religion is a turn off .... bbc

nearly half of us believe in life after death .....
one in four believe in angels.....

education, education, education ?

o.k. then educate us. Can you prove us with the definitive proof as to why this is impossible?

* provide

The BBC has their own agenda, which isn't based on the tastes of the public.
They screen what they think we should be watching, and not what we prefer to watch.

The sooner the BBC is dismantled the better.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan.

The onus of proof is on those who claim the existence of deities and not the sceptic.

You might like to read this article U.A.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

bbc is atheist - druids get more play on the bbc than christianity.

trees with dame edna bond. Stonehenge and c of e bishops.

i've laid out statistical proofs of jesus which to me is
mindblowing - 100 percent proof of christ. but the closed
mind is there for a reason. people (fionavon?) wants
to continue doing mundane sinful crap. Evil is boring.
it's bean counting.
look at the nazis meeting to decide what to do with the jews
during the war. they were weighing up how much effort and
resources to kill a single Jew. a bullet to the head was deemed
too costly?
This is the scientific mind at work. No imagination beyond the
mere physical. yet they know there are higher dimensions and
forces at play - which are described in detail in the bible -
a book that's 4000-2000 yrs old. most science today stems from
Jewish kabbala ideas. 
time is about to surrender everything in the next few years.

Actually I disagree, i would say the onus of proof rests with anyone who tries to tell someone what they think or believe is wrong. I've not claimed anything to be the case at any point. Hypothetically i can believe in something but completely accept the possibility that what I believe in might not be true, but if go round telling someone that what they believe in is wrong, then what gives me the right to tell them they are wrong unless I have proof.

The onus of proof rests with the person who makes the claim, whatever they are stating.

I did like the last paragraph in the link you sent

"The converse of the proposition that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' would be that any claim requires some evidence. Therefore, to argue that a competing ordinary claim is more likely to be true than an extraordinary one, simply because the extraordinary one has no "extraordinary" evidence to support it, fails to account for the possibility that the competing "ordinary" claim has no evidence at all to support it (ordinary or otherwise)."

UA - sorry but you're off the point there. Requiring evidence for any claim is not in itself an alternative hypothesis. Look up Russell's  teapot.

If some people don't want to know about Jesus - and repeatedly ignore knowledge of how to receive His Spirit - that's their problem.  There are plenty of lost souls out there who do.

If by "His Spirit" you mean his philosophy and message - I'm with you all the way, although He has no right to a claim a monopoly on that. But if we can cut the literal cr*p we'll be in a better place.

This latest BBC announcement is an excuse to promote Islam etc at the expense of Chritianity.

Gradually diluting UK traditional culture is at the heart of the BBC's agenda.

They hate this nation with a passion. Thy're globalists who see patriotism/nationalism as an evil to be fought.

That's why they love the EU so much. Outside the EU Parliament it says this: “National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times….The only final remedy for this evil is the federal union of the peoples.”   

To that end you have to dilute existing cultures and religions via mass migration and promotion of all other beliefs and traditions.

Happy Eid to you all. May your goat die slowly.

Many people would possibly welcome a one world government, police force and currency but you cannot force it upon the people and before it will ever work you have to :-

Abolish religion.

Abolish money.

Sterilise those with an IQ less than 120 to stop them further diluting the gene pool with more morons.

The world cannot sustain this ever growing population, the NWO know this and rather than kill the population themselves they will just instigate religious and civil wars via the mass immigration you see now.


Merry Xmas

From the horse's mouth:

The BBC has pledged to "raise our game" on religion by increasing the portrayal of all faiths in mainstream shows.

The corporation said it would "enhance" the representation of religion on TV and radio dramas and documentaries.


I'd wager there is one in particular they're eager to promote.

Not only His philosophy and message, steerforth but also His presence and guidance.  It's easy to mock what one does not understand.

Injera & lybertyne, could you post links to that please?  Ta   No, it's okay ... Googled it ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42412869

Hoooooooooooold on a wee minute ... found this at the same time ...

Head of BBC religious programming is an atheist

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/20/head-bbc-religious-programming-atheist-7174771/

Sometimes, we think that W1A was actually a documentary on the BBC, rather than a scripted comedy. It has been revealed that the head of religious programming at the BBC is actually an atheist. James Purnell was brought in as BBC’s Director of Radio and Education in November, therefore becoming head of religious programming too. But when asked about his beliefs on the Today programme, a whole can of worms was opened. Host Nick Robinson asked Purnell: ‘Are you a religious man?’, to Purnell replied: ‘I’m not.

