Its a public asset that he would only later reveal to the leader of industry who contributed the most to his organisation's advertising budget - The God is a Tory after all.

I have seen it written in comment pages on the net that it is a companies [imoral[/i duty to do the best for its shareholders (never mind legal duty) so by avoiding tax as the likes of Google and Amazon do then it's all morally OK. It's bad enough when the "shareholder is king" is used as a defence for all that goes on but whatever, you are spot on to say this kind of thing is what makes companies amoral.

I memory serves me correctly, Paul also said that women must cover their heads in church (in effect). I wonder if Mrs D went to church the other day – and wore a hat.



Love this.



On a similar note, God also created a parasitic worm that lives by eating human eyes.

In 2009, national treasure David Attenbrough told the [iRadio Times[/i that he gets hate mail from Creationists, for not acknowledging God.

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds," he said. "I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs."

God is good.




One could also point out that successive prime ministers since (and including) Margaret Thatcher have claimed to be Christians – and, by their policies, have made it ever easier for big business to behave in such a manner.

All three were also Quakers, the only christian sect that seems even half-way normal and non-evangelical

True, but I wanted to be fair that there had been at least some Christians with consciences.

On the issue of religion = moral, explain this:
I live in a country where religion is compulsory. You have a choice of 6 these days. However, it is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Recently, a police chief was caught with boxes of cash in the boot of his car. He claimed it was a blessing from god.

Seems like the Guides leadership is out of touch. The new Superman film has been marketed via churches in the USA on account of its Christian-like message. Churches were given film clips, ideas for sernons, etc and it's been a huge box office success.

You do know that we don't live in the USA, don't you?

GCHQ, membership of the EU, war in the middle East. We do all these things for the USA. These are huge things. That shows that to all intents and purposes we are part of the USA.

Have you been sniffing marker pens?

I'm sure this 8/10 IMDB rated, $200m budget film would have tanked at the box office if it wasn't for the marketing to the church.

Kraft, Heinz, Hilton, Walmart, etc

It's not noon yet: why aren't you in church?

This puts much in perspective:

If we are going to play silly games, so does this:

Is there another one for "Diseases eradicated or decimated by trees" ?

Got a list of people killed on religious grounds?

Well the biggest mass murderers in history didn't kill for religious reasons: Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot - 3 did it in the name of communism (why killing your people is good for the community I am not sure) and the other was a national socialist. So, I would suggest that warped political philosophy is rather evil. It suppresses religion in order to impose its evil. Bit like the modern Labour Party.

Christian-like message is right.
i.e. A superhuman mythical being from out there somewhere.

Hitler was religion and used religious hatred as a weapon (playing the old 'Christ-killers' bit about the Jews). The Nazis were supported, at differing times, by assorted Christian churches – and also by the World Zionist Council.

Conveniently, you 'forget' the likes of Franco and Salazar, who had backing from the church, together with an entire raft of Latin American fascist dictatorships.

As for the "modern Labour Party" suppressing religion – your trolling is miles off the mark tonight.

Not pay enough attention in church this morning?

I was talking about the mass, mass murderers. Mao and Stalin were streets ahead of Hitler.

The chattering classes in the modern Labour Party seem to me enthusiasts when it comes to promoting secularism.

Promoting a secular state does not equal suppression of religion beyond its interference in state matters.

It's the easiest thing in the world to jump in with the crowd and hurl rhetoric at religion from the peanut gallery.

During the Catholic Church's approx 2,000 year history it has committed many crimes and I have no interest in condoning them. That said, it is entirely incorrect to suggest it hasn't, on many occasions, served a positive social influence.

For instance, I find it laughable that you use scientific successes in medicine (omitting the fact that many of the greatest advances in science were funded by and for the military) as a club with which to beat religion (the Gatling Gun was created by who again?) whilst, I guess, forgetting the more than trivial point that if it weren't for the efforts of religion in protecting priceless scientific texts (going back to the Romans and Greeks) from being burned by the barbarians we might well be living in mud huts today.

Atheist zealots are all the same. It's less about what they say than what they [idon't[/i say.

For instance, mintball confidently stakes her claim about the links between politics and violence in the 20th century (although she's having little success in proving WWII was influenced to any great extent by religion - aside from Hitler's pathological hatred of Jews). Her last sentence mentions "an entire raft of Latin American fascist dictatorships". But she is curiously silent on the role South American churches of all descriptions played in opposing brutal US-backed terrorist forces such as Reagan's Contras. Is it because she hasn't heard of the likes of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_RomeroOscar Romero[/url and/or Liberation Theology, or is she simply unable to give credit where credit is due?

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

Also, no-one in this discussion in this forum has suggested that people should be prevented from following whatever religion they choose.

I would argue that secularism (as opposed to any one religion being "The" religion of a country) offers the greatest freedom to choose one's own religious or non-religious path.

So far, no one in this thread has produced the slightest shred of evidence that the decline of Christian belief and/or Church attendance has led to worse behaviour or declining morals overall. All we have heard is echoingly empty rhetoric stating it to be so.
But we should't be surprised at that, religious belief is not evidence-based.

"All the same" eh?
Where no evidence has been found it is far more sensible to admit it than to insist that a wishful guess is not disprovable.