Clarkson censured for 'bit gay' car gibe

"L. Ross Raszewski" wrote in message
news[email protected]
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."
Yes, I agree with you entirely. These people will brook no discussion; thus
there is no chance of them learning.


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.
There are several different things here.
Some people feel that they can 'see through' the pure theology, which is
fair enough, but then they seem to need to preach to all and sundry about
it. I think this is often because they unconsciously want to demonstrate
their intellectual superiority, which must to them seem considerable since
they feel they have seen the truth when few others have. They should
remember though that we all have to find some sort of peace within
ourselves, and accept that for some people religion is the way to do it.
Some people look at the excesses of organised religion; see how much damage
it has done to humanity; forget the massive amount of good that has been
done; and condem God for being an accessory before, during, and after the
fact. They should really blame humanity if they want to aportion blame.


God may or may not exist. As it happens, I believe he does, and you
don't.
No, sadly, I think we are on our own. As the years pass I become more and
more aware of my approaching death and wish that I could continue afterwards
in some sentient form. This seems to me, however, to be highly unlikely. The
concept of a god appears to me to be a fairly obvious construct of humanity.
My own philosophy is that since we are here we might as well make the best
of it. That means doing everything possible to increase the happiness and
contentment of ourselves and of others. This philosophy fits well with that
of many Christians.
I also have a great liking for church architecture and music, so I'm at home
in that world.

Some people think that their beliefe makes them right -- as
you seem to.
Well we all have to put forward our own views, otherwise discussion would be
impossible! The full consideration of doubts does not make for a good
argument in an adversorial debate!

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.
Yes, hardline athiests aren't usually amenable to conversion, but neither
are the hardline religious. And both have had extremist groups who have done
terrible things in the name of their beliefs. I don't think there's much in
it.


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.
Yes . . .

Bill

On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:35:02 +0000 (UTC),
(The Doctor) wrote:

In article ,
Ignis Fatuus wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:47:47 +0100, Darren Wilkinson
[email protected] 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.

"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"

I'd like to see Clarkson bent over the bonnet of an AC Cobra - but
just briefly.

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"
"Azaxyr"
"the dog from that film you saw"
"Marnok.com"
"Ian"

They could probably all be moved to the above list except possibly Azaxyr
however you left yourself wide open for ridicule in the thread so here
they stay
for now.

Now for the list of people in these two newsgroups that have called
homosexuality deviant:

Agamemnon
The Doctor
Azaxyr

And yet Agamemnon still claims to speak for the majority of people.

= IF


Azwhackyr?? You have to be kidding me.
I think my message was garbled by the server.

= IF

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...
snip
WRONG. The cat that tried to entice me belonged to a neighbour. My own
cats
never behaved that way because I brought them up decently.

Poor thing must have been really gagging for it for having a go at enticing
you...

Cameron

"Cameron Mason" wrote in message
u...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...
snip
WRONG. The cat that tried to entice me belonged to a neighbour. My own
cats
never behaved that way because I brought them up decently.

Poor thing must have been really gagging for it for having a go at
enticing
you...

Cameron





I haven't been able to stop staring at my cat's arsehole all day thanks to
Agamemnon and his insidious and not-so-subtle cat-enticement agenda. Thanks
a bunch for deliberately turning me on to your perversion, freakface. RTD
could learn a thing or three from you...

On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:39:09 +0100, Ian Davey wrote:
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
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 think it's largely a misunderstanding on the side of the religious.
Atheism is a lack of religious belief. Religious people often seem to
misconstrue that as the belief in "a lack of something".

No, I think it's the *atheists* who misunderstand. What you describe
is what I think atheists *ought* to believe, and it's what some of
them do. But the atheists who are vocal advocates of atheism do not
simply fail to believe in God -- they *actively* believe that God
*does not exist*. Look at this thread. Over and over, you'll see
atheists not saying "I fail to believe God exists", but "I believe
*your* belief in god is *wrong*." ANd assuming that god doesn't
exist.

It's the atheist equivalent of the bad-faith christian who goes around
saying "I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell."


