vortexring

I provided the complete article as worthy of consideration which you dismissed because you couldn't spot the references that are actually contained in the text. Then you cherry pick one part of it because it supports your point of view. All I've seen from you is back-tracking, claiming "you can't prove I'm wrong" even when you are presented with the evidence, then cherry picking that same evidence because it appears to support your agenda. I know these gutter tactics are par for the course here in SC but I am honestly disappointed that you would choose to employ them. Gutter tactics? Well, what can I say? Sorry if you've felt offended. I do see your point, and it is a fair one. The article certainly is worthy of consideration, and I appreciate you providing it. My initial reaction was indeed fairly poor, as I commented on something I hadn't fully read. But I will. And I'll provide a more considered opinion. But claims that 'you can't prove me wrong' is simply a counter argument from people asking similiar of myself. And yeah, I did cherry-pick a particular part which I thought worthy of consideration, as it slightly supported my side of the argument. So I'm guilty. But gutter-tactics!? Surely not!

And that's the problem, you've only looked at two very small pieces of the picture and taken them in isolation. Without an analysis of more of the factors causing social change in the modern world your deduction is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. Yes. "Western culture is built on christian morals; even if you're not christian - if you take away christianity, you take away our Western morals, and you breed chaos." - "As to my assertion; it's through my continual observation of an increasingly immoral society which brings around my opinion. There are numerous answers to specific issues but I believe the intrinsic reason is through moral guidance. And I believe only religion can provide this." No. Saying that people are on average a bit happier if they are religious does not support your assertions that society will crumble into chaos without it. A key word, highlighted for you above. Going back to the original point, it's my belief society is becoming more chaotic; I've welcomed people to speak their opinion on this themselves in an earlier post. Originally it was mainly tongue-in-cheek, but then it provoked so much interest for myself, I seriously began to wonder over the reasons of increased immorality. I came to, what's for me, an obvious conclusion. Whilst you demand more substance to this conclusion to avoid addressing my assertion, your point does remain that such a conclusion deserves more study. I agree with you. But this is SC for fucks sake. Therefore, it should be readily apparant I'm not going to go forth and conduct the serious study you insist upon. But if it's your motivation to be obtuse and cry bullshit, bullshit, to everyones statements here you think haven't been studied enough, then as I said earlier - fine. But as it's only SC, why not demonstrate your superior intellect and explain why my statement cannot possibly be true, why it's bullshit. Because all I'm hearing is hot air. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Nope - I didn't say such evidence exists - feel free to re-read my post. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

First you're complaining there is no references to the evidence, then you're picking out statements that support your cause! Have some fucking consistency please. So I assume you didn't bother to read this: the placebo effect won't kick in if a sham medication is given covertly. Similarly, praying for yourself or knowing that family and friends are praying for you seems to produce some positive results, while being secretly prayed for does not (The Lancet, vol 366, p 211). Please note the reference you complained wasn't there in your earlier post! I highlighted a paragraph I felt worthy of consideration. I didn't provide it as evidence. Poor counter argument. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Fair enough mate - maybe it is a placebo effect. But there isn't a single person here who can prove it either way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

There is nothing to support the evidence of carrowolves. Yet through the simple fact of billions of people having faith in a God of some form or other, throughout history, makes the comparrison poor. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

As an agnostic, I can credit religion's personal and societal benefits as a placebo effect. And gratefully so, I have friends that are religious and the comfort they get from it is a real effect. You won't get that type of concession from hard core atheists typically. Where is the evidence it's simply a placebo effect? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Then if it's not substantiated enough, feel free to provide your opinion on why it's bullshit in the first place. That's essentially what I've been asking and you've been continually avoiding; so whilst your efforts to bring ridicule onto the matter and demonstrate intellectual superiority are amusing, make the effort. Regarding other factors to take into consideration, to say I haven't is completely ridiculous - this is your attempt, again; to highlight your superior intellect on the matter, to bring ridicule, bla, bla, bla. The deduction I've made is simple. It's a simple deduction from two facts. Prove me wrong. Prove the theory wrong. Demonstrate your intellect instead of gobbing off. Again, did I say communities without religion couldn't be good? Again, your making things up, again to continue your trend of being overtly critical - now; by imaging statements I've made. Still, it seems we now have this statement to consider; "In fact, it turns out that religion really does make you feel better. Recent sociological studies have shown that compared with non-religious people, the actively religious are happier, live longer, suffer fewer physical and mental illnesses, and recover faster from medical interventions such as surgery. All this is bad news for those of us who are not religious, but it might at least prompt us to ask why and how religion imparts its feel-good factor. And we'll come back to that later." Any comments to this? It kind of supports what I've been saying along doesn't it? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Fair enough - but the billions of people who have faith in God don't have conclusive evidence either. So what's your point? You need evidence to believe in something? Fine - it makes the people who believe in God a bit odd then in that context doesn't it? I guess faith is really the better word to use in this context then. People might have faith through many ways; I mentioned a couple of simple possible reasons earlier. What reasons would they have, to have faith in Carrowolves? None. So it's a poor point. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

