Be Excellent To Each Other

There is missing the point and then there is running directly away from the point whilst shrieking, gnashing your teeth and defecating over yourself. Why these idiots have been listened to enough to get on the news I've no idea.

These people should have the words "I do not understand the purpose of & main concepts behind the very idea of stories and narrative" tattooed to their foreheads.

Twunts



Absolute Cunts

That is too perfect.

He objects to mentions of drunkenness, cigarettes and "talking about our firemen"? Has he even *read* the bible? There's considerably worse in there.

I think there's a range of books about a dog called Spot, which is probably on the right level for this guy and his daughter.

Is there a mention of firemen in the Bible?

Oh Aye

She thinks the books should be banned because it features people burning the bible.

EVEN THOUGH THE POINT OF THE BOOK IS THAT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BURN THE FUCKING BIBLE

FOR FUCKS SAKE IT'S FILLING ME WITH RAGE CAN YOU BE ANY MORE STUPID THAN THAT?

"I WANT TO BAN THE DEPICTION OF EVERYTHING THAT IS A BIT NASTY AS IT IS NASTY LETS ALL JUST READ THE BIBLE WHICH HAS NOTHING NASTY IN IT AT ALL IT IS JUST CUDDLES AND THE BABY JESUS AND ANGELS AND FOOD BEING PREPARED ON CLEAN SURFACES - LET US CLOSE OUR BORDERS - LET US NOT THINK AT ALL - DO NOT DEPICT OUR FIREMEN!!!!

I'm incandescent with rage.

And it's really fucking slack journalism too. The pertinent question here is "The things you are critical of in this book, this book is also critical off - so why does that offend you? You oxygen thief."

ARFGH!

In reality though it's just one fruitcake and her even loopier Dad and it's only got on the news so people can point and laugh at it. If the school were to ban the book then I would be worried but I have some small faith in the human race so doubt that will actually happen.

The family should be sterilised though to prevent any further damage to the gene pool.

Oh totally, except that
1) The Journalists didn't humiliate them enough for my liking.
2) It's shakes my wooly liberal heart by making me realise that people like these two should never be trusted with any decision ever, and that the right to vote/reproduce/breath shouldn't apply to absolute fuckwits.
3) The fact the journalists decided it was news worthy makes me hate them. Especially as they played it so straight.

Angry, Lave?

You are absolutely right, of curse. Sometimes you want to grab these people by the shoulders and shake them hard, not angry at them as such but angry at their sheer stupidity and single mindedness.

Shake them hard and shout 'WHY SO STUPID?!?!'

Been up all night. It brings out the worst in me.

I'll shake, you yell.

For goodness sakes..

FTFY

If they don't understand the point of 'Fahrenheit 451', how the heck do they comprehend the Trinity?

FTFY

You see, that's why I don't read books. Nothing but trouble.

They do seem to back up the idea that the more religious you are the less you've read the book you believe in.

Well that's the thing. These nut jobs probably have never read it, due to having all the info they need screamed at them by Evangelical Side show freaks.

Not a chance in hell of that book being banned in that school. Phew. If it was, I'd break something quite expensive.

My fave line from Alton Verm is...

"And then there's no reason for it being read."

Which is exactly the reasoning the fire chief and the government employs against books. Not due to moral corruption, or depravity, or religious intolerance, but stating as reason that books give you nothing of any value whatsover.

I suspect the only book this man finds a reason for is the bible. I feel sorry for him and more so for his daughter. Though I would still like to just fly over there with my own cable news team and explain in painstaking detail why they're idiots and try, somehow, to explain to them as well.

Gaggh.

Ever heard the expression: Never argue with idiots as they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. No? Well, true believers make idiots look like fucking amateurs

Hmm. Fundies, I'd agree with, but I've met some very rational and intelligent true believers.

I have a good friend who is not only one of the most intelligent and articulate people I've ever met but is confirmed low-church Christian. He doesn't force it down your throat, but when it comes up in conversation it's really interesting to hear what he has to say on matters theological and why he believes it.

See that beat about beating you with experience? I've met some very well educated Christians and I may agree with some of the looser didacts of christianity and it's noble causes, and there are lots and lots of fascinating aspects to theology. But God actually existing? That's about as good an example of irrational faith as you'll get

A redundancy, surely? If it was rational, it wouldn't be faith. I think I see what you're saying, but I think the way you said it sounded like you were referring more to the idiocy and less to the arguing style.

It is no less irrational that believing there is no God, though. Given that one of the fundamental aspects of God everyone seems to agree on is that you can't prove its existence one way or the other, genuine atheism is surely as irrational as genuine belief. Hence weak atheism (which is apparantly not the same as agnosticism, although I've never quite figured out why).

Hey, heard the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?

Grr. Everyone seems to have their own definitions of this delightful chestnut. Mine:

Agnosticism: Lack of belief in a god.
Atheism: Belief in a lack of god.

No, that's an impossibly stupid conclusion.

