RIP Thread

[GranadaJoe]

ISIS ideologies are nothing to do with religion. Any Muslim will tell you the Koran in no way promotes the murder of fellow human beings (even Muslims).

Why France? Well two reasons in my opinion, they haven't looked at the problem at it's source ie where radicalisation takes place. They decided after Charlie Hebdo/Paris attacks the best way to deal with ISIS was to bomb the fuck out of them. To a degree this has worked, but at the same time it's only caused more people in France to become radicalised.

The French have been well and truly caught with their pants down over the last few years, they didn't take the problem seriously (when London and New York where attacked) and now it has got out of hand there is nothing they can do to stop more people from being killed.

I am not saying we are good at dealing with the radicalisation and potential threats in the UK, something will happen, but in this country we have covered all bases. Look at our policy for reaching out to moderate Muslims, our surveillance which has prevented umpteen attacks and dare I say it the UK despite what I said on the Brexit thread has a much more inclusive society. In France how you get on in life is strongly linked to your cultural background, they genuinely alienate immigrants especially the North Africans.

RIP Priest, I cannot remember a time in my lifetime, when I have despaired so much at how barbaric our fellow human beings have become.

You first paragraph is bizarre.
If people are brought up as Muslims, have Muslim parents, go to Muslim schools, attend Muslim madrassas, go to the mosque to pray, observe the five tenets of Islam and consider themselves Muslim how are they NOT Muslims?
Yet in India, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran, England, Germany, France, USA etc etc these people believe in, support and carry out murder in the name of Islam.

We may not like it but there hundreds of verses in the koran that not only support violence but direct believers to carry it out.
There are also many hundreds that state the opposite, but why should one lot be valid and the others not?
We may wish religions were all lovely and fluffy but they all have a dark side.

Most Christians ignore most of the nasty stuff in the bible (apart from the likes of the Westboro Baptist nutters) and can justify their choices by acknowledging that the bible is actually written by men and men are fallible.
It's more difficult for Muslims because their teachings are that Allah dictated it word for word. I hope that over time the moderate Muslims, who I'm sure would like to ditch some of the teachings, will assert that the koran has changed over time, was dictated by God but compiled and codified by men. Not much sign though at the moment.

[GranadaJoe]

To make my position clear; I am an atheist. I was brought up in a religious-ish family (prayers before bed, Aunt who ran a Sunday school) but it didn't really have any effect on our lives. My secondary school was populated by a lot of happy-clappy born-again Christians and for a couple of years I tried really, really hard to believe, but ultimately I had to accept I couldn't, and I felt uncomfortable for many years. Eventually, as an adult after thinking logically about religion and investigating the facts I became convinced that, not only was there 'probably' not a God, but that the evidence for one was weak and the evidence against strong. It was an amazing feeling of relief and happiness and I would recommend it to everybody.

I would love to see a world without religion but I would never advocate banning it. I would however like to see some of its practices outlawed.

I completely agree with DB10 about the appalling record of the majority of political systems over the years, but their bad deeds to not excuse religions of theirs. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I also hate the monarchy, to answer DB's question. In a democracy it's ridiculous. I hate it that my legal status is not 'citizen' but 'subject of her majesty'.

I firmly believe that man invented God, not the other way round, which accounts for why no two people seem to have the same belief, and why individual believers take whatever they want from the Bible, Koran etc and ignore the bits they don't like.
DB10, what do you think this says about religion? If people can ignore the fundamental tenets of a religion and take a pick-n-mix approach then what is a religion?

Please don't try to imply that I am attacking religious people. I am most definitely not. People can believe anything they want to. I will always challenge their beliefs if I think they are wrong, dangerous or offensive, but I will never attack believers in general. I will, however attack religions and Churches.

It's true that some people take comfort in their faith, but is it good that this comfort is based on a lie? There's no right answer but to quote Matt Dillahunty, "I want to believe in as many true things and as few false things as possible".
Another famous quote is, "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion".
The nurse who caught ebola and was treated in the US, in her press conference thanked God for saving her. She took comfort in her religion, but I find that gross. What about the talented, dedicated, brave doctors and nurses? And if she's a believer, who does she think invented and distributed ebola in the first place.

