Cameron The Liar - lets his mask slip again

[roaminblue]

^^^ a thread about Cameron and the words love, compassion and tolerance are used. Fuck me.

Oh by the way pal SWP's back is never, ever fucking wrong. Ever. They are the rules. If he says today is Friday it's Friday.

Sounds like he would score highly on Hare's list

Sounds like you may suffer a little from fundamental attribution error

 

[SWP's back]

I found it tasteless.

As to your knowledge of rhetoric and logical fallacies, bravo. Nothing like some rhetorical devices in the morning to get the blood stirred. You've clearly been brushing up on your Aristotle. However, my point in quoting the statistic of those professing to have faith was not as you suggest to prove the existence of God because a majority believed such, but merely given the mass of that opinion to ask you might show a bit more tolerance towards them.

I'm certain they at least would show some Christian tolerance to you and your uncompromising atheism.

Hmmm, I don't think we have spoken at length before so I shall forgive you for thinking I would care what anyone else thinks with regards to taste on religion.

And I should show tolerance because an awful lot of people share the same delusion? No I am good thanks. At the end of the day, half of all citizens of the UK are below mean intelligence and as such, the very fact that 50% of people may well think the same think does not sway my thinking one iota. I have always thought thinking for oneself and not being a sheep or following the crowd for the simple reason that many do.

As for Christian tolerance, I am unsure if you are saying that tongue in cheek, as I am sure these guys would agree:

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... s_heretics</a>

How odd the master of rhetoric would indulge in his own logical fallacy. I mean equating the half of Britons with below mean intelligence to the half that claim themselves to be Christian? Really, by your logic those of faith are stupid?

Anyway, good for you and the unshakeable certainty you have in your beliefs.

I tend to think there is more in heaven and earth SWP, than is dreamt of in your philosophy meaning I like to think I have an open mind when it comes to areas of uncertainty. That explains my agnosticism and why I don't share your dismissiveness of those who believe in God.

And you don't stop there, do you? Yet another logical fallacy with you assuming that those who commit atrocities in the name of Christ are promoting Christian values. They are clearly not. Whether you believe in Christ or not you cannot dispute he taught love, compassion and tolerance and these are the Christian values to which I referred previously.

It would appear you are unable to read, at no point did I dismiss those 50% that are of faith as being the 50% that are below mean intelligence. I was simply showing that being part of any large number of people does not always mean one is correct. You made that leap all by yourself, rather incorrectly.

When anyone shows me a shred of evidence to point that the Christian faith is anymore viable than Norse or Egyptian gods then I shall dismiss it as I and no doubt you dismiss them.

Christian values you say? Do you mean the paedophile priests or helping with the spread of AIDS in Africa? It's just if you mean helping others and trying to do no harm then I can't agree that Christianity can lay claim to a monopoly on such things.

And the Church that preached from the same book as it does now partook in those in those atrocities (as you rightly call them) in the name of Christ and still would now if science hadn't knocked down so many of its myths and falsehoods.

 

[117 M34]

To be pedantic, 50% of the population are not below mean average intelligence.

 

[JULES]

got to give it Dave, he's tidying this shit tip of a country up.

Can't say I'm surprised the tories in this thread are so so proud of the fact that a) the numbers of people using food banks has increased by well over 1000% since coming to power b) that his constituency office sees fit to call the police to confront an expected visit and presentation of a letter concerning that issue. Free speech, democracy, and people having enough to eat, are not issues that concern most tories I know.

I wish we had food banks over here, I would kill for a fray bentos steak and kidney pir

 

[Balti]

got to give it Dave, he's tidying this shit tip of a country up.

Can't say I'm surprised the tories in this thread are so so proud of the fact that a) the numbers of people using food banks has increased by well over 1000% since coming to power b) that his constituency office sees fit to call the police to confront an expected visit and presentation of a letter concerning that issue. Free speech, democracy, and people having enough to eat, are not issues that concern most tories I know.

I wish we had food banks over here, I would kill for a fray bentos steak and kidney pir

would you prefer a nice free one from one of the ever increasing number of food banks?

or would you prefer to pay for it?

