Things you don't get.

[Hermit Crab]

I know what you mean, I get the same attitude and 'how can you not have seen it' pish when I tell people I have never seen Top Gun. And I have to intention to watch it as I cant stand Tom Cruise.


Thats another one I've not seen and like you, I have no intention of watching it.

[bingo70]

Don't get the hype around the film and how it seems to be a "cult" classic. Also don't get why it seems to be such a big deal to some that I've not seen it and do not want to...

Maybe if you watched the film you would understand the hype :wink:

I'm only joking though as i know what you mean. I've always been a bit like that with the Godfather films. I love gangster films like that but I've always just struggled with those for some reason, was only relatively recently i managed to watch the first one in full but i found it a bit of a struggle. Can't really be arsed with the other ones. Why that seems to bother people so much i'll never know.

[Smartie]

I'm not massively into films, I fall asleep shortly after starting to watch most of them.

My whole life I've had conversations with people where they just cannot believe the well-known films I've not seen.

That's not to say that there aren't a few that I love. I just don't manage to watch many right through, and I always find it weird that people find that weird.

Die Hard? Beverly Hills Cop? Police Academy?

Not seen them, don't ever want to.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I can honestly say I've never seen the film Grease and I have absolutely no intention of watching it. I just just don't get it and the hype that surrounds it. I personally don't think that not having seen it is a big deal to be honest but the looks of utter shock horror I get (mainly from women) when I say this are really funny. It's like in that moment of admitting I haven't seen I have all of a sudden become a social outcast.

Ram it, I'm no watching it.... ever! :greengrin

I get the same pish re Braveheart.

[Hiber-nation]

I'm not massively into films, I fall asleep shortly after starting to watch most of them.

My whole life I've had conversations with people where they just cannot believe the well-known films I've not seen.

That's not to say that there aren't a few that I love. I just don't manage to watch many right through, and I always find it weird that people find that weird.

Die Hard? Beverly Hills Cop? Police Academy?

Not seen them, don't ever want to.

Thought it was only me. "How can you not like The Shawshank Redemption/The Godfather/Pulp Fiction etc?" said my colleagues, shaking their heads in bewilderment.

[Pretty Boy]

Thought it was only me. "How can you not like The Shawshank Redemption/The Godfather/Pulp Fiction etc?" said my colleagues, shaking their heads in bewilderment.

I'm the same. I enjoy some films of course but I can't get overly emotionally involved in them.

I actually prefer the start of films and the getting to know the characters part, it's when the actual main part of the story starts that I start to drift off.

I remember everyone raving about Gravity a few years back but by about half way through I was bored of the, admittedly very good, effects and visuals and I just didn't give a toss about any of the characters so couldn't really get into the will they live or not tension.

[wpj]

Never seen a Star Wars movie

[Mibbes Aye]

Never seen a Star Wars movie

There’s a Radio 4 comedy show, think it’s still running, called ‘I’ve Never Seen Star Wars’ where famous people admit to not having done something that loads of people have, then do it and relate their experience.

Some of them are better than others. Probably the best example is Ian Hislop playing ​Grand Theft Auto

[Hibbyradge]

There’s a Radio 4 comedy show, think it’s still running, called ‘I’ve Never Seen Star Wars’ where famous people admit to not having done something that loads of people have, then do it and relate their experience.

Some of them are better than others. Probably the best example is Ian Hislop playing ​Grand Theft Auto

On my list 👍

[Hiber-nation]

Never seen a Star Wars movie

Thought I'd wind up previously mentioned colleagues by saying that I didn't know the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. They weren't far off actually rolling about the floor they were in such a state of side-splittingness :greengrin

I haven't actually watched either.

[Mibbes Aye]

On my list 👍

This links to a different thread but if you like listening to stuff on BBC iPlayer are you familiar with “In Our Time”?

It’s been on every week for years and years now on R4. Melvyn Bragg presents it, he has three guests who are usually Oxbridge dons or similar and he takes a subject. Could be anything, the life of John the Evangelist, the rubber-sheet theory of the universe, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Roman Empire, the fall of man in Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’.

Bragg keeps things moving by asking very direct questions of his experts, who are clearly briefed to respond in an accessible manner. You come away feeling like you’ve had an intellectual version of colonic irrigation.

[lapsedhibee]

This links to a different thread but if you like listening to stuff on BBC iPlayer are you familiar with “In Our Time”?

It’s been on every week for years and years now on R4. Melvyn Bragg presents it, he has three guests who are usually Oxbridge dons or similar and he takes a subject. Could be anything, the life of John the Evangelist, the rubber-sheet theory of the universe, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Roman Empire, the fall of man in Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’.

Bragg keeps things moving by asking very direct questions of his experts, who are clearly briefed to respond in an accessible manner. You come away feeling like you’ve had an intellectual version of colonic irrigation.

Never had the irrigation thing so don't know how accurate your comparison is, but R4's the cat's bollocks. Except The Archers and Wumman's Hour.

[Mibbes Aye]

Never had the irrigation thing so don't know how accurate your comparison is, but R4's the cat's bollocks. Except The Archers and Wumman's Hour.

Never had irrigation either, I was speculating :greengrin

R4 is good, I drive a lot with work and usually listen to R3 but will change to R4 if it’s a piece of music I really dislike. I’ve stumbled across some absolute gems in the afternoon schedule, usually half an hour long.

Also have got back into listening to the World Service. Used to go to sleep to it in my early twenties, a long time ago now. It’s gently reassuring. I’m getting old :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

This links to a different thread but if you like listening to stuff on BBC iPlayer are you familiar with “In Our Time”?

It’s been on every week for years and years now on R4. Melvyn Bragg presents it, he has three guests who are usually Oxbridge dons or similar and he takes a subject. Could be anything, the life of John the Evangelist, the rubber-sheet theory of the universe, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Roman Empire, the fall of man in Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’.

Bragg keeps things moving by asking very direct questions of his experts, who are clearly briefed to respond in an accessible manner. You come away feeling like you’ve had an intellectual version of colonic irrigation.
Sorry to take the thread off topic, but some of the stuff on iPlayer radio app is really worth listening too. I’m a bit of a technophobe, but we sometimes forget just how good radio can be.

[heretoday]

Never had the irrigation thing so don't know how accurate your comparison is, but R4's the cat's bollocks. Except The Archers and Wumman's Hour.

I listen to The Archers when I'm washing up. It's great.

[Hermit Crab]

I listen to The Archers whenI'm washing up. It's great.


Womans work no? :greengrin :duck:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The Sun Bingo advert, bollocks!

[Jay]

Womans work no? :greengrin :duck:

Steady Mr Crab! I have delete buttons :na na:

[IGRIGI]

People who force their children to go running with them.

[Hermit Crab]

Steady Mr Crab! I have delete buttons :na na:


You've got an itchy delete button finger. :greengrin

[Jay]

You've got an itchy delete button finger. :greengrin

With your name on it :na na:

[stoneyburn hibs]

Toothbrush subscription.

[pollution]

Store security at the doors.

Sometimes it will bleep but I don't understand why some people will actually turn round and go back into the store

even if there is no one at the security desk.

Presuming that they haven't stolen anything, why do they go back in?

[Peevemor]

Store security at the doors.

Sometimes it will bleep but I don't understand why some people will actually turn round and go back into the store

even if there is no one at the security desk.

Presuming that they haven't stolen anything, why do they go back in?Maybe they don't want to bleep if they're going to other shops.

[Jay]

Store security at the doors.

Sometimes it will bleep but I don't understand why some people will actually turn round and go back into the store

even if there is no one at the security desk.

Presuming that they haven't stolen anything, why do they go back in?

To.make sure i dont have one of those plastic security tags left on something.

[Scouse Hibee]

Store security at the doors.

Sometimes it will bleep but I don't understand why some people will actually turn round and go back into the store

even if there is no one at the security desk.

Presuming that they haven't stolen anything, why do they go back in?

In case there is a security tag on a garment that they will struggle to remove once back home is one reason when buying cloths. Not that I need any help removing them ;-)

Tricks of the trade learnt from my days in retail security, not old shoplifting skills before anyone asks.

[s.a.m]

In case there is a security tag on a garment that they will struggle to remove once back home is one reason when buying cloths. Not that I need any help removing them ;-)

Tricks of the trade learnt from my days in retail security, not old shoplifting skills before anyone asks.

I wish I knew! (And not because I'm a shoplifter!):greengrin

It's happened to me a few times (and didn't even beep, or I'd have known.) Most recently, my daughter bought a top in a shop in London that doesn't have a branch in Scotland. We got home, she found the tag...

I tried a couple of shops to see if they had similar tags, failed, and eventually her big sister cracked it only after trying just about every other shop in town.

On a similar note, I now never refuse a receipt on the self -checkout till, after my receiptless M+S steaks started beeping on my way out the door. They were very good about it, however.

[Scouse Hibee]

I wish I knew! (And not because I'm a shoplifter!):greengrin

It's happened to me a few times (and didn't even beep, or I'd have known.) Most recently, my daughter bought a top in a shop in London that doesn't have a branch in Scotland. We got home, she found the tag...

I tried a couple of shops to see if they had similar tags, failed, and eventually her big sister cracked it only after trying just about every other shop in town.

On a similar note, I now never refuse a receipt on the self -checkout till, after my receiptless M+S steaks started beeping on my way out the door. They were very good about it, however.

They are all fairly easy mate as it’s a pin held in place by ball bearings and a spring mechanism in most cases. I can do most of them in seconds.

[pollution]

To.make sure i dont have one of those plastic security tags left on something.


