It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jun/11/india-fight-to-end-child-branding
Everyone quite happy to indulge the religious as long as it just entails them going to church once a week but when they do something utterly insane like this suddenly it’s ok for the law to intervene.
Well I’m sorry but if you allow, nay encourage, irrational ‘belief’ then you can’t suddenly turn on people and say ‘we’re taking your kid off you’ when they act completely mental.
Who’s to say that God really isn’t talking to them through the medium of a soft toy? We believe St Paul hearing voices on the road to Damascus but not this decent couple who, in the logic of @Risico007, have no reason to lie and would have an easier life if they denounced their beliefs (so therefore they must be telling the truth just like the disciples hey Ris?)
You can’t say one person’s ludicrous belief is enshrined and protected by law and another person’s isn’t. Either call everyone who believes in God nutters (my own personal preference) or demand society has respect for people taking legal advice off a stuffed lion and have the law on their side.
Another link from that secularist site that piqued my interest:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/faith-schools/
‘our research has shown that 18,000 families were assigned faith schools against their wishes in England in 2017 alone.’
Now assuming that is true (because obviously this site presumably has a natural bias and I don’t want to be accused of hypocrisy by @Risico007 as I would be the first to decry his sources as not being impartial) then that is disgusting. The government, through it’s lily livered appeasement and encouragement is effectively forcing religion on children?
I’d be very interested to know the provenance of this statement and the nature of how these assignments against people’s wishes take place.
The law is on very dodgy ground when definting bonkers. Don't forget, the default, in the UK, when giving evidence "I swear by almighty God, etc etc"
I would genuinely like to hear from forum members who are religious re the "Jesus Lion", it could be true and we have no evidence that it's not. I certainly have no evidence that its not true.
In fact I’d say it holds more veracity than @Risico007’s much heralded ‘women and the empty tomb’ or St Paul’s testimony given that these people are still alive and thus able to be cross examined.
2000 years pass and @Risico007 and @Dragonpol hail the ‘truth’ revealed by Simba as historical fact!
You're right; such atheists exist. Remember please that atheists are united in one thing and one thing only: our conviction that there is no god. (I hate the expression: people who "believe" that God doesn't exist.) In almost every other regard, atheists can differ amongst themselves. It's fortunate that Wiz, Lud, patb, RC7, myself, ... tend to mostly agree about everything, because it could have been completely different. For instance, to what extent does one "tolerate" religion? Some atheists have no quarrel with religious people. Others, like myself, only develop issues with those who sabotage the progress of science or kill people in the name of their religion. And then in a more extreme place you will find atheists who want to radically wipe humanity clean of religion. So it's perfectly possible that some atheists want to give Christians a philosophically "equal" status. I'm not one of them. ;)
Status and respect is earned. It is not a default position. Do you want to treat my invisible Dragon in the garage with equity? Do the "Jesus Lion" pair deserve equity?
No individual or group can just come up with an idea or set of ideas and deserve respect (although they frequently demand this and get it).
Dawkins is not perfect. He is a clever guy but not perfect. You can criticise him til the cows come home but that has nothing to do regarding the truth within the Bible.
Obviously, all atheists are different. We don't all speak as one. If an atheist wants to respect Christians and give them equity, then fine but I would debate them on this topic with equal vigour.
The truth is, I belong in that group too, except I wouldn't resort to violence to impose my atheism on everyone. I leave that method to certain religious groups. ;)
Same here. When religious people talk of respect, I often find that equate it with tacit acceptance of religious beliefs, however unjustified, sometimes even it's equated to a subservience to religious dogmas. "Don't believe in God, but don't question those who do. And if you are asked to pray in school assemblies and town meetings, just shut up and do it."
No one bats an eyelid at openly laughing at the flat earth society or trainspotters or Arsenal fans or other, what might be generously termed, idiotic behaviour.
But the religious are beyond ridicule and we are all expected to nod soberly and say ‘Whilst I don’t agree with them I respect their beliefs’. Sorry, but bollocks do I.
Call a spade a spade - a Nazi isn’t respected he’s called a racist, a paedo isn’t respected he’s called a foul deviant and the religious shouldn’t be respected they should be called, at best, infantile or, at worst, in need of psychiatric treatment.
Starting today untill there is order and discussion in this thread I will post one video a day bashing atheism for the moronic philosophical view point it is
I’m a man of my word
HAHAHAHhahHaha
Also as an aside the following are there for a reason on your keyboard:
. , : ; ? ‘ ! “
The main one being to stop language descending to levels of incoherence which, even for you, have reached uncharted territory with this epic post.
You have to think God would be a real stickler for grammar. After all, he created it, right?
Something tells me there’s going to be some serious questions asked at the pearly gates as to how one can inarticulate the message so appallingly. If Risico thinks he’s strolling straight in and up to the bar he’s got another thing coming.
I won't repeat what we've been saying ad nauseam about the burden of proof (and yes even IF there was proof Jesus had physically resurrected that would not prove there's a God).
I will however say that you surpass yourself again in both insanity and creepiness. After claiming moral superiority for lusting after your female coworkers but not acting upon it because of your faith (urgh!), you now liken yourself to one of the worst homicidal maniac in fiction, in his nastiest and most evil incarceration.
First smart thing any of you have said
Oh we did say a few smart things here. You might notice them if you bothered reading us instead of inventing our what you presume we wrote and if you'd stop stalking that dirty blonde colleague (sorry can't get over that one).
Perhaps it’s a good thing you actually do believe in God’s restraining influence on your appetites or you might have ended up a latter day Caligula or Marquis de Sade.
At least Sade knew how to write and could defend his ideas!
And de Sade even gets a reference in Colonel Sun so it's not all bad news!
My life story according to Lud Wiz kid and the rest
Am I to take it then that the invisible dragon in the garage wasn't spam?
The invisible dragon is actually a valid point and a fair question.
Just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No, it's actually just people with an axe to grind pretending to be a "religion" to make some point or other that's been lost along the way. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
There was even a (blessedly very short-lived) thread on said invisible dragon in the garage. It was actually a knee-jerk response to my earlier Ghost thread, which this thread has (regrettably) overtaken long ago.
Given the stick you’ve received on this thread for believing in such things as talking snakes one might think you’d empathise with followers of invisible dragons or the FSM?
I don’t know, it’s almost as if you think believing in those things is not as ridiculous as believing in God and think God believers should be regarded as somehow being above other believers in utter bollocks?
Yes, it is. It's exactly that. There's a lot more history to Christianity and it is better established. It's not merely a parody of something else, like those other two you mentioned are.
Exactly like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And like Islam's 72 Virgins that you mocked so much until I called you on it. In essence, how do you assess that a claim is true, or at least plausible, and another one bonkers?