Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[pedro]

First topic message reminder :

Corbyn I guess.

[beninho]

Cancer curing leprechaun, that what you bring the whole point down to. Ok.

[super_realist]

Cancer curing leprechaun, that what you bring the whole point down to. Ok.

It carries exactly the same weight as believing in a god, i.e. none.

[Diggers]

In a way, I think we should let the area implode. Alternatively, annihilate the area and simply take the oil we need. Bored stupid of these idiots now.

Navy the rest of the post wasn't great, but I assume this is the bit that monty was referring to.  

Thank-you for your critique, but I stand by it. Monty's already clarified, so you're a bit slow off the mark I'm afraid. Your considered commentary on the situation would be...?

To be fair, your considered commentary is that of a person who has probably never been within 500 miles of a war zone, let alone had your life affected by living in one. It's pretty easy to be dismissively flippant from the comfort of your armchair.

[McLaren]

I have to admit that when I find out someone is religious I tend to lose some respect for them. The arguments for the existence of any god are just so poor that I would expect anyone with even minimal critical thinking skills to see through them.

[JAS]

I have to admit that when I find out someone is religious I tend to lose some  respect for them. The arguments for the existence of any god are just so poor that I would expect anyone with even minimal critical thinking skills to see through them.

Obviously...not least because they can't evidence it eh Mac ? But yes I concur.
Each to their own I say but the key word being "own", the minute anybody tries to impose religion on anyone or any group is the point at which it becomes unacceptable.

[beninho]

I can honestly say, I do not think someones religious views have made me change my mind on anyone I have met. I'm just a boring liberal.

[super_realist]

Surely it depends on how you view religion Ben in the context of bad ideas, you appear to give it more credit than astrology, alchemy, fortune telling, palm reading, homeopathy, wishing wells etc, despite it being indistinguishable from them.

Most others who have responded seem to think otherwise.

Imagine if you boarded a plane and the pilot said it was just going to be landed on faith. Pretty sure you'd change your mind then,or if a Doctor said, I have faith you don't have an incurable disease, or if a judge said I have faith you're guilty.

Similarly if a person of "faith" (what a worthless term) used this belief to try and change legislation to account for their gullibility, surely you'd see that as an affront?

When a "faith leader" launches a campaign against sex education, abortion, assisted dying, gay marriage, sex equality etc you're just indifferent to them? Are you sure?

[beninho]

I said people that I had met. Meaning someone that i know. I have never met someone got on with them or not then changed my mind due to whatever they think about religion.

I have said all along, I have no issues with peoples views, but have issues with people that take things literally. If it impacts me and is clearly stupid then of course I will be against it. But i can accept peoples right to a view even if i disagree with them surely?

[super_realist]

I'd agree Ben. The point all along has been where it infringes on the life of others, which in the case of crazed Islamists it often does.

I accept their right to believe whatever they want, but it doesn't mean I can't think it's both incredibly stupid and laughably naïve.

Seems we're on the same page by and large.

[beninho]

by and large yep, just were we draw the line and incredibly stupid and laughably naive.

[super_realist]

So you think it's rational and logical to believe in jewish sky zombies that care for you?

[beninho]

Im honestly absolutely done for this conversation. Ssomeone start a new topic within the thread.

[super_realist]

Ha ha, So you don't then. Good. Glad we established that. You just can't admit it because it would mean your relatives aren't logical or rational on that point.

[beninho]

You really want to drag it on? Fks sake man. If my family believe that having some sort of faith has helped them at any time in their life, I have no issues with that, I have no issues accepting it. Its not my decision its theirs. Now if they came out agaibst gays, or sone other subjects then maybe id have a different opinion. They never have.

[JAS]

You can't kill someone for apostacy

What about for a semi colon, comma or period??

I'll get ma coat!!

[Diggers]

Ive got more belief in the existence of a higher being than I do this governments ability to negotiate a good Brexit deal. David Davis was nothing short of embarrassing on the QT special last night, rightly embarrassed by the fact he clearly doesn't believe in any of the arguments he's having to put forward.
Clegg was actually very good, it's a shame he made such a shocking error of judgement forming the coalition, he's clearly a bright and eloquent guy.

[McLaren]

Super/ben

When it comes to individuals who are religious I have difficulty knowing what they condone in the theology of the religion they follow. I am not sure it is my responsibility to check they are a christian who has ignored the homophobic (or any other) elements of the bible. A religious person has to accept being tarred with a pretty broad brush once the self identify with a religion.

It would be naive of them to think they can just ditch all the baggage that comes with each religion and the actions and polices of organisation. If you are catholic for example you are partially condoning the actions of that church.

