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
I don't know what's more laughable/terrifying; that this childish drivel is considered an actual news story in a broadsheet paper or that these clowns now have the British government by the bollocks on every vote that goes through parliament.
More the sort of story that George Osborne would run to be honest in his all-encompasing hatred of Theresa May and his deep misunderstanding of unionist politics in Northern Ireland.
@TheWizardOfIce I blame our dear PM. I start disliking her when she barged into that stupid Cadbury eggs controversy started by the C of E. She proved herself to be nothing more than a narrow minded, uneducated daughter of clergyman. Oh and the former leader of the Lib Dem was no better with his tap dancing on gay rights.
Yes but there is a Tory-DUP deal in parliament isn't there.
These DUP clowns now hold sway in our parliament so now the drivel they spoit is no longer a parochial issue relating only to NI it affects us all. It's in the public interest to expose them now where it wasn't before.
If most terrorists weren't Muslim do you think half the stories about Islam would run?
The elephant analogy is actually more correct than you think.
If the blind men just stay where they are and refuse to listen to each other or explore the elephant apart from their own little piece then they end up fighting each other over the true nature of an elephant because they all KNOW they are the one who is right. They also remain ignorant as to the appearance of an elephant.
If however they exchange ideas with each other, listen to the evidence, walk around the elephant to discover more then they actually enlighten themselves to the truth.
It's rather depressing that they keep banging on that she's a vicar's daughter like that automatically makes her fit for the job.
It's heartening to see the Lib Dem clown had to go because people these days aren't prepared to tolerate religious bullshit over basic human rights for gays. That at least suggests we are heading in the right direction.
Well, it was the Orange Order that spouted that, not the DUP, unless you are (erroneously) suggesting that the two are synonymous? Even the UUP (of which I'm a member) cut its links with the Orange Order back in 2004. And I'm no DUP apologist by the way - I'm one of their fiercest critics. However, cartoons like this are verging of racism of NI Protestants and unionists:
It's that old thing of mixing up religion and politics. Maybe George Osborne would be happy if I posted an anti-semitic cartoon or poster? Typical of him to play the Orange card. Says a lot more about him and the type of wretched person he is than unionism in NI I think.
No disrespect old chap but the rest of the country really doesnt give the slightest toss about NI's tribal little spats as long as you aren't blowing us up. And we much less care about the various distinctions between your millions of parties.
DUP, UUP, SDLP, MSG, FSB, LOL whatever. Theres just nationalist and unionist which translates as Catholic and Protestant as far as most of us are concerned.
And that's exactly the general ignorance that George Osborne and the Gruniad peddles their tripe on. There's a whole Internet out there! You don't even have to exert yourself by going to a library any more. And I think the whole blowing up things in the UK was from one side of the divide as far as I recall and as a hint it wasn't my side.
I agree it was disgraceful. He basically draped himself in the cloak of the martyr and accused the British citizens to be intolerant towards his faith (the irony). But I do think his religious views were in conflict with the policies he and his party defended especially regarding gay rights and it hurt his credibility during the election, especially since he failed to convince voters of his sincerity. The Lib Dem did poorly for many reasons but this did play a role.
He's clearly in the wrong party then, isn't he? Time he joined the dreaded Tories! Also time that he came clean on the real reasons behind his self-serving resignation, though that's hard for a Liberal I know, given some of their past membership.
I'll give you that one!!
Yes, on that at least we can agree on this thread. Now there's a starting point. I've somehow let myself be carried onto this albatross of a thread I created again - must have been the NI stuff!
The albatross you can feel weighing you down is believing in God.
Did you really believe once this thread was created the atheists on here wouldnt wade in all guns blazing? Now that is delusional!
No, of course I expected it. Still, it mostly keeps this type of religious discussion out of other threads and for that alone I am thankful.
I'm sure you are. The last thing the religious want is widespread discussion as more and more people might start to wake up to the fact the whole thing is built on foundations of sand. And quicksand at that.
No, as I explained in the OP it was about religious discussion leaching into other unrelated threads. I couldn't care less what is on here personally. If I was in fact that easily annoyed, would I even have created this thread as a rod for my own back? I think not.
But if you're right why is it a rod for your own back?
Anyway I'm sure we all enjoy the irony of 'it was about religious discussion leaching into other unrelated threads'.
Creating the thread to hear a lot of atheist opinion and little else. We've paid our deposit. That's democracy. It's become like Hyde Park in here.
Hardly our fault. You and your religious compadres are quite welcome to refute what we say.
We're itching for an actual debate but it all seems to have gone quiet on your side. I find it rather bewildering given you hold all the aces: the vast majority of the globe agrees with you, the law protects you ahead of anyone else and, the ace of spades itself, you know 100% that you are right. If I had a hand stacked like that I'd be going all in on atheists and their delusions.
I'm very happy to have a discussion. Why dont I throw a question out there for us to debate?
Here we go: Why does an all powerful, all loving God choose to allow tiny little babies to die miserably from cancer before they have the chance to even grasp the concept of their own, let alone His, existence? It seems a little unfair but I'm sure there is a sound reason which you will easily be able to articulate?
The floor is, once again, all yours to enlighten us.
(PS - Nice Partridge reference by the way. 'Bald Brummies!')
That doesn't necessarily make it surprising however. Perhaps it is 'understandable' to have faith. As a species, we have a capacity and curiosity for answers, and we certainly don't have all of them via science.
It is therefore perhaps even rational to create 'theories' to answer these questions until science catches up.
The big question then is what to do once science debunks the theories. A rational person would then have to admit that the theories are unsound. This is what a scientific and logical mind would do. An irrational person on the other hand would continue to believe in the flawed theory despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.
With respect to cancer in babies and what not, I don't find that incompatible with 'faith' (as opposed to organized religion) per se. Faith does not assume that there is a 'knowing' or 'all powerful' god. Just that there is a strong possibility of something beyond our levels of comprehension and understanding. That doesn't have to be a conscious entity even. After all, if we believe in Newton's 3rd Law in the physical realm, it's quite possible that such a concept exists in the metaphysical one outside human comprehension.
About the 50th time the baby cancer question has been point blank ignored.
The 'heaven and earth' quote from Hamlet is once again applicable here. I dont think any atheist is arrogant enough to suggest there is nothing out there that we dont understand. The difference is we arent suggesting blind devotion to them.
Or simply do an apostasy. He's either in the wrong party (but it's the Tories that allowed same sex marriages) or the wrong religion. Unless he thinks he disagrees with the God he believes in (unlikely but not impossible) in which case he should have the courage and honesty to say it.
In my book, a strong possibility is not a person of faith, they are agnostic
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/26/tim-farron-liberal-democrats-interview-gods-plan-for-me
Out of his tree.
Bottom line: We don't have the answers.
Completely bonkers.