Scarabin

True for unbelievers who were believers and decided to change. Not necessarily true for children of unbelievers, and for fans of writers like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Imo what makes America exceptional is that it is the most successful country in the world and it is run under a constitution which ensures the government is dysfunctional.

I am apalled by your experience, that minister was one s.o.b., but I think all people who are strongly committed, whether to belief or unbelief, tend towards blinkered thinking and ministers are particularly visible and may of course be too conscious of their "authority". Many years ago my sister and her husband used to attend a church which featured regularly on the BBC. I asked her husband if he enjoyed being a member of such a famous church. He answered "Well when the cameras are not there the minister devotes his sermons to complaining that most of the congregation only attend the televised services. I have never understood why he wants to drive away the people who do attend by upbraiding them about the others".

Ken, I do not consider you were at all offensive, and I surely wish all posters would leaven their posts with an occasional flash of humour.

Heartfelt apology. :rolleyes: Mine was meant as a compliment, and yours,of course, as a joke. :D .LOL

I tried to clarify my original Topic in a post on Dec 23. However your post deserves a specific acknowledgment. I won't say reply because although you have been patient in previous debate, I am sure you don't want anymore feedback from my addled brain :D

I voted ambivalent and supportive. Why would anyone feel strongly on a matter of belief? A plea for reason and a good way to avoid upvotes? :D

Okay, I've kept my post brief and confused almost everyone. What I am trying to do is initiate a debate about possible constraints we could agree to impose on ourselves in order to make our posts/debates more productive and less offensive. Now, being me, I have a slew of suggestions but instead of hogging the discussion, I would ask other posters to suggest possible limitations they would agree to observe and preferably back them up with reasons why they seem desirable. Ken has said, with his usual folksy charm, that he is happy with the current state but I do not think Ken has ever given offence to anyone (wives always excepted!). I on the other hand would describe the current state as utter chaos, or in the Australian vernacular, open slather. Obviously, I have available to me the option of ceasing to post in the water cooler, but I feel I should first appeal to you as mature, civilized, intelligent people. Now my friends are far from being a bunch of devout Christians but we are traditional and have no hang-ups about separating church and state, so, at the risk of exploding various minds, I will just wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Slainte, Ian

Thanks for the info. I did not know BBO catered for private discussions. I would not presume however to exclude anyone, just because I thought it appropriate and I fear a debate among people with similar views could be boring. I would like to keep opposing views but agree on norms of behaviour. Surely most people, especially bridge players, would agree that certainty is for children, probability for adults. Even if I believe God exists, even if I believe God does not exist, the reality is that there is some underlying probability which we cannot determine. I think we should be able to agree also that an exact proof that God exists or does not exist is impossible. I am not seeking a forum I can monopolise to express my views but I'd hope to proceed step by small step seeking some sort of consensus. I am sure many will feel I am attempting the impossible: this seems to be the story of my life on BBO!

Like the Religious Matrix, this topic is a product of the hi-jacked topic, School in Connecticut. But it is not a religious debate. It is a debate about debates. I would dearly like to see a debate, particularly a religious one, in which all posters observed standards of behaviour that reflected pursuit of truth and normal good manners. Surely there must be other BBOérs who feel as I do?

Whoa Mike, please slow down. 1) I was raised as a Protestant in the 1930's but now claim to be an agnostic. Why ? Because I am not really sure about anything. 2) I sought to convey to you my apology for misjudging you and also that I feel that a definition that includes anyone who claims to be a christian as a christian is too loose. I feel that a value limitation has to be imposed even though this will be subjective. That is based on experience. 3) Who am I to judge? Well, in my autobiography the rest of you are merely extras, and Peter Drucker once said that a man who reaches age 40 with a completely open mind has to be a moron. If I have to go through history picking out christians I would distinguish between leaders and followers, probably not judging the latter. Thus I could not accept Adolf Hitler as a genuine christian (and I would have doubts about the sanity and critical judgment of anyone who did. I cannot help this.) I do not think Napoleon was a christian although I feel less strongly - probably because he is more remote. Conversely I think I would accept Marlborough as a christian despite his greed and unscrupulousness. Probably accepting him as a man of his time. Now I have paid you the compliment of answering your post as accurately as I can. All of us are the products of our culture and affected by emotion and reason.

