the village idiot

I asked that when I had some Hurley chaps in but apparently it is not suitable. I had also wondered about the suitability of willow for Hurley sticks. The guys I used didn't know, have you got any thoughts Gerry?

Hi Hairy Chest, I have watched the Patrick Moore video and he does put forward a very compelling argument. As you quite rightly point out though a quick Google search will throw up equally compelling arguments of the other side of the coin. Regrettably for Patrick Moore, a quick Google search also reveals that his claim to be a founding member of Greenpeace is bogus and that since leaving that organisation his public speaking career has been bankrolled by large logging companies, large mining companies, the nuclear industry and Monsanto. That is not to say that what he says should be discounted, just that it should be viewed with some suspicion. This may be a bit unfair, but here is a video of Mr Moore demonstrating his inability to back up his own convictions. As with all these debates, be it on the existence of God or the evidence for human induced climate change it is necessary to start inquiry with a totally open mind and then look at the evidence and take a stance, rather than taking a stance and then look for evidence to support it. The way I look at the climate change issue is that the thousands of scientists, who after their research are very concerned about this issue, have nothing to gain from imploring us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Not burning fossil fuels will be a huge pain in the arse for all of us, the climate change supporting scientists included. If the research showed there was nothing to worry about, there is no way in the world that the leaders of the developed and developing world would ever in a million years agree to meet up to bash out a proposal that will mean ordering their voting populations to do things that will put them off 're-electing those same leaders. There's got to something seriously wrong to get them to do that! I will stop rabbiting on now, as this is really a topic for another thread. Right, back to the Christian bashing:001_smile:

Cut the guy some slack. He insists on charging not a penny more than minimum wage for his babysitting duties.

Mrs Idiot got in a right paddy when I spread strawberry jam all over the conservatory. The world's gone mad!

If a kitchen's not for kit then it really should be called something else. Ain't that right Stu?

Nowt wrong with your posts Hairy chest! It's getting your point across that matters and you do that very well:001_smile: Take no notice of my poncey writing style. It's a relic from studying English Literature at school. I was always getting told off for making my science write ups too wordy! I am very self conscious myself of coming across as a pretentious, condescending prat, but I too blunder on regardless! It is an important topic to debate, although as Mull pointed out early on, it is almost certainly doomed to fail. I don't agree with everything you say in your post, but I'll have a watch of the video when I get back to the yurt and let you know what I think.

Are you devoid of intellect, irredeemably clumsy, incapable of turning a profit, alarmingly uncharismatic and deeply deeply stupid? If so you are grossly over qualified and I would be humbled to be your deputy!

Without wishing to be crude, would the fairer sex not themselves have a vested interest in the proper upkeep (so to speak) of said appendage?

Not sure I agree with pretty much any of that Hairy chest. It is admittedly true that religious belief is on the wane in the developed and affluent West. (Scandinavia is almost entirely 'religion free' and amongst the happiest regions of the world. I don't know whether the two are connected, but I have my suspicions) Religious belief is still alive and well in almost all of the rest of the world, and with the comparatively high birth rates in these poorer countries and the world's track record on the distribution of wealth, there is not much chance of that changing very much. Surely it is a good thing (rather than a problem) that we have access to the experts in a flash. It could well be argued that it is not having access to these experts that stops people from being able to educate themselves and make reasoned decisions on matters such as Faith. As a general rule countries that become more educated and affluent become less religious over time. The USA being the exception that proves the rule, but we all know that they are crazy:001_smile: If by "enviro-climate delusions" you mean the concern over CO2 emissions and the resultant warming of our climate then your view is very worrying indeed. Even the God fearing politicians, not renowned for their ability to accept the evidence of science, have now conceeded that we are in serious doo doo if we continue to prioritise human contentment and consumption over the health of our planet. In my view an ambivalence to the warming of our planet and a refusal to accept the part we play in it is way more of an issue than whether or not there is a God. A rejection of the evidence on our attempt to destroy our own planet is far more consequential than a rejection of the evidence against the existence of God. Laying into one for ignoring the evidence whilst rejecting the other when the evidence is clear for both. That is delusional. Maybe you were just trying to be provocative? If so, well done. Consider me provoked!

:lol:

I don't know if it's just an indication of a disturbed and perverted mind, but at first glance I thought mushroom was going to offer some sage like advice on the appropriate care of the male genitalia!

