Losing our religion (From The Argus)

That's funny - the BBC are reporting Norwich (42.5%) as the most Godless

WRONG! Read the numbers. It's Norwich that gets the prize.

On the first day man created god...

It's NORWICH NOT BRIGHTON, how can you get this very basic and widely-reported fact wrong Ben?

@ Bill McIlroy:

What is enlightening about believing in nothing?

"I think the church must now look at how they can be more welcoming to those people."

Don't you find it a bit worrying that you have to "sell" your religion?

Writing's on the wall. 1000s of years of brainwashing eventually falls to popular education.

St Bartholomew's Church looms over Brighton!!! Looms ???? Drama.....

Still too many out there living with their imaginary friend...

Someone once claimed "Religion is a mental disease"...

Ben, you blundering baboon - you got it wrong again!

Being 'religious' means following a specific religion.. I am not religious.

But if you asked people in Brighton if they felt they had a 'spiritual' dimension to their lives I think the number would be much, much higher. Brighton was one of the centres of the new age movement, and there are still plenty of 'spiritual' people, classes and events in Brighton.

I agree we are the most 'enlightened' in that many people reject the dogma of religion, but that doesnt mean as the vicar says that there is a spiritual hunger.

Looks like Brighton looms over St Bartholomews in the photo

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-20685778

TV news says its Norwich?

God is Love

No god get used to it. Priests abusing little boys, churches against women, The bible an horrific tale of slaughter. So who want religion . There are so many gods about 2000 so which one should be believe in.
Get real.

LISTEN TO THE PROPHET DAVE ALLEN HE BELIEVES............
....................
........First question they ask, what do you know about God? I didn't know anything about God, Who? "God!" Who's God? "God, you do not know who God is? Sister! Sister! We have an Atheist here!" "Let me tell you little boy, God is, God was, and God always shall be..." What? "What he is!" What was that? "He is the father! He is the sun! He is the holy ghost! He is 3 in 1". "Do you understand?" I'm four years of age, why wouldn't I? Greatest Theological question in the world, three people in one... Where is he? "He is here!" Where? I can't see him. "That doesn't mean because you can't see him he's not here". It doesn't? He's in the cupboard? "He's not in the cupboard! God doesn't go into cupboards!" He's under the stairs? "He's not under the stairs! He is here, with us now. He's upstairs he's downstairs he's outside he's inside he's everywhere." He's a big bloke, why can't I see him? And I'm asked "Do you love him?" I don't know, I've never seen him. "God loves you and he wants your love, but if you do not give him your love he will cast you into ever lasting flame". What? "He will cast you into ever lasting flame, have you ever burnt yourself? Yes I burnt myself on a Candle. "What was it like?" It was sore. "Can you imagine that pain all over your body? That's what will happen to you if you do not love god! What do you think of that?" I love him!

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/opinion/commen
t/4687976.Is_Brighto
n_and_Hove_really_Br
itain_s_most_Godless
_city_/


2 years ago they were writing the same irrelevant nonsense

I wish we had taken the title. Now that would have been something to be truly proud of.

Norwich - - Nickers off ready when I come home'

Now wonder it gets the prize.

Brighton will be renamed Sodom and suffer its fate...

So Brighton & Hove (or Norwich) is Britain's most godless city....

and what?

Will there be street parties to celebrate? Will Christian* missionaries descend on the city to convert us?

Well, no. What it should mean is that some churches get closed; just as if we were Britain's most childless city, some schools would get closed.

Seems a lot of fuss about nothing very much.


*Other religions are available.

Let us all hope that with one particular religion on the increase in our city, we don't get any extremists like in luton and london etc. Hopefully not.

Brighton... Britain's second most rational city!

On the first day .God created Brighton and made it heaven on earth .Then the politicians/druggies
/streetdrinkers/squa
tters/demonstrators:
hens/stags and finally the Greens took over and carried on the good work.God decided enough is enough I am out of here.

Brighton and Hove = 42.4% No Religion.
Norwich = 42.5%

But Jedi in Brighton is 1% versus 0.6% in Norwich. This may be counted as an alternative religion on the census but in reality it's really a joke response or moral code by non-religious people.