Discussions like this generate an amazing degree of energy and several pages of posts have buried my original complaint. I feel however that I owe you an apology. I now accept completely that you did not twist truth to enhance your arguments. I still feel however that your definition of christian may be too inclusive. I take it to be that you include as christian anyone who claims to be a christian or speaks approvingly of it? My judgment, beliefs, opinions are heavily coloured by my experience, indeed I expect this to be true of you, and everyman. Because of this I would exclude people whose conduct (deliberate conduct not just weaknesses) is completely opposed to christianity. Anyhow, please accept my apology.

Thanks for your calm and reasoned reply. I know you have said that Hitler was a Christian. I find it hard to believe that you mean this seriously. When I queried this before you referred me to a group of authors who do not seem to support your assertion in any way. As regards God intervening to punish the wicked I think Luke 13: 1 to 5, contradicts this. My experiences and my culture may differ from yours but I expect to respect people as human beings and even to respect, but not share, their beliefs. In other words I object to your use of derogatory epithets to express your contempt for those who disagree with you. I think this is going too far.

When I read Mikeh's posts I am always conscious that he speaks from the heart and I feel that I share his pain. This is a tribute to his ability to persuade but there is a dark side. I also feel that he sometimes twists the truth to help his arguments. On a personal appeal to Mikeh, and a fortiori to his acolytes, you seem to go beyond atheism to anti-theism. In other words can we not respect believers while disagreeing with their beliefs. On a less emotive but potentially more productive note, I cannot see where religion or a lack thereof had anything to do with Adam Lanza's massacre. Surely we should examine: 1) mental illness 2) availability of weapons 3) parental authority and inculcation of self discipline 4) isolation and lack of peer interaction 5) the neurotic and violent culture of our time? And as a final peeve, why do we ascribe superior intelligence to any totally inadequate person who kills for no good reason. It is becoming a cliche, like the serial killer "who seemed a nice bloke although he kept to himself"

"twas brillig and the slithey toves..."

Sorry if my post is obscure. I have recently found Macleans and Colgate have introduced toothpaste with warnings on the tube that you should not swallow the toothpaste. This seems to me to be idiotic and I dislike it. I also dislike the fact that I cannot find any alternative that can safely be swallowed. :D

Toothpaste you cannot swallow.

Thanks for info, will watch for arrival down umder. Slainte, Ian

Wikipaedia has interesting articles on Stieg Larsson and GWTDT. Slainte Ian

Far as I can judge, no connection with Sterling Hayden movie. "Forbrydelsen" has a fairly basic mystery plot: girl disappears, family distraught, vulnerable police officers pursue interesting suspects at great personal cost and despite constant opposition in flawed world. For me it's distinguished by good characterisation, acting and atmosphere.

Cannot answer for Fluffy, but I was referring to a TV series: Danish original called "Forbrydelsen", remade as "The Killing" for US TV. Danish version distributed in Europe, etc, with sub-titles. But you knew this and were just taking the p---, right? Slainte, Ian

This seems true for me also. I've been racking my brains trying to find an exception. Nearest I could remember is "Girl with a dragon tattoo": I watched part of the original (actually called Men who hate women) and stopped, put off by the sex. Later watched (the remainder) of the remake, to see how it ended, and found I disliked both equally. Slainte, Ian

Kind of a s---tty thing to say? Slainte, Ian

Saw the Mel Gibson version of "Edge of Darkness" recently and thought it did not measure up to the original. Too many histrionics and no real sense of loss? Conversely I found "The Next Three Days" better than the original "Pour Elle" (translated as "Anything for her") although both were very well made. TNTD was longer but achieved more depth. And then an old favourite, I enjoyed the first full season of "Forbrydelsen" but gave up on the remake "The Killing". Seeking other titles, other views, and on a related point I have no objection to sub-titles but I am told they are unpopular in US?

I support your right to criticize GIB, including Fred's choice of example, but I do not think you should attack players personally. Apart from being rude and hurtful, you are likely to misapprehend their purpose and be unfair? Suppose I decide to treat robots as human as I initially did. This gives a richer experience but to a double dummy observer with knowledge of robot habits the play seems poorer. On a human basis the "falsecard" in Fred's example is the sort that Reese used to make in his heyday. And was highly praised for making. Personally I have given up criticizing GIB. I made my suggestion for what it's worth. To persist is like "flogging a dead horse", and decisions about GIB's future are commercial decisions and not mine to make. Slainte, Ian