fruitvilla

Yep all sorts of people can be nice. I do my civic duty and invite my JWs in and keep them long as possible, pointing out the inconsistences in their postilions. Your JWs drink coffee? I got the impression they did not. Could be wrong. Sadly they don't seem to come any more. On another note. Regarding the two major Abrahamic faiths ... I never got the hang of believing ... 2000 y ago an angel came to a lady called Miriam (or whatever it is in Aramaic) and foretold of a godly inspired birth (by some accounts, a parthenogenetic birth). This belief is beyond my skill set. Could a passing Christian or Muslim Villa fan explain where Jesus got his Y chromosome from?

I was born in May

A little bit about myself and a juxtaposition of Aston Villa and religion … nothing terribly original

Been married for 43 years now. When we first met she was not my type … but that somehow changed when she made a pass at me. We had been in the same circles for two years prior to that. The short answer is it [love] changes.

Funnily enough for me you guys are 8 hours behind, but tomorrow?

Yes that is true … some have their machine on the rocks in the local stream. Mine wanders around the house doing chores, vacuuming, dusting, cooking etc. But a bit more seriously we have a room for the washing machine and drier. Canada Most detached houses have two floors … the main living space and bedrooms tend to be upstairs, and the washer drier combination can be found on either floor.

I am looking forward to August. Getting up on Saturday morning, finishing up the bacon and eggs. Reading the VillaTalk comments. Finally some Premier League wingeing and whining about the club. None of this second tier stuff. I am happy now. Back where we should be.

Well good luck fighting those demonic forces with God.

You appear to say here, you believed in the Devil and that made your belief in a god somehow reasonable? Personally I would be far from sure of a belief in the Devil. If someone does something really horrific I would not attribute that to a supernatural being, nor would I attribute something to god when someone does something nice. To me it seems perfectly obvious that just is the way the world is.

So you agree a logical or reasoned argument won't win you over and that those of us who wish to proselytize atheism should be reaching for an emotional hook?

So you think it is a reasonable possibility Jesus is the son of God? But you might be skeptical that an angel foretold of the immaculate conception, but it was immaculate nevertheless? If so what persuades you? This does not quite make sense to me Mr Rugeley. You believe God is a possibility, fair enough; but, you believe (apparently unconditionally) there is a devil? Is this not a bit of a tautology? Perhaps, I think I see the light now without having any fantastic beliefs? What are my reasons for needing this belief. Here are some sayings reportedly from Jesus: Otherwise, avoid rules and follow the truth you discover yourself. Act from awareness, not habit or convention. Don’t blindly repeat rituals. Don’t trust those with spiritual pretensions.

I have not watched the video and I am sure it is quite erudite on the subject matter. I am guessing the problem with this kind of argument is, it is all brain and no heart. Religion has wormed its way into some people's hearts the same way science has into mine. So people I think can understand the logic behind the arguments against (certain aspects) of a particular religion, but things like science and logic might not meet everyone's needs. So to win people over from religion, an emotional hook is needed. God knows what that might be.

Fair enough. So I presume you don't believe that Jesus was literally the son of god? If so the little prayer you posted does not quite make sense, at least not to me. OK, you believe in a "higher power". Is this like a personal higher power, that is represented in the Abrahamic religions? eg this higher power actually cares about you and me?

I am not making the claim that it is true. I can show you no more evidence that an angel did not come to a woman and foretell of some kind immaculate conception than for fairies under my garden shed. But there is a whack load of absence of evidence for their existence. So you believe in something that you have no evidence for. Fair enough.

What is your actual evidence for believing this, Mr Rugeley?

Shame on you. I do my civic duty and keep them long as possible. I keep them talking and explaining stuff to them. You are letting them prey on the potentially more gullible. Sadly they seem to be avoiding me now.

OK there we have it, Buddhism is not a religion. It's official.

Another way of arranging the deck chairs

There are two general meanings of the word atheist … a lack of belief in god and an active disbelief in god. The first is described by the adjectives weak, soft, negative, implicit, agnostic, and the second by strong, hard, positive, explicit and gnostic. We are talking about how/when and what were the actual meanings of the word when they entered the English language. Sure they have changed over the last five hundred years. So to say atheism does not involve belief would not necessarily be accurate. Your 50% comment does not make too much sense to me in that I don't see anyone claiming a 50 % belief in anything

You said: "You can't have a belief in atheism. That would be a belief in lacking a belief in god(s)." I took that to mean atheism does not involve beliefs. Plainly it can do … ie strong atheism. I just happen to come across a 1976 Webster's dictionary yesterday … it only gave the strong atheist definition. Apparently the word atheism came into the English language around the 1500s from wiki: The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[134] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566. and The term theism derives from the Greek theos or theoi meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[8] In Cudworth's definition, they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other thing So it would appear the term atheism(t) may predate theist in the English language. But note the early use of the strong definition of atheism. Here is an essay from SEP that is pushing (back) for a strong definition of atheism. Being both atheist and agnostic I agree is a perfectly logical position to hold. And broadly that would be mine assuming we are using the weak definition of atheism. My apologies for the word stasi. It was meant to be amusing

But we can go where the evidence takes us. The scientific method does not deal in proof but it does deal in corroboration.

What would you call a strong (hard, positive) atheist that believes god(s) do no exist? So your statement is wrong on the face of it. But I take your point most atheists are like of a weak (soft, negative, agnostic) flavour. You lack a belief in Roman gods? I positively disbelieve in those (and a bunch of others). You have picked up on a relatively modern definition of atheism … and frankly it does not matter. So long as we understand what we understand what the person means when they use the word. This is assuming you are not an oberleutnant in the word stasi.

I have faith that Villa will get back into the Premier league … is this a good or a bad thing? Who cares? But to be fair my faith has been upgraded to a belief again. But more to a general set of points: I don't know how to believe in the literal truth of Norse gods. Ditto for Roman and Greek gods. Plus there are a whole bunch of historic gods that could be included. Why would I believe that an angel came to a lady two thousand years ago and foretold of some sort of immaculate conception that would result in a child made by god? I gather whether this child is actually god is up for debate depending on whether one is Christian or Muslim. In either case what is the evidence that god actually cares about me? I see none. What would make believe in some god that set the ball rolling and buggered off? Just some questions and observations.

Living in Canada and watching the game on a crappy internet connection with rose tinted spectacles. This what I saw: Villa were not bad and they were definitely the better of the two. Villa did not have enough possession. It is difficult to score when you don't have the ball. For large periods of the game Forest were camped in their own half, defending. If I were a Forest fan I would be very disappointed in that the team did not do better, especially against a team that [apparently] has a manager with a poor strategy and is crap at times. Villa scored two nice goals. Murphy's goal was a bit lucky ... he had the ball stripped off him and it bounced off a defender's foot back into his path. Kudos to him for putting the ball in the back of the net. Generally the defence did OK a few scary moments, which I did not like. I was impressed with offence they had Forest pinned in their own half much of the time and hence the 64% [BBC] possession Forest enjoyed. OK this is not Champions' league stuff but it was not bad. To me it seemed better than watching the Vancouver Whitecaps versus Colorado later in the evening on the box.

First game I saw was at Villa Park 1st Oct 1960. Villa lost 3-1 to Leicester. Through the eyes of a six year old the difference between the teams was the goalkeeper. Apparently some guy called Gordon Banks was in goal for Leicester. Last game I saw at Villa Park was December 1986 ... Villa beat Derby 1-0 ... a dreary affair. Steve Hodge was playing ... interesting character. Anyway living on the far side of Canada (in the woods) now. Generally planning on lurking and listening to the chatter.