[beninho]

I still stand by the claim that the lib dems tempered a lot of right wing tory policies while in coalition, but were shat on from all when it came to election time as they got no credit for anything. Ckegg is still the best lib dem around though. God knows what this government will do over the next 18months.

[Diggers]

I get the method in the madness Ben, but it was madness and betrayed the beliefs of a lot of Liberal voters (like me) who certainly never voted expecting that result. It was always going to lead to a disastrous election for them. Misguided is the word I would use for the decision, and any good they did do had been swiftly swept away.

[beninho]

Super/ben

When it comes to individuals who are religious I have difficulty knowing what they condone in the theology of the religion they follow.  I am not sure it is my responsibility to check they are a christian who has ignored the homophobic (or any other) elements of the bible.  A religious person has to accept being tarred with a pretty broad brush once the self identify with a religion.  

It would be naive of them to think they can just ditch all the baggage that comes with each religion and the actions and polices of organisation.  If you are catholic for example you are partially condoning the actions of that church.

I personally believe it is more naive to think that everyone associated with a religion is the same as everyone else. Surely people can pick and chose what they believe and what they do. I really do not believe its that simplistic. But I think my opinions are pretty clear by now. Everyone has a reason to believe sonething, until they start to impact on legalities then who are we to judge individuals when we basically know fk all about that person. Treating everyone of the same religion nationality or colour is not really the right thing to do.

[beninho]

I say it to make myself feel better about the destruction of the party I vote for. They messed up, but seemingly did so thinking they were doing it for the best. They are the defacto opposition on brexit though. The only party pushing for things, yet their 8mps are treated with more contempt then ukip and their non existent mps!

[Diggers]

They've gone back to basics I guess, I think they will climb back up to a reasonable level of representation. They must be in line to pick up some disenchanted Labour and Tory voters, and UKIP are not an utterly pointless party so will hopefully sink back into the mire.

[beninho]

Hope you meant now instead of not!!!!

[Diggers]

Ha, yes, definite typo. Question, why do all UKIP supporters feel they have to wear red white and blue ties all of the time?

[McLaren]

I personally believe it is more naive to think that everyone associated with a religion is the same as everyone else. Surely people can pick and chose what they believe and what they do.

I don't think I said anywhere that all people of a certain religion do actually hold identical sets of beliefs, I just said they can't expect those the interact with to untangle their personal preferences. As I said, it is fair to tar them all with a pretty broad brush. Meaning I will assume a religious person holds the basic beliefs of their chosen theology.

[pedro]

No one has played the nazi card? Ok I will.

"I'm a nazi because I love my country and because I beleive everybody should have a job and because I think improving our infrastructure is important. Ok there are a few dodgy things in the book, but they are details and I don't think everybody supports it."

Substitute with [religion/ideology name of your choice].

[super_realist]

Super/ben

When it comes to individuals who are religious I have difficulty knowing what they condone in the theology of the religion they follow.  I am not sure it is my responsibility to check they are a christian who has ignored the homophobic (or any other) elements of the bible.  A religious person has to accept being tarred with a pretty broad brush once the self identify with a religion.  

It would be naive of them to think they can just ditch all the baggage that comes with each religion and the actions and polices of organisation.  If you are catholic for example you are partially condoning the actions of that church.

I personally believe it is more naive to think that everyone associated with a religion is the same as everyone else. Surely people can pick and chose what they believe and what they do.  I really do not believe its that simplistic. But I think my opinions are pretty clear by now. Everyone has a reason to believe sonething,  until they start to impact on legalities then who are we to judge individuals when we basically know fk all about that person.  Treating everyone of the same religion nationality or colour is not really the right thing to do.

Ben, surely if you are a Christian, or follow the Christian religion, then you accept the disgusting bible as being central to those beliefs? Otherwise why not just be a deist and ditch the religion?

Why be part of a religion which specifically condones slavery, incest, r***, genocide, homophobia, subjugation of women, infanticide, stoning to death of adulterers/homosexuals, those who work on sunday, don't honour their parents,  infinite punishment for finite crimes, substitutionary atonement etc?

If you can pick and choose which parts to follow and believe, why need a religion in the first place? You already know what is right or wrong.

People might think they have a reason, but no one in the history of the world has ever proven those reasons to be sound.
They equate to the naughty boy caught doing something and when asked why he did it they say "I don't know" or "I just like it".

As for tarring them with the same brush. YES. Why not? The crux of Christianity is vicarious redemption and substitutionary atonement which is deeply immoral, and by being a Christian, they condone that.

[beninho]

It seems you appear to take the bible etc as literal as some of tge nutters, while most people including the church have moved on. I doubt you will find many religious people condoning r***, incest or slavery nowadays. Though I accept sone think homosexuality is wrong, luckily we have laws in place. Abortion straddles more then religion I would say.

I respect your views though.

