b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Invent A Word » Message 10158539

[challenge entry]

From the Invent A Word challenge. See all 341 entries (closed)

(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:29, archived)
# Ooooooooohhh!!!
(I helped save b3ta! Bela Lugosi's Dad, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:31, archived)
# This
GMV!
(I helped save b3ta! An Egg ,D, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:34, archived)
# Take cover Vagabond....
There are a few here who will fellate defend Dawkins to the death, and see no ill spoken of him! Mock him at your peril!
(I helped save b3ta! The magic of chutney Shakes it like an Instagram filter!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:40, archived)
# Thomas is ten times the man the other two are
although that's not saying much.
(I helped save b3ta! Sonic the Hedgetrimmer doesn't care what you think, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:42, archived)
# Quite chubby for a socialist, too.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:44, archived)
# ooooffff, cutting
*really actually quite likes the things MT does*
(I helped save b3ta! The magic of chutney Shakes it like an Instagram filter!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:45, archived)
# fat joke lol
(Bret Mong Keys Eggs has wet his weapon, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:45, archived)
# Oh, yeah
Didn't spot that; although it's also true.
(I helped save b3ta! Sonic the Hedgetrimmer doesn't care what you think, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:49, archived)
# really?
I thought people at best appreciated what he was trying to do and at worst appreciated what he was trying to do but thought he was often going about it the wrong way.
Didn't realise he had achieved religious status with people.
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:44, archived)
# You'd be surprised how fervent some atheists are.
It's almost like they feel they've got a point to prove.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:48, archived)
# I always assumed it was just frustration at being flatly ignored in conversation by people saying "but it says so in my book so it must be true"
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:50, archived)
# Yes. So to do so to others makes it alright.
"THEY don't know what they're talking about! I do! You should listen to ME instead!"

*facepalms*
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:51, archived)
# I don't know why it bothers him so much
I'd just let 'em get on with believing what they want and play Mario Kart or something instead
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:53, archived)
# He's not so bothered about people believing it,
as opposed to people demanding that they therefore deserve more benefits in some way for their faith. For example, automatic seats in the House of Lords for bishops, state funding for faith schools which are then allowed to reject students on the basis of belief, state funded chaplains in hospitals that earn several times more salary than nurses. Enforced prayer sessions in parish councils. And so on and so on.

Essentially, the point is that you can believe in what you want as long as that belief doesn't affect the lives of other people.
If you want to insist that what you believe in is true, quite simply prove that it is or accept skepticism.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:02, archived)
# Next he'll be rallying against gender inequality in wages.
Watch out.

He's a GOOD man.

A good man.

See?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:03, archived)
# Yawn yawn
Yawn yawn yawn yawn

etc.
(I helped save b3ta! Sonic the Hedgetrimmer doesn't care what you think, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:04, archived)
# If you're not interested,
fine. Don't join in the debate. It doesn't help to dismiss it as boring though, because religious privilege has a direct effect on society. As a current case, take for example the cover-up of child abuse within the Catholic church in which the church is outraged that a secular police force should be allowed to investigate its dirty goings-on.
Do you really think that that's a non-issue?
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:10, archived)
# Well said, that wheelybird.
(I helped save b3ta! Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:22, archived)
# Gosh.
I wonder how many crimes have been covered up by atheists.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:31, archived)
# That entirely misses the point, and perhaps deliberately so.
The question should be, how many atheist institutions are allowed by policy and tradition to cover up crimes within their organisation?
No-one ever suggested that atheists don't commit crimes. Why did you suppose that. However, loads of religious people commit crimes, yet their faith somehow makes them morally superior to non-believers. Crazy.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:37, archived)
# Their faith doesn't make them morally superior - hence the investigation into the Catholic church over child abuse at the mo,
and Catholic Care being shot down in court.

I will own that it's a blummin massive institution that covers up and protects it's own when they commit crimes, though.

