
I'm saying if she'd named the bear Mohammed Smells of Elderberries and All Theists are Demonstrably Insane, it would still be unacceptable to lock her up or lash her for it. The fact that she didn't mean to offend anyone shouldn't be important in the slightest.
The fact that we only make a fuss when it happens to a Brit is sad too.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:46, archived)

That has worked so well in the past, we might aswell do it again.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:48, archived)

and being too fucking cowardly to condemn it for having antiquated and obnoxious laws.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:49, archived)

Or equating that with imperialism?
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:49, archived)

and would therefore cut back our spending on povvos' education and healthcare.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:50, archived)

Our povvos are already far better off than most of the rest of the world and favouring them exclusively would be enormously selfish.
Edit: I'd rather cut back on our outsourced civil middle-managers' lunch money and our thugs' Trident submarines, of course.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:54, archived)

I was disappointed.
I know many men and women who either are in the forces or have been in the forces.
I can't say I've ever thought of any of them as thugs.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:22, archived)

but I doubt I'm going to bring you round on this one.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:24, archived)

Yes.
Note that I didn't say everyone in the army is a thug, just that I think it's funny anyone else should join.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:30, archived)

I think it's actualy a very small part of the army that actualy kills people.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:33, archived)

The world is ending.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:39, archived)

She's in admin. How is that thuggish?
You mean "infantry".
And when was the last time anyone killed anyone from a trident sub?
I'm glad we had this conversation, I've realised that you're a very blinkered man.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:38, archived)

I have no doubt that plenty of people in the army, perhaps most, are perfectly nice people. I think it's funny that perfectly nice people join armies.
What I mean by 'it's funny' is "I don't understand it". I recognise this is something I don't understand, and I'd like to understand it. That's not blinkered.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:41, archived)

And yet you referred to them, without provocation or even prior discussion. as "thugs".
My partner is in the RAF, he did not join up "to kill people", he has never killed anyone, he is part of the logistics and supply chain. He joined up because it was a very interesting career path, and the RAF paid for a lot of his qualifications, so that when he leaves the RAF in May, he can further his career in logistics.
There is simply nothing thuggish about his motivations.
Very, very few people join the armed forces "to kill people".
Those people were thugs before they joined, and will be thugs long after.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:47, archived)

I actually chose the word for its callousness, as I thought it flowed quite nicely from "povvos", another thoughtlessly and simplistically loaded word.
If your boyfriend is a nice peaceful chap, I still think it's funny that he's taken a
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:51, archived)

I can understand a joke and a word used for effect, and I realise I have overreacted, but I hear such comments made without humour so often I've become a bit overprotective.
EDIT: Aaaah, I knew it was too good to be true.
So, because of your political leanings, you look down upon anyone who takes any sort of job with the MOD. Good good.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:56, archived)

the taxpayers' money is what's LEFT. AFTER taxes.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:58, archived)

but nevermind.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:02, archived)

but morally, yes, i agree with you
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:48, archived)

I maintain that you should always obey the law of the land you are in. But that is not what is happening there.
The children from the class admit that one of the children thought of the name and then they decided what to call it , she didnt name the bear.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:50, archived)

( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:51, archived)

I think I'll wait for season 4 to come down in price before I get that.
I take an active role in coercing people into watching it, mainly because IT'S THE GREATEST TV DRAMA SHOW EVER MADE.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:00, archived)

and we can watch it synchronised...
Holding internet hands.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:04, archived)

its interesting that Newy mentions "... The fact that we only make a fuss when it happens to a Brit is sad too ..."
I wouldn't be surprised if this is some form of example that is to be set
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:51, archived)

Muhhamed is the most common name in the world , there is something distictivly arrogant about laying claim that all things called muhhamed are sacrilage.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:55, archived)

Its a shame people STILL die for this same shit excuse.
Most religions are guilty of it in epic proportions , inclucing the religion mine is rooted in. It makes me very sad.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:00, archived)

Stop pandering to them. Proclaim yourself an atheist. Let them die the slow and whining death that they all deserve.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:03, archived)

You can't lump everyone who has a faith into the same catergory like that.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:05, archived)

( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

but I know that it can bring comfort and happiness to some people. What the fuck is wrong with that?
The only religious people I get angry at are those who use it as a weapon, as in this case, or those who try to force it on other people.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