On the subject of hell, I don't think my comments are 'based on a poor translation of the Koran and Old Testament'. Hell is not mentioned in the OT. Some later clergy have used references to 'the grave' to imply it and later bibles (e.g. the King James version) use it more. It is alluded to more in the the New Testament but it is never clear what it is. The issue is that religions (I believe as a means of controlling the population) have developed Hell when the source texts don't support it.
As for the Koran; which bit of this has been misinterpreted: Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. 4:56
They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom. 5:37
For them is drink of boiling water and a painful doom, because they disbelieved. 6:70
I have English and Irish friends who are catholic are who were taught in school and in Church that Protestants can never go to heaven.

I fully accept that the majority of believers probably don't want 85% of humanity to burn in hell, but that is because they are decent people who choose to overlook the contents of their holy texts and the teachings of many of their clergy, rather than because they are religious.

It is estimated that there at least 4,000 religions, but some estimates put it at five times that or more. There are over 10,000 denominations of Christianity.
They all believe they know the truth and that every other religion is false. I just go one step further and believe they are all false.

Some atheists are arrogant, but the world needs more of them. Go out today and create an atheist.

And for every quote saying hell is eternal for Muslims I can produce one that says it isn't;

http://quransmessage.com/articles/is%20 ... %20FM3.htm

It is one of the longest debated tenets of Islam. The translation problems stem from mistranslated verbs and adverbs and are common throughout the Qur’an.

Regarding the OT, the translation most used for hell is "Sheol" which many scholars claim simply refers to the resting place of the dead in general, or the grave, but most OT scholars also state that Sheol was divided into two areas, one for the righteous dead and one for the wicked dead. There are many OT passages that speak of Sheol in terms that denote judgment, such as Isaiah 14:15, “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” You have to also remember that the Jews of that era believed that being slain and sent to the place of the dead is often a form of judgment in itself and that is their concept of what we call "hell" within the OT. This led to the more widely quoted new testament concept of hell.

As for Matt Delahunty, if there ever was a more pompous arrogant attention-seeking cock than him I've never heard of them! His ludicrous assertion that if people drop religion and only live in relation to what they can prove they will just suddenly become enlightened and only do good to other people is absolutely moronic and as intolerant and fundamentalist a style of thinking as any of the religions he disparages. It demonstrates a deeply ignorant lack of knowledge about human nature.

He reminds me of the atheists that rant on about the "Atheist Atrocities Fallacy" – claiming that religious people often incorrectly quote Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot as examples of atheists that committed genocide, when in fact they were Christian, Christian and Buddhist/Christian respectively. What these atheists always fail to mention though is that those 3 animals committed their genocidal atrocities AFTER they had abandoned the structural practice of those religions. Hitler is often quoted as saying he was doing Christian work by exterminating the Jews but if you've read anything about Hitler's life it is obvious he was using that as an (ineffective) ruse to subdue the outcry by German Christians.

Now I'm not saying they committed those genocides because they were atheists, but I am saying that to blame all the evils of the world on religion is ludicrously shallow thinking and is typical of fundamentalist intolerant atheists. I always find it hilarious that so many atheists claim to know that there is no God, whilst criticising believers for claiming there definitely is a God, the atheists seemingly unable to grasp the irony of that.

When atheists say "prove there is a God" I'd say the onus is on them to prove there isn't. After all, their belief is supposedly based on "facts", whereas the religious belief is based on "faith". I also don't see why you have an issue with people taking a "pick n mix" approach to religion. As I said, my view is that religion should serve man's needs, not the other way round. Why does it have to be a hard fast rule of either one way or the other? That concept again is symbolic of intolerant atheist thinking. For example there are very few Catholics that actually believe that communion is really the body and blood of Christ even though it clearly says so in the Bible!

I go back to my original statement that the problem is not religion or political systems but rather it is humanity, how humans choose to interpret those systems, and how they choose to behave.

Your point that there are conflicting verses in the koran (and also in the bible) is important. Why are there such massive inconsistencies and factual errors in these 'word of god' books?
Most clergy cherry pick their sermons so that they talk about the nice stuff (love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc) and they ignore the bad stuff. Fortunately for them, despite believing the bible is the revealed word of god, very, very few christians have read it cover to cover.
I've seen talks by ex-clergy who had unshakable faith until they went to study in a seminary, read the bible and though wtf!

