Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...

Excellent point, Daniel.

After all, the (alleged) "Church of England" has only just accepted the idea that women can be priests as well as men, and that's just a body-type distinction without even going into sexuality! At least they're dragging themselves painfully (some way behind) along in the general direction of modern secular ethics, unlike their competitors.

Ratzinger's mob of clerics (which Stephen Fry amusingly refers to as a "gang of sinister, hysterical virgins") don't seem to think that women have brains of their own or the right to control their own bodies.

The Musilms haven't even got as far as admitting that women are human, it seems to me.

Try being gay in Saudi Arabia and see where it gets you!

Religion...

quote:

Kindly prove that God does not exist.

Oh gawd ... (irony).

If you really mean this, you're more stupid than I supposed.

Proof is required of allegations of existence, not the other way round, you dimwit.

quote:

Originally posted by DanielP:

quote:

Mike, if Christians can "forgive" homosexual acts which they deem to be sinful, and accept the homosexual, that is to say the person, how can this be homophobic?

Because it's the hatred of the sin, not the sinner, that counts. If sinners are going to be imprisoned or hanged for their sins, as homosexuals were in 18th century England, they probably don't care that their Christian persecutors can forgive and love them. "Love the sinner" has never meant not punishing them.

-- Daniel

Not a lot of point in bringing up what happened three hundred years ago, really. Christianity has a prime tenet of forgiveness; AFAICT the Church does not really punish "sinners" as they hate the sin, and love the Sinner. Unlike MD they have long had the intellectual capacity to realise that the sin is not the Sinner.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

quote:

Kindly prove that God does not exist.

Oh gawd ... (irony).

If you really mean this, you're more stupid than I supposed.

Proof is required of allegations of existence, not the other way round, you dimwit.

Mike

You asked for proof that God does exist, why should it be unreasonable to ask you to prove *your* argument?

I refer you to my previous poatings regarding the laws of probability, which I'm not going to go into again.

Also to previous posts regarding the habit of the religious to ignore or forget points already made.

There is no evidence for the existence of god. The burden of proof is on the proposer, BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

What are you, seven?

PS You might have to look hard for a "poating"...

Posting, obviously. And I can prove it.

You obviously are unable to understand really simple and obvious arguments without collapsing back into cant and obfuscation.

Can I take it you are unable to prove that God does not exist?

Also - (still stating the obvious) - being homosexual is part of what that person IS.

It's in the genes and is perfectly normal.

Therefore, to describe that normality as a "sin" (whatever THAT is) is like saying having a left foot is a sin. You love the footist, but you hate the foot?

What drivel it all is, really. No, really.

Religion - Contemptible gibberish fit only for cretins.

Mike

Being homosexual is not the same as the homosexual act.

So, hate the sin... you know the line. I think.

You would come across far better if you dropped the insults, to be honest.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

Religion - Contemptible gibberish fit only for cretins.

Not really. You are a very intolerant person. Bigoted, really.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
You obviously are unable to understand really simple and obvious arguments without collapsing back into cant and obfuscation.

Can I take it you are unable to prove that God does not exist?

Yawn. O.K. if you must...

The probability ("proof") that god does not exist is so high as to be next to fact as makes no difference, due to the complete and total lack of evidence, that to say "god does not exist" is an as yet unbroken theorem.

You may, if you wish, hold desperately onto that virtually non-existant whisper of doubt and believe. I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

Would you now like "proof" of the non-existence of drexiblixities?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Grumpy:
Also - (still stating the obvious) - being a paedophile is part of what that person IS.

It's in the genes and is perfectly normal.

Therefore, to describe that normality as a "sin" (whatever THAT is) is like saying having a left foot is a sin. You love the footist, but you hate the foot?

Please note that I have added in the "P" word; would you excuse paedophilia as its part of what that person is?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I cannot find this anywhere. Please present the evidence.

If I did, then I am happy to deal with the issue.

If I did not (as I believe), then you owe me an apology for lying misrepresentation.

Sorry, you were right in this instance. I was confusing you with Mongo. Your word was 'cretins'.

quote:

Your latest post is just a tiresome reiteration of previous statements made by you.

No, you didn't bother to read it, because I haven't written it before.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Mike

Being homosexual is not the same as the homosexual act.

So, hate the sin... you know the line. I think.

You would come across far better if you dropped the insults, to be honest.

A-HA! Finally. The truth of the matter.

You just don't like the idea of *ahem* - letting someone in at the backdoor. That's it, isn't it?

Oh, I see, I see - jesus doesn't like what some men do with their willies, so he won't let them into heaven.

How absolutely pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Grumpy:
Also - (still stating the obvious) - being a paedophile is part of what that person IS.

