How many times per day do you pray?

[Jon Miller]

this isan't about prayer
!!!

stop the a**** yo tyou rnewbies

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can I at least hate the Arse-holes more?

[alva]

Sure you can hate Arsenal, everybody else does.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Everyone hates ManYoo too

[alva]

True...very true but hey, I'm not a a mancunian, therefore I'm allowed to support ManU.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, you are a foriegn frontrunner instead .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
Think of how mellow Jerry Falwell would be.

How do you know he's not doing the substitution bit?

[Agathon]

How do you know he's not doing the substitution bit?

By hearing him speak.

[Ben Kenobi]

Geez, the least you could do is show Jon a little bit of respect, and take the soccer elsewhere.

As for your question, I'll say not as much as I should. I try to say for every meal, but I forget. What I do like to do is to go for a walk, and talk to God during the walk, just back and forth about the day or whatever is really bothering me.

[Ben Kenobi]

I prayed a lot towards the end of last year - actually went into a cathedral to do it as well.

Never do normally though. I'm pretty much an athiest (despite being Christened - that means nothing) so I was just clutching at straws really.

If there is no God, why bother?

Just the act of praying would make me think you are not an atheist, but agnostic, in not being sure about God.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why not just go to the pub. Enjoy yourself without falling into ignorance and superstition.

What is there for me at the pub? Something to drink, and to dull the pain of the day?

Religion is no more credible than belief in fairies. It has no place in public policy for that reason, and anything that might lead it to, should be suppressed.

Just because something is incredulous does not mean it ought to be suppressed. If no one can believe in God, why bother to suppress those who follow him?

I think you really believe the opposite, that God is very credible, and ought to be suppressed to prevent others from coming to know him.

It's really great to be a free person: free of belief in imps and devils and jealous Gods - projections of sexual neuroses.

And you are totally free, Agathon? What makes you think that in rejecting God, you will be free from him? If it is true that he created us, and the world around us, we could be no more free from him than we could be free of the concerns of this world.

[Agathon]

What is there for me at the pub? Something to drink, and to dull the pain of the day?

Merriment, relaxation, conversation, friends, love, ribaldry. In short many of the things that make life worth living as long as you indulge in moderation.

Just because something is incredulous does not mean it ought to be suppressed. If no one can believe in God, why bother to suppress those who follow him?

Because they spend their time telling other people what to do, or at least trying to. We have two options:

(a) Run our society based on beliefs that can be demonstrated as true or most likely to be true to anyone who should care to inquire.

or

(b) Run it based on superstition.

I'm not going to tolerate people who trust in God's good will to save us from climate change.

I think you really believe the opposite, that God is very credible, and ought to be suppressed to prevent others from coming to know him.

Nobody knows God, he/she/it is by definition unknowable by finite beings such as ourselves.

And you are totally free, Agathon? What makes you think that in rejecting God, you will be free from him? If it is true that he created us, and the world around us, we could be no more free from him than we could be free of the concerns of this world.

Perhaps, but that is not something that any human being could ever know. So we are left with choice of following the guesses of mad prophets, or of using our own reason to determine what the world is like.

Sorry, but I'll take reason over faith any day. Faith based social science is a contradiction in terms, as is faith based science.

Religion has little constructive to offer in addition to reason other than blind prejudice.

[Ben Kenobi]

Merriment, relaxation, conversation, friends, love, ribaldry. In short many of the things that make life worth living as long as you indulge in moderation.

I have all that, without ever needing to step into a pub. It's not a choice of either or, being a Christian doesn't mean you stop engaging in fellowship with others. Rather, it is encouraged.

Because they spend their time telling other people what to do, or at least trying to. We have two options:

Do you think I spend the majority of my day telling others what to do? You have a strange perception of life as a Christian. Much more of it is spent trying to figure out what can I do to make things better.

(a) Run our society based on beliefs that can be demonstrated as true or most likely to be true to anyone who should care to inquire.

Christians would assert that their beliefs can be proven as much as any other set of beliefs can be proven. So you are back to square one. What is it that makes a belief proven?

(b) Run it based on superstition.

I'm not going to tolerate people who trust in God's good will to save us from climate change.

The methods are one thing. The motivations are quite another. What would you say to a Christian who believed that since we are given dominion over the Earth, that we should uphold our proper responsibility to take care of it? This is why we ought to support these measures on climate change, because they work to the same end.

By the same token, someone could also challenge the science behind climate change, in an effort to pinpoint what amount human intervention contributes, while holding the same premise that God has given man dominion over the Earth.

Nobody knows God, he/she/it is by definition unknoweable by finite beings such as ourselves.

To know someone is it necessary to know everything about them? Granted, we cannot perfectly know God, but if God is omnipotent, he ought also be able to reveal part of himself to those whom he chooses.

Perhaps, but that is not something that any human being could ever know. So we are left with choice of following the guesses of mad prophets, or of using our own reason to determine what the world is like.

What makes the prophets mad? Isn't it reasonable to consider that God may have revealed himself to them, thus accounting for both their message, and their delivery of said message?

Sorry, but I'll take reason over faith any day. Faith based social science is a contradiction in terms, as is faith based science.

Again, it isn't in conflict. It is not a choice between faith or reason, but a choice between reason alone, or faith in addition to reason. Surely you can see the limitations of human reason? We could not possibly understand anything outside of the natural world through our falliable human understanding.

Religion has little constructive to offer in addition to reason other than blind prejudice.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth than you have dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Agathon]

I have all that, without ever needing to step into a pub.

Beer is a useful lubricant.

It's not a choice of either or, being a Christian doesn't mean you stop engaging in fellowship with others.

It's the fellatio I'm worried about.

Do you think I spend the majority of my day telling others what to do? You have a strange perception of life as a Christian. Much more of it is spent trying to figure out what can I do to make things better.

By stopping homosexuals from marrying or parenting based on theological grounds?

Christians would assert that their beliefs can be proven as much as any other set of beliefs can be proven.

But they have singularly failed to prove them.

So you are back to square one. What is it that makes a belief proven?

Evidence. Continental Drift is proven because it simply requires too much suspension of disbelief to believe that it isn't. Same goes for evolution.

The methods are one thing. The motivations are quite another. What would you say to a Christian who believed that since we are given dominion over the Earth, that we should uphold our proper responsibility to take care of it?

That the notion that we are given dominion over the earth is fantastical. We're just here, same as the other beasties, as far as we can tell.

This is why we ought to support these measures on climate change, because they work to the same end.

Stem cell research? Genetic Engineering?

By the same token, someone could also challenge the science behind climate change, in an effort to pinpoint what amount human intervention contributes, while holding the same premise that God has given man dominion over the Earth.

But that premise supplies no verifiable information. You can't present any evidence of it to a reasonable person and expect them to concur. On the other hand, an honest person of good will, will not dispute a scientific claim if it is adequately supported with evidence.

To know someone is it necessary to know everything about them? Granted, we cannot perfectly know God, but if God is omnipotent, he ought also be able to reveal part of himself to those whom he chooses.

But there is no reason to believe that he does. There are any number of more credible explanations for such experiences.

[Chemical Ollie]

Banana