coalition like NuLabour regime before it is hardly likely to do that, I can’t see how councillors attending or ignoring prayers to some imaginary God or Gods could possibly resolve their financial predicaments.

Huffter wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If even in 2012 voters have not realised the facts and keep on believing in unscientific stuff and to continue electing those who believe in opium of religion, then there right to attend prayers should not be questioned, provided they also respect rights of those who do not believe in misguided mumbo jumbo to stay away from these ceremonies . In fact in most councils that is exactly how the system has worked for a very long time . But sadly some silly character decided to challenge the ‘live and let live’ based approach in court of law, and the judge has passed the judgment which has created the current situation . Now religious prayers, which in most councils are very poorly attended; probably because most councillors have developed bit of intelligence, can not solve the financial problems of virtually all local authorities . That can only be achieved when national government starts providing sufficient funding to local councils. As current ConDem Coalition like NuLabour regime before it is hardly likely to do that, I can’t see how councillors attending or ignoring prayers to some imaginary God or Gods could possibly resolve their financial predicaments.

We live in an age where the diversity of human nature and beliefs is commonly respected. I am suprised you use your unbelief as a basis for calling other people's beliefs "misguided mumbo jumbo". Have a little decency and respect, please.

Huffter wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If even in 2012 voters have not realised the facts and keep on believing in unscientific stuff and to continue electing those who believe in opium of religion, then there right to attend prayers should not be questioned, provided they also respect rights of those who do not believe in misguided mumbo jumbo to stay away from these ceremonies . In fact in most councils that is exactly how the system has worked for a very long time . But sadly some silly character decided to challenge the ‘live and let live’ based approach in court of law, and the judge has passed the judgment which has created the current situation . Now religious prayers, which in most councils are very poorly attended; probably because most councillors have developed bit of intelligence, can not solve the financial problems of virtually all local authorities . That can only be achieved when national government starts providing sufficient funding to local councils. As current ConDem Coalition like NuLabour regime before it is hardly likely to do that, I can’t see how councillors attending or ignoring prayers to some imaginary God or Gods could possibly resolve their financial predicaments.

We live in an age where the diversity of human nature and beliefs is commonly respected. I am suprised you use your unbelief as a basis for calling other people's beliefs "misguided mumbo jumbo". Have a little decency and respect, please.

Higginz wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy your posts Clausentum. They're well thought out, interesting and targetted. I like to think of you as a much more intelligent version of myself.

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

Greyhound1405 wrote:
I thought council business involved all members of the Community. Why does the C of E think it still speaks for us all? Church is the place for those leeches on Society. Prayer does not work. A waste of time in this time of limited resources. Superstition will not give the poor jobs, or the sick health.

Scrutinizer wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

No, Richard Dawkins is most certainly not bigoted at all. In fact he is one of the most reasonable, intelligent minds around. A very decent man who debates in a calm and reasoned manner, despite a huge barrage of agressive attacks ranged against him and his (our) ideas by religionists like yourself. The late and great Christopher Hitchens was of similar superior intellect and the likes of the deluded religionists (of whatever type) hated him for it to - unlike his bigoted, nutcase of a brother of course, who currently peddles his nonsense for the trashy Mail.

The religionists are very worried now. They (you) know that they (you) are 'on the run' and that having had their (your) way for so many years, atheism is fighting back and standing up for the rights of people who don't believe in any fantasy sky gods and the airy-fairy tales associated with them, nor want their (our) children indoctrinated in them in any way either. The fight back has started - and we are winning.

As for Richard Dawkins and your accusation that he wants to 'provoke difference'; well that has to be - in the way in which you intend it certainly - one of the most ridiculous phrases that I think I've ever heard in my life.

'Formalised prayers on the agenda', Councilor Sean Woodward! B*ll*cks!And as for Pickles? Well it's about time someone had him pickled!

Condor Man wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

No, Richard Dawkins is most certainly not bigoted at all. In fact he is one of the most reasonable, intelligent minds around. A very decent man who debates in a calm and reasoned manner, despite a huge barrage of agressive attacks ranged against him and his (our) ideas by religionists like yourself. The late and great Christopher Hitchens was of similar superior intellect and the likes of the deluded religionists (of whatever type) hated him for it to - unlike his bigoted, nutcase of a brother of course, who currently peddles his nonsense for the trashy Mail.

