Jump to content

General Chat / Random Musings


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, if we agree that it is okay to refer to beliefs in stuff like unicorns, ghosts, flat earth, homeopathy as bollocks without that being puerile, then we must grant the same allowance to referring to beliefs in gods as bollocks too. I don't accept that religion, from purely historical reasons and because particularly many people hold this specific irrational belief, should enjoy some extra protection not granted to other similarly nonsensical beliefs. 

Labelling people who refer to religious belief as bollocks, as puerile, while accepting the same term to be used for other irrational beliefs, is just a tactic to end a discussion. And I don't accept that. The fact that a majority of people hold religious beliefs means that we should be even less afraid of granting them a sacrosanct status.

like I said, the problem is less with content than it is with form

"bollox" is a term that you don't tend to see much in scientific papers. It is not scientifically sound. and while a message board is by no means striving to attain the level of scientific papers (think about this, soulmonster) the term "bollox" in itself already is  quite puerile (what a great word, by the way! puerile I mean). "Bollox" is the kind of word the cool kids at the playground used back in the 90s. 

Can't you see, this is what makes you look childish?

Edited by action
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Len Cnut

    3810

  • DieselDaisy

    2032

  • Dazey

    1465

  • SoulMonster

    1067

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Everyone, meet Genevieve Roseanne, who arrived on 23rd December. 

No booze for me last night. Early morning as usual.

Present from Uncle Lenny.

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I’m not even an atheist bit I find religions to be ridiculous.... meh, just my opinion.

So what do you believe?  Agnostic?  I'm not atheist in the sense of like...y'know, nailed on, I just think I don't know if there is a higher or greater power.  First of all what does a higher power entail?  The big fella in the sky with the beard who appeared to Moses?  Nah, not havin' that.  But like...a greater power than the human race, surely there are umpteen elements out there with the ability to destroy us so why not?  But thats not what most religions are talking about.  And the idea of God is like...something outside of our perception almost, something our eyes can't see, ears can't hear etc...well there's every possibility something like that exists, how can one comment on things that by definition we can scarcely conceive.  Its very conveniently designed to be completely imperceptible to us.    

God, the eternal God, God thats always been there...is there even such a thing as eternity?  Forever, what does something like that mean, I feel like its a scam, like we're being asked to think of something in terms that we can't really grasp because everything is kinda finite for us, reason works because there are parameters, things have a size or a length, breadth, depth, timeline etc, we've been given brains that function on logic and then presented with concepts that defy logic.  

 If something is all seeing, all knowing, all encompassing then that means we're all little bits of God.  Cuz he's all encompassing right, he's in everything, lives everywhere.  He doesn't think, thinking is a human act, he exists outside of want and need and perception, he doesn't see things, he shouldn't even know things because knowledge suggests like...that there's a brain there and God can't have a brain cuz a brain has limits.  He doesn't imagine because by the force of his will things just exist.  But even that, even that action, as described in the scripture, the fact that he wills things, isn't that like a human function?  Perhaps scripture is written in terms that people can understand just to give them some sort of structure when the reality is, and is described to be, that God is beyond any kind of structure...which I suppose would render any scripture totally useless.

I dunno, I'm a cynical fella and I get the feeling with religion, the distinct feeling, that I'm being taken for a ride.  I can't believe it, couldn't if I want it to, it doesn't appeal to anything in me.  Fascinating stuff though, just as an insight into humans and our behaviour, both as individuals and as a collective.  Its like the ultimate mindfuck to me, a scam, a macguffin, snake-oil.  I find them fascinating though and I'm totally open to the day someone really shows me something with em.  I just don't see it and I never have.  By all rights I should have, I grew up in a VERY religious environment and I've seen people sway back and forth but then always return to the fold.  But I never believed, not even as a child.  It always just felt like this lie adults told you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, action said:

soulmonster's fixitation with christians is remarkable. I would like to know his thoughts on muslims who, for a large part, use much of the old testament as their scripture. Is he afraid of being called a racist?

I think they're even worse because aswell as believing in all the same bollocks they talk fucking weird and stink of curry 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, action said:

the term "bollox" in itself already is  quite puerile (what a great word, by the way! puerile I mean). "Bollox" is the kind of word the cool kids at the playground used back in the 90s. 

