McFaul 35 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Come on stevie, googling kevin prince boateng and reading the first story that pops up shows that isn't his missus thought you styled yourself as a detective Just seen that pic I put up was his wife. He's moved up a few divisions like, Portsmouth WAG to Milan WAG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloopJohn 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Hitchens he is not. Hitchens is pretty terrible on religion though...Barton ain't much worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Thats not what his missus looks like in this article from the mirror: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/3pm/Steve-Anglesey-s-funny-football-column-Kevin-Prince-Boateng-injuries-blamed-on-too-much-sex-with-Melissa-Satta-article856305.html He couldn't have taken his old bird to Milan, she's probably banging Kanu now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Hitchens he is not. Hitchens is pretty terrible on religion though...Barton ain't much worse Are you religious by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2411 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Hitchens he is not. Hitchens is pretty terrible on religion though...Barton ain't much worse Are you religious by any chance? I'm presume by 'terrible' he means 'leave us poor fools alone in our quiet slumper as we waste our lives on an adult fairytale that is responsible for much of the bloodshed in human history'. Or something. Edited January 24, 2012 by toonotl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloopJohn 0 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'm not a Christian but I was until I was 21, now I'm an agnostic.. I just find Hitchen's views on Christianity disastrously uninformed, his book is full of historical mistakes, inconclusive logic and strange claims about things he clearly hasn't done any research into. I remember at one point in the book he says that the West should stop taking our ethics and morality from the Bible and instead start learning from literature such as Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, failing to realise that both these authors got their ethics directly from Christianity. The title of his book is 'religion poisons everything' - so that would include orphanages, leper asylums, ancient and medieval hospitals, the music of Bach, the paintings of Velasquez, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the Western concept of free will, the Humanist idea of the individual, the liberation of India then? (and countless others I've failed to mention) I think I remember there being a chapter in the book called 'The False Metaphysics of Religion' in which Hitchens doesn't even discuss metaphysics. Bizarre book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yeah, but Joey Barton though... On a side note, I'm glad you've come to your senses. Just a shame you wasted your youth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2411 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I think the idea is that doing something positive is diluted when it is done at least in part because of a falsely held belief. Never mind though. Good that you realised its bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2411 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Typically an atheist will say they don't believe in a god based on a lack of evidence whereas an agnostic (I don't want to put words in Sloop's mouth but here I go anyway) will simply say they don't know if there is a god but generally lean towards saying they don't think there is one if pushed. That's my understanding anyway, talk to ten other people and you'll probably get ten different answers. On beliefs in general. People can believe whatever as long as they don't try and push it on me and their beliefs don't cause harm to anyone. In general I think that's the point of God Is Not Great, (the subtitle is Religion Poisons Everything), more or less although Hitchen's wouldn't agree that religion does no harm, he actually attests to the opposite. I've actually read the book and I vaguely remember the Tolstoy reference. To my memory Tolstoy didn't become a devout Christian until much later in life, when he actually went batshit crazy by most accounts and became some sort of crazy monk. I think his beliefs in his earlier life are represented in War and Peace by Pierre while the development of his later beliefs are represented by Prince Bolkonsky (spelling?) (oops I got that backwards I think, Pierre becomes the crazy arsed Mason not the Prince Gimme a break haven't read it in awhile.). Without getting Hitchen's book out, its packed as we are moving in a week, I would suggest that maybe Hitchen's was referring to Tolstoy's morals as presented in his work rather than his morals in his actual life. Tolstoy was a nutcase in the end. Or perhaps Hitchens was suggesting that there is moral value to be taken from modern literature than from the Bible. I couldn't say. Sorry for the boring synopsis. Edited January 25, 2012 by toonotl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5906 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Pantheism is the way forward tbh. As Mr Sinatra once said I have respect for life in any form. I believe in nature, in the birds, the sea, the sky, in everything I can see. If these things are what you mean by God, then I believe in God. But I don't believe in a personal God to whom I look for comfort or for a natural on the next roll of the dice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2411 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yeh definitely. The trees are our future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5906 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The planet has been around about 6billion years longer than humans, and is chance to be around 6 billion years after we have managed to kill off our own race. We are 1 species. Bit narrow minded to believe in an anthromorphic God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2411 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I would call it arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I see Lineker is on Twitter. http://twitter.com/#!