The religionists are very worried now. They (you) know that they (you) are 'on the run' and that having had their (your) way for so many years, atheism is fighting back and standing up for the rights of people who don't believe in any fantasy sky gods and the airy-fairy tales associated with them, nor want their (our) children indoctrinated in them in any way either. The fight back has started - and we are winning.

As for Richard Dawkins and your accusation that he wants to 'provoke difference'; well that has to be - in the way in which you intend it certainly - one of the most ridiculous phrases that I think I've ever heard in my life.

'Formalised prayers on the agenda', Councilor Sean Woodward! B*ll*cks!And as for Pickles? Well it's about time someone had him pickled!

I think I'll stick with what I believe in. If there is a God I'll get to meet him when I die, if there isn't I'll rot in the ground. Either way, I'd have lost nothing.

If, though, there is a God and you don't get to meet him then quite frankly you're screwed. If you're willing to take that risk I wish you the best of luck, I here hell's a terrible place.

Condor Man wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

No, Richard Dawkins is most certainly not bigoted at all. In fact he is one of the most reasonable, intelligent minds around. A very decent man who debates in a calm and reasoned manner, despite a huge barrage of agressive attacks ranged against him and his (our) ideas by religionists like yourself. The late and great Christopher Hitchens was of similar superior intellect and the likes of the deluded religionists (of whatever type) hated him for it to - unlike his bigoted, nutcase of a brother of course, who currently peddles his nonsense for the trashy Mail.

The religionists are very worried now. They (you) know that they (you) are 'on the run' and that having had their (your) way for so many years, atheism is fighting back and standing up for the rights of people who don't believe in any fantasy sky gods and the airy-fairy tales associated with them, nor want their (our) children indoctrinated in them in any way either. The fight back has started - and we are winning.

As for Richard Dawkins and your accusation that he wants to 'provoke difference'; well that has to be - in the way in which you intend it certainly - one of the most ridiculous phrases that I think I've ever heard in my life.

'Formalised prayers on the agenda', Councilor Sean Woodward! B*ll*cks!And as for Pickles? Well it's about time someone had him pickled!

I think I'll stick with what I believe in. If there is a God I'll get to meet him when I die, if there isn't I'll rot in the ground. Either way, I'd have lost nothing.

If, though, there is a God and you don't get to meet him then quite frankly you're screwed. If you're willing to take that risk I wish you the best of luck, I here hell's a terrible place.

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

No, Richard Dawkins is most certainly not bigoted at all. In fact he is one of the most reasonable, intelligent minds around. A very decent man who debates in a calm and reasoned manner, despite a huge barrage of agressive attacks ranged against him and his (our) ideas by religionists like yourself. The late and great Christopher Hitchens was of similar superior intellect and the likes of the deluded religionists (of whatever type) hated him for it to - unlike his bigoted, nutcase of a brother of course, who currently peddles his nonsense for the trashy Mail.

The religionists are very worried now. They (you) know that they (you) are 'on the run' and that having had their (your) way for so many years, atheism is fighting back and standing up for the rights of people who don't believe in any fantasy sky gods and the airy-fairy tales associated with them, nor want their (our) children indoctrinated in them in any way either. The fight back has started - and we are winning.

As for Richard Dawkins and your accusation that he wants to 'provoke difference'; well that has to be - in the way in which you intend it certainly - one of the most ridiculous phrases that I think I've ever heard in my life.

'Formalised prayers on the agenda', Councilor Sean Woodward! B*ll*cks!And as for Pickles? Well it's about time someone had him pickled!

I think I'll stick with what I believe in. If there is a God I'll get to meet him when I die, if there isn't I'll rot in the ground. Either way, I'd have lost nothing.

If, though, there is a God and you don't get to meet him then quite frankly you're screwed. If you're willing to take that risk I wish you the best of luck, I here hell's a terrible place.

.. oh, it's 'belief' again - ‘confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof’.

.. or do you mean faith - ‘belief that is not based on proof’.

.. proof - ‘evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true’.

Isn’t it about time you started to distinguish between reality and delusion?

You are a grown-up after all.

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

No, Richard Dawkins is most certainly not bigoted at all. In fact he is one of the most reasonable, intelligent minds around. A very decent man who debates in a calm and reasoned manner, despite a huge barrage of agressive attacks ranged against him and his (our) ideas by religionists like yourself. The late and great Christopher Hitchens was of similar superior intellect and the likes of the deluded religionists (of whatever type) hated him for it to - unlike his bigoted, nutcase of a brother of course, who currently peddles his nonsense for the trashy Mail.