It's in the genes and is perfectly normal.

Therefore, to describe that normality as a "sin" (whatever THAT is) is like saying having a left foot is a sin. You love the footist, but you hate the foot?

Please note that I have added in the "P" word; would you excuse paedophilia as its part of what that person is?

I did not say that.

And there we have it folks - religious bigotry in all it's glory - gay people are peadophiles!

This is so far beneath the lowest contempt available that I'm not even going to pursue it further.

I have no hesitation in branding you an imbecile.

quote:

gay people are peadophiles

Has anyone said that?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

quote:

Kindly prove that God does not exist.

Oh gawd ... (irony).

If you really mean this, you're more stupid than I supposed.

Proof is required of allegations of existence, not the other way round, you dimwit.

Mike

You asked for proof that God does exist, why should it be unreasonable to ask you to prove *your* argument?

Mike (Lacey),

You can prove the existence of something by evidence. You cannot disprove the existence of anything - simply because until you have evidence to the contrary i.e. that it does exist, then it may or may not exist. That does not, however, from a logical point of view give you cause to believe things which there is no REASON to believe. This is the foundation of science.

There is no reason to believe in God. Therefore a belief in God is irrational until there is evidence to the contrary.

Mike Dudley is correct with regard to where the need for proof lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

The probability ("proof") that god does not exist is so high as to be next to fact as makes no difference,

So close, but no cigar. Bit like saying "she is so very very nearly pregnant it makes no odds".

quote:

due to the complete and total lack of evidence, that to say "god does not exist" is an as yet unbroken theorem.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

quote:

You may, if you wish, hold desperately onto that virtually non-existant whisper of doubt and believe.

If I where a Christian, maybe I would.

Yes. You just did. You equate the two conditions as if they are the same thing. Your argument is ignorant, stupid and puerile.

If you can't see the difference between the two, you're an idiot.

Some people like having sex with the same sex. It doesn't matter what the dead jewish zombie thinks.

Get over it.

And with that, I'm outtahere.

quote:

Originally posted by Trevp:
[There is no reason to believe in God.

I've never said there is.

quote:

Therefore a belief in God is irrational until there is evidence to the contrary.

Mike Dudley is correct with regard to where the need for proof lies.

Not really, except in Mondo Dudley. Which seems to be a very bitter, intolerant world. Those who follow a religion just *know*. AFAICT. They don't need proof.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Yes. You just did. You equate the two conditions as if they are the same thing. Your argument is ignorant, stupid and puerile.

If you can't see the difference between the two, you're an idiot.

Some people like having sex with the same sex. It doesn't matter what the dead jewish zombie thinks.

Get over it.

And with that, I'm outtahere.

This is to Mike ("I don't approve of buggery") Lacey's post on gay people being like peadophiles, obviously...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Mike

Being homosexual is not the same as the homosexual act.

So, hate the sin... you know the line. I think.

You would come across far better if you dropped the insults, to be honest.

A-HA! Finally. The truth of the matter.

You just don't like the idea of *ahem* - letting someone in at the backdoor. That's it, isn't it?

Nothing to do with it. I'm not gay, but why should I worry or be concerned about sexual practices between consenting adults?

quote:

Oh, I see, I see - jesus doesn't like what some men do with their willies, so he won't let them into heaven.

How absolutely pathetic.

The sin is not the Sinner. Pretty sure this has been mentioned before. Not my concern, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Yes. You just did.

You are a liar, Mike.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
<QUOTE>
Because it's the hatred of the sin, not the sinner, that counts. If sinners are going to be imprisoned or hanged for their sins, as homosexuals were in 18th century England, they probably don't care that their Christian persecutors can forgive and love them. "Love the sinner" has never meant not punishing them.
-- Daniel

Not a lot of point in bringing up what happened three hundred years ago, really. Christianity has a prime tenet of forgiveness; AFAICT the Church does not really punish "sinners" as they hate the sin, and love the Sinner. Unlike MD they have long had the intellectual capacity to realise that the sin is not the Sinner.[/QUOTE]

But the church does punish sinners, for example, homosexual teachers are frequently fired in religious schools, when found out. "Love the sinner" is only meaningful to the Christian, it's not meaningful to the sinner, the sinner doesn't care that somebody who is punishing them also loves them, in some sense. I'm surprised that you would make this argument, because the Christian idea of "love the sinner" has never precluded punishment for commiting the sin.

-- Daniel

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

This is to Mike ("I don't approve of buggery") Lacey's post on gay people being like peadophiles, obviously...

There is no such post, Mike.

Likewise, unless you can show me where I have said that I don't approve of buggery, you are lying on that point again.