Like every other blummin massive institution - the police, for example, or the banking industry.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:42, archived)
# You're missing the point,
Atheists don't use the fact of their atheism to insist on special treatment, not having to follow the same rules as everyone else, as in "You can't tell me not to be misogynistic/homophobic/disablist, it's me religion."
(I helped save b3ta! Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:38, archived)
# No, I don't
but this whole debate quickly falls into very predictable lines (on both sides) and no one has anything genuinely insightful to say.

Do you think Catholic priests bugger little boys because they're Catholic priests, or because they're in a position of authority over little boys? Actually don't bother answering that because we'll end up in another bout of name-calling... which is how these discussions always finish, hence my series of "yawns".
(I helped save b3ta! Sonic the Hedgetrimmer doesn't care what you think, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 12:14, archived)
# ahaa
I ought to read his book

do bishops get seats in the Lords because they are religious or because they have always had seats there (not that that is necessarily a just reason)
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:08, archived)
# Well the religious privilege has become tradition
But any talk of removing those automatic seats gets the church getting very upset and having words with the government.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:11, archived)
# But surely Dawkins is agnostic not an atheist and all for people questioning his books?
I thought he was all about the science, and until its scientifically proven that any kind of deity doesn't exist in one form or another then you can't be an atheist.
I can see why Dawkins gets so wound up, he's made his job to talk to religious nutjobs, its bound to frustrate you and rub off on you a bit.
Shame.
P.S. I'm only half reading and commenting here (busy working), if I'm writing gibberish don't take it seriously like some people seem to!
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:58, archived)
# A-theist simply means "without belief in god" - so it is technically correct to call oneself so if one doesn't believe there is a god.
However, to STATE that there is no god is, well, frankly silly.

Hence the use of the word "Probably" on those bloody 'bus adverts.

Not that that stops some people.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:01, archived)
# But hang on - that's Dawkins argument
So you're agreeing with him now?

/got bored after first chapter so probably has no right butting in blog.
(I helped save b3ta! Wasp Box like a nervous random stranger at a glory hole, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:08, archived)
# I haven't seen any scientific, peer-reviewed proof that Dawkins is real
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:03, archived)
# Hahahahaha
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:03, archived)
# I think he'd happily call himself an atheist.
The issue is that sensible, scientific reasoning will suggest very strongly that there is no god of any type to a very large probability. However, the chance of there being a Christian god is essentially zero. There's just no evidence for one, and no-one has ever produced any.

So we can probably take atheism to mean not believing in the 'established' gods. The issue with agnosticism in this case is that it's hardly any better than actually believing in a god. "Well based on the evidence given, I'm just not sure." This is a ridiculous stance because the available evidence is entirely against their being a god. So what's the point of being agnostic unless deep down you think there probably is a god and you don't want to piss him off because he's big, angry and jealous.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:08, archived)
# Well, not really.
Agnosticism is the only acceptable stance, since it isn't possible to disprove god.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:09, archived)
# Are you telling me what to think?
You're as bad as Dawkins/The Pope
(I helped save b3ta! Wasp Box like a nervous random stranger at a glory hole, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:13, archived)
# Yes, but I AM actually right.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:16, archived)
# No,
it's impossible to *prove* got. As I say, there is no evidence for the existence of a god. It's up to people that believe in one to prove that one does exist.
Put it this way - people that believe in unicorns or fairies would be ridiculed. If they wanted money to set up a unicorn protection society, they would be asked to produce proof of one before getting cash. Both of those believes are more likely than a god, but if you go around asking for funding for some kind of religious society, no-one asks you to prove that on exists.

So using that example, we can say that a god doesn't exist until you show us proof. Being unsure about it isn't acceptable even scientifically, because even with science non of the things we absolutely believe in are 100% proven, but the evidence for them is very, very strong.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:18, archived)
# Also, likewise, we can say that god does exist until you show us proof.
It's "The Earth is flat" argument, displayed so lucidly in Men In Black.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:30, archived)
# The point is,
there's no evidence for a god, so why should it be the responsibility of atheists to disprove something that there's no *reasonable* argument for in the first place - it's an argument you can never win.