The religionists are very worried now. They (you) know that they (you) are 'on the run' and that having had their (your) way for so many years, atheism is fighting back and standing up for the rights of people who don't believe in any fantasy sky gods and the airy-fairy tales associated with them, nor want their (our) children indoctrinated in them in any way either. The fight back has started - and we are winning.

As for Richard Dawkins and your accusation that he wants to 'provoke difference'; well that has to be - in the way in which you intend it certainly - one of the most ridiculous phrases that I think I've ever heard in my life.

'Formalised prayers on the agenda', Councilor Sean Woodward! B*ll*cks!And as for Pickles? Well it's about time someone had him pickled!

I think I'll stick with what I believe in. If there is a God I'll get to meet him when I die, if there isn't I'll rot in the ground. Either way, I'd have lost nothing.

If, though, there is a God and you don't get to meet him then quite frankly you're screwed. If you're willing to take that risk I wish you the best of luck, I here hell's a terrible place.

A weak, defensive, response to a reasoned, intelligent post. Shame on you.

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

No, Richard Dawkins is most certainly not bigoted at all. In fact he is one of the most reasonable, intelligent minds around. A very decent man who debates in a calm and reasoned manner, despite a huge barrage of agressive attacks ranged against him and his (our) ideas by religionists like yourself. The late and great Christopher Hitchens was of similar superior intellect and the likes of the deluded religionists (of whatever type) hated him for it to - unlike his bigoted, nutcase of a brother of course, who currently peddles his nonsense for the trashy Mail.

The religionists are very worried now. They (you) know that they (you) are 'on the run' and that having had their (your) way for so many years, atheism is fighting back and standing up for the rights of people who don't believe in any fantasy sky gods and the airy-fairy tales associated with them, nor want their (our) children indoctrinated in them in any way either. The fight back has started - and we are winning.

As for Richard Dawkins and your accusation that he wants to 'provoke difference'; well that has to be - in the way in which you intend it certainly - one of the most ridiculous phrases that I think I've ever heard in my life.

'Formalised prayers on the agenda', Councilor Sean Woodward! B*ll*cks!And as for Pickles? Well it's about time someone had him pickled!

I think I'll stick with what I believe in. If there is a God I'll get to meet him when I die, if there isn't I'll rot in the ground. Either way, I'd have lost nothing.

If, though, there is a God and you don't get to meet him then quite frankly you're screwed. If you're willing to take that risk I wish you the best of luck, I here hell's a terrible place.

.. oh, it's 'belief' again - ‘confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof’.

.. or do you mean faith - ‘belief that is not based on proof’.

.. proof - ‘evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true’.

Isn’t it about time you started to distinguish between reality and delusion?

You are a grown-up after all.

Jesus said that he was the way to heaven, if you believe that he was the son of God you will receive redemption and that place in heaven. Why would a man willing let someone else kill him in a horrific manner if there wasn't something behind what he was saying? why were the establishment at the time so determined to kill him, if he was just a crank they'd have just ignored him. There's plenty of evidence that Jesus lived, that he was crucified and that he died. The question is what happened after that.

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was. The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century. Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing. We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

No, Richard Dawkins is most certainly not bigoted at all. In fact he is one of the most reasonable, intelligent minds around. A very decent man who debates in a calm and reasoned manner, despite a huge barrage of agressive attacks ranged against him and his (our) ideas by religionists like yourself. The late and great Christopher Hitchens was of similar superior intellect and the likes of the deluded religionists (of whatever type) hated him for it to - unlike his bigoted, nutcase of a brother of course, who currently peddles his nonsense for the trashy Mail.

The religionists are very worried now. They (you) know that they (you) are 'on the run' and that having had their (your) way for so many years, atheism is fighting back and standing up for the rights of people who don't believe in any fantasy sky gods and the airy-fairy tales associated with them, nor want their (our) children indoctrinated in them in any way either. The fight back has started - and we are winning.

As for Richard Dawkins and your accusation that he wants to 'provoke difference'; well that has to be - in the way in which you intend it certainly - one of the most ridiculous phrases that I think I've ever heard in my life.