They can answer, it's just not the answer you want. That's the thing about science, you follow the evidence and not your gut. But it seems you are intent on following the latter in spite of the former. It's not a position that commands any respect but if you insist on it, bon voyage. Well, thanks! I missed the part where evidence was provided for the theories made. But statement's such as this are quite encouraging: "In fact, it turns out that religion really does make you feel better. Recent sociological studies have shown that compared with non-religious people, the actively religious are happier, live longer, suffer fewer physical and mental illnesses, and recover faster from medical interventions such as surgery. All this is bad news for those of us who are not religious, but it might at least prompt us to ask why and how religion imparts its feel-good factor. And we'll come back to that later." 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

XXX years ago, most people belived the world was flat. The fact that so many people believed it obviously makes it true. Democracy determines fact, not fact. You're out of the context I meant. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

No. Not even google has heard of Carrowolves yet it has 434,000,000 entries for God. Just about every culture has believed in some form of God. So rest assured he can be considered more worthy of thought than your Carrowolves. Jesus! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'm sure it is. I'll have a proper look when I've time - what I've seen so far is your normal intellectual type reasoning over subjects they're unable to answer properly. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I do recognise the point you're making despite the fact billions of people throughout the world have, and continue to believe in a God of some form or other. But Carrowolves? WTF? Bit of a difference is there not? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Agh! I knew somebody would question statement 1 as being a matter of perspective! It's certainly an area ripe for debate for some people. But I feel it's either something you believe or don't - a bit like God, eh? Still, I'm certain a national poll would indicate a national perspective that supports statement 1. Statement 2 is a fact. I'm well aware of the horrible things which can happen through the misuse of mankinds application of religion. I wasn't that long ago in Afghanistan. The relation between the two statements is my theory. And that's all it is. If it's wrong, prove it to me.

Not at all. I spent considerable effort trying to explain the difficulty I have in substantiating my point, especially as you were unwilling to explain why it was bullshit in the first place. But I at least made an attempt. It's apparant you'd rather cry bullshit rather than discuss the subjects. Because I've now mentioned far more things that substantiate my original post which I feel is worthy of discussion. The reference to your closed mind wasn't selective to my particular posts, but more a generalization. But you know that already. Your acceptance of the statement has never been the issue. I mentioned that numerous times. This seems to a recurring theme with the little experience I've now recently had chatting with atheists. Is it a suspicion that I'm trying to change their beliefs and way of thinking? I couldn't really care. I still feel you're deliberately choosing the easier points to address whilst perhaps avoiding others; to continue you're perception of being all knowing. So please, if you know so much, if you're so fucking certain, at least make an effort to substantiate your point of view. Your essay questions a non-starter. This SC bollox is hard enough work. Still, I'm glad you found my statements of increased social immorality being related to reduced churchgoers as funny. But going back to your smartarse essay question. Your again avoiding constructive discussion of the subject. But that's generally what I've come to expect from you. Anyway, I stand by it. And I'll continue to do so until someone proves me wrong. Perhaps you'll make some effort then in regards to this; instead of simply gobbing off. Religions not making individuals good? You've said that, not me. The point was religions effect on communities and societies - not individuals. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

This should make you laugh: Click on the link http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk/ Below the title click on 'toys' Scroll down and click on the ned in the blue box ("A little adventure game designed to allow any unsuspecting visitors to avoid being chibbed by a burbonic moron.") And then answer away! Some of the responses had me in stitches. Try just clicking the choices on the right for a good response. Then scroll down to the bottom and watch the cartoon about the Goth. Hilarious. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I reckon he'd get to about: "Well, you know something, Mister Limey Poofter?" Glaswegian Ned, "Aye, a fuckin' well dae ya cunt." "Wha...sarry son, wha-at was thet? What isit thet you know?" "That you're gettin' yer fuckin' cunt kicked in.." Then it'd probably be a pint glass in the face or something.

