What grinds my gears...

[Beliall]

Ooooh this yoghurt is more satisfying than lewis hamilton

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

When Nicole scherzinger says the word balls it makes my winkle go all weird

[Beliall]

When Nicole scherzinger says the word balls it makes my winkle go all weird

[bovril]

 

 

TMI

[bovril]

People who say "I'm spiritual not religious".

[Alf Bentley]

People who say "I'm spiritual not religious".

 

 

My missus once told me that I was the least spiritual person she'd ever met. I took it as a compliment.

[bovril]

My missus once told me that I was the least spiritual person she'd ever met. I took it as a compliment.

 

My missus is quite religious (Orthodox) and I like a lot of aspects - traditions, artwork, rituals, sense of community. I admire anyone who tries to retain traditional beliefs.

Can't be doing with anybody who cops out and says, "well you know, I'm quite spiritual" or even worse "I pick and choose elements of religion to follow, you know I see myself as a mix of Buddhist and Kabbalist with some elements of Sufism". You know the type, they shop at Waitrose.

Edited 24 October 2014 by bovril

[Rincewind]

Well I'm a secularist/humanist/evolutionist. All the doing good bits but without the prejudices homophobic slavery miracles talking snakes and gods element from the bible.

Edited 24 October 2014 by Rincewind

[Merging Cultures]

I've been watching the TV 'reality' show 'Four in a Bed' where bed and breakfast owners compete for the best value for money B&B.

 

Without fail they also talk about someone being 'competitive'. It is usually said in a derisory way. It is interesting that in our culture being competitive and wanting to win is not necessarily encouraged. We are always the plucky underdog who will try but not too hard lest they look like they are being 'competitive'.

 

What's the point of entering into a competition if you are not going to be competitive?

[Merging Cultures]

Well I'm a secularist/humanist/evolutionist. All the doing good bits but without the prejudices homophobic slavery miracles and gods element from the bible.

 

I am a Christian and I am married to a black woman, I have gay friends and family who I love dearly, I pay my gardener, cleaner and Nanny quite well, I believe miracles happen and that there is a God.

 

Ken, if you haven't read the New Testament, I highly recommend it. Jesus wasn't white, he hung out with people who were ostracised (sometimes for their sexual sins), he came to free us all, he rose again and is the son of God.

[bovril]

I've been watching the TV 'reality' show 'Four in a Bed' where bed and breakfast owners compete for the best value for money B&B.

 

Without fail they also talk about someone being 'competitive'. It is usually said in a derisory way. It is interesting that in our culture being competitive and wanting to win is not necessarily encouraged. We are always the plucky underdog who will try but not too hard lest they look like they are being 'competitive'.

 

What's the point of entering into a competition if you are not going to be competitive?

 

I know what you mean. Also we have lots of phrases like "too big for his boots", "smart arse", "know-it-all", as if being clever and wanting to be successful is something to be ashamed of. A bit different to what you said but comes down to this plucky underdog mentality I guess.

[DennisNedry]

I am a Christian and I am married to a black woman, I have gay friends and family who I love dearly, I pay my gardener, cleaner and Nanny quite well, I believe miracles happen and that there is a God.

 

Ken, if you haven't read the New Testament, I highly recommend it. Jesus wasn't white, he hung out with people who were ostracised (sometimes for their sexual sins), he came to free us all, he rose again and is the son of God.

 

Sorry Baltimore, I can't let you state this as if it's a fact!

[Alf Bentley]

I am a Christian and I am married to a black woman, I have gay friends and family who I love dearly, I pay my gardener, cleaner and Nanny quite well, I believe miracles happen and that there is a God.

 

Ken, if you haven't read the New Testament, I highly recommend it. Jesus wasn't white, he hung out with people who were ostracised (sometimes for their sexual sins), he came to free us all, he rose again and is the son of God.

 

You lost me with the last bit there, as I don't believe in God or resurrection, but I like the sound of what little I know about Jesus Christ (though I've not read much of the Bible)....a much nicer bloke than his Dad!   I see him more as an important moral philosopher and social agitator (who could easily be depicted as quite left-wing).

 

As an atheist, something that grinds my gears is some other atheists - of the evangelist variety (e.g. Dawkins). I might agree with their arguments, but their attitudes are often as intolerant as the attitudes of some Christian or Islamic fundamentalists.

