Will you still go to mass on sunday?

TheZohanS

Giancarlo Big Rubber wrote: »

Exactly.

Religious people are the most gullible people on the planet. The worst thing is that, due to its prominence, religion is not seen as brainwashing. To add to that, the Irish are quite weak and feeble, willing to believe anything - hence why catholicism took such a firm root in this country. And yet youll hear Irish people shout proudly that were not a group of people to be ****ed with - brilliant

Most of those idiots who continue to attend that filthy institution every sunday will be the first people to laugh at the likes of scientology or the mormon faith...

Don't post in this thread again. Consider yourself lucky to escape a ban this time.

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Nope, not sole your fault but when eastern mythology, syncretism and the goddess Tonantzin (the last three alone never mind the previous rest!) are thrown in to a subject thread that is about something else entirely and fundamentally basic, the main theme of a thread is totally gone and the main posters are completely lost on the rest of the thread.

I don't think thats fair on the rest of us. I reserve the right to be wrong on this of course!

It wasn't Jakkass who started any of this stuff, It was pookie who brought it all up and since there is disagreement over it as its not exactly solid evidence of anything its continuing off the main topic. Basically it was an attempt by the anti-religion side to take a slash at christianity in general under the guise of this thread.

partyatmygaff

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

People arguing over things that aren't real. Excellent.

And no, until you can PROVE these claims they remain untrue. If our courts operated like religious people think, then we'd all be guilty before being proven innocent.

Oh wait Wasn't there some Spanish Inquisition thingy that did that.....?:pac:

The spanish inquistion was the work of man with too much power, no basis whatsoever in religion. And no, until anyone else can disprove it then it cannot be called untrue. It cannot be proven nor disproven.

What does being guilty before being proven innocent have to do with anything here? The poor priests who had nothing to do with any of this are being labelled paedophiles because a small minority were abusing children, does that not count as being guilty before proven innocent?

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It wasn't Jakkass who started any of this stuff, It was pookie who brought it all up and since there is disagreement over it as its not exactly solid evidence of anything its continuing off the main topic. Basically it was an attempt by the anti-religion side to take a slash at christianity in general under the guise of this thread.

Fair enough and unreserved apologies to Jakkass if I came on strong in this thread.
I wish any folk that have an agenda from any either side would start their own threads instead of hijacking others.

Their gain is our loss!

To quote the first classic Star Wars "Stay on target, stay on target..." - I wish some would!

Diabhal Beag

Of course I'll still go to mass (Saturday not Sunday though). I know that bad things have been done but those involved will be rightly punished.

Let atheists be atheists though because I do not care for views when they outright rule out any possible existence of something higher. Discussion is good but the "I'm better than you mentality (both from atheists and fellow Christians) really pisses me off.

g5fd6ow0hseima

TheZohan wrote: »

Don't post in this thread again. Consider yourself lucky to escape a ban this time.

Cheers,

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Fair enough and unreserved apologies to Jakkass if I came on strong in this thread.
I wish any folk that have an agenda from any either side would start their own threads instead of hijacking others.

Their gain is our loss!

I for one, have no agenda besides to defend those innocent and to condemn those guilty.

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Of course I'll still go to mass (Saturday not Sunday though). I know that bad things have been done but those involved will be rightly punished.

Let atheists be atheists though because I do not care for views when they outright rule out any possible existence of something higher. Discussion is good but the "I'm better than you mentality (both from atheists and fellow Christians) really pisses me off.

You shall find in this thread anyways that the "I'm better than you" mentality has only been from one side.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I for one, have no agenda besides to defend those innocent and to condemn those guilty.

You and me both - and the rest too.
No difference of opinion there.

Turtwig

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Let atheists be atheists though because I do not care for views when they outright rule out any possible existence of something higher.

Ah C'mon now no atheist outright rules anything out. Well, if they do they're bonkers and not the rational folk they claim to be.