"Well we've created several new instruments and sent them to every part of the universe to search for God. We've examined inside every particle, but nothing. There is no God."
"But you can't find God with science - you need to have *faith*."
"Oh fuck off."
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:34, archived)
# Ah - I see.
So - "this is my belief mechanism, into which your belief mechanism does not fit."

"My belief mechanism works like this."

"Oh fuck off."

Hmmm. Sounds cult-ish.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:35, archived)
# pffft
i refer my right honorable gentleman to the argument he had some moments ago:
b3ta.com/board/10145721
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:40, archived)
# Hmmm.
I'm not sure which part you're referring to.

That science perceives and claims it's belief mechanism to be superior?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:45, archived)
# the religious belief mechanism is as follows:
i dont understand a particular natural phenomenon so I'm going to ascribe it to an unseen patriarchal superbeing based on what some bloke in a stupid hat told me.

i think i prefer the scientific method.
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:54, archived)
# Vs: I'm going to ascribe it to something some bloke in a white coat told me.
It's the men in black dresses vs. the men in white coats.

Pick your team.

NOT REALLY!

Science asks "How?"

Religion asks "Why?"
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:57, archived)
# Oh bollocks.
Scientists are people too. Of course they also want to know why, when why is a valid question.
Why do religious people think they have a monopoly on philosophy? What about psychology and social sciences? Do they not ask "why"?
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:02, archived)
# the chap in the white coat has evidence to support his claims,
the guy in the black dress does not. The only question religion asks is 'why are you asking questions?'
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:05, archived)
# Exactly wrong.
Religion asks why it all happened in the first place. Which science does not, as it can't answer it.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:10, archived)
# Its not asking anything.
its one answer was written down in a book hundreds of years ago and goes as follows:
'god clicked his fingers and it happened'
I'm not really very happy with that as an explanation of the universe.
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:21, archived)
# Yes it is. I'm not condoning the answer they've given, but they've asked
"Why did this all come into existence?"

While science asks "How did this come into existence", and has a nice formula for it, it doesn't ask "Why?".
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 12:08, archived)
# This is the problem I have with Russell's Teapot analogy
With technical advances in telescopes, satellites and probes we could probably spot it now, so there would be a god ;)

Unless he is saying a teapot that can never ever ever ever ever ever be proven, in which case there is no point in believing in it at all because most gods you rely on to be there for you in one way or another.
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:39, archived)
# Perhaps it's a flawed argument these days. :)
I prefer the comparison to believe in obviously mythological creature like dragons or santa and so on.
Any adults that believed in them would be laughed at, and if they insisted that they existed then they'd either end up in a mad house or would be asked to bloody well prove it.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:44, archived)
# You believe in your scientific instruments when they give you a reading, though, right?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:46, archived)
# Not just one instrument,
but if they can be calibrated against something known, and then a large number repeatedly give the same reading then yes.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:52, archived)
# I think I should shut up and stop pissing in your mind ;)
(I helped save b3ta! Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:03, archived)
# I see. So ... if I compare several religions, and they all say "There is a god"
Then would it be reasonable to believe they're right?

Only, it seems a bit pick-and-choosy for me.

"Arm yourself and run."
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:08, archived)
# No.
If several religions had empirical proof of a god then it would be reasonable to suppose they're right.

You have to actually prove it though - just saying it doesn't really count, as people have the ability to say things that aren't true. It's called "lying", and the big religious institutes have been known to do that in the past.

That's all that atheists ask really; just prove it. With real proof and not just a 'vague sort-of like feeling that, you know, there's something up there'.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:24, archived)
# Well, if my thermometer tells me that it's 28 degrees Centigrade outside,
and it doesn't appear to be broken, I assume it's correct. If three other thermometers tell me that it's actually 25, I question the validity of my thermometer. If the mercury has a big gap, and it tells me that it's 70 degrees outside, I suspect it's gone wrong. It's not the same as blind faith.
(I helped save b3ta! Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:57, archived)
#
I think this supposes that everyone ought to have the mental capacity to judge for themselves based on the evidence - without having any preconceptions, which I think is rare

