mockney piers

God you miserable sods, this up there with the beatles are shit. Turn it around. Can we agree on a single national treasure without somebody carping? I'll dip my toe in the piranha infested waters with Ronnie Corbett. - overrated, barker was the talent, what about sorry etc......fuck......off......

90% of everything is shit.

I hate to fisk, but this one was a particularly telling statement Putting words into people's mouths? Noone has asserted that life is about anything much have they? Fallacy implies logical deduction, nothing wrong with asking for proof, ignoring evidence is a fallacy. And why do you say an atheist doesn't want it, maybe they're desperate for it but can't bring themselves to take the leap of faith without proof? Aye, yep. I agree we are the keepers of our own destiny, illness or chance not withstanding (acts of god? ;-P); but insisting we are the image and likeness of the original creator is just repeating anthropocentric mythology; universe revolves around the earth type stuff. So mankind is the only creature to enjoy a soul then is it? Speak for yourself, I'm lucky if I have another 30 years left. You present this as fact, but really, howcome? No abrahamic religion believes in reincarnation, what makes you so certain? Or do you think all religions nibble around god's core truths however they come at it, paths to god as it were? It's nice, but I find that hard to swallow considering how much is completely contradictory, and how people use these differences to wage war and spill blood, even if it's over something as trivial as the language a book was written in or what that cup actually contains. If god doesnt care, then what's in it for us? Entreaty won't make our crops grow or keep us healthy, but don't worry about being murdered or that nasty famine, none of it matters as long as you work towards enlightenment at some point or other in the far distant future (as a human, other animal, aother lifeform on another planet?). But it brings us right back to the first clause of the first point. Whether or not anything matters. I don't believe anything does matter in the cosmic sense, as in a deeper meaning. Why look for it, there is enough wonder, beauty around us, and our interaction with our surroundings an each other have a deep significance to us while we're alive. I honestly don't have a problem with that being it, it's enough to be getting on with for me. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but it rather suggests that you simply cannot conceive of existence without that deeper meaning, in your case it would seem immortality through reincarnation if I read correctly. And that's fine if it works for you, but of course wanting something to be true doesnt make it actually true does it, even if you simply cannot compute the alternatives. You keep coming back as to how agnostics (I'll add that one in for you as I'm getting a bit annoyed at being labelled an atheist, I deny no god, nor anyone's right to believe) and atheists are missing the point, because your self-assurance is absolute, but it still makes nothing you believe real does it, ultimately it's just that, belief. I say again, if it makes you happy, good luck, but you do keep coming across as rather superior 'poor widdle afeists' and it is beginning to grate.

Nice redefining of the debate. It's called begging the question. Given alllllllll those givens then I have/can have nothing more to offer. I'm off to start a thread entitled 'ghosts definitely exist and I will allow no contradiction; right what exactly are ghosts and what are your experiences with them'.

Not you specifically rubsely, the religion isn't god thing is something I've heard over and over again from many, but I'm not sure manynpeople really think about what they are saying.

I keep reading that god and religion are different, and yes I suppose they are. What I don't understand is without religion, what's the point of even talking about it. Surely religion is about trying to relate creation and existence to us (classic circular logic of course). If we dont then were just saying 'there is a god' and perhaps speculating about their nature, but there it ends as essentially irrelevant to us because it is by definition intangible and unknowable (short of a burning bush appearing to me and saying 'I think you'll find you're wrong there piers'). So if we can't know it, and can't understand it, what are we trying to do? Surely better to just get on and live your life. Anything else (and yes, I fully include spirituality) is, I'm afraid, religion.

Science as a belief fallacy, hardly worth commenting on. Suffice tomsay there is a difference between a useful working assumption that current evidence points to, and a belief. It makes no difference to me where homo sapiens originated, if current evidence says A then that's fine by me. If new evidence says B and more evidence backs that up, then that is also fine by me. To suggest otherwise is a bit weird. If the 'out of Africa' theory makes people uncomfortable then it can only be for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. The archaelogoical evidence is actually rather weak time tends to be unkind to bones, especially in creatures yetbto develop advanced ceremonial techniques that involve some degree of internment. However mitochondrial and y chromosomal DNA analysis strongly supports the theory. I won't patronise anyone by capitalising the word theory. This all relates to homo sapiens, it would seem absurd to suggest we are the first humans or the only humans, rather a wig on an evolutionary branch. I would be surprised if older human species didn't crop up elsewhere and died out. Indeed as Huguenot alludes to, current theories think that severe climatic conditions came damn close to getting rid of us. And that being the case, why couldn't previous spreads of homo sapiens have died out during the same period, and all modern humanity have descended from a few surviving pockets in Africa. It's possible, but until we finder older Homo sapien remains elsewhere the origination in Africa remains thenmost convincing theory. Oh sod it, THEORY.

Science doesnt have issues with discoveries that shed new light or even undermine current theories. That's what science is about. A gullible public doesn't lap it up, because they don't read obscure scientific journals. A gullible public puts too much import on the dreadful standard of scientific reporting in mainstream journalism in organs such as the daily mail. And again, no ones gullible if they believe the earth is 4000 years old, but they are if they believe anything a 'scientist'* tells them. And how exactly can a scientific discovery undermine science again? I've said it before, science and religion are chalk and cheese. It always smacks of deedsperation when religion co-opts scientific language/theories to undermine it. It makes no sense to me. Stick to faith and ignore science. It only threatens religion if the individual is uneasy that faith is undermined. In this case I feel he doth protest too much the gentleman. If this is actually part of the intrinsic evangelism of Christianity, then I fear your call to arms is falling on deaf ears. *read journalist.

Damn these scientific myths. How much easier to believe we were created from mud in a place without sin, where the lions used to cuddle the donkeys and woman was made from a rib 4000 years ago. That's scriptural fact!

Wow

Managed to watch 40 minutes of poor west ham defending deserve to be about 3-0 down, then was either changing nappies or feeding the mocklet for every single flippin west ham goal. Still, happy with a win finally.

Ooh, and no one has the foggiest idea where (or precisely how) life of any kind started, but earth 3-4 billion (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) years ago bore no resemblance to anything we can refer to today.

Blimey djqk, only a couple of hundred million years out! think you're confusing it with the rise and fall of oceans due to far far far far far more recent glacial period, the peaks and troughs of the hundred thousand years leading up to the end of the glacial period 10,000 years ago. Stephen Oppenheimer did a couple of good books, Eden in the East and Origins of the British which are a great starting point. Basically Europeans are all Mesopotamian and Brits are all spaniards. Mwah hah hah.

Just remembered 'dead birds' a little known minor horror classic. A dark western of violent robbers getting their comeuppance. Does nothing original, very much a don't-go-into-the-cellar staple, but it is genuinely scary.

Its all about the chu chus!!!!!!!

wks

Suggesting words have meaning is just bloody semantics!!

Lol

Mum.

Ps ?gracias compa?ero!

You're calling me Catalan? What are you, English?!?!? ;-P

Oi, I quite like Brussels sprouts. Don't over boil/steam them, then toss them in some good olive oil where you've fried some garlic to a light gold. Perfect. But then I'm a dirty pro-European, I would wouldn't I.

Keep rubbing that groin with the base of your hand sue....ooooh tapas 11 *sweat sweat* uh uh maddie's DNA *grunt*

We're packing the car for a five thirty start tomorrow, but we'll try and get out for an early one with the , be really good to see you.

Sorry keef, you're not nasty, I just thought it spectacularly dismissive of a personal trauma. You're not even an offender on this thread, one I, and I know for a fact many others, would like to see quietly pass away and be respectfully left alone to rest in peace.