‘I’m an atheist but I think the issues around belief are incredibly important to how we live.’ Robinson grilled his guest, asking: ‘Is that not a problem though? You are head of the BBC’s religious programming, you got the job because the BBC decided to abolish the post of head of religious programming as a separate post usually held by a Christian, recently held by a Muslim. ‘You’re now doing it as part of a very busy job and you don’t even believe.’ Purnell said: ‘If you look at our audience, the vast majority of people in this country have a range of views; some people have very strong religious views, some people have strong atheistic views. ‘Actually the people who work at the BBC have a wide range of views. Our core thing is to make great programmes, to reflect what the audience wants us to do, and to make programmes that do serve that.

‘We all have different views, we leave them at the door to make great programmes.’ Purnell, a former MP, added that there were no plans to scrap the Thought Of The Day segment on Today. Some listeners were outraged by Purnell’s beliefs, with Joan Winter, 50, of Warwick, saying: ‘My cornflakes almost landed on the floor when I heard the head of religious programmes was openly boasting about being an atheist. ‘How on earth can he devote any care or attention to religious content if he thinks it’s all nonsense? It’s the equivalent of putting an anarchist in charge of a prison. ‘It just shows how little the BBC cares about catering for those of us, who, heaven forbid, actually do believe and go to church. If Mr Purnell had an ounce of integrity he would resign and let someone more suited to the role take over.’ However, others found the confession rather funny.


Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/20/head-bbc-religious-programming-atheist-7174771...

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

AFTERTHOUGHT, a one world government is where we are rapidly heading and guess who will be the head of it?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan.

Firstly this is someone’s belief and not a fact. Unfortunately there are some ambiguities in the statement. The word “Extraordinary”, it’s not very sciencey is it? How do we determine what is an extraordinary claim and what is not.

If I said “God exists” you may well say that’s an extraordinary claim. You may well be right. But what if I said “I believe that there is a possibility that a higher power exists”. If you disagreed then your statement would consequently be “I believe that there is absolutely no possibility that a higher power exists”. Which one is the extraordinary claim? Who gets to decide?

I could personally argue that anyone who states that there is no possibility of a higher power existing, or there is no possibility of there not being a higher power, is making an extraordinary claim and so either way has to prove it.

My initial statement in response to the opening post was based on the assumption that educated people know god definitely does not exist, but of course this is my assumption and may well not be what the poster was intending to say.

"educated people know god definitely does not exist"

Now that is one of the most LOL-worthy statements I have ever read in my entire life!

Good luck U.A.

'Reason is the devil's harlot' - Martin Luther.

If I said “God exists” you may well say that’s an extraordinary claim. You may well be right. But what if I said “I believe that there is a possibility that a higher power exists”. If you disagreed then your statement would consequently be “I believe that there is absolutely no possibility that a higher power exists”. Which one is the extraordinary claim? Who gets to decide?

Again - read Russell's Teapot.

If I say there's a miniscule almost invisible teapot circling the sun, impossible to detect using our telescopes, I cannot expect people to believe me without evidence.

If I say there isn't a miniscule almost invisible teapot circling the sun, impossible to detect using our telescopes, I would not expect people to not believe me and say my statement was false and that the burden of proof lay on me to show that there wasn't one and until then we should all go on believing in it.

Who gets to decide? There is no observable evidence for many of the gods which people believe in. Therefore the rational premise is that there is no god - it's consistent with what we observe. The burden of proof on those who invent something which can't and hasn't been observed, not on those who don't. Furthermore the claim that there isn't a god can be falsified, the claim that there is one, cannot.


Most religious people only believe in one religion and think the other 300 odd are a bit crazy and feel no need to disprove them because they are patently ridiculous. You can look at Scientology or Mormonism. Do you think the burden of proof is on people to disprove Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard's ideas, or should the burden of proof be on them. Again, taking it further what about the flying spaghetti monster? Should I expect people to believe in that, because they can't prove it doesn't exist and is impossible to falsify?

oh look - that bright flash thingy hit that bush and it is  burning hot  what caused that ?

we don't know

it must be something we cannot explain

let's call it god or something  ho ho   - sorted!!!