I've been reading about Russell's Teapot and I'm very confused - and I went to University and can spell
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:17, archived)
# It doesn't suppose, but it hopes.
It's more of the case that, if your not indoctrinated with a particular faith by your parents and the state when you're young, but introduced equally to all the faiths and non-faiths, then if you choose a particular faith to follow then fine - it was your own choice and that's good, and you don't have to take a scientific approach to reason out whether you ought to believe it or not.
If you've been brainwashed in a particular faith then it's going to be more of a mental effort to discard that faith - you will need to sit down and think about it more scientifically.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:22, archived)
# Without raking over old coals,
I have received a couple of right royal roastings for suggesting much the same opinion. Usually with a large Oxford/Cambridge side salad of Well, you probably just don't really understand, it is really all quite complicated and many people don't. You shouldn't feel bad about it....." *patronising pat on head*
(I helped save b3ta! The magic of chutney Shakes it like an Instagram filter!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:49, archived)
# cripes
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:50, archived)
# I don't understand why he has such a problem with other people having a faith . . .
. . . the cunt!


(I helped save b3ta! Sir Aunty Grampa Dave the Hat - enjoying a post-meridian muncheon - Ta! Cannaoogim!?, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:54, archived)
# I don't think he does
its the forcing of faith on to others without that he gets wound up by.
Especially when it results in people being kept subservient or uneducated.
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:04, archived)
# So why doesn't he rally against Simon Cowell or Fox news?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:17, archived)
# because other people can do that.
He's not omnipresent, like god.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:23, archived)
# Other people can rally against religion.
It seems he likes to pick his targets.

Incidentally, I've never really seen him go up against Islam, interestingly.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:33, archived)
# ahem
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8NRX5osjhg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VselUW4Aoxg
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:37, archived)
# Good man.
Thank you.

I now retract the above.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:40, archived)
# I'm not asking you to marry the bloke. Why are you so wound-up by him?
Of course he picks his targets. Why wouldn't he? He's a secularist who wants to see the abolishment of state-sanctioned religion. So he'd be targeting the church of England of course. Islam isn't the state religion here.
However if you read his God Delusion book then you'll see that he does "go against" Islam as well by arguing against the patriarchal gods as seen in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:41, archived)
# I thought Fox News and the American Christian Church were the same thing
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:33, archived)
# Right on!
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:36, archived)
# Richard Dawkins IS better than everyone
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:47, archived)
# *buys MoChutney drink*
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:47, archived)
# He IS! . . . he told me himself


(I helped save b3ta! Sir Aunty Grampa Dave the Hat - enjoying a post-meridian muncheon - Ta! Cannaoogim!?, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:56, archived)
# He's a pleasant, gently spoken man.
He's polite and, for a celebrity, relatively self-effacing. He's not in it for his ego, he's just genuinely annoyed by religious privileges taken for granted by society, and as a scientist he wants to know what it is that makes people religious.
To call him an aggrandising twat is unfair when there are so very many people infinitely twattier and more aggrandising than he around.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:28, archived)
# "He's not in it for his ego"?!
Pffft.

I think it's unfair to call me a twat because there are other twattier people around.

Likewise it's a bit unfair to have a go at Raoul Moat, when soldiers in Iraq have killed far more people.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:32, archived)
# I meant within the context of the original post.
Compared to a quiet, retired librarian I'm sure he's a raving attention-seeker.

I, for example, know people who don't think that Chris Moyles is an arse of staggering proportions. Perhaps they hang around with bankers, so it's all contextual.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:55, archived)
# Wheelybird and Dawkins sitting inna tree . . .


(I helped save b3ta! Sir Aunty Grampa Dave the Hat - enjoying a post-meridian muncheon - Ta! Cannaoogim!?, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:02, archived)
# He's a handsome man.
I could do worse. And I think he's got a nice house in Cambridge, so yeah - I'm in there. :)
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:04, archived)
# At least Bono knows how to use a microphone
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:48, archived)
# Hahahahahaha
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 9:49, archived)