Discussion is good but the "I'm better than you mentality (both from atheists and fellow Christians) really pisses me off.

Agreed, I fcking hate it.:)

TheZohanS

Giancarlo Big Rubber wrote: »

Cheers,

Bye.

Jimmy Bottlehead

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The spanish inquistion was the work of man with too much power, no basis whatsoever in religion. And no, until anyone else can disprove it then it cannot be called untrue. It cannot be proven nor disproven.

What does being guilty before being proven innocent have to do with anything here? The poor priests who had nothing to do with any of this are being labelled paedophiles because a small minority were abusing children, does that not count as being guilty before proven innocent?

Then all catholics with that mentality should equally consider the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - he cannot be proven or disproven either.

And the guilty / innocent thing was a metaphor for how religious people base their faith - they believe something is true until it can be proven untrue, putting personal belief first until evidence comes along. If courts were to operate in that manner, then it would be a 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' system, which rides against everything modern society has achieved.

philologos

Actually, assessing the case thoroughly first before making a judgement is entirely reasonable. Nor is it guilty until proven innocent by any means.

To be proven innocent one has to assess the evidence. Pretty much as one does with Christianity. One looks to what implies that God exists, and one looks to what implies that God does not exist before concluding. This is what would happen in a court proceeding. All that implies that the accused is guilty is put forward, and all that implies that the accused in innocent is put forward.

The only difference is our verdict.

Gadfly

I haven't gone to mass for twenty years and won't be going back. In fact recently defected from the faith.

partyatmygaff

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Then all catholics with that mentality should equally consider the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - he cannot be proven or disproven either.

And the guilty / innocent thing was a metaphor for how religious people base their faith - they believe something is true until it can be proven untrue, putting personal belief first until evidence comes along. If courts were to operate in that manner, then it would be a 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' system, which rides against everything modern society has achieved.[/quote
I am not a catholic by the way.

In any case, This Flying Spaghetti monster thing is quite obviously manmade and the fact your even putting it into a serious debate really does not help your post.

Jimmy Bottlehead

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Then all catholics with that mentality should equally consider the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - he cannot be proven or disproven either.

And the guilty / innocent thing was a metaphor for how religious people base their faith - they believe something is true until it can be proven untrue, putting personal belief first until evidence comes along. If courts were to operate in that manner, then it would be a 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' system, which rides against everything modern society has achieved.

I am not a catholic by the way.

In any case, This Flying Spaghetti monster thing is quite obviously manmade and the fact your even putting it into a serious debate really does not help your post.

The Lord Spaghetti is indeed manmade.... whereas your God was not?? Tell you what - meet me back here in 2000 years and the FSM will then have the same amount of credibility as Jesus & Co.

Basing a serious debate around a Jewish Zombie who will eventually come back to blitz the evil and raise the dead and good to Heaven..... yeah. Thats plausable.

In the fine words of General Melchett from Blackadder... "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Such is the religious mentality.

Raiser

Min wrote: »

I will be going to mass tomorrow, I enjoy mass and the report does not change that.

You're not an 8 year old Boy - its risk-free gratification for you.....

I heard that lots of People joined the Ku Klux Klan simply because they already had holes in their bedsheets and it seemed to be an easy route to take.

- If you like I could ring you next Sunday morning, condescend to you, talk utter crap and sing bad folk songs out of key - then you could get your sick thrills without supporting Paedophile Scum.

partyatmygaff

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

The Lord Spaghetti is indeed manmade.... whereas your God was not?? Tell you what - meet me back here in 2000 years and the FSM will then have the same amount of credibility as Jesus & Co.

Basing a serious debate around a Jewish Zombie who will eventually come back to blitz the evil and raise the dead and good to Heaven..... yeah. Thats plausable.

In the fine words of General Melchett from Blackadder... "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Such is the religious mentality.