'Formalised prayers on the agenda', Councilor Sean Woodward! B*ll*cks!And as for Pickles? Well it's about time someone had him pickled!

I think I'll stick with what I believe in. If there is a God I'll get to meet him when I die, if there isn't I'll rot in the ground. Either way, I'd have lost nothing.

If, though, there is a God and you don't get to meet him then quite frankly you're screwed. If you're willing to take that risk I wish you the best of luck, I here hell's a terrible place.

.. oh, it's 'belief' again - ‘confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof’.

.. or do you mean faith - ‘belief that is not based on proof’.

.. proof - ‘evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true’.

Isn’t it about time you started to distinguish between reality and delusion?

You are a grown-up after all.

Jesus said that he was the way to heaven, if you believe that he was the son of God you will receive redemption and that place in heaven. Why would a man willing let someone else kill him in a horrific manner if there wasn't something behind what he was saying? why were the establishment at the time so determined to kill him, if he was just a crank they'd have just ignored him. There's plenty of evidence that Jesus lived, that he was crucified and that he died. The question is what happened after that.

'There's plenty of evidence that Jesus lived, that he was crucified and that he died.'
You mean a radical Jewish preacher at serious odds with the established religion was put to death by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish religious hierarchy. Yes, I can go along with that, but that’s all it was. No more, no less; just another of numerous the victims of religious intolerance.
However, the Jewish religion, then and now, and all other monotheist religions are just mythical stories. To a certain extent one can forgive belief in such silly myths for those who lived at that time as they knew no better.
But that is no longer an excuse for you. The scientific revolution of the last 500 years, so bitterly opposed by religions, can provide a far superior creation explanation and it’s backed up by verifiable proof.
Just grow up, start facing up to reality and stop living in fantasy-land.

IronLady2010 wrote:
I pray for a sunny day tomorrow, won't get me anywhere, as god only exists in the minds of those who live in fantasy world!

clausentum wrote:
Citing elevated, upstanding, intelligent members of society such as:"doctors, scientists, lawyers, bankers, teachers," is not proof positive that "Jesus was the son of god"

Those same lauded pillars of society can equally be child rapists as we all know. So, a silly argument to try and make real, a fantasy.

"what do you expect me to say?"

You are right. Unreasonable, unrealistic for me to expect anything resembling an intelligent response because you are immersed in an indoctrination. All you are capable of is to reach for an indoctrinated set menu of pap answers.

People with closed minds who have really stopped seeking answers to the unanswerable, and instead, settle for a contented, cosy, warm and fuzzy, fixed belief, are both to be pitied and feared - history has shown, repeatedly, they are capable of any dishonesty and obscenity in the name of their made-up God.

Condor Man wrote:

clausentum wrote:
Citing elevated, upstanding, intelligent members of society such as:"doctors, scientists, lawyers, bankers, teachers," is not proof positive that "Jesus was the son of god"

Those same lauded pillars of society can equally be child rapists as we all know. So, a silly argument to try and make real, a fantasy.

"what do you expect me to say?"

You are right. Unreasonable, unrealistic for me to expect anything resembling an intelligent response because you are immersed in an indoctrination. All you are capable of is to reach for an indoctrinated set menu of pap answers.

People with closed minds who have really stopped seeking answers to the unanswerable, and instead, settle for a contented, cosy, warm and fuzzy, fixed belief, are both to be pitied and feared - history has shown, repeatedly, they are capable of any dishonesty and obscenity in the name of their made-up God.

How can you be taken seriously if you make wild assertions about people? there are plenty of atheists who rape children, your comment shows a real contempt for others. I hope that one day you have to put all your hope in the doctor you have labelled, all the trust in him as you health depended on it. You'd have complete faith in him that he'd sort out that problem, and if he did you'd been saved.

Until you can treat others with the respect that we all deserve stop plucking phrases out of the God Delusion and start appreciating that we all have different views on things. Unless you actually know what you are saying is the truth stop belittling those who hold a different view. If you live in Southampton I would imagine that most GP's surgeries had at least one Christian doctor, bear that in mind when you ask them to look at your piles.

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:
The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church.

I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Goldenwight wrote: The Church of England is AN established church in this country, not the established church. I believe (and I may be wrong here) that the Church in Wales predates Christian worship in England by some decades. And other religions have been established here far longer.

