Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

How could he when he doesn't exist.

Bit of a crap design though, for the giraffe's laryngeal nerve.

Watch Richard Dawkins use the route this nerve follows in the neck to prove that this must have occurred through 'evolution' rather than through the good design of any kind of creator:

If you want to watch/listen to more from Richard Dawkins, then try:

http://bigthink.com/richarddawkins

There's a full 34 min interview and there are links on the page breaking the interview into small chunks.

Also try Christopher Hitchens ranting about the Catholic Church

Hays,

Father Christmas "I didn't."

You probably had to buy your own!

'evolution' doesn't disprove any kind of creator:, because the process of evolution could have been started by a kind of creator .

Ah yes, the latest god ploy - Intelligent Design. The god freaks have given up on denying Darwinism as it is so patently obvious. Now they are coming up with a new slant. What happened to the previous doctrine? Was it just because it was so obviously untrue?

The creationists set the beginning of creation variously at between 10 thousand and 25 thousand years ago. As that theory is looking a bit worse for wear they are trying to get on the evolution bandwagon.

Am open minded about it , what was there before creation just frozen time ?
what I can't get my head around is something that has no beginning .

http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/GodInsideTime.pdf

Its to much for me to take in . What's all mean in a nut shell ?

The big flaw in all of that is that there is absolutely no need to ask the question.

Similarly, since a question has been asked there is no real reason to answer it.

If somone asks a daft question such as, "Why are we here?" then they are supposing first of all that there must be some reason as to why we are here. This is fallacious.

There doesn't have to be a reason. We are simply 'here'.

Existence exists.

If it did not, then there would just be a void.

Simples.

Q. Why is there such a problem accepting this?

A. Probably the human ego makes us feel that we are so important, or that human conciousness is so important, that it would be such an enormous pity if it were to terminate, or be allowed to terminate.

So this stuff must make it a very easy job for religious leaders to usurp such enormous power over such large numbers of the populace.

There isn't a void. Existence exists. So is there is simply no need for there to be such a thing as a 'god creator' to have created it.

When the human brain no longer gets fed with oxygen from the blood supply, ie. at the point of death, then the human conciousness for that brain would simply cease to exist. It's very sad....but it's very true. :-(

Sad too, that brain damage can completely change the personality of someone and turn that someone into someone who is no longer a nice guy - or has the same mental characteristics of the person we knew before. :-(

Soon I will be 95 That is if Im still alive.
I ask my friend who is 98, 'What do you think of our inevitable fate?'
He smiles and turns away.
'I think of life,' I hear him say.

From a poem by Kirk Douglas

It is good to see Cameron and Osborne are enjoying their holidays.

Pity they haven't earned it.

I think, they could show leadership by returning to their convenience housing and at the least recall the cabinet to consider any immediate, or future actions which they may have to take.

Stupid arrogant Bs.

I thought this "bunch", before they were elected were over crammed opportunistic, out of touch idiots. They are proving it.

At least Cable had the decency to stay.

Will the FTSE open down on Monday?

Today is the happiest day of the year at 6pm. So if your are not happy then it will not get any better. lol.

http://youtu.be/uNlfdlnc1Ag

Here's Paul Scholes' delightful screamer of a goal that put Manchester United 1-0 ahead in Scholes' Testimonial match against New York Cosmos yesterday. The end result was 6-0 and Scholes should earn a reputed 1.5m from the match (allegedly).



If you'd like to see the other goals go HERE

Back to the god debate http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetails.cgi?selection=912699449 looks like it's important for some people to keep it going don't you think?

Nice little earner eh? Spending cuts, job cuts, "we're in this together"? Ho Ho.

CHAPLAINCY MANAGER
CHAPLAINCY
30,460 - 40,157 per annum (AfC band 7)
37.5 hours per week PERMANENT
NB: New starters to the NHS or those with over 12 months break in service at the date of appointment will commence on the minimum of the payscale

Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is seeking to recruit a full time Church of England Chaplain into the post of Hospital Chaplain.

You will oversee and ensure delivery of a comprehensive chaplaincy service across the hospital, meeting spiritual and pastoral needs of patients and staff, as required.

Hmmm?

Didn't some nurse at one hospital get the chop, merely because she said to a patient, 'I will pray for you.'?

Didn't one at another hospital get the chop for wearing a cross and chain and refusing to take it off?

Also, aren't patients given the option to state their religion on a hospital entry form?

So it would be useful to equate this salary with the number of C of E hospital patients and see what the 'cost of the chaplain per C of E patient' actually is.

And what about patients who aren't C of E? ie, Muslims, Methodists, Catholics, Mormons, etc. Shouldn't the hospital be getting chaplains for them too?

How utterly ridiculous!

Oh my God

Perhaps, sometimes, the Chaplain can do more for some patients than the Doctors or the nurse.

Because, some are unable to see the value of having a religion for themselves, it is obvious many do gain from their "religious experiences".

A little like some like and enjoy Classical music others prefer counting their money.

For those who have a belied in a God it gives them a reason for "being" and and "explanation".

I think good luck to them.

Those without a "belief" often seem embittered by the pointlessness of their own existence.

----------------------------------

But our present chosen leaders are leading you to the promised land.

-------------------


Four more days for me and I will be in my promised land, France

Hope I can afford the boat back.

Fred

I do agree with you that it is not a good idea to take something away from soneone (ie. in this instance their 'belief in God') and put back nothing in its place.

Religion does provide 'hope' for lots of people, and particularly so for those who cannot be quite so self-reliant as lots of your so called 'non-believers' tend to be.

I disagree with you that 'those without belief are often embittered by the pointlessness of their own existence'. However, if that is your view, then you are quite entitled to have it. It just isn't mine.

I'm here to try and enjoy the 'pure being' of it all, whilst it lasts for me.

There is no problem with people having the freedom to believe in religion no matter how bad it is for them. What is iniquitous is giving religious organisations charitable status and subsidising religious schools as it just perpetuates the whole silly process. Religion should have no official status or special tax arrangements. Why should a group of people who have bizzare ideas be given state support to continue and propagate them.