Will faith influence your vote? As usual, a couple of tedious cockwipes took this to mean ‘What’s your least favourite foreigner?’, grinning proudly to themselves at how cleverly they’d linked it to the real title.
john wrote:
my faith as been destroyed when it is hard to hear english in my city
warriorsottovoce wrote:
All He asks for is for us to believe in Him and all will be OK. Sorry Gordon, it’s not going to work this time. After 13 years of Labour it would be like asking a Scotsman to pass through the eye of a needle before he could get into Parliament
Which I’m not even going to dignify with a put-down. Mostly though, it was an unbearably smug battle between the unbearably smug god-botherers and the unbearably smug god-botherer-botherers.
Megan wrote:
As a Christian EVERYTHING I do is informed by my faith. My choice when I come to cast my vote is no different… but it isn’t based on trivia like whether or not my chosen candidate happens to hold any faith, let alone the same one. It’s based on the policies for which he or she stands and how well they accord with what I think Jesus would want.Poster seen in a church doing duty as a polling station: “You have come to mark your X – remember the one who died on a + for your salvation, and consider what He would have us do.”
Good idea. I’ll start praying for guidance on the common market and effective fiscal policy. It’ll give me the edge over those ghastly, self-righteous atheists, who can just change their entire philosophy at the drop of a hat.
Peter wrote:
I learned a new word yesterday – Laicism: ‘the nonclerical, or secular, control of political and social institutions in a society’. As a Laicist I will be looking for leaders who actively deny the role of religion in government and will be ignoring any desperate enough to involve the mystical, spiritual and utterly intangible in their political pitch.
Someone desperately needs to teach Peter the word ‘onanism’ the day before a job interview.
Normally, after reading a dozen sanctimonious, cocksure atheists whining about how definitely right they are and how stupid everyone else is, I’m usually all but ready to side with the Christians, who generally seem dimly aware that they believe some astonishingly implausible stuff. But you can’t ever generalise about these things:
John McCormick wrote:
Hello, #21,
You make your point forcibly but foolishly.
You seem to be saying that belief in a faith requires no empirical evidence.
In return, I would argue that maintaining an atheist or agnostic position is illustrative of mental blindness on a (literally) cosmic scale.
To disbelieve in God, you have to believe some really improbable “facts”:1) That the universe came into existence without help. Whether you go for 10 dimensions, or whatever scientific mumbo-jumbo holds your attention for now, ultimately you have to believe that something can pop into existence where once there was nothing. Sorry, but I don’t believe in magic – obviously you do.
2) That matter can become animate without help. Please refer to a wonderful chapter in Bill Bryson’s Short History of Everything in which he describes the mechanism that would be required to achieve this for 1 protein molecule. The odds against this 1 molecule are so high that there simply has not been enough time (even 20 billion years) for this to happen by accident.There have been some really wonderful theories promulgated by scientists through the ages to explain the universe (And the daft ones believed by the church were non-biblical, too) – such as the universe being eternal and the earth being in the middle. And lets not forget the search for luminiferous ether while we’re at it. Reminds me of the search for dark matter (When all you need to do is un-apply the laws of thermodynamics for a little; while the universe is being created).
As far as I can see, atheists are not faithless – they believe in some really amazing impossibilities!
Yeah, like magic. Magic! Can you imagine? And it’s a slippery slope too. Start off believing in magic, next thing you know, you’re believing in some gigantic old man who has all the magic in the universe and sends it to smite the bummers.
46 Responses to “Christian Scientist”
That’s better
I really enjoyed the word “promulgated”. Apparently it means to ‘spread’, but I think it sounds more like the term for when you accidentally let out a bit of jizz when you catch a glimpse of your Nan’s cleavage.
and there was me thinking Laicism was having a pop at the chinks.
Total separation of Church and State! The only way this can be acheived is to have a Head of State who is also Head of the Church. Brilliant.
Also, two consecutive “the”s. Heretic.
I feel sorry for John – his faith must be incredibly weak if he can lose it just by going deaf.
Facts? Magic? Truthiness! Magic beans! Pixies! Flying Spaghetti Monsters!
And people call me a fascist when I say there ought to be a test to see if you can vote. Motherfuckers.
I like John McCormick’s take on probability. I guess it’s only a matter of time until God rewards him with a lottery win for his faith.
Some kind of hearing aid is probably in order, or perhaps traffic controls.
I assume john is referring to the NHS or increasing urban pollution.
There’s also a politics lecturer at Purdue called John McCormick. I don’t think they’re the same person, mainly because he’s actually quite good at logic, whereas this John McCormick wouldn’t recognise logic if it approached him in a coherent, contiguous sequence of events.
Straight in at post #1 a genuine IYLISMWDYGLT
Einstein & Hawking vs Bryson. I can see why John’s decided to switch off the laws of thermodynamics for a minute. The cosmic fuse box is under the stairs next to god’s stash of smiting bdsm porn.