I have no issue with atheists who simply fail to believe. If you
haven't got faith, you haven't got it. But those atheists aren't
speaking up. Who speaks up are folks like Dawkins, who go far beyond
"I don't believe", all the way to "Believing is wrong and people who
believe should stop, because there is no god."

Here's an example that gets us vaguely on topic: the view of the
afterlife presented in Torchwood has been taken as a manifestation of
RTD's atheism. But the afterlife he describes is not consistent with
simply believing that there is no afterlife -- in fact, we see that
there *is* an afterlife: an endless darkness of which the dead person
is *aware*, and in which there is something big and nasty lurking.


Folks, that's not atheism.

"Ian Davey" wrote in message
. uk...
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
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 think it's largely a misunderstanding on the side of the religious.
Atheism is a lack of religious belief. Religious people often seem to
misconstrue that as the belief in "a lack of something".

Do you as a Christian believe in Krishna? If not, why not? Do you

Yes.

believe in the Thetans? If no, why not?

No. Krishna was a historical person who lived in about 925 BC. Thetans are
fictional entries invented by a science fiction writer.



So whether God exists or not is really irrelevant. It doesn't matter one

What do you mean God. Where did you get the preconception that there is only
one God. There are many.

jot. All we really have to go on at the moment is human invention /
interpretations. In the past they had plenty of talking bushes and
lightning carved stone tablets to tide them over. Now in the age of reason
he can't even operate a radio, unless Jesus shaped crisps count.

I still have no idea what God is meant to do.

ian.

LeeJS wrote:
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?

No, I've never been abroad by my love of anal sex. I've only ever
been abroad by plane or by ferry.

Seriously, it's just another example of Aggie's ignorance on sexual
matters. He can't imagine anyone *not* being obsessed with other
people's sex lives, so he thinks that anyone who isn't bothered by
what other consenting adults do in private must be arguing against
him because they're also doing whatever he wants to ban.

If so, are you busy this weekend?

Yes :-)

Diane L.

In article [email protected],
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
Look at this thread. Over and over, you'll see
atheists not saying "I fail to believe God exists", but "I believe
*your* belief in god is *wrong*." ANd assuming that god doesn't
exist.

There's a very good reason for this - and this thread is a perfect
example. Religions in general seek to impose their 'standards' on *all* -
claiming they are 'god's law'. And even if the hierarchy of that religion
is more tolerant than this you can bet your bottom dollar plenty of the
followers aren't. I've yet to here of any atheist seeking to impose his
standards on others - except being allowed to hold his beliefs.
And that is the crux of the matter. I've no objection in principle to
*any* religion until it seeks to impose its 'standards' on me. For many a
year this is done via the laws of the land - not some collection of fables
based on ancient texts, although of course some may be the same.

It's also slightly strange that the direct word of god from the bible - ie
the ten commandments and the words of christ as reported are silent on the
subject of homosexuality - the various rantings are left to acolytes.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

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

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
No, I think it's the *atheists* who misunderstand. What you describe
is what I think atheists *ought* to believe, and it's what some of
them do. But the atheists who are vocal advocates of atheism do not
simply fail to believe in God -- they *actively* believe that God
*does not exist*. Look at this thread. Over and over, you'll see
atheists not saying "I fail to believe God exists", but "I believe
*your* belief in god is *wrong*." ANd assuming that god doesn't
exist.

I think the problem those atheists have is that there is no God to
believe in, just hearsay from the religious. Anything you hear about God
is always second hand (well nth hand to be precise), so you basis in
belief has to be based on word of mouth hand me downs. What you're
seeing is the scientific process based around evidence. Where it is up
to the theorist to provide evidence for their claims.

So you can rephrase your question as, "I believe your belief in *Cold
Fusion* is wrong." To argue with someone who says "Cold Fusion does not
exist" you simply provide evidence that it does. If someone says to you,
"God does not exist", you have an easy comeback to make their argument
disappear. You simply have to prove that God exists. That should be
easy. The problem is it isn't. If you argue back saying "God does exist"
and provide no evidence then you're no better. The only valid response
in that case is "I believe that God exists".