What's wrong with religion bringing comfort and happiness to some people is the massive number of evils committed in its name which far outweigh these small comforts. Add in that this comfort and happiness would come just as easily from a close, supportive social circle without the tie of religion, and I really don't see any reason for its continued existence.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:15, archived)

use religion as an excuse for horrific acts of violence and such. But it's those people that I'd blame, not the religion itself.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:23, archived)

If the religion (as they believed it) were true, they'd be doing exactly the right thing.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:43, archived)

is any different to a belief that something does exist.
If you catch my drift.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

so there's nothing other than conjecture and personal experience on both sides.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:14, archived)

There is a vast weight of experiment to back up the bulk of our current scientific understanding of the universe. Millions and millions of hours of work by the greatest minds in the world. And almost every shred of it points to religions being full of shite.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:16, archived)

It simply makes no predictions about those things.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:22, archived)

"It makes no sense to talk about things 'outside the Universe'. The Universe is defined as being all that there is."
Although I expect that's what you mean by 'the Bulk'. How can something outside our lightcone affect us?
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:25, archived)

Those theories though like all scientific things only operate in their specified domain, and make no prediction of what happens outside of that domain.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:28, archived)

You're just pushing out the boundaries until there's a realm where the fantasy might exist. The religions are quite clear (if generally full of internal contradiction) about how the universe works and what role the magic beings play in it. They're all quite clear and all quite wrong. All of that stuff can be easily disproved.
Inventing something else that hasn't been disproved yet is just playing a game. It's the equivalent of saying "yeah? well ... it's my ball so I say that wasn't a goal because I've just invented this new rule ..."
Well I'm not seven years old and I can afford to buy my own ball so I'm not playing.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:26, archived)

I'm simply saying that all things have a domain in which they operate.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:31, archived)

There's nothing subtle about it: the supernatural claims of religions are all demonstrably nonsense. End of argument.
If you would like to change the argument to "can we invent a domain in which fluffy woolly definitions of fantasy beings might exist" then you are perfectly welcome.
I won't be joining in though. Because it is meaningless and immensely dull and the last resort of a dying philosophy.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:43, archived)

but that something that makes predictions within a finite domain, can make predictions outside of it's specified domain (which is the case, unless you add the rider that our hypothetical 'believer' believe that God only operates within the realms of known science), to demonstrate that something is nonsense or not, is not self consistent.
You simply need to change your "demonstrably nonsense" to "can't be proven" so something similar, and you'd be logically consistent.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:53, archived)

My argument is simple: God does not exist and can be proven not to exist. And I've said several times that I'm not interested in a tedious semantic dick-waving competition. It's dull and utterly irrelevant.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:03, archived)

Because that's what you're saying.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:05, archived)

though the "how, when, where and what" questions science answers still leaves the "why" to religion for the most part.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:25, archived)

Atheists don't 'believe' that gods don't exist. Any more than they 'believe' that the ovaltine pixies don't wank dew onto the grass in the morning.
The "don't" bit is the give away.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:13, archived)

Not believing in something is not a belief.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:17, archived)

And I'm pretty sure that formal logic backs me up.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:23, archived)

I'm not an apple.
What sort of apple does that make me?
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:28, archived)

The case is more akin to having a circuit in which lightbulb lights if the logic level on a line is not 1.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:33, archived)

Take your time. I'm quite clever and I work in electronics so I'll probably be able to follow it if you're patient.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:45, archived)

Over here, we're about 16 standard deviations up from the average IQ, and batting in excess of 175. So there's only about 100-200 people in the UK with a higher IQ.
It's also odd how you seem to work in whatever area it is that you're currently arguing about all the time.
I suggest a basic refresher course in logic.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:02, archived)

You're honestly going to resort to a gong-waving competition rather than attempt to justify yourself? And not even real gongs ... Mensa gongs? That's weak. You can do better than that.
How about rather than attempting to patronise me, you actually answer my question? I genuinely don't understand and I'd quite like to know what you mean. (and I already have a PhD and a successful career so I probably won't take up your offer of a 'refresher course' ... thanks all the same)
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:05, archived)