Hi Ti, Yes I would. The fact that you have have turned your life around in such a dramatic and worthwhile fashion is absolutely fantastic, and I don't in any way dispute the fact that this extremely positive change was triggered by whatever revelation it was that you experienced. What I do dispute however is that your experience in any way shape or form proves the existence of God. There is no need or indeed any justification for attributing transformative experiences to a supernatural power. The fact that you have chosen to attribute yours to God and have decided to live your life by the good bits of his example has had a brilliantly positive result and that is great. If you had been born into a different culture, say that of the Taliban, and had the same revelatory experience, chances are the result would have been entirely different. This is the unavoidable paradox of religious belief. You both believe absolutely in a 'one true God' that is good and just. You cannot both be right. One of you is definitely wrong. All the evidence suggests beyond all reasonable doubt that you are both wrong. The onus is really on those with religious faith to justify their faith. The fact that your faith compels you to do wonderful things is brilliant, but all it proves is that it has transformed you into a person who does fantastically worthwhile things. It is an entirely different thing to say that it provides evidence for the existence of God. It does not. I'm sure that you understand I'm not saying that the great deeds you do are delusional, just that your conclusion as to why you do them is delusional. Just because a belief in God necessitates the application of faith does not explain why there is absolutely zero conclusive evidence that he exists. It is not unreasonable to think that an all powerful God who has total control over every event that occurs in our universe would leave at least one scrap of evidence that corroborated his existence. As it stands, every single example of reasoned thought suggests that the concept of God is delusional. So until those of a religious persuasion can offer some concrete evidence to the contrary (which if he does indeed exist should be ridiculously easy) he will remain a delusion in my book. A man with a genuine experience (that can be proven as such) is never at the mercy of a man with an argument

Ooch! Nasty.

If the congregations doing the praying in the study were not told what to pray for and given certain specific words to include then the experiment would be unscientific and no valid conclusions could be drawn. I do find it ironic (although it is almost certainly only coincidence) that in the study, the patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered significantly more post op complications than those who didn't know if they were being prayed for or not. If this coincidence had been the other way around and those that knew they were being prayed for suffered less post op complications, you can bet your butt that people of faith would declare this as conclusive proof that prayer can work miracles. This is the frustrating thing. Religion believes that it is immune from all scientific reasoning, unless they believe that it comes out in support of their cause. Then of course it is perfectly legitimate. Scientists are happy to dismiss anomalies that support their hypothesis if they cannot be proven to be an irrefutable fact. The reason I reject the concept of faith when it comes to religious belief, and why I don't accept that it can't be challenged is that it is, by definition, an acknowledgement that all rational and reasonable thought has failed. If rational thought and the unequivocal evidence of fact has demonstrated the whole concept of religion to be a nonsense, to say that "well I'm going to believe in it anyway, It makes sense to me" is surely delusional and needs to be justified. I can completely understand that a fear that death is the end, and that there is no divine purpose to life is a scary prospect for people. Maybe this is the true reason why people cling to the idea of a creator who bestows life after death. But surely it is better to accept the enormous weight of evidence suggesting that this is all we've got and live this life to the full, than live a blinkered life, unable to truly understand the wonder of what is around us, (meanwhile in a lot of cases denying our children the opportunity to do the same,) for fear that a fictional supernatural being that is supposedly Love incarnate will send us to an eternity of unimaginable suffering in Hell if we choose to disregard all available evidence and believe in him unconditionally. You say that you are not a Christian Mull. Do you follow a different faith, or are you just really argumentative?

Woah, hold your horses Mull. I got sucked in to a documentary on the TV about Wilco Johnson. Brilliant! Did anyone else see it? I am sad that you find it hilarious and greatly disturbed that you are so dismissive of the Sam Harris video. I think your comments highlight the huge gulf between the ways in which we view the World. To be fair, it has had much greater minds than ours debating these same things for centuries. I am not on a quest to end Christianity, merely on a quest to try to understand why people who are completely rational in all other aspects of their lives choose to be mindbogglingly irrational and stubbornly unreasonable when it comes to religion. I genuinely just don't get it. I also don't understand or agree with your assertion that religion is not about what happens in this life. You may think of this as true, but I'm not sure that the billions of people who unwittingly suffer in its name would agree with you. I don't think huge amount of valuable resources have been spent on the study of the healing power of prayer, and I for one am thankful that they have not been. The evidence that I was referring to which casts very significant doubt on the efficacy of prayer is copied below. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=0