[super_realist]

I'm not taking it literally at all, the point is that if you are a Christian, then you accept the bible is the Christian handbook. If you don't, why be part of it?

It doesn't matter that we no longer consider any of the revolting things in it to be moral, it's WHY would you follow a book which EVER considered this to be moral? Those things are fundamental to teachings of the bible. Please refer to the punishments for transgressing the ten commandments. It's pretty much death for them all.

The very core of the modern Christian i.e. that we are all born in sin is a DISGUSTING proposition and that we needed a god to sacrifice himself to himself to atone for rules he created. It's a retarded and circuclar proposition that makes no sense, and it's even more retarded that we would accept someone taking liability for any "crime" we might have committed before we were even born. It's a mess, and clearly a man made myth like Santa Claus and Leprechauns. You'd have to be incredibly green and gullible to even consider it to be a remote possibility.

If your parents believed in Astrology or if your sister relied on Homeopathy to cure her unfortunate illness you wouldn't respect that, so why give religion a free pass. It doesn't deserve it.

[beninho]

As I say everyone has their own views and opinions. We can all make our own choices and decisions based on our own lives. You have yours, me, my friends and families have ours. I have more respect for their views than I do yours, whether they be right or wrong to others, because I actually know them and I am a tolerant person.

[McLaren]

Ben

I don't think you need to take the bible literally to get some of the worst stuff about slavery, homophobia and how to treat women.  It is also pretty clear that it states a man rose from the dead, which goes against all known biology.

But think about how a religious person goes about deciding what to take literally, what to adhere to and what to chuck out?  They use an external moral compass which has been honed by humans thinking for thousands of years about how to treat each other.  By admission a religious person is admitting there is a better way to think about reality and how to interact with other humans.  In which case why bother with the religious nonsense.

[super_realist]

Spot on Mac, Beninho just doesn't seem prepared to admit his own family on this particular issue are not being rational or logical. They are believing in fairy tales, which isn't something which an adult ought to get respect for.

Ben, You say you have respect for their views? Would you respect the views of someone who thought paedophilia was fine? No, so why respect something as stupid as believing in the supernatural?

This whole "respect beliefs" is just nonsense. Do you respect the beliefs of Terrorists? Respect their right to hold a belief, not what the content is.

[beninho]

I am not arguing for religion as such. I am arguing is that people can have various reasons for want they want to believe. Someone does not have to agree with various things in the bible, but if they "feel" supported in some way then that is up for them, without people telling them to ignore religion because its bullshxt.

What you think is nonsense and what some people feel supported by may be the exact same thing. So who fckin well cares?

It clearly crosses a line when people are discriminated for being gay, or abortion hospitals have funding cuts to appease the right wing of a country or someone blows themselves up killing hundreds. And most right minded people either religious or not will agree the same thing.

People dont like religion, I am not bothered until it goes to far, I see no reason why this is dragging on and on and on.

[super_realist]

What you seem to keep ignoring is that although they have "reasons" they don't have sound reasons. There is nothing else in their lives that they'd believe on that basis.

A kid has a reason to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, but it's not a sound reason.

People believe in Astrology for a reason, but it's not sound, people believe in Homeopathy because they "feel" it does them good, but it's not a sound reason based on logic or rationality.

The point is that terrorist attacks are often religiously based, and we should not at any point excuse them for their beliefs or give such beliefs credibility in society.
They clearly aren't all the result of Western Foreign Policy i.e. Denmark and we should directly criticise those beliefs for what they are.

[beninho]

The thing is you both seem to care about religion so much more than I do. Thats the weirdest bit about the arguing.

[beninho]

Its not down to me to tell people whether they have sound reasoning to believe in anything. Whether I agree in it or not I have no issues until it crosses a line.

[super_realist]

The thing is you both seem to care about religion so much more than I do. Thats the weirdest bit about the arguing.

I care about anything which does harm to the individual or the wider public.

[beninho]

The thing is you both seem to care about religion so much more than I do. Thats the weirdest bit about the arguing.

I care about anything which does harm to the individual or the wider public.

So you are against cars, smoking, drinking, drugs, motorbikes, aeroplanes - or basically anything that releases toxic fumes into the atmosphere. politics (especially right wing), weapons, tree felling, climate change.

You must barely sleep a wink with all that worrying.

[super_realist]

The thing is you both seem to care about religion so much more than I do. Thats the weirdest bit about the arguing.

I care about anything which does harm to the individual or the wider public.

So you are against cars, smoking, drinking, drugs, motorbikes, aeroplanes - or basically anything that releases toxic fumes into the atmosphere. politics (especially right wing), weapons, tree felling, climate change.

You must barely sleep a wink with all that worrying.

First of all, caring about something isn't the same as being against it. Caring can also mean concern.

