Clarkson censured for 'bit gay' car gibe

On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:06:15 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
You are the one who is strange. The British are an international
laughing stock because of their love of anal sex, or rather in reality
a small minorities love of it and the complete apathy of everyone else
towards it. Just wait until they see Torchwood and they have even more
ammunition by which to mock us with. Europeans consider this entire
nation to be a nation of gays.

And perhaps the 'gayest' place on earth - Mykonos - is situated exactly
where?

The people that make it gay are the British who fill its beaches.

Ah - so it's ok to make money out of those you hate so much?

Funnily, Christ had much to say on avarice. But nothing whatsover to say
on the subject of homosexuality. That was left to one of his homophobic
acolytes. Who not surprisingly was no stranger to avarice.
.

Now now, I think you'[ll find he wasn't so much homophobic as
sex-of-all-kinds-ophobic. In addition to opposing homosexuality, he
also made a big (much bigger, in fact) point that we really should all
be celibate, and that sex within marriage to a person of the opposite
gender was just the least-objectionable way to help you keep your mind
on God if you didn't have the moral fiber to ignore constant
blue-balls.

In fact, you tend to find that any time anyone n the ancient sources
objects to homosexuality, it's mostly connected to objecting to all
sex in general with the caveat that "But if you absolutely *must* do
it, you should at least get a little reproduction out of the deal."

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:29:20 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:
Take away someone's religion and part of their world crumbles.
Of course. I respect the psychological help that religion gives its
adherents. A belief system that supports people through difficult times has
a lot to commend it, even though it might be based on a series of fallacies.
I'm excluding from this lunatic fringe amongst the religious, of course.
It's important than we don't condemn all religion just because (a) there
isn't a god and (b) there is a lunatic fringe. There are large numbers of
ordinary people who gain great comfort and strength from their beliefs. I
for one would never attempt to take that away from them. After all, they'll
never find out that there isn't a god will they, so they won't suffer any
disillusionment.


What I find most curious about hardcore athiests is the almost
religious devotion they have to the notion that "god does not exist".
Not "God probably doesn't exist", or "There is not sufficient evidence
to reasonably conclude that god exists," but "God absolutely does not
exist."

I often get the feeling that vocal atheists are just as religious --
or even more -- than hardcore religious nutjobs, it's just that the
god they worship is the absence-of-god.

I've stolen this but: That's like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

God may or may not exist. As it happens, I believe he does, and you
don't. Some people think that their beliefe makes them right -- as
you seem to. As it happens, I don't think that. It seems to me to be
very strange that I so rarely meet a vocal athiest who is even willing
to consider the possibility that he is wrong, but I often meet people
of religious faith who are willing to consider the possibility.

It rather bothers me that such a large percentage of atheists manifest
the specific trait I like least about many of my fellow persons of
faith.

Personally speaking, and this isn't an attack on you, I find it utterly
startling that people still believe in gods. I am very much of the
'religion is what we had before we had science to explain things' school
of thought and in this day and age it should be put in the drawer next
to dragons and witches.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:40:55 +0100, Resident Drunk wrote:
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:29:20 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:
Take away someone's religion and part of their world crumbles.
Of course. I respect the psychological help that religion gives its
adherents. A belief system that supports people through difficult times has
a lot to commend it, even though it might be based on a series of fallacies.
I'm excluding from this lunatic fringe amongst the religious, of course.
It's important than we don't condemn all religion just because (a) there
isn't a god and (b) there is a lunatic fringe. There are large numbers of
ordinary people who gain great comfort and strength from their beliefs. I
for one would never attempt to take that away from them. After
all, they'll
never find out that there isn't a god will they, so they won't suffer any
disillusionment.


What I find most curious about hardcore athiests is the almost
religious devotion they have to the notion that "god does not exist".
Not "God probably doesn't exist", or "There is not sufficient evidence
to reasonably conclude that god exists," but "God absolutely does not
exist."

I often get the feeling that vocal atheists are just as religious --
or even more -- than hardcore religious nutjobs, it's just that the
god they worship is the absence-of-god.

I've stolen this but: That's like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

God may or may not exist. As it happens, I believe he does, and you
don't. Some people think that their beliefe makes them right -- as
you seem to. As it happens, I don't think that. It seems to me to be
very strange that I so rarely meet a vocal athiest who is even willing
to consider the possibility that he is wrong, but I often meet people
of religious faith who are willing to consider the possibility.

It rather bothers me that such a large percentage of atheists manifest
the specific trait I like least about many of my fellow persons of
faith.

Personally speaking, and this isn't an attack on you, I find it utterly
startling that people still believe in gods. I am very much of the
'religion is what we had before we had science to explain things' school
of thought and in this day and age it should be put in the drawer next
to dragons and witches.

Yeah, and if that's what you think religion is, just ways to fill in
gaps in our scientific knowledge, then I don't fault you for not
believing. But that's not what religion is really about. Religion
didn't go away in the face of science any more than philosophy or
metaphysics did, or any more than psychoanalysis went away when
neuroscience was developed.