Hi Paul. I am no stranger to spirituality and meditation. The latter has greatly helped in cementing my thoughts on the 'wrongness' of religious thinking. As I'm sure you have found, meditation helps to cut through all the nonsense that the mind is prone to throw up and shows that a great deal of our thinking is nuts and not to be trusted. I would be very interested to hear about how meditation has helped you to strengthen your faith in God. The benefits of meditation and mindfulness are beginning to be supported by more and more scientifically verifiable evidence. Prayer on the other hand has been shown to have no demonstrable effect on the object of the prayer other than by coincidence. It is easy to be seduced when a person recovers from a serious illness after having being prayed for. What gets overlooked is the many, many more who are also prayed for but do not recover. It is certainly irrefutable that Christians have always done (and continue to do) many marvellous things to help the less fortunate in society. This is brilliant, but being a Christian is by no means a prerequisite to being good. If anything, I would suggest that religion provides an extremely dubious set of morals by which to live by. Watch this video a couple of times and have a really good think. Or better still, meditate on it. https://youtu.be/d9GXqYhu_CM

Yes but if that choice or state of mind is regressive, illogical and, most importantly, potentially damaging it needs to be challenged.

Good man Felix! This incident was last winter and I do now have a hefty winch on the log arch to get me out of these sticky situations. That being said, having someone present to feed me custard creams whilst debating the best cable attachment points would be most gratifying!

There still has to be a justifiable reason why you have that Faith. Have you heard of the Cosmic Teapot paradox? If I was to out of the blue insist that there was an interplanetary teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars it couldn't be proven absolutely that I was wrong, but the weight of evidence against me being right is so strong that pretty much everyone would agree that I was mistaken. The fact that I had faith in it would not be enough to satisfy people that I should not be challenged on my belief. It is the same situation with a belief or faith in God. The weight of evidence against there being a God is so strong that we should reasonable discount his existence. If I went further and garnered support for my cosmic teapot faith and insisted that it was instructing my desciples to reject scientific reasoning and destroy any non- teapotians then pretty much everyone on the planet would start getting a bit angry with me. There is nothing wrong with having Faith in something completely illogical so long as it is harmless. Religion is not, so simply having Faith in it is not good enough. It is also pretty bizarre that an all powerful and intrinsically good God would choose to rely on people having Faith in him to justify his existence. Why not just pop down and say hello and instantly remove all the angst and doubt suffered by the poor Archbishop and his flock?

Doesn't look too bad from the photo, but there was no way it was coming out with my old little tractor on turf tyres. Nothing more demoralising than unloading a trailer by hand that you have just loaded by hand and then having to re-load it again by hand!

Hi TCD, I have no issue with the fact that there could have been a chap called Jesus Christ who lived 2000 years ago. It is perfectly plausible that he existed and was indeed crucified. What needs proving is that he was the son of God (or God himself). I fully appreciate that I am am probably coming across as a pedantic prat that can't just let it drop and let people believe what they want to believe. But religion has an awful lot to answer for. It causes a lot of harm and should not be immune from having to explain itself just because it is sacred to people.

Over to you TCD. Despite my strong views on the subject I am not a closed minded person. If you can provide compelling and verifiable evidence that your God exists I will gladly admit that my position is untenable. My position is probably best summed up by this quote from Stephen F. Roberts. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Thanks Paul. I doubt whether anyone on the forum really thought that the Archbishop was a closet non believer. He just presented too good an opportunity to miss! The thing I can't get my head around is why when these doubts surface in the minds of the faithful they don't seem to stick. I can understand that rejecting a belief that has been held for so long and has shaped your life would be a hugely daunting prospect. But from where I sit, any amount of rational and honest thought on the existence of God and therefore the validity of his teachings can only result in one outcome. As for 'arguing with God'. Debating the existence of a supernatural being is strange in itself, debating it with said supernatural being surely borders on insanity? There is no valid evidence to support the fact that arguing with God is in any way different to debating with Scooby Doo. Anyone doing the former is respected as a wise and well adjusted individual. Anyone engaged in the latter would be promptly booked an extended stay in the nearest lunatic asylum. People of faith need to start rationalising their beliefs. Bringing up children to believe and live their lives according to an idea that has never in 2000 years produced any supporting evidence is wrong and damaging.

You bring those baked bile of Beelzebub within 10 miles of my wood and you will regret the day you ever left the safety of the litter my friend:sneaky2:

Oh crumbs!