The Catholic church was around long before Henry VIII invented the church of England. As the Queen is head of both the Anglican Church and the Government church and state are one and the same

Certainly it was.

The Christian tradition was, however, brought to England by St Augustine (allegedly) in the 7th Century.

Simply having the same leader does NOT make the state and the Church of England the same thing.

We have a tradition of religious tolerance in this Country dating back some years. The last recorded massacre of Jews, for example, was over 1,000 years ago. Whilst many wish to overturn this state of affairs, I am not one of them. I wonder how many readers are prepared to put their comments in writing here and disagree with me? Certainly I'm aware that there is a lot of negative feeling against completely innocent peacefully living muslims in Southampton.

as a practising Christian (and believe I need it) it's great to live in a country where you can believe or not in whatever you like. Many Muslims feel that it's easier for them to practice Islam here than in many majority Muslim nations. The problem lies with bigoted atheists like Richard Dawkins who want to provoke difference.

southy wrote:
If people wishes to practise this mumbo jumbo then they should be allowed, But it should not take place in the council chambers there should be a room set aside for those who wish to do so. Politics and Religion should be kept apart.

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

clausentum wrote: Citing elevated, upstanding, intelligent members of society such as:"doctors, scientists, lawyers, bankers, teachers," is not proof positive that "Jesus was the son of god" Those same lauded pillars of society can equally be child rapists as we all know. So, a silly argument to try and make real, a fantasy. "what do you expect me to say?" You are right. Unreasonable, unrealistic for me to expect anything resembling an intelligent response because you are immersed in an indoctrination. All you are capable of is to reach for an indoctrinated set menu of pap answers. People with closed minds who have really stopped seeking answers to the unanswerable, and instead, settle for a contented, cosy, warm and fuzzy, fixed belief, are both to be pitied and feared - history has shown, repeatedly, they are capable of any dishonesty and obscenity in the name of their made-up God.

How can you be taken seriously if you make wild assertions about people? there are plenty of atheists who rape children, your comment shows a real contempt for others. I hope that one day you have to put all your hope in the doctor you have labelled, all the trust in him as you health depended on it. You'd have complete faith in him that he'd sort out that problem, and if he did you'd been saved. Until you can treat others with the respect that we all deserve stop plucking phrases out of the God Delusion and start appreciating that we all have different views on things. Unless you actually know what you are saying is the truth stop belittling those who hold a different view. If you live in Southampton I would imagine that most GP's surgeries had at least one Christian doctor, bear that in mind when you ask them to look at your piles.

.. I'd put my 'faith' in a doctor because s/he has been trained in the reality of provable science and medicine over several years. I can accept there are also some highly trained professionals in science and medicine who have yet to face up to their childhood indoctrination in whatever myths their parents and/or schools and/or religious institutions inflicted upon them. However, that would not prejudice me against their professional competence – just as I’m sure you would be perfectly happy to be treated by atheist medical professionals. Yet again you bring up irrelevant red herrings. The fact remains that you just can’t accept the scientific and philosophical rational that when you’re dead, you’re dead – full stop.

Torchie1 wrote:
I wonder how many atheists there are when the pilot asks the passengers to 'brace for impact' ?

peter sowerby wrote:
Down throughout the ages humans have been slaughtering and butchering billions of themselves in the names and behalf of their gods and idols. Please keep them out of council meetings.

southy wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Down throughout the ages humans have been slaughtering and butchering billions of themselves in the names and behalf of their gods and idols. Please keep them out of council meetings.

Very true but its Capitalism that Controls Religion all ways have done, its a way to control the masses

peter sowerby wrote:

southy wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Down throughout the ages humans have been slaughtering and butchering billions of themselves in the names and behalf of their gods and idols. Please keep them out of council meetings.

Very true but its Capitalism that Controls Religion all ways have done, its a way to control the masses

Didnt Carl Marx say capitalism will eat itself? I am still waiting in eager anticipation. The problem is it seems to be eating everybody else first.

Condor Man wrote:

clausentum wrote:
Citing elevated, upstanding, intelligent members of society such as:"doctors, scientists, lawyers, bankers, teachers," is not proof positive that "Jesus was the son of god"

Those same lauded pillars of society can equally be child rapists as we all know. So, a silly argument to try and make real, a fantasy.

"what do you expect me to say?"

You are right. Unreasonable, unrealistic for me to expect anything resembling an intelligent response because you are immersed in an indoctrination. All you are capable of is to reach for an indoctrinated set menu of pap answers.