This was at a Tesco store and I can't imagine their clothes are tagged but good point all the same

[WeeRussell]

Prosecco

Just a cheap/worse version of champagne, which I'm not overly keen on anyway.

It became a big thing amongst women a few years ago and now seems to becoming popular with guys too :confused:

[danhibees1875]

Prosecco

Just a cheap/worse version of champagne, which I'm not overly keen on anyway.

It became a big thing amongst women a few years ago and now seems to becoming popular with guys too :confused:

I prefer it to Champagne, I think it tastes better - although I'm not overly keen on either (throw in some flavoured gin and we start getting somewhere though).

Given I'm not keen on either - I'd rather sip my way through £9 than £40. :greengrin

[Jay]

I prefer it to Champagne, I think it tastes better - although I'm not overly keen on either (throw in some flavoured gin and we start getting somewhere though).

Given I'm not keen on either - I'd rather sip my way through £9 than £40. :greengrin

I'm the same. Hate champagne and can only take prosecco with flavoured gin or chambord.

We were at a wedding last year and got three free glasses of prosecco during dinner. I had a hip flask filled with chambord to flavour it. I ended up havibg to go back to the room to refill it as everybody at the table wanted some :greengrin

[oldbutdim]

This was at a Tesco store and I can't imagine their clothes are tagged but good point all the same

I can confirm Tesco tags clothes - my missus suffered the fate of discovering the tag when she put the garment on later.
Luckily we had the receipt and a more local branch removed the tag for us.

Funnily enough it DIDN'T beep on the way out, or we wouldn't have taken it home!

[Scouse Hibee]

People who tell you they don’t like a particular food then confess to never actually trying or tasting that particular food

[Pretty Boy]

Old guys who do a sort of running motion but don't actually go any quicker. Guy was at it crossing the road in front of my car this morning. Just walk.

[bingo70]

People who tell you they don’t like a particular food then confess to never actually trying or tasting that particular food

I do that.

I just can't look past the texture or the smell of some food.

Realise i'm in the wrong though and i'm a total hypocrite as i give my boy **** for not trying stuff.

[Jay]

I do that.

I just can't look past the texture or the smell of some food.

Realise i'm in the wrong though and i'm a total hypocrite as i give my boy **** for not trying stuff.

Im the same and was really strict with the kids growing up about trying different things as its a pain trying to find places to eat when your fussy. Mostly smell and texture for me too.

Having said that my boys made me taste fried octopus ball flavoured juice the other day. It had a marble in the lid that you pushed down and made the liquid fizz. Very bizarre. Vile doesnt come close.

[Jones28]

The appeal of lap dancing clubs.

Went to one on a stag do in Budapest and it was terrible.

[Smartie]

Im the same and was really strict with the kids growing up about trying different things as its a pain trying to find places to eat when your fussy. Mostly smell and texture for me too.

Having said that my boys made me taste fried octopus ball flavoured juice the other day. It had a marble in the lid that you pushed down and made the liquid fizz. Very bizarre. Vile doesnt come close.

I wouldn't really have expected octopus' balls to taste anything other than vile.

[Hibrandenburg]

The appeal of lap dancing clubs.

Went to one on a stag do in Budapest and it was terrible.

Same here. I was on a boy's weekend in Prague recently where some of the guys would have happily spent the whole weekend in titty bars. Don't get me wrong, I like titties as much as the next guy but there's just something incredibly seedy about these places that makes them sexually sterile in my opinion.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Same here. I was on a boy's weekend in Prague recently where some of the guys would have happily spent the whole weekend in titty bars. Don't get me wrong, I like titties as much as the next guy but there's just something incredibly seedy about these places that makes them sexually sterile in my opinion.


I'm also in that category, been to them for stag do's and Xmas nights. It's all a bit meh, and doesn't sit right.

[heretoday]

Prosecco

Just a cheap/worse version of champagne, which I'm not overly keen on anyway.

It became a big thing amongst women a few years ago and now seems to becoming popular with guys too :confused:
Gives you heartburn. Like paint stripper.

[Scouse Hibee]

I'm also in that category, been to them for stag do's and Xmas nights. It's all a bit meh, and doesn't sit right.

Have never been in one either and have left groups rather than enter. Too seedy by far.

[Jay]

I wouldn't really have expected octopus' balls to taste anything other than vile.

Yep it met my expectations.

[McD]

Have never been in one either and have left groups rather than enter. Too seedy by far.


Same here also

[Hermit Crab]

I'm also in that category, been to them for stag do's and Xmas nights. It's all a bit meh, and doesn't sit right.

Not a fan either, I know a few guys who went to one in Hamburg and bought the "girls" a glass of Champagne and weren't allowed to leave until they paid for the bottle, some €300. Total scam and they fell for it with the old glass of Champagne trick.

[matty_f]

Religion. I respect people's right to believe in whichever God they believe in, but I find the whole thing mental.

[J-C]

Religion. I respect people's right to believe in whichever God they believe in, but I find the whole thing mental.

Yep same here, never understand the strong belief in an imaginary diety or god, I respect people's beliefs but just don't get it myself, I'm a good atheist.

[J-C]

I've never understood racism, we're all the same race, homosapians. No matter what colour we are or how we speak, strip off the skin and we're all the same.

[lapsedhibee]

I've never understood racism, we're all the same race, homosapians. No matter what colour we are or how we speak, strip off the skin and we're all the same.

Not a wholly convincing argument, since we'd all be deid without skin!

[CropleyWasGod]

I've never understood racism, we're all the same race, homosapians. No matter what colour we are or how we speak, strip off the skin and we're all the same.It's easy to understand. People are suspicious of difference, of any kind. That's a primitive response in all of us.

It's how we deal with that response, however, that defines us.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

I've never understood racism, we're all the same race, homosapians. No matter what colour we are or how we speak, strip off the skin and we're all the same.Racism is as much about fear/suspicion of cultural differences as it is about skin colour.

[J-C]

All understandable answers, I just don't get it, I look at each person as a human and take it from there.

[Pete]

Racism is as much about fear/suspicion of cultural differences as it is about skin colour.

I think they're two different things.

Racism can be debunked pretty easily if racism is the idea that one race is genetically superior to another or there are marked differences. Science can indeed prove that we're pretty much all the same and it's really only ancient stereotypes at play.

Cultural differences are more complicated and can't be resolved by things like common sense or science. Ones that are based on religious beliefs are immune to such scrutiny.

I could go on about the things I don't get when it comes to other cultures but maybe its not for this thread.

[Lemonade]

Yep same here, never understand the strong belief in an imaginary diety or god, I respect people's beliefs but just don't get it myself, I'm a good atheist.
You agreed with the poster regarding respecting people's right to believe then you use terms like imaginary :rolleyes:

[matty_f]

You agreed with the poster regarding respecting people's right to believe then you use terms like imaginary :rolleyes:

It has to be imaginary, though.

If you tell me about a cake you've made, I can believe you've made a cake but until I've seen it or touched it, I'm only imagining it even though I firmly and totally believe it's real.

[pollution]

It has to be imaginary, though.

If you tell me about a cake you've made, I can believe you've made a cake but until I've seen it or touched it, I'm only imagining it even though I firmly and totally believe it's real.


There are no atheists in a fox hole.

[J-C]

It has to be imaginary, though.

If you tell me about a cake you've made, I can believe you've made a cake but until I've seen it or touched it, I'm only imagining it even though I firmly and totally believe it's real.

Thanks Matty, if God does suddenly appear I'll hold my hand up and say I'm wrong, until then all religious beliefs are a personal thing and all deities are imaginary until such solid evidence is produced.

[heretoday]

Religion. I respect people's right to believe in whichever God they believe in, but I find the whole thing mental.

I envy folk who can gain some comfort from religion in bad times. Whenever I try praying (every Saturday at 1500 hrs approx) I just embarrass myself.

[danhibees1875]

I envy folk who can gain some comfort from religion in bad times. Whenever I try praying (every Saturday at 1500 hrs approx) I just embarrass myself.

I think there is a place for religion beyond the belief in all the classic stories or even in God.

It can, despite the unfortunate misinterpretation that often occurs, provide good guidelines on how to treat others better as well providing people with some sort "point" to life.

[J-C]

I think there is a place for religion beyond the belief in all the classic stories or even in God.

It can, despite the unfortunate misinterpretation that often occurs, provide good guidelines on how to treat others better as well providing people with some sort "point" to life.


Is that not just bringing up your kids showing respect to others, I brought up 3 kids without a hint of religion and they're all normal good living respectful adults with good jobs, houses their own kids etc.

[danhibees1875]

Is that not just bringing up your kids showing respect to others, I brought up 3 kids without a hint of religion and they're all normal good living respectful adults with good jobs, houses their own kids etc.

I'm not saying everyone needs it for that reason. Just that it can provide a healthy set of guidelines for people. :aok:

[matty_f]

I'm not saying everyone needs it for that reason. Just that it can provide a healthy set of guidelines for people. :aok:

Hate gays and murder infidels... Great values :greengrin

[Future17]

It has to be imaginary, though.

If you tell me about a cake you've made, I can believe you've made a cake but until I've seen it or touched it, I'm only imagining it even though I firmly and totally believe it's real.

I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but I think you're confusing the definition of "imaginary". It's not linked to "imagine" in the way you've suggested in your example.

[matty_f]

I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but I think you're confusing the definition of "imaginary". It's not linked to "imagine" in the way you've suggested in your example.

I respectfully disagree, and JC's response to my post suggests that I've linked correctly.

Considering how many variations and interpretations of Gods the are, the evidence points to a liberal use of imagination across the religions.