Belief in the absence of something till proof is absolutely not the same as belief in the existence of something without a shred of evidence.

The flipside is that these people could honestly hold a genuine grievance with aspects of the book, and can't convey this in the same finely honed, demure fashion that others can, and, as a result, the complaint looks ridiculous. I also do think that there is evidence of a lack of education when these complaints come up, as the complainents do often appear from come the lower socio economic groups, and then everyone points and laughs at the 'rednecks'.

Mind you, Bradbury did get published in Playboy a fair bit, so that's a good enough reason to read the magazine.

Not if you extend to the quote to include the second bit, "if you accept that the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven logically", which seems to be the position held by a lot of theists.

I think your point is that with no evidence, it's bloody unlikely there is any sort of higher power. This is invalidating the second part of what I said, that you cannot logically prove or disprove the existence of god(s). This is a position I share, and would extend thusly: "if there is no evidence and there is a higher power, what bloody use is it?".

Of course, it's intellecutal snobbery. But the best kind. I believe in self-improvement and that we all have the same oppurtunites to learn from the world, if we can be bothered to open our minds somewhat. If they don't like novels, that's fine. Just don't criticise something you're not prepared to read, and do not seek to deny others the oppurtunity to judge the worth of a book for themselves.

Live and let live; be excellent to each other; buy a new book of cliches.

You're just trying to be a smart arse contentious motherfucker. Define God, go on, smart arse. Also, how is me applying rationale to something that is the textbook definition of improbable and asking about God actually existing make me as irrational as someone who believes he exists? And who is this everyone you refer to who seem, most unlike mankind in general, to be agreeing that you can't prove God's existence. They can't even fucking agree on monotheism, let alone elect one being and define it.

We're not talking here about the structure and tribal comforts that being part of an organised religion can bring to someone's life, we're talking about God and the improbability of his existence. It is so improbable that I feel safe saying he doesn't. Now, I believe in faeries at the bottom of my garden, care to prove to me they don't exist?


Nicking my jokes, tsk

Hah. It's almost like you know me or something

See my comments elsewhere in the thread. If you accept the constraint that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of one or more gods, then strong atheism is illogical; I accept that's a crappy constraint but it does seem to be one that comes up a lot.

I had this joke looong before you told it to me man.

I agree - hence my definitions.

I could blather on for ages about this one, but the simple answer is I DO NOT accept that constraint. Only a fucking idiot would. And as I said earlier, there's little or no point arguing with them

Are you familiar with the phrase, 'poisoning the well'?

Yes

Not really. I don't think you can assign any sort of meaningful probability as to (most definitions of-ed.) God's existance. It's a very different situation to something like the odds of an idiotic statement not appearing on YouTube one day, which would be more of a textbook definition. This is why I am an agnostic, as I no longer believe any other stance is rationally coherent.

Slightly off topic, but all the old sci-fi authors did... Playboy was incredibly important to the growth of sci-fi as a genre. It was one of the few mainstream places where sci-fi could get published.

On topic: Dear Alton Verm. You are a pillock.

Crikey, yes, I DO know that, and it's also a nudey mag, so...ah, fuckit, I'm can't be arsed to explain it.

It's up to those making the claims to provide the proof. Surely the default position, logically, is disbelief until there is some form of proof?

Otherwise, we'd be overrun with invisible pink unicorns.

If you define strong atheism as a "100% belief there is no god" then both Dawkins and Myself would agree it's illogical.

But by accepting that "you cannot prove or disprove the existence of Gods" that doesn't mean each side gets equal weight.

A (logical) atheist see's the complete lack of evidence for God and so decides non-existance has significantly more weight. 99.999% chance it's bullshit or something like that.

A agnostic on the other hand (presumably) see's the complete lack of evidence for God and weighs it against the billions who believe so puts about equal weight between the two ideas. About a 50:50 chance of god existing.

Nevertheless as McM says, God is an idea proposed, so the burden of proof lies with those who propose it.

And this post would also apply if we replaced 'God' with 'Intergalactic Space Elvis who Rapes Planets'

Basically this. I get rather eye-rolly when people start claiming atheism is about belief or faith.

Amoral - lacking morals.

Asexual - lacking sexuality.

Atheism - lacking belief in god.

Yes, you can think something doesn't exist but still be open to the infinitely tiny probability that it may exist if someone proves it. No, this doesn't mean that you're suddenly agnostic (ie: can't decide) any more than acknowledging the possibility that Calcutta might have been hit with a nuclear missile while you were reading this makes you unable to decide whether Calcutta could possibly be hit with a nuclear missile while you're reading a forum.

But how can you even put a probability on something that is, by definition, supernatural? I'm not convinced evidence makes much difference in that kind of situation, at least for all types of God-belief. Analogy with, well, any empirical process falls apart because of this; if something is expressly either working in a non-consistant or undetectable way then it isn't really the same as something we can make a reasonable guess at the liklihood of.

Incorrect.

An agnostic acknowledges that he or she does not know the truth of the matter, but does not weigh them equally.