Religion isn't there to answer the questions science doesn't answer
yet, it's there to answer the questions which science by its very
nature can not. Science can describe and predict the world around us,
but it can not answer why there should be *something* instead of
*nothing*

On Fri, 25 May 2007 07:41:26 +0100, "Agamemnon"
wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:
Here is a list of people who have defended kolofilia and/or sexual
acts pertaining to idiogenogamosis in the Jeremy Clarkson thread.

snip
"Diane L."

Now, now, Aggie. You know that's not true. I've never defended
either of the silly words you made up to make yourself feel
clever.

How can you hold your head up in public. It is people like you that give the
British their reputation on the continent of liking it up the arse. How does
it feel when you make this country into an international laughing stock when
you go abroad by your love of anal sex?


Is this true, Diane? If so, are you busy this weekend?

Resident Drunk wrote:

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:29:20 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:
Take away someone's religion and part of their world crumbles.

When I was a kid I used to be C-of-E. I was confirmed and everything. At
15 I believed, I really did.

Now, I don't: I've learned enough about how the bible came about and the
amount of vested interests that went into the religion to make me
question and, with religion, once you question, you generally realise
that the things you've been told are, bluntly, bull****.

I actually now feel much more psychologically stable. I'm no longer
worried that I don't know what to expect when I die, I don't have to
worry about the bizarre moral and philosophical questions that arise
when you try to believe in such complete rubbish.

When I was 13 I had a nightmare about nuclear armageddon: I remember
being utterly terrified. I had a similar one recently (I'd been watching
this season of 24) and I remember feeling quite serene about my
impending death. So as far as I'm concerned religion didn't even help
cope with the idea of death.

God may or may not exist. As it happens, I believe he does, and you
don't. Some people think that their beliefe makes them right -- as
you seem to. As it happens, I don't think that.

Eh? How can you possibly profess to a belief without being sure that
you're right? Especially one which relies entirely on faith, rather than
logical deduction and proof?

My belief in the absence of a God is reached through careful
consideration of evidence. If evidence suddenly arrived that showed God
really does exist then I would be delighted to change my belief.

However believers have been repeatedly presented with proof that God is
a figment of the imagination; a mish-mash of legends, myths and bogeymen
made up to scare children and the proletariat into accepting a way of
life that would otherwise have seemed utterly unfair, yet they still
fail to change their minds.

It rather bothers me that such a large percentage of atheists manifest
the specific trait I like least about many of my fellow persons of
faith.

You mean, we only believe rational and logical arguments? Or that we
don't accept anything that smacks of fairy stories and inexplicable magic?

Personally speaking, and this isn't an attack on you, I find it utterly
startling that people still believe in gods. I am very much of the
'religion is what we had before we had science to explain things' school
of thought and in this day and age it should be put in the drawer next
to dragons and witches.

One of the points that Dawkins makes though in his rather excellent "God
Delusion", is that God doesn't actually explain anything. The fact that
there's this great big creator blokey in the sky simply makes the
question move up a level: who or what created the great big creator blokey?

Geoff

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
Religion isn't there to answer the questions science doesn't answer
yet, it's there to answer the questions which science by its very
nature can not. Science can describe and predict the world around us,
but it can not answer why there should be *something* instead of
*nothing*

Neither can religion. Anyone who thinks so hasn't really thought through
their argument, but that's pretty representative of religion I suppose.

Geoff

Darren Wilkinson [email protected] writes:

Agamemnon wrote:
Here is a list of people who have defended kolofilia and/or sexual
acts pertaining to idiogenogamosis in the Jeremy Clarkson thread.

"Beeblebear" the presidentfsnet.co.uk
"Stephen Wilson"
"Dave Plowman (News)"
"Roderick Stewart"
"Diane L."
"marc_CH"
"+tacos+"
"hulahoop"
"zarbiface"
"Darren Wilkinson" [email protected]
"Chris Slade"
"john smith"
"Steve Thackery"
"The Face of Po"

John & Steve were moved because their posts shows their attidute is
serious on this. Face wanted to be added as well.

The list below contains the names of people who may possibly belong
in the list above, but I am not sure if they are posting
seriously. If you wish to distance yourselves from support of anal
sex or want to state that you support it then make your views known.

"Ben Bacarisse"

I missed this bit. I'm definitely right up there!

Although... posting seriously is not possible, is it, with someone
who thinks Adam and Eve were "historical" and lived around 1800?
Maybe they corresponded with Jane Austin? Did Napoleon stumble into
Eden on the way to Moscow?

--
Ben.

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:40:55 +0100, Resident Drunk wrote

Personally speaking, and this isn't an attack on you, I find it
utterly startling that people still believe in gods. I am very much
of the 'religion is what we had before we had science to explain
things' school of thought and in this day and age it should be put
in the drawer next to dragons and witches.