But what does DisgustedofMitcham1 think!
Given that (as far as I know) the whole aim of Bryson’s book is the popularisation of understanding of science, i) it seems a bit unlikely that he’s promoting the creationist viewpoint, and ii) he must be very very upset that you can lead a twat to knowledge but you can’t make him think.
Ah, English. The first language of Christ the Redeemer.
If I’m right.
Why is it after thinking about religion vs atheism for more than 3 seconds I actually feel myself start to die from the sheer dullness of it all?
I don’t envy you having to read through this swamp of smug shitheads, Alex.
I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky…
Hang on, wasn’t he a…!
See, not to mark myself out as a smart cunt, but I’ve read all the relevant books regarding the arguments Mr. McCormick put forward and at one point I would have patiently tried to explain a few concepts to him while he was in that lucid period between the guilty wank over the pile of BDSM porn under the stairs and his daily visit to talkjesus.com. Now though, I’d rather have my toenails pulled out by the rotation of the Lovell Telescope than try and explain to a Creationist why he’s wrong, because I’ve come to find that they’re not lacking in education, they’re just very, very desperate and very, very stupid.
See, I’ve got answers to most things creation related, but the one answer that fits all and never gets boring is “read a different book.”
Religious types always love this glib little expression “informed by my faith”. I’d love to know what information it provides and how, given they don’t seem to act any different than anyone else in their day to day lives.
John McCormick – I wonder if he’s ever heard the new Insane Clown Posse song? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
It’s not science – it’s all magic. Fucking miracles.
This reminds me of something I read a couple of years ago:
Or religion.
It depends on the proportion of your time you spend being smugly self-righteous about anyone who collects stamps, uses the post office, or knows what a stamp looks like or is for.
Not that the hysterical Creationists or Westminster Declaration types are any better.
Next time you encounter a metaphor, remember that torturing one might be acceptable where you come from, but raping it in the eyesockets would be frowned upon in any circles.
Well they are.
What?
That was a surprised and defensive what, not me channeling Bertie Wooster. You may ask how I can channel someone who not only isn’t dead but never existed. I find your lack of faith disturbing…
Atheism can’t be a religion,because your standard Atheist who has an invisible friend is generally housed in a secure unit, but religion on the other hand, relies in the positive belief of invisible friends-hang on- the amount of folk in secure units that reckon god told them to do it-my own argument sucks like an electrolux.
It has been a long day, 5 to 5, I already have my coat on and car keys ready.
@ dirigible, Bertie Wooster never existed!?!-you bastard, I suppose father christmas isn’t real either!
Oh this day has all gone wrong….
Gosh. “I don’t wanna listen to a scientist, yo motherfuckers lying and you’re getting me pissed.”
Well, quite. You keep on not listening to scientists, and you’ll keep on believing that the studio you recorded that music video on is powered entirely by God’s troglodyte minions in the Magic Factory. They got a THEORY!
I always liked “atheism is to religion what bald is to hair colour”.
Seems pretty ungrateful to rant at scientists after they’ve generously got you pissed.
Electioneering BNP style, how to win the Asian vote.
[blockquote]Next time you encounter a metaphor, remember that torturing one might be acceptable where you come from, but raping it in the eyesockets would be frowned upon in any circles.[/blockquote]
Actually I thought that it was a good extension of the stamp collecting metaphor. As much as I loathe creationists, and similar science-deniers, I’m beginning to find militant atheists tiresome as well.
The only person who’s right is me.
Except when it comes to blockquotes.
One thing I hope we can all agree on is that Richard Dawkins is a nob.
I think we can all unite around this:
http://vimeo.com/11338327
dirigible:
I’m disappointed now. I was definitely reading that post in Hugh Laurie’s voice. Spiffing, what?
And there’s nothing wrong with channelling fictional characters – I’ve been channelling Miss Berta from Acorn Antiques for years. Mind you, no-one has noticed yet.
I really love this as an argument against atheism:
There are so many subtle layers of fail in there.
She’ll never leave him. Let it go.
No, but I think we can all agree you are.
I’m beginning to find militant unicorn deniers tiresome. You just point out to them the undeniable truth that there’s a unicorn behind them that wants them to give you all their money, and they get pissy. Try telling them each time you see them and they get really pissy. Which makes them precisely the same as people who believe the unicorn is pink rather than purple.
Twats.
@ dirigible
Yawn
A cough is more usual.
Uh, isn’t having a political poster like that in a polling station illegal? (re: Megan’s awful post)
@tombom
According to the BBC’s guide, it would only be illegal if Jesus of Nazareth was standing in Megan’s constituency.
Bits of him are.
And isn’t it ‘knob’?
Knobody knows.
A ‘nob’ is a posh person (possibly from ‘noble’), whereas a ‘knob’ is just a bell-end. It is possible to be both, especially if you’re Nigel Farage.