Non-believers should be able to appreciate that religion has brought great moral and social benefits, just as many religious institutions and religious interpretations have brought great harm. Even today, there are religious believers who do great good in the world (and in small ways in communities), just as there are religious extremists who cause mayhem. The same can be said for atheists. There are good, bad and indifferent within every belief system.

[Buce]

You lost me with the last bit there, as I don't believe in God or resurrection, but I like the sound of what little I know about Jesus Christ (though I've not read much of the Bible)....a much nicer bloke than his Dad! I see him more as an important moral philosopher and social agitator (who could easily be depicted as quite left-wing).

As an atheist, something that grinds my gears is some other atheists - of the evangelist variety (e.g. Dawkins). I might agree with their arguments, but their attitudes are often as intolerant as the attitudes of some Christian or Islamic fundamentalists.

Non-believers should be able to appreciate that religion has brought great moral and social benefits, just as many religious institutions and religious interpretations have brought great harm. Even today, there are religious believers who do great good in the world (and in small ways in communities), just as there are religious extremists who cause mayhem. The same can be said for atheists. There are good, bad and indifferent within every belief system.

But surely without measurable proof either way, your atheism is as much faith-based as Baltimore's belief?

[DennisNedry]

You lost me with the last bit there, as I don't believe in God or resurrection, but I like the sound of what little I know about Jesus Christ (though I've not read much of the Bible)....a much nicer bloke than his Dad!   I see him more as an important moral philosopher and social agitator (who could easily be depicted as quite left-wing).

 

As an atheist, something that grinds my gears is some other atheists - of the evangelist variety (e.g. Dawkins). I might agree with their arguments, but their attitudes are often as intolerant as the attitudes of some Christian or Islamic fundamentalists.

Non-believers should be able to appreciate that religion has brought great moral and social benefits, just as many religious institutions and religious interpretations have brought great harm. Even today, there are religious believers who do great good in the world (and in small ways in communities), just as there are religious extremists who cause mayhem. The same can be said for atheists. There are good, bad and indifferent within every belief system.

 

I really like Dawkins and I think you've been a bit unfair in your assessment of him

 

I've seen most of his televised debates with religious academics and he usually comes across very well and does acknowledge the positive influences that religion has had on humanity. 

 

But fundamentally he is an evolutionary biologist and so is only concerned with facts and truths. Just because the belief of a God is a comfort, motivation or passion for somebody doesn't mean it is factual or truthful and should hold any power or influence today.

 

 

But surely without measurable proof either way, your atheism is as much faith-based as Baltimore's belief?

 

 

How can it be faith-based to have no faith? 

 

You can't conclusively disprove the existence of a God just like you can't conclusively disprove the existence of the Easter bunny. But both don't exist.

Edited 24 October 2014 by DennisNedry

[Rincewind]

I agree with you Alf. Atheism is not a belief though, it is lack of belief. A bloke who volunteers with me for DNO runs his own church not affiliated with the main ones. he has said he left the others because he felt they were too institutionised and often hypocritical.

He welcomes anybody into his church which is just a local community centre. He does more home visits when people need someone to talk to. He is married to a Japanese woman. He has no problem with me being an atheist. Tried to change me but I said he won't. I was referring more to the OT where there are more killings etc. When Gods were invented there was not the scientific know how around so people saw things from a mans POV. They saw a dung beetle roll a pile of mud so assumed that there was a giant man moving the sun. Science has advance a long way and there are still things we do not know and get wrong but it is updated or added to. Scientific thinking is not stagnant..

There is more evidence for evolution than creationism. I do not have faith in it I know it is a fact because I have seen evidence being proved. .

Edited 24 October 2014 by Rincewind

[z-layrex]

I am a Christian and I am married to a black woman, I have gay friends and family who I love dearly, I pay my gardener, cleaner and Nanny quite well, I believe miracles happen and that there is a God.

Ken, if you haven't read the New Testament, I highly recommend it. Jesus wasn't white, he hung out with people who were ostracised (sometimes for their sexual sins), he came to free us all, he rose again and is the son of God.

If you believe anything in the bible actually happened then I despair for you. You might as well believe Lord of the Rings is a true story. Edited 24 October 2014 by z-layrex

[Buce]

I really like Dawkins and I think you've been a bit unfair in your assessment of him

I've seen most of his televised debates with religious academics and he usually comes across very well and does acknowledge the positive influences that religion has had on humanity.

But fundamentally he is an evolutionary biologist and so is only concerned with facts and truths. Just because the belief of a God is a comfort, motivation or passion for somebody doesn't mean it is factual or truthful and should hold any power or influence today.

