Yours has never been remotely "thinly-veiled".



Your lack of self-awareness is hilarious.





Ah, but that's because I'm working for Satan. You already told us this.



What? When you start by making massive, sweeping statements about the moral state of the entire support of a club, for instance? I can't imagine how that would happen.



Translation: 'if anybody wants to know where a church is that I'd recommend, I'll answer. If you ask me for evidence of the existence of a god, I will not consider that a genuine question'.

And, of course, these 'genuine' questions do not include the ones that Scooter Nik has repeatedly asked you, entirely politely, and which you continue to ignore.

Doesn't seem to be a forgiving chap, does he?

Well you don't need to prove the existance of God, that's why it's called 'having faith'.

You said you were a journalist, but for Murdoch?

Brilliant

Indeed.

Children have more evidence for the existence of Father Christmas.

But the existance of Father Christmas can be easily disproved. Even the God of the militant athiests, Dawkins, could only say 'God probably doesn't exist' in his silly little bus campaign.

If you thought that campaign was silly you'd cry at the American Atheists billboards in the USA.

This one is quite confusing, I'm not sure what it's trying to say.

Really? You don't know what that's trying to say?

I'm not thick, of course I know what it's [itrying[/i to say, but couldn't 'hear' so easily be changed to 'read'? It's as if they're contradicting their own message.

In one sentance they're saying 'there is no God', and in the next they're saying don't believe everything that people tell you. So if they're telling me there isn't a God am I supposd to believe it or not? Or am I supposed to be making up my own mind, which going back to the topic (not the original topic I might add), Kirkstaller clearly has made up his own mind of what to believe and I don't think he should be subjected to some of the things that are thrown at him via this forum.

Have a look what the billboard was a response too.

Just looked, another billboard saying exactly the same thing but coming from the other side. You could turn my argument around but it would still be the same for both sides. I'm not part of the God squad so anything you say about religion won't get my riled. I do like the idea of freedom of thought and doesn't religion come under that?

So you now understand that the Atheist billboard was a direct response to a churches billboard and the Atheist billboard was showing the stupidity, like you have pointed out, of the wording?

You do understand nobody is trying to stop freedom of thought?

now this is what faith is REALLY about www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... a-dad.html even better, his missus is from St Helens !

now this is what faith is REALLY about www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... a-dad.html even better, his missus is from St Helens !

No that's what's medicine and surgery is all about.

The first few pages of this thread is the most I've ever laughed on RLfans. Fook me

you really are clueless, aren't you pal ?

On a lot of things yes but you'll have to explain why on this.

Quote ="sanjunien"now this is what faith is REALLY about www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... a-dad.html even better, his missus is from St Helens !'" So is he. Top bloke too.

Quote ="sanjunien"now this is what faith is REALLY about www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... a-dad.html even better, his missus is from St Helens !'" So is he. Top bloke too.

And the existence of god cannot be proved.

Just as the existence of fairies cannot be proved.

Or the existence of a chocolate teapot on the far side of the sun.



Well indeed. Actually, this thread – and, indeed, the billboards – is about more than freedom of [ithought[/i. This is moving into the territory of freedom of speech.

And if the religious have the right to speak out about their beliefs (which they do) then it is also 'freedom of speech' to have the opportunity to say it's a load of bunk.

The problem is that [isome[/i religious people are not content with that. They want special treatment; they want others to be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs – and indeed, they wish to be discriminated in favour of on the basis of the same beliefs. They want society run on the basis of their beliefs. They want political decisions made on the basis of their beliefs.

It's also worth pointing out that some of 'the God squad', from across religious divides, would very much like to stop freedom of thought and speech. Some already do exactly that.

I trust everyone on this thread had a wonderful Christmas celebrating the birth of baby Jesus.

Given that even the god squad don't believe Jesus was born on 25 December, but know that the church picked the date because peoples already held a lengthy festival at that time of year to mark the solstice etc ...

They possibly celebrated with Christmas trees – expressly forbidden in the [iBible[/i ([iJeremiah[/i 10) and even a Yule log, as in, err, Yule, the pre-Christian, northern European festival.

No, we now have satellites observing the Sun from various angles, so can see around the back. Therefore the fact that to dat no chocolate teapot has been detected, seems reasonable enough proof to me.

However, were I a religious bigot or religiously brainwahsed, none of the observations would make a scrap of difference. Because it might be an invisible teapot. Or the God of Chocolate Teapots may have decided against it being detectable by human-made equipment. Or the US government may be deliberately withholdng the discovery from the population so as not to create widespread panic.

And indeed, I can't prove that any of those things are not true. And so, to what passes for the brain of a Chclate Teapotter, I am out of order stating definitively that there is no chocolate teapot, because I can't say there isn't, and the Chocolate Teapot Bible says there is, so who am I to argue with the word of the chocolate lord?



This, but more than "worth pointing out" I would urge people to heed the warning. A couple of decades ago, I wouldn't have belieged how far and how quickly a notionally 'advanced' country like the US could slip in terms of luntaic cults, barking sects and religious movements and general superstitious idiocy. It is very worrying just how quickly a brand new idiocy can actually take over seemingly intelligent and rational people. Eg scientology, Mormonism, death cults, to name but three, but there is hardy any shortage.

And anyone who thinks the extremists of ANY religion, if they had power or positions of authority, would not seek to impose their insanity, then they are misguided. All would, if they could, and in many corners of the world, they already do, including the firm conviction that they have the power over life and death, let alone how you live your life.