Jesus was a real person who did exist, this flying spaghetti stuff never existed and its purpose is a joke. Since we only know our own world, anything supernatural is not easily imagined. And as god is supernatural, what he can do is also impossible to be imagined. I don't see any of amazing facts here to disprove anything, I am not unwilling either, If you have definite proof to disprove god please do show us. If not then you have no point whatsoever.

Raiser wrote: »

You're not an 8 year old Boy - its risk-free gratification for you.....

I heard that lots of People joined the Ku Klux Klan simply because they already had holes in their bedsheets and it seemed to be an easy route to take.

- If you like I could ring you next Sunday morning, condescend to you, talk utter crap and sing bad folk songs out of key - then you could get your sick thrills without supporting Paedophile Scum.

Raiser, Why is it that you cannot talk to anyone here without sounding vindictive and nasty and without making cruel generalisations about innocent people?

Raiser

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your actually quite funny and have given me a laugh. I hope you got the joke to. Well done. Thank you for doing my hangover some justice.

Oh well that is starting to make some sense - now if all the rest of the blind, mad, runaway religious fundamentalists would admit to skulling 2 bottles of Whiskey before posting on here we'd finally have a shared clarity and understanding....

partyatmygaff wrote: »

<WITH 1ST TEXT EDITED OUT>



Raiser, Why is it that you cannot talk to anyone here without sounding vindictive and nasty and without making cruel generalisations about innocent people?

The subject matter is nasty, cruel and is not played by innocent People in the starring roles.

Any Son of Jedi Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah or the Toilet Duck who comes on here defending what I consider to be the lowest form of Animal life on this Planet is not going to go unchallenged by me.

I live by morals that have a foundation derived of decency and respecting others; Its like a personal notion of distinguishing right from wrong

- Its odd how some People could possess such a sense of justice without being told so by some sick, stunted, sexually reprehensible, Freak of an Octogenarian in a black dress and purple hat isn't it?

rugbyman

Hello partyatmygaff

You asked Jimmy bottle head to show some proof.

"Jesus was a real person who did exist, this flying spaghetti stuff never existed and its purpose is a joke. Since we only know our own world, anything supernatural is not easily imagined. And as god is supernatural, what he can do is also impossible to be imagined. I don't see any of amazing facts here to disprove anything, I am not unwilling either, If you have definite proof to disprove god please do show us. If not then you have no point whatsoever."

"If you have definite proof to disprove god please do show us. "

I think it is unlikely that Jimmy can prove this.
you have commented that god is supernatural etc, so it seems reasonable to assume that you believe in his existence.

Might I ask you, with respect ,to outline any proof that God does exist.

regards,rugbyman

partyatmygaff

Raiser wrote: »

The subject matter is nasty and cruel is not played by innocent People in the starring roles.

Any Son of Jedi Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah or the Toilet Duck who comes on here defending what I consider to be the lowest form of Animal life on this Planet is not going to go unchallenged by me.

I live by morals that have a foundation derived of decency and respecting others; Its like a personal notion of distinguishing right from wrong - Its odd how some People could possess such a sense of justice without being told so by some sick, stunted, sexually reprehensible, Freak of an Octogenarian in a black dress and purple hat isn't it?

No true follower of christianity is a paedophile, No one is defending paedophiles. I said it once and I shall say it again.

My only agenda, Is to defend those innocent and condemn those guilty

So who are you challenging? Not ONE person has defended a paedophile here. Not one.

Its like a personal notion of distinguishing right from wrong - Its odd how some People could possess such a sense of justice without being told so by some sick, stunted, sexually reprehensible, Freak of an Octogenarian in a black dress and purple hat isn't it?

It is indeed odd that anyone would possess a sense of justice from someone of that description. No one here is supporting someone like that. You seem to believe every priest is like your description. Well, if that is what you think then you are without a doubt blinded with hate. Damned be the day when the innocent and those who help people in great need of help through charity are branded sick because of the actions of a despicable few who deserve no place in the organisation they are in.

partyatmygaff

rugbyman wrote: »

Hello partyatmygaff

You asked Jimmy bottle head to show some proof.

