I've been having an argument on religeon and I compared 'believers' to small children having imaginary friends.

Is there any difference ?

religion is shite.

I had a long discussion about it with my invisible mate and he agreed with me.

he's a two faced get but I can see straight through him

The Church served a purpose for many years after my Granda died as it gave my Granny a social life & something to do with her time,but other than serving as a meeting place for old ladies in little villages like Horden I see no advantage to it.

aaahhh nnoooo.... so if you outlive the wife you have to move to Horden??

Iv never thought of it like that before... but i totally agree.

I know Parmos invisible mate,its not a permanent thing,he only becomes invisible when he needs to spend money

No,but she has to if she outlives you

My grannys church going days were before Horden became a drug addict,now its a no go area for pensioners after dark

right, I'm off to kill meself now then. I'm not moving to Horden!!!!

I cant see the difference between killing yerself & moving to Horden.Both mean your lifes over

Religion provides a lot of good idea's but there isn't any substance to it in my opinion. I might be wrong but I find the idea's of angels and virgin births impossible to believe but the ten commandments aren't a bad set of rules to live your life by i suppose - although I don't know what all ten are....

If the afterlife means moving to Horden then thank God I'm immortal

I believe religion was a brilliant concept to keep the peasants in their place...let's be honest, if you lived some shitty life with a shittier life expectancy, the concept of Heaven must have seemed like the reward for suffering in this life...besides which you'd get sharp shrift if you jumped above your station anyway, but it controlled the bulk of the people.
Now if it hadn't have appeared...well the people would soon be ripping their lords and betters to bits.
Oddly enough, I have no real objection to those who indulge in religious worship, but churches like the Cof E now seem like rest homes for squabbling hippies... you can't take them or their views seriously.

are you David Icke?

In some religions, no, not really any difference. In other religious though you'll have to find a more creative analogy. Sounds like just the job for Snowy.

I disconcur.....no-one invented religion, tho it might have been used after the event, for social control by ruling groups. Religion just seems to have arisen organically in some form in all known cultures

The fact is an awful lot of life seems to need explaining...it's just that (imo) all the current religious explanations are either ridiculous or unverifiable or both.

Now, imaginary friends...that's a different matter altogether.......

..Should we confine it to 'organised religion'...that ecclesiastical civil service that every religion has, that sets the rules and interprets everything 'big G' might have said through his concessionaires.... and which religion is right, they all claim to have a direct line to the main man?

The first time a chap saw a bolt of lighterning hit a log, he made God. Easy, For the Chink's, Hindus, Islams and idiot pagans he is white anglo-saxon christian ok.

Thou shalt not mix box orange with vodka and call it 'fresh.'
Thou shalt not smear girly unugents upon thy visage
Thou shalt not critisise Antony Sweeney
Thou shalt not call the legend that is Spender by his Sunday name 'Kevin.'
Thou shalt not ponce round the White House with Philistine poseurs.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours Jack Russell
Thou shalt not manipulate thyself on public transport
Thou shalt not fookin' nowt right???
Thou shalt not grumble about Pools when thy team has given it rice but has been smote
And finally:

Thou shalt render unto Spender several urns of the finest wine when said prophet lunges into thine district.

So it is written......

I would have thought that all your friends are imaginary......

No that would be boring, Snowy.
I think there are gaps in between science and 'rational' explanations, and it was an attempt to explain these things that gave rise to religion in the first place. A lot of the gaps were just to do with primitive minds but there are still a lot left.
I care nothing for popes and things.

Well, yes and no. It's certainly true that many of them turned out to be other than I imagined

Are they imaginary though,the way our two little ones talk to them on a regular basis you would think not.

Even the cat and dog seem to think they are real and with us.

But little by little they are being eroded.
Now, if suddenly, from one day to the next and without any intervention by alien intelligences, mankind (dogkind, kangarookind...) became enlightened with all this missing knowledge, THEN it might be reasonable to suspect some kind of divine intervention.

Close,but no cigar

Jaysus, I hope no-one thinks I'm arguing in favour of divine interventionists.

I'm not sure the gaps are being eroded....there sometimes seem to be more than ever, and most problems Plato came up with thousands of years ago are still unsolved to-day.

But, take quantum physics, about which I know less than nothing; in this field physicists are having to postulate entities in order to explain phenomena, in just the same way as primitive people did when they came up with their religious explanations. There's nothing logically wrong with that...it was and is a sign of intelligence.
The main gripe non-religious people have against religion is that believers usually allow no evidence at all to rule out their beliefs...which is very irritating if you're after a logical conversation. Anyway, Mr I, is this the answer? Most children know perfectly well that imaginary friends aren't real!

I can't honestly see the day when quantum physicists start preaching "love your quark" or claiming "there is only one Higgs boson and Max Planck is its prophet" but you never know.

Quite. We're agreed then

.........00
......00..00
....00......00
W00..........00!!!!!

Hark at her......

Just to add my two penneth, I struggle to accept anything for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Moreover at school during our Catholic primary school brainwashing sessions, you were threatened with damnation and condemned to the bowels of hell unless you had faith. Faith by the way was to blindly believe anything area that the church felt they were on shaky ground.

This blokes tells it much better.

Is this a strand of your DNA? One of those double helix thingies?

Our school had a religious assembly every day but none of the staff seemed to care less whether we believed it or not.
In my case I believed for no obvious reason until I was about 12 , then suddenly, again for no reason, I didn't any more.
Bit like falling out of love

god is real...ive met him

But, take quantum physics, about which I know less than nothing; in this field physicists are having to postulate entities in order to explain phenomena, in just the same way as primitive people did when they came up with their religious explanations. There's nothing logically wrong with that...it was and is a sign of intelligence.
[/quote]

but intelligence at what level? and intelligence doesn't prove intellect does it?
oh no... philosphical debate on the horizon

it must be the ever-present need to feel that "eureka" moment, and to be respected amongst peers when participating in discussions relating to new frontiers of science. Einstein experienced it, Isaac Newton etc etc, so today's scientists are merely attempting to make their mark and be remembered as the one who proved/discovered xyz, and made the lot of human kind infinitely better - and hopefully attain their Nobel prize before they die and associated adulation; being featured in scientific magazines and tv documentaries etc.
Even on here, I can see folks seeking out mental stimulation in a lot of the topics with other board members -a fair bit of which I won't be drawn into because I may not know enough about it - but I can see the basic human need to seek out and quench the thirst for knowing where we all stand in the scheme of things, and what it means to have debate and to constantly learn something new. Hell, even I like to learn things!!!

He was the "standing on the shoulders of giants" man wasn't he. Not afraid to give credit where credit was due.

Well, you're probably too modest....but anyway I'm afraid I like arguing too much to have that sort of scruple As soon as someone says something like, 'what's the difference between x and y?' I get this irresistible urge to vocalise!

I think philosophical/physics type problems are much more fascinating than ones in most other areas...because of the way you can find out completely new things just by thinking logically about already known facts

Yes, it's true. Hypothetically speaking

It is.

It was.

what was?

I like Monster Munch

Hula Hoops aren't crisps though, they're a potato based snack.

Wotsits and Monster Munch are even further away from being crisps having about as much potato in them as there are brains in a darlow supporters bus.

Seabrooks salt and vinegar are the king of crisps.

That has never been proven.

And if it is I'll take you down with me, all I did was take the photos (albeit one handed).

I've got a Pools one hanging from my wall

I always go by bike.

are you a pedaller-phile then?

Might be....