| Something else to be concerned about... 09:35 - Oct 9 with 21679 views | perchrockjack |
PLAYERS CROSSING THEMSELVES.
Is it because they re Catholics but then not all do it.
It seems like a fashion thing to me as the Brazilians,Argies,Italians,Spaniards all seem keen to cross themselves pick up some grass and kiss it.
Some cross themselves after the game but not all .
Ive noted Dyer doing it and other players who ve had crap games so it obviously doesn't work.
It might also be offensive to MUSLIMS
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:35 - Oct 13 with 1143 views | Spratty |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:27 - Oct 13 by shingle |
So i take it that because i believe that my god is a teapot as i stated in a previous post that this teapot god of mine could be true because you can not prove that it`s not true.  |
Absolutely you got the idea - even though you do not believe it yourself.
Does not necessarily make it likely though.
Why stick to boring shapes be bold - hyberbolic parabola? |  | | |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:40 - Oct 13 with 1137 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:07 - Oct 13 by Spratty |
It did exist though  so religion is not just a myth
I repeat when did I ever say I had any religious belief. Probably best described as Agnostic if it helps you to classify people.
I do however strongly believe you should not mock the beliefs of others most especially when you have no proof to back up your insults.
I will pass on the video, I did listen to quite a bit of it when it was posted but found it a bit predictable, thanks for thinking of me though  |
Surely it is up for the person making the claim of the supernatural to provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on the believer to present a coherent argument with said evidence. I personally would love someone to present evidence of an afterlife/supernatural occurrence that hasn't already been dismantled piece by piece previously. So in fact mockery is possible, as current evidence for said afterlife/supernatural is nil, then unless new evidence is submitted, mockery is in fact a valid stand point. Fair enough it may be a dick thing to do, but considering the lack of evidence, it is a correct stand point. |  |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:43 - Oct 13 with 1130 views | Davillin |
I should be tired of saying the following, but I'm not.
There is an unbridgeable difference between "god" and "religion." Stop talking about one as if it were the other.
Religions are all principally either philosophical musings about a god they know little or nothing about, or the basis for a system of essentially non-god-related rules of behaviour. To say that more kindly, religions attempt to explain the unexplainable and to establish a set of rules by which one can conduct his life.
One can believe in a god and not have any use for any religion.
No-one has a right of any kind to mock or insult anyone else who believes something different about either god or religion. [I could say that much more harshly.] |  |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:51 - Oct 13 with 1120 views | Captain_Sham |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:35 - Oct 13 by Spratty |
Absolutely you got the idea - even though you do not believe it yourself.
Does not necessarily make it likely though.
Why stick to boring shapes be bold - hyberbolic parabola? |
I love it the way that the people who are surest that there is no god, have the strangest conceptions of what it may be. If I thought that god was a teapot I would expect people to laugh at me. If I thought that god was a loving tolerant course of action, well thats not so stupid, is it? |  |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:52 - Oct 13 with 1117 views | Spratty |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:40 - Oct 13 by swanjackal |
Surely it is up for the person making the claim of the supernatural to provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on the believer to present a coherent argument with said evidence. I personally would love someone to present evidence of an afterlife/supernatural occurrence that hasn't already been dismantled piece by piece previously. So in fact mockery is possible, as current evidence for said afterlife/supernatural is nil, then unless new evidence is submitted, mockery is in fact a valid stand point. Fair enough it may be a dick thing to do, but considering the lack of evidence, it is a correct stand point. |
Interesting.
If that is your belief I cannot mock it.
Agree it is a Dick thing to do.
Why do people have to prove themselves when it is a belief (especially to Dicks)
Last thought - it did not work that way with weapons of mass destruction (no evidence necessary - had to prove they didn't exist) | | | |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:54 - Oct 13 with 1139 views | Davillin |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:40 - Oct 13 by swanjackal |
Surely it is up for the person making the claim of the supernatural to provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on the believer to present a coherent argument with said evidence. I personally would love someone to present evidence of an afterlife/supernatural occurrence that hasn't already been dismantled piece by piece previously. So in fact mockery is possible, as current evidence for said afterlife/supernatural is nil, then unless new evidence is submitted, mockery is in fact a valid stand point. Fair enough it may be a dick thing to do, but considering the lack of evidence, it is a correct stand point. |
No-one who believes in a god or supreme being, a creator and sustainer of life, has anything resembling a "burden of proof" to prove anything to you or anyone else who does not believe.
An afterlife/supernatural occurrence is not only not the only kind of proof of a supreme being, it's not one at all because neither can be proven in the first place. A careful and thoughtful examination of all of natural and natural occurrences should be enough to a thoughtful and open mind.
But then an open minded person would never claim that "mockery is possible" of someone who does not agree. You could well be mocked because you think there is a lack of evidence of a supernatural being. [I insist here that you remember my not conflating "god" [or supernatural being] with "religion."]