 

[JULES]

Can't say I'm surprised the tories in this thread are so so proud of the fact that a) the numbers of people using food banks has increased by well over 1000% since coming to power b) that his constituency office sees fit to call the police to confront an expected visit and presentation of a letter concerning that issue. Free speech, democracy, and people having enough to eat, are not issues that concern most tories I know.

I wish we had food banks over here, I would kill for a fray bentos steak and kidney pir

would you prefer a nice free one from one of the ever increasing number of food banks?

or would you prefer to pay for it?

not fussed to be honest

 

[Gillespie]

Hmmm, I don't think we have spoken at length before so I shall forgive you for thinking I would care what anyone else thinks with regards to taste on religion.

And I should show tolerance because an awful lot of people share the same delusion? No I am good thanks. At the end of the day, half of all citizens of the UK are below mean intelligence and as such, the very fact that 50% of people may well think the same think does not sway my thinking one iota. I have always thought thinking for oneself and not being a sheep or following the crowd for the simple reason that many do.

As for Christian tolerance, I am unsure if you are saying that tongue in cheek, as I am sure these guys would agree:

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... s_heretics</a>

How odd the master of rhetoric would indulge in his own logical fallacy. I mean equating the half of Britons with below mean intelligence to the half that claim themselves to be Christian? Really, by your logic those of faith are stupid?

Anyway, good for you and the unshakeable certainty you have in your beliefs.

I tend to think there is more in heaven and earth SWP, than is dreamt of in your philosophy meaning I like to think I have an open mind when it comes to areas of uncertainty. That explains my agnosticism and why I don't share your dismissiveness of those who believe in God.

And you don't stop there, do you? Yet another logical fallacy with you assuming that those who commit atrocities in the name of Christ are promoting Christian values. They are clearly not. Whether you believe in Christ or not you cannot dispute he taught love, compassion and tolerance and these are the Christian values to which I referred previously.

It would appear you are unable to read, at no point did I dismiss those 50% that are of faith as being the 50% that are below mean intelligence. I was simply showing that being part of any large number of people does not always mean one is correct. You made that leap all by yourself, rather incorrectly.

When anyone shows me a shred of evidence to point that the Christian faith is anymore viable than Norse or Egyptian gods then I shall dismiss it as I and no doubt you dismiss them.

Christian values you say? Do you mean the paedophile priests or helping with the spread of AIDS in Africa? It's just if you mean helping others and trying to do no harm then I can't agree that Christianity can lay claim to a monopoly on such things.

And the Church that preached from the same book as it does now partook in those in those atrocities (as you rightly call them) in the name of Christ and still would now if science hadn't knocked down so many of its myths and falsehoods.

Well done you again for reaffirming your belief in an unshakeable and uncompromising atheism.

A couple of things. Do you think people of faith are stupid? If you don't, why is it that those whom you might regard as otherwise intelligent and sophisticated individuals believe in God........and despite your best efforts would likely be unmoved by any entreaties you could make to change their mind?

Oh and please try and refrain from equating the wickedness done in the name of Christ to the values he preached.

A straw man argument if ever there was one, rightly knocking the former to wrongly heap abuse on the latter.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:11 pm --<br /><br />

To be pedantic, 50% of the population are not below mean average intelligence.

Would you accept that half the population are below median intelligence?

 

[117 M34]

How odd the master of rhetoric would indulge in his own logical fallacy. I mean equating the half of Britons with below mean intelligence to the half that claim themselves to be Christian? Really, by your logic those of faith are stupid?

Anyway, good for you and the unshakeable certainty you have in your beliefs.

I tend to think there is more in heaven and earth SWP, than is dreamt of in your philosophy meaning I like to think I have an open mind when it comes to areas of uncertainty. That explains my agnosticism and why I don't share your dismissiveness of those who believe in God.

And you don't stop there, do you? Yet another logical fallacy with you assuming that those who commit atrocities in the name of Christ are promoting Christian values. They are clearly not. Whether you believe in Christ or not you cannot dispute he taught love, compassion and tolerance and these are the Christian values to which I referred previously.