So I think Brighton should win the enviable title of most Godless, most enlightened city/town in England/Wales (and most certainly UK).

Abrahamic monotheism is about THE most divisive, hypocritical and evil mind control system ever to plague humanity with it's threats and false promises.

Opium of the people or recycled Atenist soap opera, take your pick. It's manipulated generations of deluded followers to wreck this beautiful planet in the name of it's flawed doctrines.

From renaissance scientists to women seeking equality, it's continued it's unabated mission to claim unchallenged moral certitude and persecute or kill those who oppose it's brand of 'universal love'.

When, at every turn each blustering faux 'fact' has been definitively dismissed as the insane claptrap it actually is, still this sad saga continues, overpopulation, religious strife covering land grabs and child abuse notwithstanding. The poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.

So churches are empty? Good, bulldoze them. We need the space to house all the children the 'go forth and multiply' commandment has produced.

I know several decent folk who've come here from the middle east specifically to escape the fascistic mullahs and their murderous acolytes.

I've met thoroughly decent folk who take genuine comfort from their beliefs and they'd be decent under any social system. Equally I've come across many many who seem not just to suffer from their beliefs, but are insistant on spreading that suffering as widely as possible - and they'd be just as horrid in any form of society.

So keep your imaginary friends, thanks all the same. Don't bother me, and I won't bother you. The cycle of life ends in death. You're not going to live forever, get used to it.

Peace!

I think you might have some issues !

"However, the vicar of St Peter’s Church, Brighton, said today’s figures did not represent what he has experienced over the past few years.
...
I don’t buy into this belief that religion is on an inevitable decline and will be all but gone by 2050.
I wouldn’t be doing my job if I believed that. "

To paraphrase - local vicar admits if he actually took any notice of the facts he wouldn't be doing his job!

Nuff said.

dawind wrote:
LISTEN TO THE PROPHET DAVE ALLEN HE BELIEVES............

....................

........First question they ask, what do you know about God? I didn't know anything about God, Who? "God!" Who's God? "God, you do not know who God is? Sister! Sister! We have an Atheist here!" "Let me tell you little boy, God is, God was, and God always shall be..." What? "What he is!" What was that? "He is the father! He is the sun! He is the holy ghost! He is 3 in 1". "Do you understand?" I'm four years of age, why wouldn't I? Greatest Theological question in the world, three people in one... Where is he? "He is here!" Where? I can't see him. "That doesn't mean because you can't see him he's not here". It doesn't? He's in the cupboard? "He's not in the cupboard! God doesn't go into cupboards!" He's under the stairs? "He's not under the stairs! He is here, with us now. He's upstairs he's downstairs he's outside he's inside he's everywhere." He's a big bloke, why can't I see him? And I'm asked "Do you love him?" I don't know, I've never seen him. "God loves you and he wants your love, but if you do not give him your love he will cast you into ever lasting flame". What? "He will cast you into ever lasting flame, have you ever burnt yourself? Yes I burnt myself on a Candle. "What was it like?" It was sore. "Can you imagine that pain all over your body? That's what will happen to you if you do not love god! What do you think of that?" I love him!

Classic.

I love Brighton & the less religious it is the better! No-one preaching inequality & misogyny, no-one trying to impose their beliefs on anyone else & getting really p!ssed off when people refuse to cow-tow, no-one insisting that they are right & everyone else is wrong, no-one saying this should be banned or that should be banned because their fairy sky friend says so...

juleshove wrote:
I think you might have some issues !

Yeah, could probably do with a cuppa! It just...you know, when a bunch of... oh, never mind!

surely if god is omnipotent and omnipresent none of us are godless? or does he/she pick and choose

St. Wilfred was beaten up and sent packing when he journeyed to this neck of the woods spouting his supernaturalist claptrap in the 7th Century.

We have a more chilled method now: patient, reasoned debunking of Christianity and its attendant patriarchal, homophobic, violent, nonsensical dogmas.

Archibald Coates and his hooray-Henry London chums must quietly know in their heart of hearts that St. Peter's is going to make a lovely community arts centre one day in the not-too-distant future.

I religiously avoid church.