/GaryLineker_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Barton haha. The FA sent him a letter today warning him about predicting results of games. On Sunday he apparently tweeted he fancied a Manchester double. The FA 's letter says don't do it again for fears of "insider information". Incredible. I hate the cunt but he's right that the FA are completely backward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloopJohn 0 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I would call it arrogant. Then it must be arrogant to have human rights, free will, notions of moral law, ideas of progress too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I would call it arrogant. Then it must be arrogant to have human rights, free will, notions of moral law, ideas of progress too? All products of our biological and social evolution, can you explain how that's relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 The irony of the twitter thread getting deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2411 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I would call it arrogant. Then it must be arrogant to have human rights, free will, notions of moral law, ideas of progress too? Human Rights are not a product of the bible. Remember the bible supported the notion of slavery and was held by the south as a beacon of god's will that they own slaves for a long time before the secular spirit of the north finally won through. Free Will. I don't see how a believe system that encourages people to behave as sheep, literally a flock, in anyway promotes Free Will. If you're talking about the philosophical notion of free will in general and how that relates to religion then you are even more confused. Moral Law. That is mostly developed out of thousands of years of evolution. You should perhaps look up altruism. It essentially puts a torch to the old christian favourite that we'd be stabbing each other in the street if it weren't for the bible. By the by, would you include children being put to death for failing to honour their parents part of the bible's moral law? Ideas of Progess. Are you serious? Religion has been the single biggest retardant to 'progress' for about seventeen hundred years now. You are a loon if you think religion in anyway whatsoever encourages, or is an agent for, progress of any kind. Deluded. Completely. If that is what you think. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloopJohn 0 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I would call it arrogant. Then it must be arrogant to have human rights, free will, notions of moral law, ideas of progress too? All products of our biological and social evolution, can you explain how that's relevant? Well I don't really understand this idea of social evolution, because whilst we've definitely progressed in terms of technology and scientific discovery, the human race has progressed very little...in only takes one to look back at the previous century to realise that...it's the most barbaric and bloody in the recorded history of the human race...there are more slaves now (between 21-27 million) than there have ever been in history...if that's social progress, I'm worried Sure, we're more comfortable, live longer lives, but we're still irrational, callous animals who are destined to constantly repeat the same mistakes again and again and again Human rights didn't really exist in pre-Christian antiquity, in Rome (where slavery was axiomatic and viewed as necessary for social order, same goes for the Greek social order), at best one was simply recognised as a 'persona' or a 'face', however, if one was say, a slave, a criminal or a leper even, there were absolutely no human rights...it is true that under Augustus, certain legal protections extended to slaves, but they had still no real rights in front of the law and couldn't appeal against their masters, and more than that, their word held no value...in other words, unless one was a citizen, one was devoid of any semblance of personal dignity - 'non habens personam' [quite literally not having a face]. That is not to say that Christianity hasn't been guilty of exploiting slavery but Christianity has also always been pivotal in emancipation (one only has to think of Tolstoy's profound effect on Gandhi and Luther King Jr. as examples) Nowadays we can hardly say to be free of bigotry or racial prejudice but such ideas offend us deeply in a moral sense and this only thanks to ideals slowly bestowed to us from Christianity. Unlike pagan antiquity, which looked on in horror as the bizarre Christians granted full humanity to everyone they came across, nowadays we accept the value of every person