There is only anecdotal evidence of Jesus having existed, for instance, so ideas of what's he looked like and what he did were created from storytelling - to the best of my knowledge there is no archaeological evidence that Jesus existed. There is nothing more than storytelling to evidence God's existence, so He has to be imaginary.

An omnipotent being who is everywhere yet can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelled exists in the heads of those that believe - but whichever way you look at it, that being is imaginary - belief that He is real does not change the fact that He is still imaginary.

I'm trying to explain my point of view without being disrespectful to those that do believe, as each will have their own valid and probation reasons for doing so, and as it's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, they could well be right and I've an eternity of wishing is made better choices ahead of me so I'm not going to get all smug about it now!

[lapsedhibee]

I respectfully disagree, and JC's response to my post suggests that I've linked correctly.

Considering how many variations and interpretations of Gods the are, the evidence points to a liberal use of imagination across the religions.

There is only anecdotal evidence of Jesus having existed, for instance, so ideas of what's he looked like and what he did were created from storytelling - to the best of my knowledge there is no archaeological evidence that Jesus existed. There is nothing more than storytelling to evidence God's existence, so He has to be imaginary.

An omnipotent being who is everywhere yet can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelled exists in the heads of those that believe - but whichever way you look at it, that being is imaginary - belief that He is real does not change the fact that He is still imaginary.

I'm trying to explain my point of view without being disrespectful to those that do believe, as each will have their own valid and probation reasons for doing so, and as it's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, they could well be right and I've an eternity of wishing is made better choices ahead of me so I'm not going to get all smug about it now!

There's another way in which a God might be valid, which doesn't involve archaeological evidence. More a logical thing than archaeological, ie something that has to be, logically, to make good sense of everything else. A bit like the square root of minus one (for which there is also no 'evidence', in the sense that you and no doubt Fife-Hibee crave). The square root of minus one is an imaginary number.

[matty_f]

There's another way in which a God might be valid, which doesn't involve archaeological evidence. More a logical thing than archaeological, ie something that has to be, logically, to make good sense of everything else. A bit like the square root of minus one (for which there is also no 'evidence', in the sense that you and no doubt Fife-Hibee crave). The square root of minus one is an imaginary number.

That's an interesting point, though I don't think that God can be described as the 'has to be'. Maybe at the time of early religion, when our understanding of all that we understand now was significantly less - where you couldn't explain flooding, weather, the sun setting and rising etc through a scientific knowledge - then that might have been appropriate.

Imaginary numbers still hold true now because there is no scientific or viable alternative, whereas where Good might have been used to explain why the ground shook or a volcano erupted once upon a time, we can understand why they happen now.

What accepting that he's not everyone's cup of tea, Ricky Gervais explained it well - he said that if you took all we know now, and all the books and internet pages of science and discovery, and religion away and started again, the science books would be re-written more or less as they are now until better evidence is found. Religion wouldn't necessarily be.

[lapsedhibee]

accepting that he's not everyone's cup of tea, Ricky Gervais explained it well - he said that if you took all we know now, and all the books and internet pages of science and discovery, and religion away and started again, the science books would be re-written more or less as they are now until better evidence is found. Religion wouldn't necessarily be.

That's an interesting idea, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Which is fine, since ideas are every bit as real as cups of tea, even though you can't weigh them, photograph them, etc etc. :wink:

[matty_f]

That's an interesting idea, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Which is fine, since ideas are every bit as real as cups of tea, even though you can't weigh them, photograph them, etc etc. :wink:

It's a theory more than an idea, and though it would be very difficult you could test it to prove it disprove it.

[Pretty Boy]

The Universe has been expanding and cooling for billions of years; everything was hotter and denser in the past, and if we extrapolate back arbitrarily far, we'd arrive at a point of infinite density. Theoretically, this was realized as early as the 1920s by cosmologists like Alexandr Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, with the latter calling this state the "primeval atom" from which everything emerged. When the leftover radiation glow predicted by this picture -- shifted into the microwave portion of the spectrum by the Universe's expansion -- was detected in the 1960s, the Big Bang was confirmed. Extrapolate back arbitrarily far, and you arrive at a singularity: where space and time as we know them emerged from.

Only, that picture isn't right. If the Universe's temperature (and hence, its energies) ever rose above a certain point, early on, the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background would be larger than what we observe. The fact that they are only a few parts in 100,000 -- first measured in the early 1990s by COBE -- tells us that there must have been a state before the hot Big Bang that our hot, dense, matter-and-radiation-filled Universe emerged from. There was a prediction made as to what that state would be in the 1980s: cosmic inflation, that set up and gave rise to the Big Bang. The details of what the CMB's fluctuations would be were predicted, and observed to match in gory detail what we observed by COBE, WMAP (2000s) and Planck (2010s). Inflation came before the hot Big Bang. What came before inflation, and honestly, what came before the last 10^-32 seconds of inflation or so, is still a mystery.

Science still can't fully explain the formation of the universe. That isn't proof, or otherwise, for God obviously but it leaves a vacuum (pun intended).

On a different level I find that people often focus on the negatives with regards religion. I could point out that the Catholic church is the biggest non state provider of healthcare in the world for example but that's an irrelevant argument as far as those of us in the developed world are concerned. On a local level churches provide a supportive community for people, often at difficult or emotional times. There's a reason many people turn to the church after a birth, death, marriage etc. I'm sure the same can be said of Mosques, Synagogues, Temples and so on. Religions attract people from a broad church (another pun intended) and much like society in general there are liberals and conservatives, zealots and moderates and so on and so forth.

As recently as 2014 only 13% of Britons described themselves as 'convinced atheists' so whilst people may be turning away from traditional religions (the last 2 census confirm that) I think there is still an underlying belief in the spiritual or 'something'.

For me attending Mass is a quiet time, a time to reflect in which you can't just pick up a phone or turn on the TV and there's generally something to be taken from it. I'm aware that can be achieved in other ways as well. But further it challenges me. For years it was easy to say I was an atheist and it was easy to take a socially liberal stance (I still do in many areas) without thinking of any alternative argument. The truth is i don't know if God exists, the clue is in the word 'faith'. I'd probably describe myself as an agnostic Catholic; I don't view prayer as asking for what I want and expecting it to happen or making bargains with whoever may be listening; it's a chance to focus, a chance to process thought and also a chance to listen.

[Smartie]

I'm quite neutral on the religion thing. I know loads of people who take their faith seriously (whichever faith that happens to be) and they are all good people. We all have stories and "evidence" to help explain our world, science explains a great deal but there are still gaps in between. That is where religion can come in, and depending on the gaps you have, there will be some faith that you need.

Most religions and the way they are used are a decent bunch of moral principles, and sadly they seem to be hijacked by a small number of nutters, a small number who are easy to focus on.

It would be fair to say I am a non-believer , but there is a bit of me that regrets beings so, as many religious people do get a comfort and understanding from their faith that I do not.

Peace, man.

[heretoday]

Religion is OK on a personal level but organised religion can be dangerous.
It becomes just another way for one set of people to keep control over another lot.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Surely this is now Holy (or not) Ground territory. ;-)

[Future17]

I respectfully disagree, and JC's response to my post suggests that I've linked correctly.

Considering how many variations and interpretations of Gods the are, the evidence points to a liberal use of imagination across the religions.

There is only anecdotal evidence of Jesus having existed, for instance, so ideas of what's he looked like and what he did were created from storytelling - to the best of my knowledge there is no archaeological evidence that Jesus existed. There is nothing more than storytelling to evidence God's existence, so He has to be imaginary.

An omnipotent being who is everywhere yet can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelled exists in the heads of those that believe - but whichever way you look at it, that being is imaginary - belief that He is real does not change the fact that He is still imaginary.

I'm trying to explain my point of view without being disrespectful to those that do believe, as each will have their own valid and probation reasons for doing so, and as it's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, they could well be right and I've an eternity of wishing is made better choices ahead of me so I'm not going to get all smug about it now!

Again, I don't think I disagree with your overall point, just your terminology. :greengrin

"Imaginary" means something which does not exist (except in the imagination). In referring to a person's God as imaginary, I think you're inadvertently failing to respect that person's right to believe in that God, which is the opposite of how you described your attitude earlier.

Perhaps "imaginable" might be a better fit for what you've described, but even that doesn't seem quite right.

[matty_f]

Again, I don't think I disagree with your overall point, just your terminology. :greengrin

"Imaginary" means something which does not exist (except in the imagination). In referring to a person's God as imaginary, I think you're inadvertently failing to respect that person's right to believe in that God, which is the opposite of how you described your attitude earlier.

Perhaps "imaginable" might be a better fit for what you've described, but even that doesn't seem quite right.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - whether someone believes or not doesn't make something less imaginary - if something's not imaginary then regardless of belief people would accept its existence, no?

I genuinely respect people's beliefs, which is why I'm doing my best (but failing, I think) not to be dismissive. I respect that millions of people around the world believe in the existence of a God of some description, depending on where they were born or how they were brought up etc, and that they have faith that their belief is correct - but the word faith is about believing in something without evidence. If there's no evidence then where does it exist other than in your and other's imagination?

What I respect is that people are entitled to their faith, I respect their strength to hold those beliefs and can see that some people get a lot of comfort from their faith. Personally, I don't get it (hence the post on this very thread) but as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the idea of God if there's evidence to support it.
I'm not demanding that evidence, I'm happy with my position on it - eternity is a long time to deal with that decision if I'm wrong :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - whether someone believes or not doesn't make something less imaginary - if something's not imaginary then regardless of belief people would accept its existence, no?