How can it be faith-based to have no faith?

You can't conclusively disprove the existence of a God just like you can't conclusively disprove the existence of the Easter bunny. But both don't exist.

There are several meanings to the word 'faith', one of which is 'belief without proof'. As you point out, you cannot prove a negative, therefore there is no more proof of the non-existance of God than there is of its existance.

Your faith in your belief may be well-founded, but ultimately faith is all it is.

[bovril]

If you believe anything in the bible actually happened then I despair for you. You might as well believe Lord of the Rings is a true story.

 

The Bible has had significantly more influence on our culture and society (the very one you grew up in) than Lord of the Rings. If you can't see the difference then I despair for you.

 

Edited to add if I want to be pedantic there are plenty of things in the Bible that 'actually happened'.

Edited 24 October 2014 by bovril

[The Doctor]

You lost me with the last bit there, as I don't believe in God or resurrection, but I like the sound of what little I know about Jesus Christ (though I've not read much of the Bible)....a much nicer bloke than his Dad! I see him more as an important moral philosopher and social agitator (who could easily be depicted as quite left-wing).

As an atheist, something that grinds my gears is some other atheists - of the evangelist variety (e.g. Dawkins). I might agree with their arguments, but their attitudes are often as intolerant as the attitudes of some Christian or Islamic fundamentalists.

Non-believers should be able to appreciate that religion has brought great moral and social benefits, just as many religious institutions and religious interpretations have brought great harm. Even today, there are religious believers who do great good in the world (and in small ways in communities), just as there are religious extremists who cause mayhem. The same can be said for atheists. There are good, bad and indifferent within every belief system.

While you didn't say it directly, I've never understood the arguments of Dawkins being aggressive or arrogant - watch his debates with the like of wendy Wright - he's a very mild mannered person.

[Merging Cultures]

Sorry Baltimore, I can't let you state this as if it's a fact!

 

Fair enough

 

I'll make sure to say, "I believe that .... is true" next time.

 

You lost me with the last bit there, as I don't believe in God or resurrection, but I like the sound of what little I know about Jesus Christ (though I've not read much of the Bible)....a much nicer bloke than his Dad!   I see him more as an important moral philosopher and social agitator (who could easily be depicted as quite left-wing).

 

As an atheist, something that grinds my gears is some other atheists - of the evangelist variety (e.g. Dawkins). I might agree with their arguments, but their attitudes are often as intolerant as the attitudes of some Christian or Islamic fundamentalists.

Non-believers should be able to appreciate that religion has brought great moral and social benefits, just as many religious institutions and religious interpretations have brought great harm. Even today, there are religious believers who do great good in the world (and in small ways in communities), just as there are religious extremists who cause mayhem. The same can be said for atheists. There are good, bad and indifferent within every belief system.

 

Cheers Alf, this is a fair post.

 

I would say though that because Jesus is God (along with the Holy Spirit) that the Big Man is not too bad. The Old Testament stuff is difficult to understand, and I think the harsh stuff that happened was largely due to having to live by rules and not doing so. Whereas when Jesus came, we no longer had to live by rules (such as only one type of fibre in clothing...) but just had to accept Him and strive to follow Him. So now, I believe that as long as our hearts are on the right path, then God will not smite us down. And that doesn't necessarily mean we have to repent to Jesus, and pray all the time. But I think looking after the vulnerable, just as the Samaritan did, would set us right with God, whether we know it or intend it. Which is probably a bit controversial, but I just can't imagine God would not accept someone who has tried to help others but didn't recognise Christ. We are just human and therefore it is quite ridiculous to believe the bible.

 

If you believe anything in the bible actually happened then I despair for you. You might as well believe Lord of the Rings is a true story.

 

Erm... lots of things in the Bible have been proven to have happened.

Edited 24 October 2014 by Merging Cultures

[Sir Fynwy]

Fair enough

I'll make sure to say, "I believe that .... is true" next time.

Cheers Alf, this is a fair post.

I would say though that because Jesus is God (along with the Holy Spirit) that the Big Man is not too bad. The Old Testament stuff is difficult to understand, and I think the harsh stuff that happened was largely due to having to live by rules and not doing so. Whereas when Jesus came, we no longer had to live by rules (such as only one type of fibre in clothing...) but just had to accept Him and strive to follow Him. So now, I believe that as long as our hearts are on the right path, then God will not smite us down. And that doesn't necessarily mean we have to repent to Jesus, and pray all the time. But I think looking after the vulnerable, just as the Samaritan did, would set us right with God, whether we know it or intend it. Which is probably a bit controversial, but I just can't imagine God would not accept someone who has tried to help others but didn't recognise Christ. We are just human and therefore it is quite ridiculous to believe the bible.