That story would be even funnier had he said it inside my local back home instead of the Groucho.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

They were pretty good! The price of chicken!!! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Please feel free to prove these beliefs wrong. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Is there any need? Did I assert all people brought up without religion would be immoral and have no idea over what's right and wrong? That would be insane. As it would be equally insane to claim all people brought up religiously would be amoral. But I can read an interesting statement from your post: "Without any of that information I'll just stick with saying that I'm an atheist" Like I explained earlier, I can't provide you with that information. Apart from demonstrating your closed mind to the idea, I've no intention of changing your beliefs. As to my assertion; it's through my continual observation of an increasingly immoral society which brings around my opinion. There are numerous answers to specific issues but I believe the intrinsic reason is through moral guidance. And I believe only religion can provide this. In your case you cite your agnostic/atheist parents, and that's fine. But if you address our society there are these factors which help cause my beliefs: 1) Our society is becoming ever more immoral, deceitful, selfish, individualistic, etc, etc. 2) The numbers of British people who believe in God, go to church, etc, have significantly reduced. Simple as that. It's not the religion and believing in God that makes the individual good. It's how it effects the communities and society as a whole, hence my belief. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Eh!? Post a link! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

"...an earnest hope that America may soon return to being its old, pre-Bush, pre-9/11 self." There's the reason for the attention. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You first mate. All that you have done so far is assert that you think religion is neccessary. If you can come up with any explanation why, then I'll construct an argument against it. Until then I'll just keep calling bullshit. I wasn't upset in the first place - I just like swearing Shit response Jakee. I insist; you first..... My assertion is difficult to quantify. It isn't exactly something I've given a great deal of study. It just is. It's something I feel. And like I said earlier, I've certainly got doubts myself, but what puts me more towards the believing side is simply how I feel. How do I explain that, without causing a shitstorm amongst all the atheists who take delight in being all-knowing in something they don't know the truth behind either? Is it me coming across as all-knowing too, from my similiar, unprovable point of view? So in that sense, we know just as much as the other. And of course that applies to everybody in matters concerning whether God exists or not. Nobody knows. So therefore, you'll find I won't call utter bullshit on someones atheist beliefs. I don't know. I might disagree through what my ideas on the matter are, but the situation dictates an open mind in my opinion. It's surprising how so many famous intelligent people didn't and don't believe in religion, through history and today. Who would I be to argue? I'm not a practicing christian for a start, neither have I studied theology. So it's a difficult position to debate from; a deep routed feeling that I genuinely believe in 'A' God. That properly applied, religion is for the common good of us all. It's especially difficult having noticed that most places I've looked at on the 'net to help articulate my views are in actual fact sites concerned with arguing over his non-existance. And it seems remarkably easy to do. There are numerous biblical tales that make no sense, that contradict and what have you. So as an atheist you have much ammunition to argue your points. But there are still numerous passages that have important points to make, although these rarely seem to crop up in discussions. So whether you cry bullshit to my points of view or not isn't really applicable. You might have your deep seated beliefs but you know about the existance of God just as much as myself, or anyone else. So don't be rude. What is useful though, is that again, it's educational for me. Now, as I mentioned earlier, you seem quite the expert on the matter, so why not explain your points of view? And as I alluded to earlier, I'm also sure they'll come across as logical and no doubt articulate in comparison to my half assed assertions. But that's good. So whilst my assertions are made from perhaps an area of poor understanding and knowledge, I'll make them because it's what I feel. And it's something I'd like to look into a bit deeper and understand better. I've certainly no intention of changing anyones opinion over their beliefs over God so I'm puzzled over the 'emotional' responses I'm getting.Is atheism some kind of fashion these days? Are people who believe in God setting themselves up for ridicule? That's ridiculous in itself. Every year it seems our nations become more and more immoral. Catholic priests get mentioned a lot here. The countless crimes to humanity caused through various religions get mentioned a lot to. But it isn't a direct consequence of religion. It's a direct consequence of a human sin, wrong doing or misapplication of religion or however you might like to phrase it. But I guess I'm blethering on a bit now. I've seen a few people die now in my life. I've also seen both my children being born. The feelings from these experiences strengthened my belief in an afterlife of some form or other - therefore of a God. Again, it's a bit difficult to explain why - but then, I didn't exactly run off to a church to worship...I said a prayer and then got pissed at the first opportunity. But to get to the point, I've got numerous doubts myself, and have my own idea of what it might be all about. Nonetheless, it's a belief in God and religion being properly used as it should be. So it's fine if you think it's all bullshit. It's fine to argue over every point I've made. It's also fine I might not be able to provide a strong argument back. But there isn't any excuse for being continually rude. You never know, you may well bump into me someday.