People with closed minds who have really stopped seeking answers to the unanswerable, and instead, settle for a contented, cosy, warm and fuzzy, fixed belief, are both to be pitied and feared - history has shown, repeatedly, they are capable of any dishonesty and obscenity in the name of their made-up God.

How can you be taken seriously if you make wild assertions about people? there are plenty of atheists who rape children, your comment shows a real contempt for others. I hope that one day you have to put all your hope in the doctor you have labelled, all the trust in him as you health depended on it. You'd have complete faith in him that he'd sort out that problem, and if he did you'd been saved.

Until you can treat others with the respect that we all deserve stop plucking phrases out of the God Delusion and start appreciating that we all have different views on things. Unless you actually know what you are saying is the truth stop belittling those who hold a different view. If you live in Southampton I would imagine that most GP's surgeries had at least one Christian doctor, bear that in mind when you ask them to look at your piles.

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

forest hump wrote:
People have the right to beleive in whatever they want. If religon comforts then fine. Just keep it out of any form of Government. I take exception to elected officials wasting taxpayers money...time is money. Focus that faith and belief into improving facilities and quality of life. Personally, I beleive Darwin is closest to getting it right.

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

Stella Bell wrote:
To Claussntum. One of the best posts so far today was the one from Shaun Cunningham but you have brought a bit of laughter at the end of the day. So thank you.
It really doesn't matter about any views expressed on this website or by the residents in the Borough of Fareham, Sean Woodward will do as he likes and it would certainly not occur to him that he should get the views of others.

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

Torchie1 wrote:
I wonder how many atheists there are when the pilot asks the passengers to 'brace for impact' ?

peter sowerby wrote:
Down throughout the ages humans have been slaughtering and butchering billions of themselves in the names and behalf of their gods and idols. Please keep them out of council meetings.

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

Georgem wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

Well, in all fairness, I don't see why people should be obliged to justify their faith to others. As an atheist myself, I find it quite embarrassing when others put so much effort into ridiculing religion, and trying so hard to point out the logical flaws in it. Not to mention, of course, the extreme pointlessness of trying to use reason in a discussion with someone who you already know doesn't really buy into the whole "reason" thing in the first place. The evidence is well-known, if it's mere existence isn't enough to change some people's minds, I doubt having it presented to them in an argument is going to do any better!

clausentum wrote:

Georgem wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

Well, in all fairness, I don't see why people should be obliged to justify their faith to others. As an atheist myself, I find it quite embarrassing when others put so much effort into ridiculing religion, and trying so hard to point out the logical flaws in it. Not to mention, of course, the extreme pointlessness of trying to use reason in a discussion with someone who you already know doesn't really buy into the whole "reason" thing in the first place. The evidence is well-known, if it's mere existence isn't enough to change some people's minds, I doubt having it presented to them in an argument is going to do any better!

Valid observation ;-)

This particular religious nut is a shallow, one-dimensional representaion of religious nuts in general. He has nothing to offer apart from a dog-eared script given him by someone-else and appears incapable of original thought or grown-up thinking at all.

He invited comment and derision by his outrageous statment that atheists are bigots whilst expressed that view with bigotry!

You offer a timely reminder that to get carried away in debating such a fool is a pointless activity and really just a form of self-indulgence. Thanks.

freefinker wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Georgem wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

Well, in all fairness, I don't see why people should be obliged to justify their faith to others. As an atheist myself, I find it quite embarrassing when others put so much effort into ridiculing religion, and trying so hard to point out the logical flaws in it. Not to mention, of course, the extreme pointlessness of trying to use reason in a discussion with someone who you already know doesn't really buy into the whole "reason" thing in the first place. The evidence is well-known, if it's mere existence isn't enough to change some people's minds, I doubt having it presented to them in an argument is going to do any better!

Valid observation ;-)

This particular religious nut is a shallow, one-dimensional representaion of religious nuts in general. He has nothing to offer apart from a dog-eared script given him by someone-else and appears incapable of original thought or grown-up thinking at all.

He invited comment and derision by his outrageous statment that atheists are bigots whilst expressed that view with bigotry!

You offer a timely reminder that to get carried away in debating such a fool is a pointless activity and really just a form of self-indulgence. Thanks.

.. agreed.
But a somewhat pleasurable self-indulgence all the same.