I genuinely respect people's beliefs, which is why I'm doing my best (but failing, I think) not to be dismissive. I respect that millions of people around the world believe in the existence of a God of some description, depending on where they were born or how they were brought up etc, and that they have faith that their belief is correct - but the word faith is about believing in something without evidence. If there's no evidence then where does it exist other than in your and other's imagination?

What I respect is that people are entitled to their faith, I respect their strength to hold those beliefs and can see that some people get a lot of comfort from their faith. Personally, I don't get it (hence the post on this very thread) but as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the idea of God if there's evidence to support it.
I'm not demanding that evidence, I'm happy with my position on it - eternity is a long time to deal with that decision if I'm wrong :greengrin

Evidence again. What is your evidence that the number two exists? You can weigh two cups of tea, photograph them, etc. But that's cups of tea. What about the actual number itself, the number two? Are you happy to accept its reality without being able to weigh it, etc? :dunno:

[lapsedhibee]

It's a theory more than an idea, and though it would be very difficult you could test it to prove it disprove it.

How could you test the hypothesis that (paraphrasing, hope without taking any liberties) if we went back to a time when there was no recorded science or religion, after a while we'd end up with the science we have now but not the religion? Genuinely puzzled at that.

[Hibrandenburg]

How could you test the hypothesis that (paraphrasing, hope without taking any liberties) if we went back to a time when there was no recorded science or religion, after a while we'd end up with the science we have now but not the religion? Genuinely puzzled at that.

I understand it to mean that scientific fact would not change because it's governed by the unchanging laws of nature. Religion on the other hand is based on human testimony of unknown or unproven origin and has evolved to
fit the needs of the different generations. The laws of science will never change but religion will evolve differently depending on the original narrative.

[matty_f]

Evidence again. What is your evidence that the number two exists? You can weigh two cups of tea, photograph them, etc. But that's cups of tea. What about the actual number itself, the number two? Are you happy to accept its reality without being able to weigh it, etc? :dunno:

It's not really the same, though - is it? Without wanting to go into what two is, I am absolutely happy to accept that a 'two' doesn't exist as an entity in its own right. Two is not a reality in itself (there's a sentence I never thought I'd be writing on hibs.net :greengrin).

'Two' represents two units of (something), rather than being something itself.

If you want to make the comparison though, two was something that was conceptualised by mankind to help make sense of things that weren't understood at the time. To understand counting, two had to be imagined and explained and shared as an idea (and adopted by others). Which is (IMHO), what happened with religion.

[matty_f]

I understand it to mean that scientific fact would not change because it's governed by the unchanging laws of nature. Religion on the other hand is based on human testimony of unknown or unproven origin and has evolved to
fit the needs of the different generations. The laws of science will never change but religion will evolve differently depending on the original narrative.

Yes - that's exactly right.

Religion and religious stories may still emerge, they may emerge broadly as they are now and there's probably a remote chance that they would emerge identically to the stories that are told to this day.

Exploration of science would always lead to a description of gravity, of the solar system, of evolution, understanding electricity, medicine etc... because science only evolves with discovery and new evidence, and so we would come back eventually to the point where we are at now - and surpass it eventually as new evidence and new theories are proven and disproven.

[matty_f]

How could you test the hypothesis that (paraphrasing, hope without taking any liberties) if we went back to a time when there was no recorded science or religion, after a while we'd end up with the science we have now but not the religion? Genuinely puzzled at that.

You couldn't go back in time - the point is if you wiped all books, literature and references to science and religion then the science books and discoveries would definitely be repeated because science proves and disproves theories and discoveries. A scientific fact is only a fact until someone disproves it. When everyone thought the world was flat it took for someone to prove it was a globe for that new science to be written.

Let's imagine there's a nuclear war, and by a quirk of fate only a small, uneducated section of the world's population survived, they have no prior reference points and so are starting fresh - they would eventually discover and understand gravity, electricity, the theory of relativity etc... They might or might not think that the massive explosion was an act of an all powerful being.

[Future17]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - whether someone believes or not doesn't make something less imaginary - if something's not imaginary then regardless of belief people would accept its existence, no?

I genuinely respect people's beliefs, which is why I'm doing my best (but failing, I think) not to be dismissive. I respect that millions of people around the world believe in the existence of a God of some description, depending on where they were born or how they were brought up etc, and that they have faith that their belief is correct - but the word faith is about believing in something without evidence. If there's no evidence then where does it exist other than in your and other's imagination?

What I respect is that people are entitled to their faith, I respect their strength to hold those beliefs and can see that some people get a lot of comfort from their faith. Personally, I don't get it (hence the post on this very thread) but as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the idea of God if there's evidence to support it.
I'm not demanding that evidence, I'm happy with my position on it - eternity is a long time to deal with that decision if I'm wrong :greengrin

Someone can believe in something which is imaginary, but another person can't describe that something as imaginary if they are open to the concept of its existence, regardless of how sceptical they may be about it.

Of course it's possible to respect a person's beliefs whilst stating you don't believe in the same thing (or anything for that matter), but by saying someone's God (for example) is imaginary, you are saying that God doesn't exist. I don't think you can describe that as respecting a person's beliefs.

[matty_f]

Someone can believe in something which is imaginary, but another person can't describe that something as imaginary if they are open to the concept of its existence, regardless of how sceptical they may be about it.

Of course it's possible to respect a person's beliefs whilst stating you don't believe in the same thing (or anything for that matter), but by saying someone's God (for example) is imaginary, you are saying that God doesn't exist. I don't think you can describe that as respecting a person's beliefs.
Fair enough but I don't think they're mutually exclusive I don't believe that God exists and perhaps it's down to my limitations on how I can explain my thoughts, but I can't think of another way to explain it

A Christian has faith that the being (unsure if that should be 'Being', so if it should, I apologise) that they imagine exists, faith and belief are key words here. Faith is believing in something and having that spiritual conviction, despite a lack of evidence.

God means something different and is something different from person to person. Why is that? It's their interpretation, their imagining of what God is based on what they've read, understood, or been told about Him.

I'm not being disrespectful - at least not purposely - I'm maybe being a little blunt in my description but I think it's a matter of fact word to describe it.

If someone tells me they believe in God, I don't tell them they're wrong - I respect their belief and leave them to it.

Spoiler alert:

If I'm talking to a kid that believes in Santa, they're maybe old enough to have their doubts but still young enough to want to hold on to the belief - maybe even a wee bit worried that if they still believing then they won't get t any presents - in their minds, Santa is real - he exists but we know, as adults who put the presents under the tree , that he only exists in their imagination. A young kid would bet their life on Santa being real - even in the absence of a chimney for him to come down into their house etc. As parents we respect that belief and even nurture it until they reach an age where we have to break it to them that their pals are telling the truth.

I'll point out that I'm not comparing Santa with God, really. Just trying to demonstrate that if something exists in one person's mind but not in another's, then virtually by definition, it's imaginary.

Edit: couple of additional points having re-read your post.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't believe He exists, and I'm saying that there isn't evidence to support the existence of a God.

Also, if tomorrow sometime popped up with verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God, then I'd accept happily that I was wrong. Crucially I'm not telling anyone they're right or wrong about it, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove His existence.



I'm the same with zombies, vampires and ghosts - I don't think any of those things exists, I don't believe in magic, but if someone evidenced their existence, I'd change my mind.

[J-C]

So what is the true god?
Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Allah, Vishnu, Guru Nanak, Amaterasu, the plethora of spirits and gods from various tribes and indigenous people from around the globe. Where was this one and only god when these other so called gods were/are being worshipped? Why did this one true god not show himself and tell his children that they are worshipping the wrong gods and there was only him and not the multiple gods that many people worshipped at the time.

[lapsedhibee]

I understand it to mean that scientific fact would not change because it's governed by the unchanging laws of nature. Religion on the other hand is based on human testimony of unknown or unproven origin and has evolved to
fit the needs of the different generations. The laws of science will never change but religion will evolve differently depending on the original narrative.

Why do you believe this? :dunno:


It's not really the same, though - is it? Without wanting to go into what two is, I am absolutely happy to accept that a 'two' doesn't exist as an entity in its own right. Two is not a reality in itself (there's a sentence I never thought I'd be writing on hibs.net :greengrin).

'Two' represents two units of (something), rather than being something itself.
As a definition, that's a tad circular. :wink:



If you want to make the comparison though, two was something that was conceptualised by mankind to help make sense of things that weren't understood at the time.

Someone invented two? :dunno:



To understand counting, two had to be imagined and explained and shared as an idea (and adopted by others). Which is (IMHO), what happened with religion.


Yes - that's exactly right.

Religion and religious stories may still emerge, they may emerge broadly as they are now and there's probably a remote chance that they would emerge identically to the stories that are told to this day.

Exploration of science would always lead to a description of gravity, of the solar system, of evolution, understanding electricity, medicine etc... because science only evolves with discovery and new evidence, and so we would come back eventually to the point where we are at now - and surpass it eventually as new evidence and new theories are proven and disproven.

Huge leap of faith, imo, that if you reran history you'd end up with the same science that prevails today. Are our understanding of electricity, magnetism, gravity etc not products of our history - the results of strings of contributions by actual historical people, like Norman Einstein? :dunno:

[Danderhall Hibs]

I don't believe in magic, but if someone evidenced their existence, I'd change my mind.

Funny you say that as I believe that “Jesus” was a guy who was brilliant at illusions and that. I watched Dynamo’s tv show and he replicated many of the biggest hits - walking on water, making fish appear, turned juice to water among others.