Your second point follows on, but I disagree that it is MIStranslation that is the problem. It is just translation. Some scholars translate it one way and others another way. Who can say who is correct? They have all studied, are all experts but have different opinions.
Sometimes it is not even a translation problem, just an interpretation one. As I understand it, scholars don't disagree on the translation of the verses concerning transubstantiation, it's just that the Pope says Jesus meant the bread and wine would ACTUALLY be his body and blood and protestants say it was a metaphor. It's impossible to say who's correct.
It would help if the all-powerful beings concerned could just tell us exactly what they meant, rather than leave us with endless metaphors and contradictions.

Your personal attack on Matt Dillahunty is unwarranted and incorrect. Can you point to a single quote where he states that people who become atheists 'will become enlightened and only do good...'? I've seen him in action a lot and he has never made that assertion. He knows as well as anyone that people do bad things. His proposition is that if more people were atheists the world would be a better place.

You use another 'straw man' argument by stating that 'it is ludicrous to blame all the evils of the world on religion'. Of course it is, but I not aware that anyone has ever said that. Religion is to blame for many evils in the world though.
Religious apologists often bring up Hitler, Stalin etc. I don't know if they were religious, but I doubt they were. Whether atheist or religious, people can be good or bad. However, it is important to understand that those monsters did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism. We need to consider their motivation. Hitler was a keen artist, but he didn't use that as an excuse either. The key difference is that throughout history horrendous atrocities have been committed by religious people in the name of their religion.

You must know that a negative cannot be logically disproved.
However, there are a myriad of logical justifications for believing there is not any deity. I looked at all of the arguments for and against a deity and I came to the conclusion that the evidence against was overwhelming. None of it was absolute proof, because you cannot prove a negative, but it was enough for me. I can't remember who said 'all claims require evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I haven't seen evidence to convince me that their is a god.

You say religious belief is based on 'faith'. Could you define what faith is? Mark Twain said it was' "believing what you know aint so". What do you think?

Also, could you define in your terms what 'religion' is, because I'm not sure we're arguing about the same thing.
It's usually defined as something along the lines of 'the belief in a god or in a group of gods. : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods'. Usually it's accepted that a group of people need to share the belief. One person's belief that Fred Bloggs is god doesn't constitute a religion. Also it doesn't say 'pick the bits you like'.

It would certainly be better if religion served man, but all religions say; I (or we) are God. This is the truth. You have to believe it and do exactly what I command or you'll burn for eternity (or similar).
I accept that individuals make individual choices, and usually I'm glad they do, but if they are saying 'I believe in some of this religion but not other bits' then they are disagreeing with the word of god.
I believe that in general these people have an inbuilt, personal morality that prevents them for supporting the excesses of their religion. It is their humanity that triumphs not their god, and I'm glad it does. I just wish they would recognize and attest that their religion is wrong on these matters.
When enough people said that the earth was NOT the centre of the universe the Catholic church accepted it, stopped torturing people who claimed it and changed its teachings. I would love to think that the power of reasonable and reasoned people challenging the horrible parts of their religions will bring about change, but I'm not confident. I'm having enough problems with you!

[DB10GOONER]

Just thought I'd bump this. Some lovely tributes and much love for Jimmy on here.

And what exactly was the point of that?

What was the point of what? Am I obliged to answer your questions?

What was the point of dragging up a 5 year old thread where some posters posted complimentary comments about a sex offender? Whether you answer or not is up to you. Don't really give a flying fuck either way tbh. But it looks to me like you were just trying to be a smartass and embarrass other posters that posted on that thread, given the nature of what became public knowledge about Saville after those comments were posted.

Well done.

[DB10GOONER]

To make my position clear; I am an atheist. I was brought up in a religious-ish family (prayers before bed, Aunt who ran a Sunday school) but it didn't really have any effect on our lives. My secondary school was populated by a lot of happy-clappy born-again Christians and for a couple of years I tried really, really hard to believe, but ultimately I had to accept I couldn't, and I felt uncomfortable for many years. Eventually, as an adult after thinking logically about religion and investigating the facts I became convinced that, not only was there 'probably' not a God, but that the evidence for one was weak and the evidence against strong. It was an amazing feeling of relief and happiness and I would recommend it to everybody.

I would love to see a world without religion but I would never advocate banning it. I would however like to see some of its practices outlawed.

I completely agree with DB10 about the appalling record of the majority of political systems over the years, but their bad deeds to not excuse religions of theirs. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I also hate the monarchy, to answer DB's question. In a democracy it's ridiculous. I hate it that my legal status is not 'citizen' but 'subject of her majesty'.