Ahh you use the word "invent", but how do you know that in every instance it has been "invented". Technically you have taken an assumption and turned it into a fact. Is the burden of proof on you to show it has been invented in every instance or me to prove it hasn't. Ah c**p i'm confused now. Look i'm not saying that god exists or not, i'm playing devil's advocate here a bit, but it's the whole concept of faith in something that is not known.

Take the statement "there is other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe". As far as I know we don't know the answer so we have three options. 1) definitely not, there is no possibility, 2) definitely yes, 3) possibly yes, possibly no.  If you were one of these options would you mock or belittle someone who chose a different option.

I just feel that people should be allowed believe what they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else and not try to impose their beliefs on others, whether you have an atheist or deeply religious tendencies. But that's just me.

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

Merry Christmas

of course it depends which religion you are promoting

it is quite clear what is going on here

ps the dangerous ' allow all to believe what ever they want to believe they want' allows the positive burgeoning strong religions to impose hegemony on the rest

you have no idea how dangerous this philosophy is

check out the countries that are controlled by this

ps and it causes harm where ever it goes

If there is a god then he is a piece of shít who ought to be despised, not worshipped.

^ the fake moslem one, aye.

I often look at religion as the philosophers described the 'walled garden' of the mind.
The proclamation that a story written by man is the only and true explanation completely ignores what happens outside that wall.

'God' or versions of it exist in other theories; Chaos Theory could be the empiricist's god, the philosophers had 'Lagos' and countless others have their own interpretations.

What I often find interesting is the existence of the Placebo Effect, and how potentially those with faith may attempt to explain it.
Just like faith the Placebo is effectively the power of the mind effecting the outcome that has no logical basis (as yet) but it occurs totally outside of any 'walled story' of belief in god.

Even when people are told of the placebo, it still has an impact above the mean.
It for me is what the religious actually believe to be faith itself, the sum being greater than the parts.

The more philosophy I read the more it appears to me that science ultimately just ends up confirming it.
Like the Cynic's version of ethics 'you reward yourself' being shown to be true by the pleasure derived from the actions one assumes to be right.
People then say 'but how are the rules of what is right interpreted?'

Well the Stoics who were influenced by the Cynics have the answer, again empiricism has shown it to be true; that all humans are born with intuition which determines a basis of right and wrong up until around 8 years old when rationalism starts to take over.
(Science has proved that the gene doesnt just apply the physical attributes of a person, but also instils a certain amount of deferred data in the form of Pareidolia, we see it in animals and humans alike, the base model of how to determine friend from foe)


The story of religion seems little more than a collection of edited proverbs, that stand the test of time based on their resonance with nature, or the laws of science.
If a story observes the downfall of a human based on greed, then we can see how this can be explained from a scientific stand point; that obsession leads to confirmation bias and ultimately a narrowing of the mind, an abandonment of alternatives and a spiral that leads to destruction and likely addiction.

i was an atheist for twenty five years. a carl sagan fan. a watcher of horizon and any science based program out there. Attenborough and all the other experts were the truth seekers. but now i look back and see it as generic brainwashing by society. Society and academia have been captured by the world's deep state. the media corps. the billionaires who fund them all.
chimps have two extra chromosomes - something which cannot be skipped over.
climate change of 1 degree does not cause the havoc of the last 50 years in the weather?
Jesus said at the end the weather would go up in frequency and levels.
Satan is this world's god and he is the father of lies. Israel is here again after 1878 years. no other nation has resurfaced after 2 millenium. Jesus said it would come. Many church leaders in 1948 went ape **** when they heard that Israel would exist again.
this signaled the end times and just look around. the middle east has been pounded down to powder.
jesus is the truth and everything else is BS.
strong delusions that atheists suck up. oh it's global warming, no climate change.
they cannot accept they are not the masters of their fates. cannot surrender their pride.
So God will strip them bare. you still might make it once the troubles of Jacob hits. but
you will have to give up everything here. It's all phony crap.
so recycle and save the planet. while the plastic rises above your ears.
the double standards and mixed messaging by science is psychologically baffling.

Attenborough stood up in church in front of the queen and said he now believes in God?
in a church these fkers rarely lie. its the rules they play by.
Satan is their boss and even he has to follow the rules of God.