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Georgem wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

Well, in all fairness, I don't see why people should be obliged to justify their faith to others. As an atheist myself, I find it quite embarrassing when others put so much effort into ridiculing religion, and trying so hard to point out the logical flaws in it. Not to mention, of course, the extreme pointlessness of trying to use reason in a discussion with someone who you already know doesn't really buy into the whole "reason" thing in the first place. The evidence is well-known, if it's mere existence isn't enough to change some people's minds, I doubt having it presented to them in an argument is going to do any better!

Valid observation ;-)

This particular religious nut is a shallow, one-dimensional representaion of religious nuts in general. He has nothing to offer apart from a dog-eared script given him by someone-else and appears incapable of original thought or grown-up thinking at all.

He invited comment and derision by his outrageous statment that atheists are bigots whilst expressed that view with bigotry!

You offer a timely reminder that to get carried away in debating such a fool is a pointless activity and really just a form of self-indulgence. Thanks.

.. agreed.
But a somewhat pleasurable self-indulgence all the same.

Is it pleasurable? I just find it irritating, myself. Each to his own, though!

clausentum wrote:

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Georgem wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

Well, in all fairness, I don't see why people should be obliged to justify their faith to others. As an atheist myself, I find it quite embarrassing when others put so much effort into ridiculing religion, and trying so hard to point out the logical flaws in it. Not to mention, of course, the extreme pointlessness of trying to use reason in a discussion with someone who you already know doesn't really buy into the whole "reason" thing in the first place. The evidence is well-known, if it's mere existence isn't enough to change some people's minds, I doubt having it presented to them in an argument is going to do any better!

Valid observation ;-)

This particular religious nut is a shallow, one-dimensional representaion of religious nuts in general. He has nothing to offer apart from a dog-eared script given him by someone-else and appears incapable of original thought or grown-up thinking at all.

He invited comment and derision by his outrageous statment that atheists are bigots whilst expressed that view with bigotry!

You offer a timely reminder that to get carried away in debating such a fool is a pointless activity and really just a form of self-indulgence. Thanks.

.. agreed.
But a somewhat pleasurable self-indulgence all the same.

Is it pleasurable? I just find it irritating, myself. Each to his own, though!

Steady on! You risk sounding pious, nay, a tad smug in your gentle wrist-slapping. Now, that COULD be irritating. :-)

Georgem wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Georgem wrote:

freefinker wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Georgem wrote:

clausentum wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Freefinker, I think you're being rather disingenuous to a lot of rational thinking people who happen to share different views to you. Perhaps you too are an eminent professor? Many people find faith later in life, not having been indoctrinated or having this inflicted on them. They don't have this baggage to face up to.

I think you need to read all the facts before you start denouncing things you clearly no nothing about.

‘facts’ you say. Well let’s have some.

Unless you are one of those crazy ‘bible literalists’ (and not even the pope is anymore) here are some facts: -
1) The universe (or at least the only one we have evidence for) is about 13 billion years old.
2) The earth and solar system are about 4.5 billion years old.
3) Life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
4) Complex multi-celled life is under 1 billion years old.
5) The origins of primates are about 58 million years ago.
6) The genus Homo evolved about 2.3 million years ago.
7) Our own species, Homo sapiens, goes back a little over 100,000 years.

Now CM, please, please tell me: -
1) Do all the animals that have ever lived also have an afterlife in heaven or hell?
2) Assuming that’s a ‘no’, then, what’s so special about our species (evolved as we have, like ALL others, by Darwinian natural selection) that after billions of years your god decides s/he is going to ‘create’ heaven and hell, but give it to just this one very recently evolved species?
3) And, why did s/he take 100,000 years of our species existence to let us about this?

Perhaps you can now reveal some ‘facts’ to answer these questions?

I'm going to take you questions and ask around at the church (Highfield Church out of interest) to see what people think. There are a few uni professors there that could answer your questions, sadly I'm an arts graduate so won't do the responses the justice they deserve. Actually, Highfield Church run seminars during the year which discuss the questions you've raised. If you like I could send you some details?

So.

You have no answers to offer the other poster.

So.

You are totally bereft of a single response to any question they posed you.

Instead, you opt for a cop-out by wanting to scurry off to your local church and ask for answers from church brethren with enhanced educational qualifications to your own or super superior brains such as university professors who also happen to be religious nuts.