I firmly believe that man invented God, not the other way round, which accounts for why no two people seem to have the same belief, and why individual believers take whatever they want from the Bible, Koran etc and ignore the bits they don't like.
DB10, what do you think this says about religion? If people can ignore the fundamental tenets of a religion and take a pick-n-mix approach then what is a religion?

Please don't try to imply that I am attacking religious people. I am most definitely not. People can believe anything they want to. I will always challenge their beliefs if I think they are wrong, dangerous or offensive, but I will never attack believers in general. I will, however attack religions and Churches.

It's true that some people take comfort in their faith, but is it good that this comfort is based on a lie? There's no right answer but to quote Matt Dillahunty, "I want to believe in as many true things and as few false things as possible".
Another famous quote is, "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion".
The nurse who caught ebola and was treated in the US, in her press conference thanked God for saving her. She took comfort in her religion, but I find that gross. What about the talented, dedicated, brave doctors and nurses? And if she's a believer, who does she think invented and distributed ebola in the first place.

On the subject of hell, I don't think my comments are 'based on a poor translation of the Koran and Old Testament'. Hell is not mentioned in the OT. Some later clergy have used references to 'the grave' to imply it and later bibles (e.g. the King James version) use it more. It is alluded to more in the the New Testament but it is never clear what it is. The issue is that religions (I believe as a means of controlling the population) have developed Hell when the source texts don't support it.
As for the Koran; which bit of this has been misinterpreted: Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. 4:56
They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom. 5:37
For them is drink of boiling water and a painful doom, because they disbelieved. 6:70
I have English and Irish friends who are catholic are who were taught in school and in Church that Protestants can never go to heaven.

I fully accept that the majority of believers probably don't want 85% of humanity to burn in hell, but that is because they are decent people who choose to overlook the contents of their holy texts and the teachings of many of their clergy, rather than because they are religious.

It is estimated that there at least 4,000 religions, but some estimates put it at five times that or more. There are over 10,000 denominations of Christianity.
They all believe they know the truth and that every other religion is false. I just go one step further and believe they are all false.

Some atheists are arrogant, but the world needs more of them. Go out today and create an atheist.

And for every quote saying hell is eternal for Muslims I can produce one that says it isn't;

http://quransmessage.com/articles/is%20 ... %20FM3.htm

It is one of the longest debated tenets of Islam. The translation problems stem from mistranslated verbs and adverbs and are common throughout the Qur’an.

Regarding the OT, the translation most used for hell is "Sheol" which many scholars claim simply refers to the resting place of the dead in general, or the grave, but most OT scholars also state that Sheol was divided into two areas, one for the righteous dead and one for the wicked dead. There are many OT passages that speak of Sheol in terms that denote judgment, such as Isaiah 14:15, “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” You have to also remember that the Jews of that era believed that being slain and sent to the place of the dead is often a form of judgment in itself and that is their concept of what we call "hell" within the OT. This led to the more widely quoted new testament concept of hell.

As for Matt Delahunty, if there ever was a more pompous arrogant attention-seeking cock than him I've never heard of them! His ludicrous assertion that if people drop religion and only live in relation to what they can prove they will just suddenly become enlightened and only do good to other people is absolutely moronic and as intolerant and fundamentalist a style of thinking as any of the religions he disparages. It demonstrates a deeply ignorant lack of knowledge about human nature.

He reminds me of the atheists that rant on about the "Atheist Atrocities Fallacy" – claiming that religious people often incorrectly quote Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot as examples of atheists that committed genocide, when in fact they were Christian, Christian and Buddhist/Christian respectively. What these atheists always fail to mention though is that those 3 animals committed their genocidal atrocities AFTER they had abandoned the structural practice of those religions. Hitler is often quoted as saying he was doing Christian work by exterminating the Jews but if you've read anything about Hitler's life it is obvious he was using that as an (ineffective) ruse to subdue the outcry by German Christians.

Now I'm not saying they committed those genocides because they were atheists, but I am saying that to blame all the evils of the world on religion is ludicrously shallow thinking and is typical of fundamentalist intolerant atheists. I always find it hilarious that so many atheists claim to know that there is no God, whilst criticising believers for claiming there definitely is a God, the atheists seemingly unable to grasp the irony of that.