[matty_f]

Why do you believe this? :dunno:


As a definition, that's a tad circular. :wink:


Someone invented two? :dunno:





Huge leap of faith, imo, that if you reran history you'd end up with the same science that prevails today. Are our understanding of electricity, magnetism, gravity etc not products of our history - the results of strings of contributions by actual historical people, like Norman Einstein? :dunno:

It's not a huge leap of faith - throw a ball in the air and it will come back down, try to figure out why and you'll eventually get to the answer : gravity.

When I say someone invented two, I think you know what I mean. For a start humans at one point wouldn't have evolved sufficiently to count, then someone would have figured it out and then, to communicate it and use it they'd need to come up with (or invent) a way of explaining it. That would have evolved to where we are now where people understand what is meant when someone says "two".

[speedy_gonzales]

Someone invented two? :dunno:

It happens, apparently an Islamic Persian invented "zero",,,,

[Pretty Boy]

So what is the true god?
Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Allah, Vishnu, Guru Nanak, Amaterasu, the plethora of spirits and gods from various tribes and indigenous people from around the globe. Where was this one and only god when these other so called gods were/are being worshipped? Why did this one true god not show himself and tell his children that they are worshipping the wrong gods and there was only him and not the multiple gods that many people worshipped at the time.

The 3 major monotheistic religions all believe in the same God. Allah, Yahweh and God are generally accepted to be the same being.

And it's a pretty major part of Christian belief that God did show himself through Jesus. From the Catholic version of the Nicene Creed:

'I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ......begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father....'

Or the Anglican:

'Being of one substance with the Father'

The Lutheran Churches:

'Very God of very God......of one substance with the Father'.

[Scouse Hibee]

I don’t get why this has descended into religion. Wrong board surely.

[J-C]

The 3 major monotheistic religions all believe in the same God. Allah, Yahweh and God are generally accepted to be the same being.

And it's a pretty major part of Christian belief that God did show himself through Jesus. From the Catholic version of the Nicene Creed:

'I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ......begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father....'

Or the Anglican:

'Being of one substance with the Father'

The Lutheran Churches:

'Very God of very God......of one substance with the Father'.


OK but explain all the other Gods either still worshipped or were worshipped by people like Romans, Norse, Greeks, Egyptians etc, or explain the Pagans and aboriginal people of Australia who don't believe in a god but believe in a Mother Earth type spirit, or the people of the rainforests throughout the world who believe in spirits.

[oldbutdim]

In answer to the original question:



Laid.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I don’t get why this has descended into religion. Wrong board surely.

There couldn't be a more apt board than The Holy Ground.

[J-C]

I don’t get why this has descended into religion. Wrong board surely.


This is .net did you really thin this thread would stay on subject, it's the norm on here.

[Pretty Boy]

OK but explain all the other Gods either still worshipped or were worshipped by people like Romans, Norse, Greeks, Egyptians etc, or explain the Pagans and aboriginal people of Australia who don't believe in a god but believe in a Mother Earth type spirit, or the people of the rainforests throughout the world who believe in spirits.

The only explanation I have is they have chose to believe in something different from me.

Again it comes down to that word faith. Faith in our own beliefs; one of the many belief systems could be right or we could all be wrong and we end up as nothing more than a pile of ashes. If it's the latter then it's not an issue as I won't know anything about it.

As I said previously for me religion isn't about being right or being better than anyone else (although I would argue it has made me a better person). I respect the right of people to believe in whatever God they choose or to believe that there is no God.

[pollution]

This is .net did you really thin this thread would stay on subject, it's the norm on here.


I agree with you.

Who is in charge of this site?

[CropleyWasGod]

I agree with you.

Who is in charge of this site?

Bunch of pricks, obviously.

[Future17]

Fair enough but I don't think they're mutually exclusive I don't believe that God exists and perhaps it's down to my limitations on how I can explain my thoughts, but I can't think of another way to explain it

A Christian has faith that the being (unsure if that should be 'Being', so if it should, I apologise) that they imagine exists, faith and belief are key words here. Faith is believing in something and having that spiritual conviction, despite a lack of evidence.

God means something different and is something different from person to person. Why is that? It's their interpretation, their imagining of what God is based on what they've read, understood, or been told about Him.

I'm not being disrespectful - at least not purposely - I'm maybe being a little blunt in my description but I think it's a matter of fact word to describe it.

If someone tells me they believe in God, I don't tell them they're wrong - I respect their belief and leave them to it.

Spoiler alert:

If I'm talking to a kid that believes in Santa, they're maybe old enough to have their doubts but still young enough to want to hold on to the belief - maybe even a wee bit worried that if they still believing then they won't get t any presents - in their minds, Santa is real - he exists but we know, as adults who put the presents under the tree , that he only exists in their imagination. A young kid would bet their life on Santa being real - even in the absence of a chimney for him to come down into their house etc. As parents we respect that belief and even nurture it until they reach an age where we have to break it to them that their pals are telling the truth.

I'll point out that I'm not comparing Santa with God, really. Just trying to demonstrate that if something exists in one person's mind but not in another's, then virtually by definition, it's imaginary.

Edit: couple of additional points having re-read your post.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't believe He exists, and I'm saying that there isn't evidence to support the existence of a God.

Also, if tomorrow sometime popped up with verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God, then I'd accept happily that I was wrong. Crucially I'm not telling anyone they're right or wrong about it, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove His existence.



I'm the same with zombies, vampires and ghosts - I don't think any of those things exists, I don't believe in magic, but if someone evidenced their existence, I'd change my mind.

I totally get where you’re coming from, my point was purely about semantics, as the word you used doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It’s as simple as that. :greengrin

Your Santa example is a good one for the purpose of this discussion (re: semantics); you respect the belief of the child by not telling them “Santa doesn’t exist”. By saying “God is imaginary”, you are saying God does not exist. That’s implicit in the definition of that specific word you used and, with that in mind, I can’t agree with the definition you’ve applied. Admittedly I don’t have a perfect definition for the context of this discussion, but the closest I can come up with is “something which can be proven not to exist”.

Anyway, my reading of what you were saying was that you hadn’t intended to say “God doesn’t exist”, so I was trying to help clarify. You’ve clarified that yourself a few times now though, so I’ll get off my semantic high horse and stop confusing matters! :greengrin

[J-C]

The only explanation I have is they have chose to believe in something different from me.

Again it comes down to that word faith. Faith in our own beliefs; one of the many belief systems could be right or we could all be wrong and we end up as nothing more than a pile of ashes. If it's the latter then it's not an issue as I won't know anything about it.

As I said previously for me religion isn't about being right or being better than anyone else (although I would argue it has made me a better person). I respect the right of people to believe in whatever God they choose or to believe that there is no God.


Again what I don't get is IF god created the heaven and earth and made man in his own image, why is there so many various religions and beliefs, surely there would be only one belief, IF god is real why would he allow all these other beliefs to even exist.

Or is it not just a fact that throughout the world the various indigenous people had differing view points and those turned out to be what turned into their beliefs and religions for that part of the world, we here in Britain were Pagan worshippers before the Romans, Jutes, Germanic and Vikings came here . Some days of the week take their names from these people, Saturday ( Saturn ) Thursday ( Thor ) 2 Gods from their beliefs.

[J-C]

I totally get where you’re coming from, my point was purely about semantics, as the word you used doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It’s as simple as that. :greengrin

Your Santa example is a good one for the purpose of this discussion (re: semantics); you respect the belief of the child by not telling them “Santa doesn’t exist”. By saying “God is imaginary”, you are saying God does not exist. That’s implicit in the definition of that specific word you used and, with that in mind, I can’t agree with the definition you’ve applied. Admittedly I don’t have a perfect definition for the context of this discussion, but the closest I can come up with is “something which can be proven not to exist”.

Anyway, my reading of what you were saying was that you hadn’t intended to say “God doesn’t exist”, so I was trying to help clarify. You’ve clarified that yourself a few times now though, so I’ll get off my semantic high horse and stop confusing matters! :greengrin


Until there is conclusive proof that he exists, God cannot exist, the Bible, Koran etc are stories and fables and as such prove nothing, much like any book of fiction is just that. Who's to say Scientology isn't real, many famous celebrities follow that ad I'd go as far as to say their not stupid people. what about Hindu's who believe in gods with multiple arms, is their gods the real ones? There is no proof for any deity or god as they are all beliefs, stories or fables handed down through the age.

[Future17]

Until there is conclusive proof that he exists, God cannot exist

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. It's entirely possible for things to exist without conclusive proof. Prior to the colonisation of the land, which is known as the USA today, by Westerners, you'd struggle to provide conclusive proof of its existence to someone living in Edinburgh at that time. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. It's entirely possible for things to exist without conclusive proof. Prior to the colonisation of the land, which is known as the USA today, by Westerners, you'd struggle to provide conclusive proof of its existence to someone living in Edinburgh at that time. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.

The USA isn't omnipotent though and didn't dictate a wee book telling us all about it.

[CropleyWasGod]

The USA isn't omnipotent though and didn't dictate a wee book telling us all about it.Give him time

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Give him time

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

:greengrin

[J-C]

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. It's entirely possible for things to exist without conclusive proof. Prior to the colonisation of the land, which is known as the USA today, by Westerners, you'd struggle to provide conclusive proof of its existence to someone living in Edinburgh at that time. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.


But it did exist, it was always there just we couldn't see it because of the distance, so we don't need to prove it's existence. Do you think Hercules or the Medusa existed, what about dragons and any other mythical being or creature.

[SRHibs]

There's another way in which a God might be valid, which doesn't involve archaeological evidence. More a logical thing than archaeological, ie something that has to be, logically, to make good sense of everything else. A bit like the square root of minus one (for which there is also no 'evidence', in the sense that you and no doubt Fife-Hibee crave). The square root of minus one is an imaginary number.