You see, that there zorro is an example of a story as confirmation bias.
It has nothing of proof or testing, its opinion.

You might see coincidence, but coincidence isnt proof....just as Greek mythology is mostly if not all bollox, its just the interpretation of those using their own selective inputs to determine an outcome.

That correct Zorro.  Even satan believes in God.  How foolish some people are to believe in neither.

Anyone looking for a good book to read over Christmas, can highly recommend Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"

Trilby
As mentioned most do believe in a version that could be referred to as god, whether that be an algorithm or a scientific law.
What separates religion is the story without verification.

What do you make of the Placebo Effect out of interest?

I find Richard Schiffman's take on it quite interesting, Dusty.

How the Placebo Effect Proves That God Exists

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/how-the-placebo-effect-pr_b_1238938.html
.
I myself have absolutely no doubt of God's existence, having been aware of His presence (and fought it to a degree) for most of my life.

I have neither the time nor the patience to try and convert people of my own accord for He is more than capable of doing that Himself for those who seek Him.

It really is that simple & I hope you find Him too.

All the best to you

Well I dont necessarily disagree with that guy's sentiments, but it seems to me he is commandeering something to be part of something it cant be shown to be part of.
I.E. As far as I am aware the benefits of Placebo are in no way relative to the acceptance of belief in god.
Ones will to heal in itself has no connection with believing in faith.

But more to the point, it absolutely doesnt link to the story of religion.
If somebody can create the unbelievable and un explainable by simply believing in a sugar pill, does that not undermine your version of what you believe god is?
In other words the experience you gain in believing god exists had manifest itself in believing in nothing.

And lets be frank, the criteria to please god in the eyes of religion is pretty defined, you either meet the requirements or you dont.
It seems to me to be more evidence of democritus's materialism.

I just feel that people should be allowed believe what they want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else and not try to impose their beliefs on others, whether you have an atheist or deeply religious tendencies. But that's just me.

Completely agree. Individuals should be allowed to believe in whatever they like* and other people have no business telling them whether they're right or wrong or what they, individually, should or shouldn't be allowed to do with their own lifes based on ideas which are validated only by their belief system.

But history has shown that the religious aren't very good at this. This is one of the main themes Hitchens explores in God is not Great (recommended below).

* Filling children's heads with religious ideas from very young ages is very morally questionable (particular when it's accompanied with the silent threat of not belonging to the group if you don't believe). Whilst most christian parents in the UK rationally respect their children's apostasy, the same cannot be said the world over.

if people think this world is designed by a caring god  .........then explain to me what a non designed world would look like??

Well, we all have our opinions.  One we are sure to agree on though, "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".

Happy Christmas to you all.

or merry yuletide if we'd like to a bit more honest about the festival's origins...

C'mon, let the Christians believe they came up with it instead of adopting, relabeling and claming the entire copyright for something that was already there.

evidence - a book exists - 66 books in one codex. no evidence of aliens exist or of a multiverse. the book explains the universe was stretched out(17 mentions) and up to 1926 no physicist thought so? Georges lemaitre a belgian priest coined cosmic expansion.

the book exists. it uses number verification that super computers cannot match to this day.
it was written between 2000 and 3500 years ago and is inspired by God through the authors. each chapter has a matrix hidden within it that verifies it's authorship.
it relies on prophecy. Israel was gone. Now it's here after 1,877 years - bang on schedule
for the end of the sixth millenium. Jerusalem - the noman's land is not split down the middle anymore. the high priests are there again.

jesus asks us to come to him and lat down our burdens. He's not a madman with a sword. Or a tool in golden armour? he's offering a future of un-guessed proportions and love. God does not damn anyone. there are no goodies or baddies. No good deed gets you into heaven and no bad deed damns you - what he asks is that you love him because he loves you. Only by refusing Jesus do you get damnation. because you chose pride and self adoration.
all sins are forgiven. never to be mentioned again. 'we shall see him as he is' on his plane of existence. this world and all it's treasures will be kindling. All our good works are firewood. the lesson is - what is important? the real treasure is your soul. denying you have one makes you an idiot.

bye bye - last message - internet fading.

As a follower of Zoroastrianism, which your "Christian" false prophets took, were too stupid to understand, perverted and rebranded, I'll have you know that we still have a few years left before the end of the world.

Ground control to Major Zoz,
Take your protein pills and put your helmet on.