"Jesus was a real person who did exist, this flying spaghetti stuff never existed and its purpose is a joke. Since we only know our own world, anything supernatural is not easily imagined. And as god is supernatural, what he can do is also impossible to be imagined. I don't see any of amazing facts here to disprove anything, I am not unwilling either, If you have definite proof to disprove god please do show us. If not then you have no point whatsoever."

"If you have definite proof to disprove god please do show us. "

I think it is unlikely that Jimmy can prove this.
you have commented that god is supernatural etc, so it seems reasonable to assume that you believe in his existence.

Might I ask you, with respect ,to outline any proof that God does exist.

regards,rugbyman

Hi,
There is no definite proof for the existence nor the non-existence of god, however it is unfathomable to my mind that this existence we live in or universe we live in was created for no reason or by chance, from my point of view it must have been created by something supernatural.

philologos

There seems to be a distinct difference between the attitude of many of the critics of religion here, and the others who just wish to worship and more fully understand the world through observance of faith.

The critics for the most part had emphasised how they are superior to those who believe in God, their criticism is mostly in the interest of demeaning those who wish to go to church and be a part of a faithful way of living. For the most part these people have no other interest apart from to put people down.

The people who are trying to communicate a defence of their faith, from what I can see are people who want to live their lives as fully as they can, and in the best way that they can. Not only do these people have hope in something higher, they want all people to have a share and a stake in that hope. I can't help but respect that, even if it is a non-Christian doing so. It's not about being better than anyone else, it's about sharing something that people really love with others.

Indeed, if we have indeed engaged in a relationship with God (for me I regard it as pretty certain that I have given my experiences of God and the experiences of others) we have something with far more worth than skeptics can ever provide us with.

Joey the lips

At mass tonight. Only got my soul clensed. Full house too. Ahh well. Those daft devot catholics what ever will they do next.

Raiser

Joey the lips wrote: »

At mass tonight. Only got my soul clensed. Full house too. Ahh well. Those daft devot catholics what ever will they do next.

They'll do whatever their Cult Leaders tell them to do..... as usual......

philologos

Raiser: What do you want to happen following on from this issue?

Does it all involve people ditching their belief in God? Or does it merely involve the disestablishment of the Catholic Church?

I'm in agreement that change needs to happen, I don't think I agree with you as to how. Give us a bit of insight into what you are thinking, I'd like to hear from you!

Joey the lips

Jakkass wrote: »

Raiser: What do you want to happen following on from this issue?

Does it all involve people ditching their belief in God? Or does it merely involve the disestablishment of the Catholic Church?

I'm in agreement that change needs to happen, I don't think I agree with you as to how. Give us a bit of insight into what you are thinking, I'd like to hear from you!

I too agree that change needs to badly happen. But I felt that since the start of this thread it has just been an excuse to berate a church goer.

I have no problem with a non believer. I have no problem with a believer. I dont believe we are all saints but I have faith. Despite the love story i am spurting I believe its what the world seriously lacks sometimes. Weather that be religious and a belief in god or just the love of fellow beings.

partyatmygaff

Raiser wrote: »

They'll do whatever their Cult Leaders tell them to do..... as usual......

Raiser, what is it that you are attempting to do?
Is it trolling because I am starting to believe that. What exactly do you hope to achieve by your posts? Why are you being so nasty towards those who believe in god when they are being courteous towards you?

condra

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, if we have indeed engaged in a relationship with God (for me I regard it as pretty certain that I have given my experiences of God and the experiences of others) we have something with far more worth than skeptics can ever provide us with.

Care to share with us your "experiences of God" ?

I've never had any myself.

philologos

condra wrote: »

Care to share with us your "experiences of God" ?

I've never had any myself.

It would clog up the thread if I went through it entirely

furiousox

Jakkass wrote: »

It would clog up the thread if I went through it entirely

seriously?
ok one example then

(genuine question)