Where or where is your belief in yourself?

Why stop at canvassing a bunch of locals?

Why not kneel down and with your direct line of communication to your Almighty, pray to your God to provide answers

Well, in all fairness, I don't see why people should be obliged to justify their faith to others. As an atheist myself, I find it quite embarrassing when others put so much effort into ridiculing religion, and trying so hard to point out the logical flaws in it. Not to mention, of course, the extreme pointlessness of trying to use reason in a discussion with someone who you already know doesn't really buy into the whole "reason" thing in the first place. The evidence is well-known, if it's mere existence isn't enough to change some people's minds, I doubt having it presented to them in an argument is going to do any better!

Valid observation ;-)

This particular religious nut is a shallow, one-dimensional representaion of religious nuts in general. He has nothing to offer apart from a dog-eared script given him by someone-else and appears incapable of original thought or grown-up thinking at all.

He invited comment and derision by his outrageous statment that atheists are bigots whilst expressed that view with bigotry!

You offer a timely reminder that to get carried away in debating such a fool is a pointless activity and really just a form of self-indulgence. Thanks.

.. agreed.
But a somewhat pleasurable self-indulgence all the same.

Is it pleasurable? I just find it irritating, myself. Each to his own, though!

Steady on! You risk sounding pious, nay, a tad smug in your gentle wrist-slapping. Now, that COULD be irritating. :-)

Not a wrist-slapping, sorry if it came off as such.

Stella Bell wrote:
to clausentum We are peering through the chocking smoke of dishonesty that wafts around them. I believe it is beginning to clear. This article about prayers just shows the arrogance of our hypocritical council leader, but money talks and I fear that until the smoke clears completely he will continue in his usual manner.

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
Amazing how everyone has missed the real point of the story. It is about a law permitting prayers not forcing them on people. The story hit the headlines when an athiest tried to impose his non religious beliefs on others - depriving them of their right of choice.

I'm not particularly religious but find it interesting that the abusive and hostile posts above all come from people who do not believe in God.

The ability to have faith and belief is one of the things that distinguishes us from apes. So why should we snigger at anyone who has a belief - be it God or Darwin (or both)?

Georgem wrote:

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
Amazing how everyone has missed the real point of the story. It is about a law permitting prayers not forcing them on people. The story hit the headlines when an athiest tried to impose his non religious beliefs on others - depriving them of their right of choice.

I'm not particularly religious but find it interesting that the abusive and hostile posts above all come from people who do not believe in God.

The ability to have faith and belief is one of the things that distinguishes us from apes. So why should we snigger at anyone who has a belief - be it God or Darwin (or both)?

Fun fact: Darwin believed in God. Now, to business: proof that apes don't believe in God, please

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
Amazing how everyone has missed the real point of the story. It is about a law permitting prayers not forcing them on people. The story hit the headlines when an athiest tried to impose his non religious beliefs on others - depriving them of their right of choice. I'm not particularly religious but find it interesting that the abusive and hostile posts above all come from people who do not believe in God. The ability to have faith and belief is one of the things that distinguishes us from apes. So why should we snigger at anyone who has a belief - be it God or Darwin (or both)?

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

alan.of.eastleigh wrote: Amazing how everyone has missed the real point of the story. It is about a law permitting prayers not forcing them on people. The story hit the headlines when an athiest tried to impose his non religious beliefs on others - depriving them of their right of choice. I'm not particularly religious but find it interesting that the abusive and hostile posts above all come from people who do not believe in God. The ability to have faith and belief is one of the things that distinguishes us from apes. So why should we snigger at anyone who has a belief - be it God or Darwin (or both)?

Fun fact: Darwin believed in God. Now, to business: proof that apes don't believe in God, please

.. er!! Almost certainly NOT. His wife was very religious. He was only lightly indoctrinated into christianity – his father, Robert, and grandfather were actually freethinkers (look it up on Wikipedia) although his mother’s side were unitarian. Increasingly, as he developed his theory over many years, he began to doubt and then dismiss organised religion, particularly its origin story. He stopped going to church for over 30 years before he died, quite a courageous thing to do in a 19th century rural community. The claim that he reverted back to christianity on his death-bed was always denied by his own children. Asking for 'proof that apes don't believe in god' is a bit cart before horse. christians insist god was there first - I say, let them prove there is a god, then ask the ape question.