Jon

Graham Taylor IIRC.

No. I believe every Atheist should be an Agnostic. well possibly. the thing is, many non-believers don't look into it in that much detail. They simply don't believe in god, and thereofre say they're an atheist, as this more well known in poplular culture. I am guilty of this. TBH, having just looked at the defeinitions of both, they are very similar, although i fall on the side of atheism, as although i can't prove that their isn't a God, i also don't believe there is one either. Ago's seem to say whilst they can't prove their isn't a God, they don't really know either way and so don't believe anything. Or at least that's how i understand it?

It's a free country, we're "allowed" to say pretty much what we like. The thing about oaths and swearing, is that (apart from the bodily parts ones) they are nearly all religious, or bowdlerised from religious oaths - even the "tame" ones: What about Hell? does that have religious connotations? i generally do not invoke tha tamer swear words when issuign expletives, but have on ocassion used the phrase: "**** Hell!". Not sure if this has a religions origin though - not the fcuking = the hell bit? I presume it has. I'll just stick to the tried and trusted f*ck word removed and w*nker, it's far safer and much less likely to raise the ire of the god botherers ..... :winkold:

and on a related note, can an atheist Villa fan call McGrath God without it being hypocritical?

If you are an atheist, are you being a hypocrite be uttering the remark: "for God's sake!" or "God almighty!". also, am i right in beliveing that atheists don't necessarily deny the existence of Jesus, just that he was "nothing special" so to speak? In which case, we would be allowed to say "Jesus!" but not "Jesus Christ!" or "For Christ's Sake!"?

Sloth - one of the 7 deadly sins! you're God will not be pleased! :winkold: Is lazarus chin God? :shock: That will put my atheism in to doubts. excellent gramatical p*ss-take for a non-English person. I applaud thee. TBH i did notice my error and correct it in my response post. :oops: ps in to should be one word : "into" in this context :winkold:

Sloth - one of the 7 deadly sins! your God will not be pleased! :winkold: Noone follows those sins guidelines or the ten commandments. you mean you also covet your neighbours wife? :winkold:

Sloth - one of the 7 deadly sins! you're God will not be pleased! :winkold:

he can dismiss what he wants on here. I don't think he's offending billions of people's beliefs, unless of course readership of this forum has suddenly mushroomed overnight. maybe it has. Must be the work of God.

so what time are you going to the dentsist today Gareth ............

Ditto but Christened Christian. Edit in reposnse to Bicks' pedantism

yeah me .... a death penalty is more fitting and more humane for the rest of us this country hasn't had a death penalty for many years now - and quite rightly IMO. Also, who of sane mind is going to Volunteer to be put to death? :winkold:

OK. Anyone think it is NOT right to chemically castrate an existing "peadophile/sex offender" who has already comitted sexual offences to children and who has him(her) self requested the procedure to stop him(her) reoffending as they think they possibly will? How can it possibly be wrong in this instance? This is what the new measures outlined are aimed at IMO.

for those that think they will be potential re-offenders without this measure. i'd imagine there will be some strict guideliness on the deployment of this, yes. But for those that say, "please help me, I'm feeling the urge to do X with a small child, can you employ this procedure on me please" then surely you'd snap their hand (or somehting else :winkold: ) off and get it done!

everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this is voluntary! the offender has to actaully agree/volunteer for this treatment as a way of stopping them re-offending. It is not a blanket approach for all those found guilty of "molesting" children/minors.

I must add that this is indeed a VOLUNTSRY scheme: "The treatment involving libido-reducing drugs or anti-depressants would be given on a voluntary basis" source = the beeb website.

I think there is a voluntary aspect to this, is there not? some sex offenders can actually volunteer to have this done to them to stop them re-offending as they don't trust themselves .....

You think? I'd say it isn't economically viable anyway, so the point is mute. What are the 'official' reasons given for the smoking ban? passive smoking causes cancer?

IIRC Big John does miss his fair share of games through injury, and as you suggest Eidur would be an alternative rather than a compliment to him. we need that alternative/option IMO, and i really like Eidur. Not sure if he'd be happy as a back-up striker though ....

me neither Mart. I do know of some who only smoke casually when they go out for a drink who have said that this may make them stop/cut-down (which is surely a good thing?) but none of the smokers i know have said they will stop going to the boozer. I just think somkers will probably cut down a little, rather than chain smoking down the pub as many do now they will be more slective about when they choose to go outside and spark up. Can't see a problem with this myself - apart from loads more fag ends on the streets outside pubs!

It rather seems you haven't read it yourself. hardly anyone mentions the smoking ban, and just as many mention the crack down on drink driving as causing a downturn! Imagine that, cracking down on drinking and driving. Fascists. Maybe we could have "drink driving roads" and "non drink driving roads" that way, everybody has a choice. I mean, people who have been run down by drink drivers, they didn't have to walk home that way, did they? cracking riposte Mart

Indeed it is. And you still have one.

you will have choice on July 1st DV. Smoke outside, at home, or not at all. Simple, yet effective, and nobody bar the smoker themselves get poisoned/contaminated. well, unless you live with a smoker that is. Which i don't. Which is nice. you didn't expalin how someone consuming alocohol is poisoning/contaminating those in their immediate vicinity, as that was what you used in your comprison to smoking. maybe because it isn't a valid comparison?

I have no real objection to people poisoning themselves. It's the poisoning of others i object to. How is someone consuming alcohol poisoning those around them? I am not opposed in principle to having a smoking room in a bar/pub. In practice, i don't this would work that well, and also it wouldn't be feasible for some open plan bars that don't have "rooms". It would also be an expense to implement for the pubs/bars i'd guess. Also would be much more difficult to police than an outright ban. What's wrong with outside? It's well ventilated.

they still have a choice DV. Now it's one that doesn't involve poisoning others, surely a good thing in my book. The public at large want this ban, the people voting in this poll on VT want this ban, the only people who don't are a minority of smokers who feel they're being told what to do by the government, and demand that their right to poison others should not be impinged.