So the kind of responses you see from Atheists is really just the
product of a frustration of arguing against something that exists solely
as a belief. The religion is a kind of denial of reality. Further more,
the idea that this belief is actually a test, and the reason that God
never shows itself is that belief is key. Yet after death those reasons
for belief immediately disappear and its time for some kind of
judgement. The old creator has absolute power over his creations
argument, which might turn pretty ethically scary should humans ever
create organic life.

Atheists would act the way you think you should, but for one thing.
Religious belief is pervasive and in the modern day actually fights
against modern morality. The religious who try and stop the spread of
contraceptives in Africa, the ones who constantly interfere with secular
marriage for reasons of doctrine, something they should have no
influence over. The ones that argue against the teaching of evolution in
schools.

These are the Christians you'll often find atheists arguing with. Not
the reasoned ones who are willing to live their own lives and not try
and force their religious views on a secular society.

It's the atheist equivalent of the bad-faith christian who goes around
saying "I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell."

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Those Christians are
basically extremists waving the big stick of hell that makes them behave
morally. It's saying if you don't believe what I'm saying then you will
suffer untold agony and I won't. If they truly believed what they said
then they would never say something like that, surely they'd burn in
hell too for making statements like that. Those Atheists are not making
any veiled threats.


I have no issue with atheists who simply fail to believe. If you
haven't got faith, you haven't got it. But those atheists aren't
speaking up. Who speaks up are folks like Dawkins, who go far beyond
"I don't believe", all the way to "Believing is wrong and people who
believe should stop, because there is no god."

I think a lot of atheists have been driven to activism by seeing what is
going on around them. They're angry and want these things to stop. They
see religion as a danger that threatens to undermine social progress.
That morality can not be based on 2000 year old doctrine, but needs to
able to grow to meet modern challenges, and the religious are in
positions of power to fight against those. Just see what GWB has been
doing in the US. There is no evidence that God is planning to provide
any updates or guidance to his people. Things like the first commandment
are also the kind of laws common with human dictators on Earth, so the
stuff is just plain inconsistent and not particularly useful as a moral
code.

Here's an example that gets us vaguely on topic: the view of the
afterlife presented in Torchwood has been taken as a manifestation of
RTD's atheism. But the afterlife he describes is not consistent with
simply believing that there is no afterlife -- in fact, we see that
there *is* an afterlife: an endless darkness of which the dead person
is *aware*, and in which there is something big and nasty lurking.

Atheists love fantasy as much as anyone else. I'm surprised you think
such fictional ideas are somehow inconsistent with Atheism. You keep
forgetting that Atheism is not a belief. Unfortunately I think I must
have missed that episode. I did really enjoy Torchwood, despite being
very sceptical at first. Things like Gods and the afterlife can exist in
an Atheist world, it's just that they immediately cease to be
supernatural things based on myth spread by word of mouth and become
measurable reality. You can argue against reality if you like, but as
human beings it all we really have. If you look at Torchwood he even
came up with some kind of scientific explanation for Fairies.

If we're playing follow my leader I at least would like to know
something about that leader. That seems to be the one big hole in the
whole thing. Nothing is known about the thing you're meant to be
following. You can't even tell from reading the Bible if in a modern
sense it could be considered good or evil, from the evidence in that
particular book you could say that it is amoral. Am I really willing to
put my faith in an amoral being?

That is the problem you see. I can form some kind of imaginative image
of the idea of believing in God. As soon as I start to think about it
all these questions well up for which the only answer is to invent lots
of fiction. That's a real problem when it comes to laying your
allegiance to one particular entity.

I think religion itself betrays its ideals by being so centred on what
goes on after death. That you behave morally not for the sake of your
fellow human beings but to make sure God ticks the good box when you
die. If God has no interest in the here and now then what relevance does
it have? It simply gives you an excuse to you fiddle while Rome burns.

My belief is that "humans invented God." My evidence? All the gods that
humans have invented:

Invented Gods = ( All Known Gods ) - (Gods inconsistent with Religion X)

where X can be a religion of your choosing.

I'm quite happy for people to believe in the Gods of their choosing as
long as they don't start infringing on the right of a secular society to
shape it own morality.

ian.

"The Doctor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:

"L. Ross Raszewski" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


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*

WRONG. That is the job of metaphysics. Religion is ancestor worship.
Nothing
more and nothing less.


Excuse us??!!

Us?