When atheists say "prove there is a God" I'd say the onus is on them to prove there isn't. After all, their belief is supposedly based on "facts", whereas the religious belief is based on "faith". I also don't see why you have an issue with people taking a "pick n mix" approach to religion. As I said, my view is that religion should serve man's needs, not the other way round. Why does it have to be a hard fast rule of either one way or the other? That concept again is symbolic of intolerant atheist thinking. For example there are very few Catholics that actually believe that communion is really the body and blood of Christ even though it clearly says so in the Bible!

I go back to my original statement that the problem is not religion or political systems but rather it is humanity, how humans choose to interpret those systems, and how they choose to behave.

Your point that there are conflicting verses in the koran (and also in the bible) is important. Why are there such massive inconsistencies and factual errors in these 'word of god' books?
Most clergy cherry pick their sermons so that they talk about the nice stuff (love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc) and they ignore the bad stuff. Fortunately for them, despite believing the bible is the revealed word of god, very, very few christians have read it cover to cover.
I've seen talks by ex-clergy who had unshakable faith until they went to study in a seminary, read the bible and though wtf!

Your second point follows on, but I disagree that it is MIStranslation that is the problem. It is just translation. Some scholars translate it one way and others another way. Who can say who is correct? They have all studied, are all experts but have different opinions.
Sometimes it is not even a translation problem, just an interpretation one. As I understand it, scholars don't disagree on the translation of the verses concerning transubstantiation, it's just that the Pope says Jesus meant the bread and wine would ACTUALLY be his body and blood and protestants say it was a metaphor. It's impossible to say who's correct.
It would help if the all-powerful beings concerned could just tell us exactly what they meant, rather than leave us with endless metaphors and contradictions.

Your personal attack on Matt Dillahunty is unwarranted and incorrect. Can you point to a single quote where he states that people who become atheists 'will become enlightened and only do good...'? I've seen him in action a lot and he has never made that assertion. He knows as well as anyone that people do bad things. His proposition is that if more people were atheists the world would be a better place.

You use another 'straw man' argument by stating that 'it is ludicrous to blame all the evils of the world on religion'. Of course it is, but I not aware that anyone has ever said that. Religion is to blame for many evils in the world though.
Religious apologists often bring up Hitler, Stalin etc. I don't know if they were religious, but I doubt they were. Whether atheist or religious, people can be good or bad. However, it is important to understand that those monsters did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism. We need to consider their motivation. Hitler was a keen artist, but he didn't use that as an excuse either. The key difference is that throughout history horrendous atrocities have been committed by religious people in the name of their religion.

You must know that a negative cannot be logically disproved.
However, there are a myriad of logical justifications for believing there is not any deity. I looked at all of the arguments for and against a deity and I came to the conclusion that the evidence against was overwhelming. None of it was absolute proof, because you cannot prove a negative, but it was enough for me. I can't remember who said 'all claims require evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I haven't seen evidence to convince me that their is a god.

You say religious belief is based on 'faith'. Could you define what faith is? Mark Twain said it was' "believing what you know aint so". What do you think?

Also, could you define in your terms what 'religion' is, because I'm not sure we're arguing about the same thing.
It's usually defined as something along the lines of 'the belief in a god or in a group of gods. : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods'. Usually it's accepted that a group of people need to share the belief. One person's belief that Fred Bloggs is god doesn't constitute a religion. Also it doesn't say 'pick the bits you like'.

It would certainly be better if religion served man, but all religions say; I (or we) are God. This is the truth. You have to believe it and do exactly what I command or you'll burn for eternity (or similar).
I accept that individuals make individual choices, and usually I'm glad they do, but if they are saying 'I believe in some of this religion but not other bits' then they are disagreeing with the word of god.
I believe that in general these people have an inbuilt, personal morality that prevents them for supporting the excesses of their religion. It is their humanity that triumphs not their god, and I'm glad it does. I just wish they would recognize and attest that their religion is wrong on these matters.
When enough people said that the earth was NOT the centre of the universe the Catholic church accepted it, stopped torturing people who claimed it and changed its teachings. I would love to think that the power of reasonable and reasoned people challenging the horrible parts of their religions will bring about change, but I'm not confident. I'm having enough problems with you!

This has just gone circular so I'm leaving it here. You will never convince me and I'll never convince you. Pointless to continue.