I don’t think that’s an argument for God, because it’s recursive. Who created him? That said, I don’t know either way. IMO the most logical stance is agnosticism.

[SRHibs]

But it did exist, it was always there just we couldn't see it because of the distance, so we don't need to prove it's existence. Do you think Hercules or the Medusa existed, what about dragons and any other mythical being or creature.


Those people didn’t know that it didn’t exist. However, if someone theorised about the existence of the USA before we had actually ‘discovered’ it, it would be disingenuous to say that it doesn’t exist, or conversely, that it does. We might not have had the means to prove its existence, just like we don’t have the means to prove or disprove the existence of God (and almost certainly never will).

[IGRIGI]

But it did exist, it was always there just we couldn't see it because of the distance, so we don't need to prove it's existence. Do you think Hercules or the Medusa existed, what about dragons and any other mythical being or creature.

They do exist, it's just we can't see them because of the distance:greengrin

[IGRIGI]

My one for this thread is anti-Semitism.

I've never understood why so many people have an issue with Jews.

[lapsedhibee]

Again what I don't get is IF god created the heaven and earth and made man in his own image, why is there so many various religions and beliefs, surely there would be only one belief, IF god is real why would he allow all these other beliefs to even exist.

"Zwei", "deux", "dos", "due", etc :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

But it did exist, it was always there just we couldn't see it because of the distance, so we don't need to prove it's existence. Do you think Hercules or the Medusa existed, what about dragons and any other mythical being or creature.And perhaps we can't "see" any divine beings... yet.

One of the arguments made against their existence is that there is no scientific evidence. That makes the assumption that our science knows all there is to know; that's quite an arrogant assumption IMO.

If we knew that we had 99% of all scientific knowledge, I would accept that there is no basis for the existence of divine beings. We don't know that, though. For all we know, we have less than 1% of all knowledge.

Until we know everything, we have to keep an open mind IMO.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

It's not a huge leap of faith - throw a ball in the air and it will come back down, try to figure out why and you'll eventually get to the answer : gravity.

Our understanding of gravity isn't particularly clear just now (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity). There might be a different understanding if history was re-run. On a trivial level, there might not be apples, or trees, or Newton, as they were all the products of chance mutations; on a more serious level, if there's anything to Big Bounce theories, physical constants might be different. Though I realise that Ricky Gervais wasn't going back that far. :wink:

[lapsedhibee]

I don’t think that’s an argument for God, because it’s recursive. Who created him? That said, I don’t know either way. IMO the most logical stance is agnosticism.

Think perhaps the currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, which if I understand it aright involves the notion of an initial singularity out of which space and time arose, implies a similar infinite regress.

[Pretty Boy]

Again what I don't get is IF god created the heaven and earth and made man in his own image, why is there so many various religions and beliefs, surely there would be only one belief, IF god is real why would he allow all these other beliefs to even exist.

Or is it not just a fact that throughout the world the various indigenous people had differing view points and those turned out to be what turned into their beliefs and religions for that part of the world, we here in Britain were Pagan worshippers before the Romans, Jutes, Germanic and Vikings came here . Some days of the week take their names from these people, Saturday ( Saturn ) Thursday ( Thor ) 2 Gods from their beliefs.

Free will.

You have inadvertently or otherwise asked one of the most important and problematic philosophical and theological questions.

[J-C]

Free will.

You have inadvertently or otherwise asked one of the most important and problematic philosophical and theological questions.


Not knocking anyone with free will, people can believe in anything they wish, we live in a free world but for me I just don't get religion with all the different variant forms of religions to me shows that in early mankind they attempted to understand why everything is what it is, a higher being seems a natural idea to explain these things.

There are even people who believe aliens visited the earth thousands of years ago and are the gods we speak of as they probably descended from the sky in their crafts. Don't get me started on dinosaurs and the fact they were here millions of years ago before mankind appeared, let the bible explain that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not knocking anyone with free will, people can believe in anything they wish, we live in a free world but for me I just don't get religion with all the different variant forms of religions to me shows that in early mankind they attempted to understand why everything is what it is, a higher being seems a natural idea to explain these things.

There are even people who believe aliens visited the earth thousands of years ago and are the gods we speak of as they probably descended from the sky in their crafts. Don't get me started on dinosaurs and the fact they were here millions of years ago before mankind appeared, let the bible explain that.

One of my favourite stories is of the scientists finally getting to the top of the mountain of knowledge, to find that the theologians had been sitting there for thousands of years.:greengrin

[matty_f]

Our understanding of gravity isn't particularly clear just now (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity). There might be a different understanding if history was re-run. On a trivial level, there might not be apples, or trees, or Newton, as they were all the products of chance mutations; on a more serious level, if there's anything to Big Bounce theories, physical constants might be different. Though I realise that Ricky Gervais wasn't going back that far. :wink:

I'm not talking about re-running history (nor was Ricky Gervais).

[Jay]

Singalong events at the cinema. Why anyone would want to see a film with the audience singing the songs around them is quite beyond me. :confused:

[Future17]

But it did exist, it was always there just we couldn't see it because of the distance, so we don't need to prove it's existence. Do you think Hercules or the Medusa existed, what about dragons and any other mythical being or creature.

But you said things can only exist when there is conclusive proof that they exist. My point is that lots of things have existed for long periods of time without people being aware of them, much less having conclusive proof of their existence.

Someone may well say in 50, 100 or 1000 years, with conclusive proof, that God always existed, we just couldn't see "him". If that were to happen, God won't have moved from non-existence into existence, just as America didn't when people became aware of it.

I don't really know whether any mythological creatures existed but, based on what I do know, I certainly wouldn't be able to state, for certain, that they didn't.

[bingo70]

Singalong events at the cinema. Why anyone would want to see a film with the audience singing the songs around them is quite beyond me. :confused:

God knows :wink:

[Jay]

God knows :wink:

Well without starting a religious debate.....Im unable to ask due to not being able to see him. :greengrin

[J-C]

But you said things can only exist when there is conclusive proof that they exist. My point is that lots of things have existed for long periods of time without people being aware of them, much less having conclusive proof of their existence.

Someone may well say in 50, 100 or 1000 years, with conclusive proof, that God always existed, we just couldn't see "him". If that were to happen, God won't have moved from non-existence into existence, just as America didn't when people became aware of it.

I don't really know whether any mythological creatures existed but, based on what I do know, I certainly wouldn't be able to state, for certain, that they didn't.


USA and the Americas were there of that there is no doubt, it was not a figment of someones imagination or an idea, god is a theory that involves the belief he/she/it created all the heavens and earth, as yet no proof just ancient writings. If proof becomes available I'll be the first to say, well there you go I was wrong until then I'll look upon all religion as made up nonsense( as far as I'm concerned ).

[Future17]

USA and the Americas were there of that there is no doubt, it was not a figment of someones imagination or an idea, god is a theory that involves the belief he/she/it created all the heavens and earth, as yet no proof just ancient writings. If proof becomes available I'll be the first to say, well there you go I was wrong until then I'll look upon all religion as made up nonsense( as far as I'm concerned ).

But there was a time when the existence of America WAS just an idea.

[J-C]

But there was a time when the existence of America WAS just an idea.

You cannot have an idea of something you gave no knowledge of, Columbus wasn't looking for America, he was searching for another route to India, hence the reason the West Indies as named as such. Scientist search for the Higgs Bosun and black holes because theoretically they should exist, they didn't search for these things not knowing what they were looking for. At the time of Columbus they had no knowledge of the size of the earth, Columbus and others at that time didn't go looking for America, they discovered it by accident.

[SRHibs]

My one for this thread is anti-Semitism.

I've never understood why so many people have an issue with Jews.

I don’t think I ever saw a Jewish person in the first 25 years of my life spent in Scotland. Gateshead has a huge community of ultra-orthodox Jews and it’s rather odd.

[Pretty Boy]

I don’t think I ever saw a Jewish person in the first 25 years of my life spent in Scotland. Gateshead has a huge community of ultra-orthodox Jews and it’s rather odd.

Edinburgh's Jewish community was traditionally around Newington and on the Southside due to the location of the Synagogue and the ability to walk there on the Sabbath.

Our Church is organising a visit to the Synagogue with a reciprocal visit back to the Church from a group from the Jewish community. I'm quite looking forward to it as my knowledge of Judaism is patchy at best.

[wpj]

I lived down the road from Stamford Hill in London where thousands of orthodox Jews live, fascinating but they tend not to mingle much with others. Some lovely food shops there though.

[beensaidbefore]

I read there are less than 300,000 Jewish people in the UK. I would have thought a lot more given the amount of discussion there is around the matter of anti-semitism etc. They also have their own police force. Does anyone know if this unique for such a small portion of the overall population?

[Geo_1875]

I don’t think I ever saw a Jewish person in the first 25 years of my life spent in Scotland. Gateshead has a huge community of ultra-orthodox Jews and it’s rather odd.

You possibly did but not realised. They don't all wear "badges".

[Killiehibbie]

I don’t think I ever saw a Jewish person in the first 25 years of my life spent in Scotland. Gateshead has a huge community of ultra-orthodox Jews and it’s rather odd.
They don't all have beards and wear hats. You must've saw Malcolm Rifkind?

[Peevemor]

They don't all have beards and wear hats. You must've saw Malcolm Rifkind?Exactly. I was at school with at least one jew. You wouldn't have known it if she hadn't spoken about it. She also took part in all the Christmas & Easter stuff that went on in schools.