[Edit. Sorry, Spratty, if we made the same points. I was composing while you were posting.] [Post edited 13 Oct 2013 20:58]
| |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:55 - Oct 13 with 1138 views | Captain_Sham |
So people with minority views deserve to be mocked? Its all getting a bit unpleasant now. No one expects the Welsh inquisition . [Post edited 13 Oct 2013 20:55]
| |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:56 - Oct 13 with 1133 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:43 - Oct 13 by Davillin |
I should be tired of saying the following, but I'm not.
There is an unbridgeable difference between "god" and "religion." Stop talking about one as if it were the other.
Religions are all principally either philosophical musings about a god they know little or nothing about, or the basis for a system of essentially non-god-related rules of behaviour. To say that more kindly, religions attempt to explain the unexplainable and to establish a set of rules by which one can conduct his life.
One can believe in a god and not have any use for any religion.
No-one has a right of any kind to mock or insult anyone else who believes something different about either god or religion. [I could say that much more harshly.] |
Is your standpoint to not mock/insult anyone , regardless of their stand point? Every view point is to be respected as equal? Or is this just for religion and gods? | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:58 - Oct 13 with 1121 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:55 - Oct 13 by Captain_Sham |
So people with minority views deserve to be mocked? Its all getting a bit unpleasant now. No one expects the Welsh inquisition . [Post edited 13 Oct 2013 20:55]
|
Nothing to do with minority views. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:58 - Oct 13 with 1113 views | Captain_Sham |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:56 - Oct 13 by swanjackal |
Is your standpoint to not mock/insult anyone , regardless of their stand point? Every view point is to be respected as equal? Or is this just for religion and gods? |
Gallileo was locked(not mocked) in a tower an died there for suggesting the earth went round the sun. he was very much in the minority. Its people like you who did that to him. | |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:00 - Oct 13 with 1103 views | Davillin |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:56 - Oct 13 by swanjackal |
Is your standpoint to not mock/insult anyone , regardless of their stand point? Every view point is to be respected as equal? Or is this just for religion and gods? |
Sorry, swansjackal, I don't reply to someone who rebuts my post after clearly not having read it. Or, perhaps, not having understood it. You're on your own on this one. | |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:01 - Oct 13 with 1099 views | Jackfath |
More to the point how is this football related? No wonder nobody posts on this site anymore and its going downhill fast and Darran is ruining it as he is treating it like facebook and jackfat is a nob and its earning sumblers loads of money and like nobody posts and its all your fault and everything. |  |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:03 - Oct 13 with 1094 views | Captain_Sham |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:01 - Oct 13 by Jackfath |
More to the point how is this football related? No wonder nobody posts on this site anymore and its going downhill fast and Darran is ruining it as he is treating it like facebook and jackfat is a nob and its earning sumblers loads of money and like nobody posts and its all your fault and everything. |
Its all gods fault | |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:04 - Oct 13 with 1086 views | Davillin |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:58 - Oct 13 by Captain_Sham |
Gallileo was locked(not mocked) in a tower an died there for suggesting the earth went round the sun. he was very much in the minority. Its people like you who did that to him. |
And Galileo was locked up by people who had a different religious viewpoint from his!
“. . . the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”[/] Galileo | |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:09 - Oct 13 with 1070 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:52 - Oct 13 by Spratty |
Interesting.
If that is your belief I cannot mock it.
Agree it is a Dick thing to do.
Why do people have to prove themselves when it is a belief (especially to Dicks)
Last thought - it did not work that way with weapons of mass destruction (no evidence necessary - had to prove they didn't exist) |
Well the truth is something I am interested in personally. If someone makes a claim, then I would hope they could back it up with evidence. If not then so be it. They don't have to prove anything to anyone. But your claim of someone having to produce evidence that a belief is wrong is internally contradictory, unless someone presents evidence for their belief, then there is no standpoint to argue, and thus the null hypothesis of "X does not occur" is the true answer. It's hard to provide evidence to refute an argument that has no grounds.
I fail to see the relevance of your WMD thought? Are you saying that WMD are not real? | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:09 - Oct 13 with 1068 views | Captain_Sham |
The scientists were the crackpots back then. I wonder if thats why they such a chip on their shoulders. They had to go through all those years of oppression. Maybe they should found the NAASP( National Association for Advancement of Scientific People) | |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:10 - Oct 13 with 1063 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:00 - Oct 13 by Davillin |
Sorry, swansjackal, I don't reply to someone who rebuts my post after clearly not having read it. Or, perhaps, not having understood it. You're on your own on this one. |
I read it clearly as not to mock religion or gods? Why just those? | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:13 - Oct 13 with 1057 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 20:58 - Oct 13 by Captain_Sham |
Gallileo was locked(not mocked) in a tower an died there for suggesting the earth went round the sun. he was very much in the minority. Its people like you who did that to him. |
You couldn't be further from the truth, Galileo had evidence for his ideas. I think you are confusing the argument side here.
