Frontie

Sentiments such as this trouble me. I worry about whiling away my aged hours in wistful sorrow. I really don't want to waste my youth, so much so that it weighs on my mind heavily – and detracts from my overall enjoyment of the years I'm meant to be savouring. I'm 27 by the way, so not that young at all – but I still feel very young. I haven't settled down and still go out a lot. Are you suggesting you aren't as happy, when you are older? Do you live with a constant sense of melancholy?

Hi boss, I won't be in today, I'm sick. What's wrong? I'm in bed with my sister.

Absolutely not. Imagine seeing everyone you have ever loved, or ever will love, die. The mere thought makes me feel sick. You fall in love, she's beautiful. You set up a home together, you never get tired of the way her hair smells. You have a lovely daughter, who sleeps in bed with you, even though she probably shouldn't. Fast forward 80 years, and they're both dead. Mortality is a natural blessing, make no mistake.

The thread is iNow attached, is very interesting – I'll take a look at the video links tonight. Why was it locked though? So things got a little heated, so what? It was worth salvaging.

Cheers. Fair enough, since you made your point so well and so nicely – I'll try to be nicer. I still think this quote is hilarious though: "In 1862, it was discovered that one of the drains was blocked. Being some 11 feet underground, workmen were unable to find the blockage despite several attempts. Müller prayed about the situation and the workman at once found the site of the problem." Come on, everything about that is funny, no? I mean, why bother stating the year at the beginning? It's as if whoever's responsible for it thought including the year would add legitimacy.

I completely disagree with you. I think it's absolutely proper that such nonsense is ridiculed – and I'd do it again. I hope the random reader does pick up on a general dogmatic outlook, because religion – as it's commonly understood – is utter pish. Bloody angels and miracles – it's mental that this hokum is forced on people. I'd also argue that more people would find consolation in the community's conviction on the matter, than would be repelled by it – even if the said conviction comes in the form of derision. I also don't think you should ever have to suspend your sense of humour – unless the timing's distasteful. If you can't see the funny side of something, that's your loss – I have the right to highlight what tickles me, you have the right to be offended by it, but that doesn't mean you're right. I don't necessarily mean you by the way, I'm just making the point. Brainteaserfan, are you prepared to accept there may not being a God?

It's the harmful and prevalent consequences of religion that need to be eradicated and it's perfectly reasonable to suppose, the only way of doing that is by eliminating religions as recognised, authoritative global organisations – organisations that people are willing to die for no less. If it were just old ladies gathering at the local village church on a Sunday, nobody would have a problem. Unfortunately, in the west that's what many people associate with religion – yet it's that damning effect religion has far from our doorstep, that is the genuine source of anti-religious sentiment, or more specifically militant atheism. Sorry for saying I wanted to swear at you, it was tongue in cheek but it's still a little unnecessary and rude.

Wow. I really want to swear at you. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids As if a reference is required.

Not really mate, no. It's beyond a battle, it's a war – by definition. The two are constantly at loggerheads – and the scientific POV is almost exclusively the moral perspective. In the scheme of things, it's pretty crucial the scientific community views religion as something to overcome. There are quite literally, lives at stake.

Okay, okay, we've established nothing is inarguable, literally. Now you're just being argumentative!

Yes, it's as though God only intervenes in matters of manual labour, i.e. Muller's blocked drain. "God! There's a massive wave approaching Thailand!" "Is it anything to do with a faulty tap in Malaysia?" "No, there was an earthquake in the Indian Ocean." "Ugh, what have I told you about bothering me unnecessarily!?" "But God, many, many, many people may…" "Not listening!" "But..." "Can't hear you!"

Ah, well it's beyond doubt that anything is literally arguable. "Cogito ergo sum." "I disagree." Job done. A few minutes ago, I had an odd thought. Slightly off topic, but imagine if for just one day you attempted to correct everything anybody said that was incorrect or even, slightly off the mark. I'll give you an example. I was explaining to the cleaner, that I wanted to leave on time but that the motorway was jammed and there was no way I'd be off on time if it didn't clear up. He said, as he was walking away, "I'll keep my fingers crossed for you." Can you imagine how awkward it would have been, if I'd have asked why – and then gone into the fallacies of superstition?

I think, therefore I am. Let's, so we feel sufficiently removed from the quote, replace 'I' with this, Ͽ – a symbol I found in the MS Word symbol database a while ago. I'm sure you'll agree it looks like a single, horizontal tit – which is a great reason to use it. Ͽ thinks, therefore Ͽ is. Whatever Ͽ is – a human, a shovel, a cool dusk breeze – if it is capable of introspection, in fact of any degree of consideration what so ever, it can be certain it exists as a sentient being. It doesn't have to know what it is, just that it is. Come on, that's bulletproof, no?

Like an idiot, I bothered reading the relevant section - and I'm glad I did. Here's the pick of the bunch: "In 1862, it was discovered that one of the drains was blocked. Being some 11 feet underground, workmen were unable to find the blockage despite several attempts. Müller prayed about the situation and the workman at once found the site of the problem." I hand on heart find this f***ing funny. Obviously, I am now a Christian - you simply can't ignore such phenomena. It's mental. Think about it, this is the example we were offered as proof of miracles. It's funny, sad and disheartening all at once - but mainly funny.