[Killiehibbie]

Exactly. I was at school with at least one jew. You wouldn't have known it if she hadn't spoken about it. She also took part in all the Christmas & Easter stuff that went on in schools.
Hazel Aronson was one of the scariest women it was ever my displeasure to meet:embarrass

[Future17]

You cannot have an idea of something you gave no knowledge of, Columbus wasn't looking for America, he was searching for another route to India, hence the reason the West Indies as named as such. Scientist search for the Higgs Bosun and black holes because theoretically they should exist, they didn't search for these things not knowing what they were looking for. At the time of Columbus they had no knowledge of the size of the earth, Columbus and others at that time didn't go looking for America, they discovered it by accident.

But people had ideas about other lands long before Columbus found those lands. Lands such as those existed at that time despite the lack of conclusive proof.

When a scientific theory first emerges, there are often plenty of people, scientists included, who do not agree with that theory. I would imagine one of the reasons for that lack of belief would be the lack of conclusive proof. Some theories prove to be correct, some do not. For those that are proven to be incorrect, there is conclusive proof of that. However, in the absence of conclusive proof, it is not possible to say with certainty that something is wrong/does not exist etc.

[SRHibs]

You possibly did but not realised. They don't all wear "badges".

Well, you’re right. But of the ultra orthodox variety I certainly hadn’t.

[J-C]

They had no idea the world was as big as it was, they knew of Asia, India and Africa as they travelled by land, Marco Polo being one example in the far east. They knew India had a vast ocean to it's east and they knew there was a vast ocean to the West. Columbus's theory was if he travelled far enough West he should land on the East coast of India. They had no idea the Americas existed until they landed there, you cannot search for something you know nothing about. Columbus didn't go to the Queen and say, give me money for some ships, I'm off to discover America, he was trying to find another way to India without going right round Africa or over land. You have to know what you're looking for before you look.

[SRHibs]

Schrodinger’s America.

[Mibbes Aye]

I read there are less than 300,000 Jewish people in the UK. I would have thought a lot more given the amount of discussion there is around the matter of anti-semitism etc. They also have their own police force. Does anyone know if this unique for such a small portion of the overall population?

I don't think they do have their own police force. They have a well-organised and well-established neighbourhood watch/citizen patrol group that is similar to the Guardian Angels, which gained fame in the US in the 1980s but they have no powers other than that of making a citizen's arrest, same as any citizen. It's simply that they have organised themselves in numbers.

[Mibbes Aye]

Schrodinger’s America.

:tee hee:

[IGRIGI]

People "really really" into works nights out/events.

I realise I'm probably the odd one out rather than the rest, but for me I go to work for 8 hours and leave at 5 on the dot to enjoy actual life.

Don't get me wrong, I get on with my colleagues and don't mind a drink with them every now and again, but we've just had a work event and for some it seemed to be the highlight of their life.


I'll add another entry,people "extremely" passionate about the company they work for.

Now, I fully understand it if the company is doing some life changing work and changing lives, however the North Korean esque levels of worship you get from some people for bog standard companies that wouldn't wait half a second to screw you over is something I'll never get.

[Betty Boop]

Connor McGregor. What a pantomime.

[WeeRussell]

Women wearing footwear they can't walk in.

I know the whole 'heels' thing has been around forever but this past couple of weeks in particular I've noticed women holding me up from getting down the stairs at work due to them physically not being able to walk in a normal motion because of the shoes or boots they have on.

[Jay]

Women wearing footwear they can't walk in.

I know the whole 'heels' thing has been around forever but this past couple of weeks in particular I've noticed women holding me up from getting down the stairs at work due to them physically not being able to walk in a normal motion because of the shoes or boots they have on.

Im guilty of being a people watcher and spend a lot of time waiting for buses in the town. Ive laughed more than once watching women struggle in their shoes. I can almost feel their pain sometimes. Fair entertains me :greengrin. (I live in trainers and if needs must i wear wedges.)

[J-C]

Women wearing footwear they can't walk in.

I know the whole 'heels' thing has been around forever but this past couple of weeks in particular I've noticed women holding me up from getting down the stairs at work due to them physically not being able to walk in a normal motion because of the shoes or boots they have on.


Unfortunately a fashion thing, been going on for decades, I love watching them all tottering along George St, looking beautiful until they attempt to walk along to the next pub, then they're like baby giraffes trying their first steps.

[Bangkok Hibby]

People "really really" into works nights out/events.

I realise I'm probably the odd one out rather than the rest, but for me I go to work for 8 hours and leave at 5 on the dot to enjoy actual life.

Don't get me wrong, I get on with my colleagues and don't mind a drink with them every now and again, but we've just had a work event and for some it seemed to be the highlight of their life.


I'll add another entry,people "extremely" passionate about the company they work for.

Now, I fully understand it if the company is doing some life changing work and changing lives, however the North Korean esque levels of worship you get from some people for bog standard companies that wouldn't wait half a second to screw you over is something I'll never get.

Which leads to sycophantic behaviour. Gives me the dry boak to see a grown man obsequiously toadying to supervisors/managers.

[jonty]

the ****er that put an aeroplane on a treadmill.

[CropleyWasGod]

the ****er that put an aeroplane on a treadmill.Hold on. There's a bike with 100m long spokes up there now. [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[heretoday]

Unfortunately a fashion thing, been going on for decades, I love watching them all tottering along George St, looking beautiful until they attempt to walk along to the next pub, then they're like baby giraffes trying their first steps.

Some of their guys can barely walk too!

[adhibs]

Guys wearing what looks like leggings underneath shorts when out for a run. I've got interest in the health benefits or whatever, you look ridiculous.

[danhibees1875]

Guys wearing what looks like leggings underneath shorts when out for a run. I've got interest in the health benefits or whatever, you look ridiculous.

Crikey - I had no idea people were paying so much attention to my thighs...

[Pretty Boy]

Guys wearing what looks like leggings underneath shorts when out for a run. I've got interest in the health benefits or whatever, you look ridiculous.

Keeps me warm though. When it comes to running I'm all about practicality over style.

[adhibs]

Got to say I'm disappointed. Practicality or not, it's a look more suited to a Jambo fashion sense. John Mcglynn would've been all over this if he was still there.

[Hiber-nation]

Guys wearing what looks like leggings underneath shorts when out for a run. I've got interest in the health benefits or whatever, you look ridiculous.

I've worn them for years for winter running. If it's a choice between shorts/leggings and trackie bottoms (which is actually John McGlynn style) then there's no choice.

[Hibee87]

reused Jokes/comments, especially on social media whats that about :confused:

Things unrelated to the article or video you watch that make no sense along the lines of 'sometimes when im alone I cover myself in glitter and pretend im a snail' or variations of random things'

I follow (not sure why now tbh) NME on facebook, without a doubt someone will comment 'yeah, but what do the Gallagher brothers think of it' so they do publish a lot of Liam and Noel material, and the joke was maybe funny the first time, but for over a year I read it on every single article.

the ever classic 'you must be fun at parties' or 'I hear Harry kane is claiming that goal'

trolls in general on social media i guess.

[bingo70]

Keeps me warm though. When it comes to running I'm all about practicality over style.

Does running not keep your legs warm though?

Same with footballers that wear gloves, bit cold at first but get running around and they soon heat up!

[danhibees1875]

Does running not keep your legs warm though?

Same with footballers that wear gloves, bit cold at first but get running around and they soon heat up!

I don't notice any warming benefits from them - the alternative is boxers and they are looser and chafe.

[Weegreenman]

Grown men in their 40’s who love everything MARVEL. To the point they actually think they are a super hero and they even buy man bags, wrist watches and some go to the extent of getting a tattoo. I wish I loved something that much :cb

[Hibrandenburg]

Grown men in their 40’s who love everything MARVEL. To the point they actually think they are a super hero and they even buy man bags, wrist watches and some go to the extent of getting a tattoo. I wish I loved something that much :cb

Hibs?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Grown men in their 40’s who love everything MARVEL. To the point they actually think they are a super hero and they even buy man bags, wrist watches and some go to the extent of getting a tattoo. I wish I loved something that much :cb

Reminds me of old Jambo men that go about Gorgie/Dalry and probably havnae ventured further with their old school (or just old) Hearts coats on. 😂

[Jay]

Grown men in their 40’s who love everything MARVEL. To the point they actually think they are a super hero and they even buy man bags, wrist watches and some go to the extent of getting a tattoo. I wish I loved something that much :cb

What about women? Not being flippant, i love the marvel films. Havent quite got a tattoo but theres time yet :greengrin:greengrin

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What about women? Not being flippant, i love the marvel films. Havent quite got a tattoo but theres time yet :greengrin:greengrin

Women usually like Marvel in their coffee! ☕

[Lemonade]

Grown men in their 40’s who love everything MARVEL. To the point they actually think they are a super hero and they even buy man bags, wrist watches and some go to the extent of getting a tattoo. I wish I loved something that much :cb

Women who pretend to like Starwars :rolleyes:
same women who pretend to like drinking pints :greengrin

[SRHibs]

Women who pretend to like Starwars :rolleyes:
same women who pretend to like drinking pints :greengrin

My ex was absolutely obsessed with Star Wars. Don’t quite get it myself. On the plus side she used to dress up as Slave Leia.

[Jay]

Women usually like Marvel in their coffee! ☕

I dont drink coffee :na na:

And I like star wars :wink:

[Wilson]

My ex was absolutely obsessed with Star Wars. Don’t quite get it myself. On the plus side she used to dress up as Slave Leia.

And you let her go!

[Hibby70]

And you let her go!