[armchair]

Jimmy Saville. Had a huge reputation and was afforded way too much power by his employers. Given a massive salary, he was pretty much allowed to do what he wanted with no accountability.
There were complaints about him along the way but these were dismissed and ignored as he was kind of bigger the company, worshiped by many fans and making money for his bosses.
It wasn't until it was too late that he was eventually exposed as the lying, fraudulent imposter that he really was. All the time using his lofty position to further his own ends.
He left a trail of destruction and mayhem in his wake that is taking years to get to the bottom of.

Remind you of anyone?

[DB10GOONER]

Jimmy Saville. Had a huge reputation and was afforded way too much power by his employers. Given a massive salary, he was pretty much allowed to do what he wanted with no accountability.
There were complaints about him along the way but these were dismissed and ignored as he was kind of bigger the company, worshiped by many fans and making money for his bosses.
It wasn't until it was too late that he was eventually exposed as the lying, fraudulent imposter that he really was. All the time using his lofty position to further his own ends.
He left a trail of destruction and mayhem in his wake that is taking years to get to the bottom of.

Remind you of anyone?

Fair enough, and I wouldn't disagree with the general summation. I know you are comparing the situations, but you know some AKB idiot will read that and see it as you comparing Wenger to a peado, right?

[Red Snapper]

Jimmy Saville. Had a huge reputation and was afforded way too much power by his employers. Given a massive salary, he was pretty much allowed to do what he wanted with no accountability.
There were complaints about him along the way but these were dismissed and ignored as he was kind of bigger the company, worshiped by many fans and making money for his bosses.
It wasn't until it was too late that he was eventually exposed as the lying, fraudulent imposter that he really was. All the time using his lofty position to further his own ends.
He left a trail of destruction and mayhem in his wake that is taking years to get to the bottom of.

Remind you of anyone?

Fair enough, and I wouldn't disagree with the general summation. I know you are comparing the situations, but you know some AKB idiot will read that and see it as you comparing Wenger to a peado, right?

I thought he meant Jeremy Corbyn.

[GranadaJoe]

I don't think it's gone circular, but no problem if you want to give it a rest.

Just know that I won't give up on my humanist duty of trying to help people escape from superstition and find the salvation of truth and reason. I will save you from yourself!

May your god go with you.

[DB10GOONER]

I don't think it's gone circular, but no problem if you want to give it a rest.

Just know that I won't give up on my humanist duty of trying to help people escape from superstition and find the salvation of truth and reason. I will save you from yourself!

May your god go with you.

Never said I believe in God.....

[GranadaJoe]

I don't think it's gone circular, but no problem if you want to give it a rest.

Just know that I won't give up on my humanist duty of trying to help people escape from superstition and find the salvation of truth and reason. I will save you from yourself!

May your god go with you.

Never said I believe in God.....

In that case you must be C of E, where belief in God is optional.

[officepest]

Himmler believed in God (witness his ham-fisted attempts to replace God with Hitler for his SS ceremonies), but Hitler had no great faith; in fact, he despised the church and the Clergy.

As for Stalin? He was on a Cromwell-esque mission to remove all traces of the Church from Russia until he realised the people would fight harder for Mother Russia if they could worship, and then (1984-style) erased all trace of his pogrom.

If either of these men were ever Christian, it was only in the loosest possible sense. Stalin and Hitler both viewed their political systems (Communism and National Socialism respectively) as replacements for established religion.

[nut flush gooner]

Dalian Atkinson, apparently tasered by the old bill this morning. Apparently Atkinson has a heart problem, I wonder if the old bill take this sort of thing into account before they taser someone. RIP.

[gazzatt2]

Dalian Atkinson, apparently tasered by the old bill this morning. Apparently Atkinson has a heart problem, I wonder if the old bill take this sort of thing into account before they taser someone. RIP.

One or your more stupid posts and I know that's hard !
Do you think they check someone's medical history before the use taser

[gazzatt2]

RIP Dalian

[nut flush gooner]

Dalian Atkinson, apparently tasered by the old bill this morning. Apparently Atkinson has a heart problem, I wonder if the old bill take this sort of thing into account before they taser someone. RIP.

One or your more stupid posts and I know that's hard !
Do you think they check someone's medical history before the use taser

Clearly you must be a bit of a lurker as I can't ever remember debating anything with you. I was thinking out loud, if the police are called to his house and he has previous issues with them, then perhaps they may know if he has any mental or other health issues?

It was an open question, not a suggestion. Perhaps you need to read my post?