I beg your pardon, its a perfectly valid bit of Anglo Saxon, The Sex Pistols went to court to prove that :lol:  Its an old English word which refers to, oddly enough, clergyman :lol: 

 

Quote

 

Perhaps the best-known use of the term is in the title of the 1977 punk rock album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Testimony in a resulting prosecution over the term demonstrated that in Old English, the word referred to a priest, and could also be used to mean "nonsense". Defence barrister John Mortimer QC and Virgin Records won the case: the court ruled that the word was not obscene.[51] It just means "put aside all of that other rubbish and pay attention to this".[1] In a summary for the defence, Mortimer asked,

What sort of country are we living in if a politician comes to Nottingham and speaks here to a group of people in the city centre and during his speech a heckler replies "bollocks". Are we to expect this person to be incarcerated, or do we live in a country where we are proud of our Anglo-Saxon language? Do we wish our language to be virile and strong or watered down and weak?[52]

 

 

1 minute ago, spunko12345 said:

I think they're even worse because aswell as believing in all the same bollocks they talk fucking weird and stink of curry 😄

*puts an arm around Spunks and smiles for the camera* bud bud ding ding, one ninety nine! :lol:  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I beg your pardon, its a perfectly valid bit of Anglo Saxon, The Sex Pistols went to court to prove that :lol:  Its an old English word which refers to, oddly enough, clergyman :lol: 

 

 

that a bunch of vagabonds have to carry the case of the use of the word, says enough. 

decent people should not get involved with them. We prefer Queen.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, action said:

that a bunch of vagabonds have to carry the case of the use of the word, says enough. 

decent people should not get involved with them. We prefer Queen.

John Mortimer is not a vagabond, he wrote Rumpole of the Bailey for crying out loud :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I beg your pardon, its a perfectly valid bit of Anglo Saxon, The Sex Pistols went to court to prove that :lol:  Its an old English word which refers to, oddly enough, clergyman :lol: 

 

 

*puts an arm around Spunks and smiles for the camera* bud bud ding ding, one ninety nine! :lol:  

*begrudginly pays the one ninety nine and nicks a mars bar on the way out* 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spunko12345 said:

*begrudginly pays the one ninety nine and nicks a mars bar on the way out* 😁

Every time I see one of those I think of Marianne Faithfuls fanny :lol:  Must be looking a bit peaky these days eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Every time I see one of those I think of Marianne Faithfuls fanny :lol:  Must be looking a bit peaky these days eh?

Shes been recovering from Covid I think so it's probably a bit listless. Maybe she'll feed it some Lucozade to perk it back up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

So what do you believe?  Agnostic?  I'm not atheist in the sense of like...y'know, nailed on, I just think I don't know if there is a higher or greater power.

Some call it Ietsism but I don't like to put a label on it. I don't know and I'm okay with that. A lot of people aren't so they either join a religion and believe everything they tell them is correct or they follow the scientific route and don't believe any of it because it cannot be proven. Human beings seem to have a desire to always have to understand everything. For a reason I can't explain I always believed that there is a lot more out there than meets the eye, but I don't understand it and I definitely can't prove it, so I simply don't know. I am not going to join some man-made concept like a religion just to make sense of it all since they claim to know the truth and have most of the answers, because they obviously don't. And on top of that, you end up with dogmas and crazy traditions that are utterly stupid and have nothing to do with the bigger picture. If you live a good life and find comfort in your religion without bothering anyone else with it, more power to you. But I am too much of a nonconformist and not naive enough to buy most of what they preach just because someone wrote it in a book many, many years ago. I always felt that people who join religions have a lack of imagination and are in desperate need of answers or need to make sense of it all and can't accept that it may be incomprehensible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

Shes been recovering from Covid I think so it's probably a bit listless. Maybe she'll feed it some Lucozade to perk it back up. 

Nothing like the old original bronze bottle Lucozade to get em whistling again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Oi you, I’m an atheist, I thought I was being quite nice :lol:  Well, I did say I thought religion was a load of bollocks but I only meant to me personally, I was sticking up for Father Teds lot :lol: 

I wasn't referring to you but the usual suspects. 

I am actually agnostic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I beg your pardon, its a perfectly valid bit of Anglo Saxon, The Sex Pistols went to court to prove that :lol:  Its an old English word which refers to, oddly enough, clergyman :lol: 

Is indeed. From ballokes (middle English) and beallucas (old English), literally meaning ''little balls''. Almost certainly arrived with the Anglo-Saxons of the early middle ages then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Nothing puerile about pointing out that all theisms are based on a belief in something supernatural. Also nothing puerile about a personal anecdote of sexual molestation. Almost shocking you would refer to this discussion as "puerile swill", but I suppose nothing is too low for you.

Thoroughly puerile given the incongruent/unnecessary nature of your post which instigated it, not willing to leave out a snidey remark from a pandemic, and the fact that you already have a thread on religion which is filled with six billion posts of your malicious gibberish. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

People who call themselves tolerant are the most intolerant.