Yeah, and if that's what you think religion is, just ways to fill in
gaps in our scientific knowledge, then I don't fault you for not
believing. But that's not what religion is really about. Religion
didn't go away in the face of science any more than philosophy or
metaphysics did, or any more than psychoanalysis went away when
neuroscience was developed.

Your view is entirely defensible - but I'm sure you will recognise
that, historically, the church(es) *did* offer explanations for things
which crumbled in the face of increasing scientific understanding.
"The god of the gaps" may not be a phrase which a modern, thoughtful
believer is comfortable with, but it describes a historical reality.
The church(es) *did* oppose scientific world-views and many of them
still do (and many individual believers are nothing short of unhinged
in their anti-scientific opinions).

Religion isn't there to answer the questions science doesn't answer
yet, it's there to answer the questions which science by its very
nature can not. Science can describe and predict the world around
us, but it can not answer why there should be *something* instead of
*nothing*

Well, that's one modern religious stance. Actually, I thought that the
key point of all religions wasn't to provide explanations at all, but
to describe a moral code, usually based on an individual's personal
relationship with the deity. It's actually not inconceivable that
there may one day be a model of the universe which explains the
existence of stuff rather than its non-existence. It's certainly true
that we're not there yet - and may never be - but this argument is
just another (universal!) "gap" and thus a believer's hostage to
fortune.

André Coutanche

On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:27:35 +0100, André Coutanche
wrote:
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:40:55 +0100, Resident Drunk wrote

Personally speaking, and this isn't an attack on you, I find it
utterly startling that people still believe in gods. I am very much
of the 'religion is what we had before we had science to explain
things' school of thought and in this day and age it should be put
in the drawer next to dragons and witches.

Yeah, and if that's what you think religion is, just ways to fill in
gaps in our scientific knowledge, then I don't fault you for not
believing. But that's not what religion is really about. Religion
didn't go away in the face of science any more than philosophy or
metaphysics did, or any more than psychoanalysis went away when
neuroscience was developed.

Your view is entirely defensible - but I'm sure you will recognise
that, historically, the church(es) *did* offer explanations for things
which crumbled in the face of increasing scientific understanding.
"The god of the gaps" may not be a phrase which a modern, thoughtful
believer is comfortable with, but it describes a historical reality.
The church(es) *did* oppose scientific world-views and many of them
still do (and many individual believers are nothing short of unhinged
in their anti-scientific opinions).


I won't disagree, but I think you'll find this is true of every large
institution, religion, politics, schools of philosophy, even the
scientific community at times has sought to dismiss or supporess
scientific observations and theories which opposed the status quo.
Religion is not special in this regard, and to dismiss religion on the
basis of its occasional historical misuse seems dishonest, in light of
the fact that no one (at least, no one sane) seeks to get rid of, say,
physics because it has occasionally been used to make weapons of mass
destruction, or trigonometry because it found its major use helping
people shooting cannons hit their targets, or genetics because it was
once used to support racist regimes.

Neither, as some suspect, is my notion about hte nature of religion
a recent innovation made up to justify religion in the light of
science; you'll see the serious religious scholars throughout history
adopting the same view; Augustine, Aquinas, even many of the greek
philosophers. I'd even go go so far as to say that the "god of the
gaps" mentality is the historical *irregularity*, a product largely of
the dark ages, at least when it extended beyond the status of a
simplification for the benefit of those too busy just staying alive to
think too much about metaphysics.

The real historical truth isn't that "religion has been a tool to suppress
science and critical thinking", but that "the majority of people
throughout history have not been in a position to think critically or
apply science to a great degree, and the establishment always uses
what tools are at its disposal to deal with that." Religion has been
the tool with the best availability throughout much of western history
to do that, but this doesn't really say much about religion: anything
can be used that way under the right historical circumstances.
Science certainly could be used that way -- science fiction is full of
science-horror stories where the scientific elite use science as a
tool of oppression.


Well, that's one modern religious stance. Actually, I thought that the
key point of all religions wasn't to provide explanations at all, but
to describe a moral code, usually based on an individual's personal
relationship with the deity. It's actually not inconceivable that
there may one day be a model of the universe which explains the
existence of stuff rather than its non-existence. It's certainly true
that we're not there yet - and may never be - but this argument is
just another (universal!) "gap" and thus a believer's hostage to
fortune.


Hm. See, I think there are some things which by their nature can not
be scientifically explained -- not because we aren;t clever enough, or
because "God did it", but because the definition of science precludes
it -- anything which explains it would by definition not be science.
Metaphysics can not be reduced to physics. Science can tell us that
2+2 is four, but it can't really tell us *why* that should be the
case, because the question itself does not make sense in a scientific
framework.

In article ,
The Face of Po wrote:
There's no need to correct the "z" version to the "s" version, unless
you're engaged in the noble pursuit of causing minor irritation to
overseas readers.

Nothing could be finer - if they're Greek.

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.