He should have invited Jim Traynor round and he could have had the full experience

[oldbutdim]

My ex was absolutely obsessed with Star Wars. Don’t quite get it myself. On the plus side she used to dress up as Slave Leia.

Not into Star Wars films so I had to google Slave Leia.

I'm very glad that I did.
:aok:

[SRHibs]

And you let her go!

I’m a generous master!

[Peevemor]

I recently installed the latest version of Autocad on the pc in my office. One night last week I tried to open a drawing on my laptop at home but it couldn't read the file saved in the latest version and, not wanting to waste too much time, I downloaded an Autocad reader programme. I was quite surprised that the download was 300 odd MB but even more so that this became 1.3GB+ when unpacked.

20 years ago the full version of Autocad came on 8 floppy disks (less than 12MB). Now I understand that there are a few extra functions so it's normal that the programme files will be bigger, but 250 times bigger for a 'reader'.?

WTF are they writing into software?

[lapsedhibee]

20 years ago the full version of Autocad came on 8 floppy disks (less than 12MB). Now I understand that there are a few extra functions so it's normal that the programme files will be bigger, but 250 times bigger for a 'reader'.?


Top bloatware, that.

[TRC]

I recently installed the latest version of Autocad on the pc in my office. One night last week I tried to open a drawing on my laptop at home but it couldn't read the file saved in the latest version and, not wanting to waste too much time, I downloaded an Autocad reader programme. I was quite surprised that the download was 300 odd MB but even more so that this became 1.3GB+ when unpacked.

20 years ago the full version of Autocad came on 8 floppy disks (less than 12MB). Now I understand that there are a few extra functions so it's normal that the programme files will be bigger, but 250 times bigger for a 'reader'.?

WTF are they writing into software?

Been using Bentley microstation last few years have to say I prefer it. Don't remember it being that clunky and that's the full version with add-ons!!

[bingo70]

Dr who.

Absolute drivel. I sort of get why it was popular when it first came out and sci-fi was new but I don’t understand how anyone can still find it enjoyable now.

[KingFranck]

Big Brother - why is it so popular
X Factor - same

[Bangkok Hibby]

Big Brother - why is it so popular
X Factor - same

All reality tv. Its popularity just reinforces the increasing truth that humanity is descending into utter ****wittedness.

[O'Rourke3]

That since everybody is different what they watch, listen to, laugh at, get, ignore or endorse works for them not necessarily you.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

[Jay]

Dr who.

Absolute drivel. I sort of get why it was popular when it first came out and sci-fi was new but I don’t understand how anyone can still find it enjoyable now.

You wash your mouth out!! :slipper:

[bingo70]

You wash your mouth out!! :slipper:

Cmon Mrs S, it’s no the 1960’s or whenever it was you started watching it now. Move with the times.

😜

[MSK]

Wrestling

[Hermit Crab]

Wrestling


Completely fake, made up male farm animal excrement. People actually pay to go and watch that rubbish. Incredible!

[pollution]

Dr who.

Absolute drivel. I sort of get why it was popular when it first came out and sci-fi was new but I don’t understand how anyone can still find it enjoyable now.


Agreed. A BBC fixation, like James Bond.

In fact, why do the BBC and the media in general revere a privately funded commercial operation that is the Bond series?

They give unlimited adverting of the films by constant reference to Aston Martin Daniel Craig etc etc

Very strange...

[Wilson]

Wrestling

Try it with the wife.

[Peevemor]

Agreed. A BBC fixation, like James Bond.

In fact, why do the BBC and the media in general revere a privately funded commercial operation that is the Bond series?

They give unlimited adverting of the films by constant reference to Aston Martin Daniel Craig etc etc

Very strange...


"Doctor Who has been broadcast internationally outside of the United Kingdom since 1964, a year after the show first aired. As of 1 January 2013, the modern series has been or is currently broadcast weekly in more than 50 countries.

Doctor Who is one of the five top grossing titles for BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial arm. BBC Worldwide CEO John Smith has said that Doctor Who is one of a small number of "Superbrands" which Worldwide will promote heavily."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who#International

[bingo70]

"Doctor Who has been broadcast internationally outside of the United Kingdom since 1964, a year after the show first aired. As of 1 January 2013, the modern series has been or is currently broadcast weekly in more than 50 countries.

Doctor Who is one of the five top grossing titles for BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial arm. BBC Worldwide CEO John Smith has said that Doctor Who is one of a small number of "Superbrands" which Worldwide will promote heavily."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who#International

It’s still ***** 😉

[Peevemor]

It’s still ***** 😉

I couldn't tell you, I haven't watched it in more than 30 years. I know it's shown across here though.

[Jay]

Cmon Mrs S, it’s no the 1960’s or whenever it was you started watching it now. Move with the times.

😜

I was too scared to watch it when i was wee. The music and titles had me leaving the room :greengrin
David Tennant and Matt Smiths time was fantastic. It did go downhill a bit but Jodie Whittaker is worth watching.

[oldbutdim]

Try it with the wife.

I'm not certain if that invitation is open to us all or not.

Before I commit, I'd appreciate if you put up her picture, and statistics please.

[Wilson]

I'm not certain if that invitation is open to us all or not.

Before I commit, I'd appreciate if you put up her picture, and statistics please.

Only if you're partial to Boston Crabs.

[O'Rourke3]

Agreed. A BBC fixation, like James Bond.

In fact, why do the BBC and the media in general revere a privately funded commercial operation that is the Bond series?

They give unlimited adverting of the films by constant reference to Aston Martin Daniel Craig etc etc

Very strange...All the Bond films are only shown on ITV?

Sent from my KFTBWI using Tapatalk

[Scouse Hibee]

All the Bond films are only shown on ITV?

Sent from my KFTBWI using Tapatalk

😂Since 1975

[heretoday]

We used to go about the playground doing dalek impressions back in the sixties. It was a pretty tacky show that folk grew out of.
Now, however, the Beeb talks of Dr Who like it's high drama or something.

[MSK]

Try it with the wife.Thats why I dont like it

[One Day Soon]

What a thread. What an incredible thread.

All reality TV. It's ****. And the last thing it actually is is 'reality'.

[Scouse Hibee]

Vegan Steak

[My_Wife_Camille]

Black Friday/Black Week. Uncle's Day cards. Etc. Just **** off with your marketing pish.
Self appointed Forum Police here saying this should be in pet peeves not things you don't get :cb

[J-C]

Self appointed Forum Police here saying this should be in pet peeves not things you don't get :cb

Bit of both no.

[My_Wife_Camille]

Bit of both no.
Not really, no. He said it himself in his post - ‘marketing’. He might not like it but he definitely gets what it’s about! :cb

[Pete]

Adults going mad for “must have” items.

I was in Aldi for ten minutes and in that space of time I heard people talking about and asking staff to phone them if they got delivery of a toy carrot. People were gathered round the empty shelf where they once were and taking photos. Apparently there were people queueing for hours and fighting over this toy in other stores.

I really do despair sometimes. What the **** is wrong with people?

[Scouse Hibee]

Adults going mad for “must have” items.

I was in Aldi for ten minutes and in that space of time I heard people talking about and asking staff to phone them if they got delivery of a toy carrot. People were gathered round the empty shelf where they once were and taking photos. Apparently there were people queueing for hours and fighting over this toy in other stores.

I really do despair sometimes. What the **** is wrong with people?

No one wants their kid to be disappointed on Christmas morning.though granted it’s probably more the case of the parent wanting it than the kid.

[hfc rd]

The amount of people that love Nando’s particularly my Mrs. It’s not bad but I don’t see the huge love in that some people have with this place?

[Godsahibby]

Low profile tires, will never make that mistake again!!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The Reluctant Landlord on SKY1, what a load of dross! 😠

[blackpoolhibs]

The Reluctant Landlord on SKY1, what a load of dross! 😠

What are you on about man, surely you laughed when he set himself on fire in the kitchen, that came right out of the blue, its up there with del boy falling through the hatch. :wink:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What are you on about man, surely you laughed when he set himself on fire in the kitchen, that came right out of the blue, its up there with del boy falling through the hatch. :wink:

The guy can be quite funny on panel shows but, this, dearie me! 😒

[calumhibee1]

The amount of people that love Nando’s particularly my Mrs. It’s not bad but I don’t see the huge love in that some people have with this place?

Frozen McCain chips, microwaved mashed potatoes.. the chickens decent enough but I just do not see the attraction like yourself. None of its inedible, it’s just so, so average. And because of that also hugely overpriced.

[blackpoolhibs]

The guy can be quite funny on panel shows but, this, dearie me! 😒

Aye, he's not my favourite comic by a long way, but i can find him mildly funny on some panel shows.

You are right about that pish sit com, every gag is telegraphed, and the others in the show are even less funny than him.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Aye, he's not my favourite comic by a long way, but i can find him mildly funny on some panel shows.

You are right about that pish sit com, every gag is telegraphed, and the others in the show are even less funny than him.

Did you know he was raised in the Hindu faith? 😉

[blackpoolhibs]

Did you know he was raised in the Hindu faith? 😉


:faf: Really, i dont think i've heard him mention it? :greengrin

[Godsahibby]

Avocados

[RyeSloan]

Avocados

With you on that! Horrible things that are either unripe or too ripe. They also appear to be mostly skin and stone rather than anything edible.

[WeeRussell]

The amount of people that love Nando’s particularly my Mrs. It’s not bad but I don’t see the huge love in that some people have with this place?

Agree entirely.

[Hibrandenburg]

Agree entirely.

Here too. Nandos can only be seen as quality food if you're used to McDiarrhoea, frozen pizza or any other **** on a plate that is mass produced.