I'm not short of degrees my self, and I'll bet that I had them when I was younger than you too, given that I was the youngest physics grad ever from my university,
Additionally I work in a university too, half of the people here with PhDs couldn't form a logical argument if their life depended on it.
Edit: And if you'd like to discuss your career success I point you towards ownership of my own company, my two board appointments, and my board level consultantships to several multi-million pound turn over corporations.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:10, archived)

Pay no attention to the argument behind the curtain! Look at the gongs!
You've lost, sonny. Give it up.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:19, archived)

but you clearly can't compete so I'll let you back out of that one before it gets too embarrassing for you as everyone realises that you're a middle of the road average academic.
Congratulations on moving on to the the next Argument Success(TM) method of trying to make rumour equal truth though. You know you can get a book with about 10 of these in? I think you're only up to about 5 at the moment, so there's considerable scope for improvement.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:25, archived)

I did not understand your point so I asked you to clarify. You apparently couldn't answer. That was the point where the discussion finished and the floundering started. Up there. The rest of this is just me allowing you to dig yourself into a hole labelled 'loser'.
And I've had your mum. Although granted I wasn't the youngest person ever to have her.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:30, archived)

Oh no, actually just a rehash of rumour equals fact.
You really are stupid, aren't you?
I couldn't careless what you think of me, as your thoughts have been demonstrated to be inaccurate and even fail to be self consistent.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:35, archived)

who has got too involved in an argument on the internet.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:45, archived)

But at least we're on to a new argument method now.
How many more can you think up?
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:52, archived)

Surely you've noticed?
Theism is all based on a simple premise: magic and that. It's all demonstrably nonsense and it is the broad acceptance of the harmless end of the nonsense that forms the platform upon which all the deeply harmful stuff is based.
Remove the platform, the house of cards comes tumbling down and I get to take a big smug shit on all the vicious little cunts at the top.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

You can but it's wrong to. Not all religious people are harmful. In fact, I know quite a few who are very pleasant people and religion brings them comfort. What's so wrong with that?
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:11, archived)

In particular, that you have a personal, secret line of communication with the moral authority of the universe.
If that assumption weren't so vehemently defended by perfectly nice people, there'd be far less defense for more extreme, harmful religion and all sorts of other harmful things.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:20, archived)

( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:12, archived)

The various Gods and their various actions in the Universe are perfectly well documented in the religious texts of the various delusions. It's perfectly possible to invalidate every single one of them. All that's left at the end is an airy fairy hippy definition of some fluffy woolly feeling that 'something' exists out there.
Well ... you're welcome to that. It's entirely without meaning or import and it's not what any of the major religions are based upon.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:15, archived)

The theists of the world have made it perfectly clear what they mean by 'God'. And that thing can be proved not to exist.
Inventing a new thing called 'God' is just plain cowardly bullshit.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:30, archived)

You really need to learn how to argue more effectively.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:40, archived)

so you must know that your argument is flawed.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:06, archived)

and wearing that unassailable blanket of delusional self-confidence.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:11, archived)

But I've learned how to carry an argument without resorting to name-calling and gongs. And I've still won this argument in the spare time between doing my real job. I really could almost get an erection with the excitement of it all if I weren't so old and decrepit.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:26, archived)

(But you're still in Rumour Equal Fact mode of argument)
And as for spare time, what you mean is that as well as being so stupid as to try to argue a point that is logically incorrect, you're also so professionally bankrupt as to fail to work the hours for which you are contracted.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:29, archived)

It isn't that attractive.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:47, archived)

You on the other hand, have been using such words and they show how you are feeling.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:50, archived)

Invisible pixies, etc. If there's no reason to believe something exists, you don't.
Also quite a recent notion. God as defined in the texts of any of the major religions has been observed not to exist every time anyone's looked.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:27, archived)

But weight of evidence is firmly on the side of his nonexistence, as long as you don't let religious people shift the goalposts halfway through
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:30, archived)

There are plenty of muslim countrys out there that arn't totaly fucked up.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

Yes you can. If their idea of Islam was correct, it would be the right thing to do. Admit that it isn't correct, and it's wrong.
To be able to see plainly that it's incorrect, you have to make the surprisingly difficult step of admitting that some things are false and there's no reason to believe them. That's a step that all religion wants to stop you taking.
( , Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:23, archived)