Erm... lots of things in the Bible have been proven to have happened.

Lots of things that are in Bravo Two Zero or a Bond book have been proven to have happened, it doesn't mean that we should base our lives on the teachings. My personal belief is that all religions are at best irrelevant and at worst harmful in the modern world.

[Merging Cultures]

Lots of things that are in Bravo Two Zero or a Bond book have been proven to have happened, it doesn't mean that we should base our lives on the teachings. My personal belief is that all religions are at best irrelevant and at worst harmful in the modern world.

 

And you are entitled to believe that.

 

I believe that misinterpreted teaching and people misusing power leads to people being manipulated to do evil things in the name of religion. There is a case in the 'modern world' to say Government led education and media do the same things.

Edited 24 October 2014 by Merging Cultures

[Alf Bentley]

I agree with you Alf. Atheism is not a belief though, it is lack of belief. [...]. They saw a dung beetle roll a pile of mud so assumed that there was a giant man moving the sun. Science has advance a long way and there are still things we do not know and get wrong but it is updated or added to. Scientific thinking is not stagnant..

There is more evidence for evolution than creationism. I do not have faith in it I know it is a fact because I have seen evidence being proved. .

 

This is roughly where I stand, too, Ken. Atheism is not a belief, but it's an assumption that is fundamental to how I view my life (finite, of almost no objective significance but subjectively amazingly interesting and important, sometimes hilarious and sometimes tragic, but mainly just a great laugh). That's not enough, of course. You need to have some beliefs about how you should lead your life, how you should behave with others etc. I have my particular shifting mish-mash of beliefs: liberty, honesty, cooperation, justice, fun, endeavour, tolerance, laughter, assertiveness, consideration of others (past, present & future), debate, consideration of other life forms etc......then, being human, I'll often fail to live up those standards and will be mean, manipulative, selfish, drunk or whatever... C'est la vie!

 

Science doesn't know everything, but it has produced evidence for a lot of things and will go on proving more in future, if humans don't cock it up.

 

There are several meanings to the word 'faith', one of which is 'belief without proof'. As you point out, you cannot prove a negative, therefore there is no more proof of the non-existance of God than there is of its existance.

Your faith in your belief may be well-founded, but ultimately faith is all it is.

 

As DennisNedry - and Dawkins - have said, you can't disprove God, but as Ken added, there's a lot more proof for evolution than for creationism. Dawkins wrote that evidence and analysis suggested that there was "almost certainly no God". I'd agree with that. I'd say that 95% of my atheism is based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of scientific evidence & thought, and 5% is an assumption - or "faith", if you prefer. I can't prove that the sun will rise in the morning or that Real Madrid would beat Coalville in a football match, but I'm happy to make confident assumptions about the last 5%, given that 95% of the evidence is in place.

 

While you didn't say it directly, I've never understood the arguments of Dawkins being aggressive or arrogant - watch his debates with the like of wendy Wright - he's a very mild mannered person.

 

I read, liked and agreed with "The God Delusion", but find Dawkins a bit strident and humourless. Maybe it's just me, but apparently not. Take the example of the London bus campaign, when they covered London buses with posters saying "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Even though I agreed with the statement, I found the action of displaying it pointlessly confrontational - just as I would have done if the posters had read "There is only one God - the Christian God" or "Allah is the greatest! Bow down to him!" For the most part, I'd prefer discussions about religion or atheism to be friendly and mutually respectful encounters. After all, religion has contributed a great deal of good to our philosophy, morality and society (as well as causing a lot of harm through its institutions and its extremists), just as science has led the way in our understanding of the world. Occasionally, confrontation is necessary, such as when religious extremists try to impose their views on others or to restrict their rights. But most of the time, that's not the case. The very vocal atheists too often remind me of the more abrasive, evangelist wing of Christianity or Islam.

 

I'll probably fade away from this discussion now, as I don't want to end up in some polarised slanging match (not that it's become one yet).

[bovril]

Lots of things that are in Bravo Two Zero or a Bond book have been proven to have happened, it doesn't mean that we should base our lives on the teachings. My personal belief is that all religions are at best irrelevant and at worst harmful in the modern world.

 

Again, it's a ludicrous comparison.