What I should have said is I care about preposterous beliefs which harm the individual, hold back the individual, give them false hope or cause wider harm or risk to the general public which is what religion does and has done historically.

Yes, I am against smoking, it's as needless as believing in jewish sky zombies. I'm indifferent to tree felling and climate change. I felled some trees in the garden earlier this year.

[beninho]

I appreciate your concern, but you have no need to worry about me or my family. I am sure my family will be happy that a nameless faceless person somewhere in the UK is worried about them because they have different views to him or what he claims his views are. But I can guarantee that neither my mum or dad - both in their sixties, nor my sister will cause harm to the general public by whatever beliefs they hold. In fact I can guarantee that no harm will come to them in any way due to occasionally attending church on a Sunday and at Christmas and Easter. I can also confirm that they have not got any false hope due to whatever they do.

Theres a very small weight of your mind.

[super_realist]

I'm not concerned for your family. What concerns me is that in 2017 we have people willing to believe such superstitious nonsense as we don't know to what degree it permeates other aspects of their lives which might affect me.

How do you know they have no false hope? The whole point of religion is hoping that it's true.

[beninho]

How do I know, its because as mentioned they are my family and we talk, and I know them. I really do not give more than 1 sh%t what concerns you. I mentioned my family but you keep bringing them back into it, you dont know them they have fck all to do with your life. Jog on and have a wnk or something to release your stresses about things you have no control over.

[super_realist]

So why do they follow something or believe in something they don't hope to be true?

[beninho]

You have the view that everyone that has some sort of faith has to follow your rigid strict view. The world is not like that. people do not necessarily believe in things, but things can give people comfort and support at various times. I can see and understand that, you clearly cannot look past what you want to see. Thats it for me on this subject. I cannot go any further on it. You dont care for my views, and I dont care for yours.

I annoying have always been a sucker for an argument and debate!!

Anyway, Article 50, we will be screwed wont we?

[raycastleunited]

I appreciate your concern, but you have no need to worry about me or my family.

I'm not so sure. Your mum is clearly irrational, she sounds like a security risk to me. And your sister is as brainwashed as a jihadi bride. How did it feel growing up in a fundamentalist household?

[raycastleunited]

What are your thoughts on IJP clothing going bust?

There's been discussion on the other thread of Poulter's lack of form, although I wouldn't be surprised if the demise of IJP has resulted in him taking his eye off the ball. What I wanted to know is what people thought of the brand.

I never bought any IJP stuff, initially a lot of it was quite garish and didn't appeal to me, but  when I looked on the website recently there seemed to be a lot of nice stuff (although nothing in my size).

Apologies if this post is out of place - I'll leave you to return to religion now.

[McLaren]

Ben

The reason I care about religion is because it is still deeply ingrained in our laws and policies in the UK. Think about all the progressive issues held back by ideas which originate from theology; abortion rights, women's rights, racism, assisted dying, equality for LQBT people etc. Our head of state and the church of England are a combined role, religion is given privilege throughout our laws and government workings.

And the point I have been trying to make is that whether you like it or not, when you take part in religion you are partly condoning this situation. I also think people like yourself who seem to want to ignore the foundations of religious privilege (the beliefs of those in the pews) have to take some of the responsibility for religion continuing to hold back progress on social issues. Maybe I am odd, but it pains me to think so many people do not get the well being they deserve because of badly made arguments about the nature of reality in a 2000 year old book.

[McLaren]

What are your thoughts on IJP clothing going bust?

That is a little off topic for this thread.

[super_realist]

What are your thoughts on IJP clothing going bust?

There's been discussion on the other thread of Poulter's lack of form, although I wouldn't be surprised if the demise of IJP has resulted in him taking his eye off the ball. What I wanted to know is what people thought of the brand.

I never bought any IJP stuff, initially a lot of it was quite garish and didn't appeal to me, but  when I looked on the website recently there seemed to be a lot of nice stuff (although nothing in my size).

Apologies if this post is out of place - I'll leave you to return to religion now.

I suppose IJP clothing was always going to be a risk and its success was probably dependent on the form of the player.
I never bought any because I prefer a more understated look, which doesn't leave many brands to be fair.

It was worth a go for Poulter, but I think it might have been more successful if the name wasn't actually connected to him. It could certainly have been seen as a more egostistical venture because of it being called IJP.
For instance, would anyone buy a Shane Lowry branded piece of clothing? Doubt it. Might work as a tent for Glastonbury though.

[Diggers]

What are your thoughts on IJP clothing going bust?

There's been discussion on the other thread of Poulter's lack of form, although I wouldn't be surprised if the demise of IJP has resulted in him taking his eye off the ball. What I wanted to know is what people thought of the brand.

It's slightly made up for the invoking of Article 50.

[Sponsored content]