because every Western conscience is indeed informed, whether one likes it or not, by a specifically Christian idea of the person. Free will, again, as an idea, does not exist any cultures except for ones that were or are Christian. In Eastern philosophy, as Schopenhauer discovered, history is cyclical; endlessly things come and go, and any conception of one being in charge of one's destiny is laughed at. Darwin said we're animals, but yet one never hears of animals of having 'free will', and we are the same, caught in an endless maelstrom of cause and effect, with no real choices in life...as John Gray has noted, free will only works as a concept when God endows us with the ability to choose between good and evil...and it is totally irrational and non-logical to believe in free will outside of a Christian system of thought...because what evidence do we have for it otherwise? Humanism is deluded in thinking free will can exist without God...Nietzsche thought so too The idea of progress is also one inherited from Christianities teleological system of thinking. In Christianity, a utopian mode of thinking, humanity is moving towards judgement, or the coming of the kingdom of heaven on earth (depending on who you read)...and history is a straight line barreling towards this end point. Again, in no other cultures is history ever thought of teleological, but in the post Christian West, we still cling on to the utopian idea that we're progressing as a society. I find it strange that secularism always discusses nature as cyclical but history as linear...surely one must recognise, as Hegel did, the logical problem here. As J69 said, we're only one species in the endless cycle of nature, so how can we sustain any notion of progression when it has no logical basis? I don't think religion necessarily encourages progress but the idea of progress, of society constantly moving forwards, is inherently religious...and there is nothing today which makes me think, 'oh look society is progressing' when we're willing to create weapons that can potentially wipe out humanity...or tut tutting at the Crusades when 'progressive' Western nations support malevolent dictatorships in overseas countries... Of course moral law is a total fallacy if we're animals too...there is no subject more widely disagreed upon in secular (and may I add religious) philosophy than morality, and that's because without absolute moral values (upheld by an omnipresent, all seeing judge, such as God), the world can only be amoral, like the animal kingdom. Of course that is not to say altruism has no basis, because as Dawkins wrote about in the Selfish Gene, altruism is a valid act, but at it's basis it's still inherently selfish.. anyway enough of my essay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) When I have time I'll take you up on your points, fair to say I don't agree with much of it. As an agnostic do you think it's important to have that level of knowledge on all the other religions/gods too? (Not saying you don't but your essay is very Christian). Edited January 26, 2012 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5906 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) http://noosphere.pri...GCP.Explore.pdf Nature, the Fibonacci sequence, the Golden rule, global human consciousness, parallel universes, M-Theory, Noetics There's all sorts of science we are only just beginning to understand. Religion was just an excuse to explain things we didn't know back in the day, it's dying on it's arse. The Human Race is heading for enlightenment, if we can manage to sort out the little incidental stuff like wars, famine, greed, destroying the planet etc. Things we have been clever enough to figure out for centuries now but due to some in-built blinkers we seem more worried about what we are going to watch on telly tonight and the next mobile we are going to buy rather than any of the stuff that actually matters Edited January 26, 2012 by J69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 http://noosphere.pri...GCP.Explore.pdf Nature, the Fibonacci sequence, the Golden rule, global human consciousness, parallel universes, M-Theory, Noetics There's all sorts of science we are only just beginning to understand. Religion was just an excuse to explain things we didn't know back in the day, it's dying on it's arse. The Human Race is heading for enlightenment, if we can manage to sort out the little incidental stuff like wars, famine, greed, destroying the planet etc. Things we have been clever enough to figure out for centuries now but due to some in-built blinkers we seem more worried about what we are going to watch on telly tonight and the next mobile we are going to buy rather than any of the stuff that actually matters Speaking of which, are you still happy with your S2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5906 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I never said I was any different At least I give thought to it though which is a step up from most of the population Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I never said I was any different At least I give thought to it though which is a step up from most of the population I wasn't implying that, more of a mutual gag really as I actually want to know. I am renewing and can't be arsed with shit battery life so might sack off the big screen time-suckers. I should find the right thread for this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now