It would appear you are unable to read, at no point did I dismiss those 50% that are of faith as being the 50% that are below mean intelligence. I was simply showing that being part of any large number of people does not always mean one is correct. You made that leap all by yourself, rather incorrectly.

When anyone shows me a shred of evidence to point that the Christian faith is anymore viable than Norse or Egyptian gods then I shall dismiss it as I and no doubt you dismiss them.

Christian values you say? Do you mean the paedophile priests or helping with the spread of AIDS in Africa? It's just if you mean helping others and trying to do no harm then I can't agree that Christianity can lay claim to a monopoly on such things.

And the Church that preached from the same book as it does now partook in those in those atrocities (as you rightly call them) in the name of Christ and still would now if science hadn't knocked down so many of its myths and falsehoods.

Well done you again for reaffirming your belief in an unshakeable and uncompromising atheism.

A couple of things. Do you think people of faith are stupid? If you don't, why is it that those whom you might regard as otherwise intelligent and sophisticated individuals believe in God........and despite your best efforts would likely be unmoved by any entreaties you could make to change their mind?

Oh and please try and refrain from equating the wickedness done in the name of Christ to the values he preached.

A straw man argument if ever there was one, rightly knocking the former to wrongly heap abuse on the latter.

-- Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:11 pm --

To be pedantic, 50% of the population are not below mean average intelligence.

Would you accept that half the population are below median intelligence?

Yep, as that would be correct.

 

[SWP's back]

So we are agreed half the people (50%) are below median intelligence. Super.

Gillespie, you failed to address my points but we were digressing. My first and main point was the fact that just because a delegation were from the church makes them no more important than if they were from the local crown green bowling club.

At no point have I inferred that religious folk are less intelligent. I have remained steadfast in my claim that argumentum ad populum is bollocks.

As for whether intelligent people are more or less religious by and large, that's not for me to say. Although 80% of Americans are religious against 18% of American scientists. But as I say, we digress.

 

[Mustard Dave]

You make food banks sound like some trend, a new fad that has just gained popularity and expanded. As if it's the cool thing to do or something. You don't just 'pop in' and they give you free stuff you know?

People go to them out of desperation, not choice. If the numbers using them are growing it's because more people are getting desperate.

The article says the increase is due to people having their dole stopped.

They've had their dole stopped because they aren't meeting very basic requirements about signing on - like looking for work and actually turning up on the day to sign on being the main requirements.

I don't know who is behind the food banks and who funds it all or whether it is or isn't politically motivated. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt and let's say they are independent and not politically motivated then they are being abused by lazy f*ckers.

Food banks are a charity, not a point scoring political mechanism.

Correct. Food banks are a charity, and I'm sure they are run to help people rather than political points scoring. Unfortunately, the lefties are loving it, in particular that comic the Mirror. I have no doubt food bank use is on the increase, however, this is not a accurate means of measuring poverty. There are people in this country who rely on the help of others to survive, and I fully support any means of helping them. There are also feckless scroungers who will make no effort to help themselves if they can get something for nothing. Unfortunately, it seems the latter type is exploiting people's charity.

My understanding is the vouchers are given out by doctors, social workers, police etc. The number of visits to the food bank an individual can make is supposed to be limited, but how is that policed? The people giving out the vouchers won't give a fuck as it isn't their money. Then how do the food bank monitor who is a) taking the piss, and b) using the facility more than is permitted? I do not need to read an article in that rag the Daily Mail to come to the conclusion that they are being abused. Build it, and they will come.

This is the sort of leftie horse-shit the Mirror is spouting: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-food-bank-crisis-open-3417613#ixzz2z7GkHs6C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk ... z2z7GkHs6C</a>

Under the headline, "UK hunger crisis laid bare in open letter to PM from professional couple forced to resort to food banks"

To paraphrase the article, a working couple with a 16 month old son are a bit skint because they've had an unexpected garage bill of £700.

I'm not being funny, but why is this the fault of the government? If Labour (or some other party) were in power, would they not have had this bill from the garage? Could they not have stuck it on a credit card? Could they not have borrowed cash of friends or family? Could they not have used the bus for a couple of weeks?