Galileo gave proof to those who had none, and was vilified for it. His evidence was given. Firmly in his camp I'm sorry if you are having trouble seeing that. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:21 - Oct 13 with 1038 views | Spratty |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:09 - Oct 13 by swanjackal |
Well the truth is something I am interested in personally. If someone makes a claim, then I would hope they could back it up with evidence. If not then so be it. They don't have to prove anything to anyone. But your claim of someone having to produce evidence that a belief is wrong is internally contradictory, unless someone presents evidence for their belief, then there is no standpoint to argue, and thus the null hypothesis of "X does not occur" is the true answer. It's hard to provide evidence to refute an argument that has no grounds.
I fail to see the relevance of your WMD thought? Are you saying that WMD are not real? |
If someone is quietly believing what they want - why should they have to prove it, what business is it of anyone else?
If someone is publicly belittling someone for their beliefs, rubbishing them and questioning their mental function - then they should at least have some supporting evidence for their interfering and abusive behaviour.
No contradictions.
Bodes well you did not see the relevance of WMD just a little misplaced political satire | | | |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:26 - Oct 13 with 1028 views | Captain_Sham |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:13 - Oct 13 by swanjackal |
You couldn't be further from the truth, Galileo had evidence for his ideas. I think you are confusing the argument side here.
Galileo gave proof to those who had none, and was vilified for it. His evidence was given. Firmly in his camp I'm sorry if you are having trouble seeing that. |
I'm in his camp. I'm saying he had faith in his ideas when his ideas had no evidence to back them up. The people who put him in the tower were the people whop demanded evidence for belief just like you are demanding people to supply you with evidence for their beliefs. Its you who has got this mixed up. | |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:32 - Oct 13 with 1019 views | Spratty |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:10 - Oct 13 by swanjackal |
I read it clearly as not to mock religion or gods? Why just those? |
"No-one has a right of any kind to mock or insult anyone else who believes something different about either god or religion."
I read it to say that what ever you believe about god or religion. i.e. total partial or no belief so covered everyone's view on those topics (and presumably limited to those topics because those are what we are discussing). So seems fair and pertinent to me. | | | |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:35 - Oct 13 with 1015 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:21 - Oct 13 by Spratty |
If someone is quietly believing what they want - why should they have to prove it, what business is it of anyone else?
If someone is publicly belittling someone for their beliefs, rubbishing them and questioning their mental function - then they should at least have some supporting evidence for their interfering and abusive behaviour.
No contradictions.
Bodes well you did not see the relevance of WMD just a little misplaced political satire |
I agree with your first paragraph entirely, if someone believes in something personal they are allowed to do so. But then they should be able to walk away from asking someone to try and disprove their belief is not real. The whole crux of my first post to you. You asked for someone to disprove a claim, without any evidence to back up the initial claim. The burden of proof does not lie with the person representing the null hypothesis, but with the person who posits X. That is all.
And I agree with your second statement, but evidence cannot be given to disprove something before the initial claim is ratified. In fact he did give evidence by suggesting that there is no meaningful empirical evidence of any form of afterlife. How can you present evidence of nothing apart from peer reviewed journals using the strongest known framework for analysis (Scientific Method).
There lies the contradiction. He has given evidence that there is no meaningful evidence in the field looked at, but you want more without actually presenting new evidence for the argument. He actually has done the step you have claimed he hasn't
I don't see how something physical like a WMD can be likened to a hypothesis of the supernatural. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:36 - Oct 13 with 1009 views | Captain_Sham |
Im guessing English isnt swanjackals first language. His post don't make a whole lot of sense. I don't know how anyone could turn what I posted into an endorsement of rennaisance beliefs unless they were ignorant, mad or stupid. This is my Duncan Bannatyne moment.... | |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:45 - Oct 13 with 1001 views | swanjackal |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:26 - Oct 13 by Captain_Sham |
I'm in his camp. I'm saying he had faith in his ideas when his ideas had no evidence to back them up. The people who put him in the tower were the people whop demanded evidence for belief just like you are demanding people to supply you with evidence for their beliefs. Its you who has got this mixed up. |
He did have evidence though, he had journals of it, that were studied by religious scholars at the time, and were still put down as heresy . To claim he had no evidence is a fallacy, and that none was presented is also a fallacy.
I am not asking for anyone to present me with anything at all, I am just pointing out that it's difficult, or nay on impossible to provide evidence against an argument that has not set it's goalposts, as Spratty was insisting, even though the person actually did present evidence that there is no evidence for X.
No mix up at all here, as English is my first and chosen language. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:49 - Oct 13 with 995 views | Davillin |
| Something else to be concerned about... on 21:36 - Oct 13 by Captain_Sham |
Im guessing English isnt swanjackals first language. His post don't make a whole lot of sense. I don't know how anyone could turn what I posted into an endorsement of rennaisance beliefs unless they were ignorant, mad or stupid. This is my Duncan Bannatyne moment.... |
You can never win against someone who either can't read, or won't understand.
Here's my example of that from our earlier exchange, pointed out by Spratty [thanks].
He wrote, "I read it clearly as not to mock religion or gods? Why just those?" in response to what I had written viz. "No-one has a right of any kind to mock or insult anyone else who believes something different about either god or religion." [Post edited 13 Oct 2013 21:49]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