I am a practicing catholic but i also leave the room open for interpretation.  We wont know if there is a god or afterlife  until we die.  As for creation of the universe who the fuck knows. It could be a god or multiple gods we can also be an Alien simulation.  FInally there can be a giant reptilian bird in charge of things. We wont know till we kick the bucket  there is no evidence disprove or to confirm and we will never know. Science can prove how the universe started and got rolling but prove who or what made it start

 

 

My personal belif is there is a God that created the universe and the earth but fucked off cause  and  wants us to figure shit out ourselfs and wait till the end of the world/time 

he or she or it doesn't want to spoon fed so he just fucked off and is using us as a expermint. 

 

Or i could be wrong.

 

Science can be just as deadly as religion case and point the atom bomb. 

 

Everything happens for reason

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gibsonfender2323
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, EvanG said:

I always felt that people who join religions have a lack of imagination and are in desperate need of answers or need to make sense of it all and can't accept that it may be incomprehensible

The same can be said for physicists and scientists. They want to know what our purpose is. How the universe formed from a singular point.  It's the same thing in that aspect. Physicists are no different then the super religions they are trying to  figure out the origin of the unvierse.

Final point. The old bearded man in the sky is the PERSONIFICATION used in Christian Art etc.

Edited by Gibsonfender2323
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

People who call themselves tolerant are the most intolerant.

That is sadly the case these days.

The irony is that atheism has replaced good old-fashioned (reformation era) religious zealotry, in its level of vitriol, hectoring and obsessiveness. The atheists have become the new Jesuits or the Puritans haha!! It is one of the most hilarious ironies of history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, action said:

like I said, the problem is less with content than it is with form

My point is that if you accept that form as a reference to other irrational beliefs, you should accept it as a refence to religious beliefs, too.

If your point is that it should never be used to refer to any irrational beliefs, the that is fine and valid and all that. Then I can please you by pointing out that I never refer to religion as "bollocks" and that you got me mistaken for someone else, again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

The same can be said for physicists and scientists. They want to know what our purpose is. How the universe formed from a singular point.  It's the same thing in that aspect. Physicists are no different then the super religions they are trying to  figure out the origin of the unvierse.

You are right that both scientists and theologists try to explain the world. I think it is an inherent part of our nature to try to make sense of the world around us. The fundamental difference is that scientists use a method that works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You are right that both scientists and theologists try to explain the world. I think it is an inherent part of our nature to try to make sense of the world around us. The fundamental difference is that scientists use a method that works. 

there isn't really given an explanation in the bible, anywhere.

you can read the whole bible, from page one to the last, and become none the wiser.

You've got it all wrong again. Religion does not aim at giving exact information like science does, anywhere. Religion aims to provide a sense of guidance, of meaning, of purpose. Science doesn't bother with that. Science offers the tools for the atom bomb, not once considering the implications to human life. It is fundamentally calculated, cold and heartless. Not unlike many of their practisioners, I may add. There is no room for emotion in science. Emotion  in science fits like a plier on a pig. Emotion in science is unnecessary, unwanted, and fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I never refer to religion as "bollocks" and that you got me mistaken for someone else, again.

 

14 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

But is it puerile to refer to something that is so obviously wrong, as bollocks? Would it be puerile of me to refer to flat earth belief as bollocks? Would it be puerile of me to refer to horoscopes as bollocks? Would it be puerile of me to refer to homeopathy as bollocks? If people answer "no" to any of these questions, then why should theistic beliefs hold some particular protection against being referred to as bollocks? I don't accept that they should be granted immunity here. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, action said:

there isn't really given an explanation in the bible, anywhere.

you can read the whole bible, from page one to the last, and become none the wiser.

You've got it all wrong again. Religion does not aim at giving exact information like science does, anywhere. Religion aims to provide a sense of guidance, of meaning, of purpose. Science doesn't bother with that. Science offers the tools for the atom bomb, not once considering the implications to human life. It is fundamentally calculated, cold and heartless. Not unlike many of their practisioners, I may add. There is no room for emotion in science. Emotion  in science fits like a plier on a pig. Emotion in science is unnecessary, unwanted, and fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method.

Are you saying that religion has never made any claims about the nature of the world? :lol:

And me talking about whether it is puerile to refer to religious beliefs as "puerile" is not the same as me referring to religious beliefs as "puerile". You do get the distinction, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you saying that religion has never made any claims about the nature of the world? :lol:

And me talking about whether it is puerile to refer to religious beliefs as "puerile" is not the same as me referring to religious beliefs as "puerile". You do get the distinction, right?

it's just a backhanded way to claim that religion is bollox. Just be a man and owe up to your words. Don't weasel yourself out of this.

The discussion is continued in the correct thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...