You could just say, "...wrong" to every point anybody makes, however water-tight. Actually, that sounds like fun.

If you're capable of thought, surely you exist in some form? Is that really arguable? If there was anything in solipsism, surely that would support Cogito. I'd say the All Blacks win was closer to a nightmare, than a dream.

God, I could go on all night. The indie crowd - they've become a parody of themselves. Olives. Following through. Sweating. Happening upon a beautiful woman, at an inconvenient moment. Regret. Ignorance – that covers a hell of a lot, I know! PR. Gossip magazines. Celebrity programmes. The X Factor. Trapped wind. Cheap mattresses. Inane chatter. Losing. Self-doubt. Worrying – again, that's a big old net. Nerves. Many of the misguided decisions I made in my youth – it's unfortunate how difficult you can make life, for yourself.

This is ridiculous. Is it ok to send children to war, if they're happy to go?

Cogito ergo sum. Arguable? New Zealand won the RWC. Arguable?

Arete, I would whole heartedly agree, the scientific community absolutely must involve itself in the debate, but on a meaningful scale. Otherwise, when we engage in encounters such as this one, the community itself can appear quite conceited, trivial and unpleasantly unassailable to the ambivalent onlooker. I'm guilty of it as much as anyone, which is why I feel silly for getting involved. The easiest way to encourage individuals to questions their beliefs, is to remain succinct in your delivery, submit the facts and offer simple, necessary insights, then walk away. If you're asking someone to do something they will find uncomfortable, it's sensible to ask nicely too. That's been my downfall many times. Those that are capable of coming to a logical conclusion, will. It's not simply a matter of intelligence, it has more to do with honesty and I believe we're getting there, slowly but surely. It's sociocultural evolution – we're better off acknowledging the truth, so we will.

It's falling on deaf ears though. I feel so silly for getting involved now. Do you think when you correct Aristarchus(?) it's taken on board? It would be naive to think so. He's displayed all the entrenched characteristics you would expect from a deeply religious person, with little or no insight – and therein lies the problem. Ultimately, it's the depth of a person's insight and the honesty with which they pursue answers, that wins through. It has to come from them, from a blip on their own bullsh*t radar – all the facts in the world can't persuade a mind-made-up, that it might be prudent to reconsider. You can't reach, the unreachable – this thread has become nothing more than an exercise in appeasing one's own irritation. Our time would be far better spent elsewhere. Of that there can be no justification otherwise.

Aristarchus, As a sane human being, to engage in the pursuit of anything you must at the very least presuppose the possibility, however marginal, of finding what you set out to discover. Given the fact that no tangible evidence exists to support the presence of any deity (let alone the one you inherited), why would I consider this anything other than a fool's errand? A rational answer, please. Should I seek and attempt to find faith in Allah too? What about Vishnu? Apollo? What about the horned Celtic God of fertility, Cernunnos? Why would I choose your God? Or as you say, maybe I simply don't have the "gift" of faith – but then why would an omnipotent God, single me out and deny me the capacity to believe? Whatever your God's capabilities, however principled his reasons, your God has no compassion, at least for me – because I don't choose not to believe, I cannot. Anyway, what is the "gift" of faith? Let's assume you were raised as a Christian. If your parents didn't encourage you to accept the word of their God, would you have had any concept of divinity, let alone of your parent's particular God? No, because nobody can. People have to inherit religious belief, or less often develop an interest later on in life – often at the most convenient of junctures. How can you believe? How can you be so ignorant to all of the contrary evidence, the logic, the historical artefacts that predate your God and proclaim the same tales and often identical dates? How can – if you must believe in a God – you choose the version that was redefined only a few hundred years ago? How can you call him the almighty if humankind can redefine him, if a man can amend his message? You need a good f*** mate.

A new, appearance enhancing haircut. New shoes. Making everyone laugh. Sex. Your mates. Clothes. Sport. That feeling you get when you take in something new and interesting. Laughing. More specifically, laughing until the sound you're making is no longer recongnisable as laughter and you are forced to take a knee. Beautiful women. Beef, in all it's many delicious forms. Sitting down to watch a great TV show or film. The occasional takeaway. Porn. Having the answer.

Two words; radiocarbon dating. As if any more evidence were needed to the contrary, radiocarbon dating offsets the entire premise of the Bible. I don't even know where to start anymore, so very quickly I end up flustered and usually opt for, 'It's just b*ll*cks, alright?' I used to be a touch militant but now I have little interest in 'fighting' the cause. Really, it's a patience and inclination issue - I have neither, it's just silly. With those who should know better, I still get a little annoyed - chiefly because it requires a higher level of ignorance on their part, to remain even agnostic. For others though, I'm happy for them in a way. I couldn't tell an old lady dying in hospital, that she wasn't going to heaven because there isn't one - which made me think why I bothered trying to convince my friends and family. They aren't the problem. The problem exists at a much higher level, i.e. The Roman Catholic Church-Condoms-Africa-AIDS, and that is where the battle must take place. It's a battle Science is winning, the mini-victories don't come thick and fast, but they always come, eventually.