Thank God I'm an Atheist

Nitrous_McBread

St Peters is actually thriving now, unlike a few years ago. Things are going in the opposite direction to what you predict.

bonobofitz wrote:
Brighton and Hove = 42.4% No Religion.
Norwich = 42.5%

But Jedi in Brighton is 1% versus 0.6% in Norwich. This may be counted as an alternative religion on the census but in reality it's really a joke response or moral code by non-religious people.

So I think Brighton should win the enviable title of most Godless, most enlightened city/town in England/Wales (and most certainly UK).

No your wrong
I would say I have a religious understanding but I stated Jedi on my form as I didn't want to be pidgin holed as a Christian, as I am not.
I also believe we are not the only sentient life forms in the Universe but I'm not a green Lucas either. I could have thought of 3 or 4 questions that would have been better on the census form that would have been far more informative.

onerob wrote:
Nitrous_McBread

St Peters is actually thriving now, unlike a few years ago. Things are going in the opposite direction to what you predict.

I'd be intrigued to hear your definition of "thriving".

When Coates and his Holy Trinity Brompton chums moved down here wholesale from ultra-moneyed-up Kensington in 2009, all wrapped up in the armour of god and some rather dodgy cashmere jumpers, his head full of curls and homophobic Alpha alleluias, the keynote speech he gave was titled (with the stunning arrogance that must come with believing the entire universe was created with you in mind) "How To Win A City For God".

So let's take stock. Has the city 'been won for God'? No. Have the numbers professing themselves free of religion actually increased? Yes.

This man must therefore very reasonably consider the mission he outlined for himself an abject failure.

Reading through these comments, I think there's a few points worth making.
What strikes me is how various commentators are apparently so certain about the one thing in life than can be neither proved, nor disproved.
In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins, the big daddy of the ‘New Atheists’ claims he is 99% certain that God doesn’t exist (which technically makes him ‘agnostic’ but hey... that's by the by). But, whether Dawkins is 99% certain of his own belief is neither here nor there. His viewpoint is merely his opinion because ‘science’ in and of itself, is unable to answer such a question. He still has a 50% chance of being wrong. In fact, in debates on the subjects of ‘The God Delusion’, and ‘Has Science Buried God?’ poor Richard got an **** whooping from John Lennox both times (Oxford Uni’ Prof’ of Mathematics and Philosopher of Science). Chris Hitchens fared slightly better against Lennox in debate about whether ‘Atheism is Good for Europe’, but only because he had a better grasp of biblical scripture than Dawkins. That said, I’m afraid he roundly lost the debate.

In debates with William Lane Craig (Prof’ of Philosophy’ and leading American Christian apologist) Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, fell short again. Whilst many of the objections made against holding a ‘theistic worldview’ are/were entirely valid, within a philosophical context the objections made proved to be more emotively driven than logically, and rationally based. As it goes, if these debates were anything to go by, according to the laws of logic and reason, ‘belief in God’ is the more rational and logical worldview.

So, my message to those of you happy Christian mockers 'n bashers who 'don't believe in God’, by all means, hold your belief as fervently and passionately as you like but remember:
a) There still remains a 50% chance you’re wrong and the other guy is right.
b) Just like the other guy, you will never be able to empirically prove your case.
c) You can’t make a case FOR atheism by ‘attacking’ and undermining ‘theism’, nor conclude ‘there is no God’ on the basis of how the average muddled Christian behaves. If you’re going to make a credible case for any ideology you believe in, at least let it be on its own merits.

Meanwhile, my own observation is that Brighton is indeed an ‘ungodly’ city; in as much as its overrun with too many people who place themselves at the centre of the universe whilst believing they themselves are ‘gods’. And, that includes a large number of Brighton’s professing Christians.

Cheers

can we still celebrate Christmas and Easter even if we are ungodly?

ARealBessie wrote:
Reading through these comments, I think there's a few points worth making.
What strikes me is how various commentators are apparently so certain about the one thing in life than can be neither proved, nor disproved.
In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins, the big daddy of the ‘New Atheists’ claims he is 99% certain that God doesn’t exist (which technically makes him ‘agnostic’ but hey... that's by the by). But, whether Dawkins is 99% certain of his own belief is neither here nor there. His viewpoint is merely his opinion because ‘science’ in and of itself, is unable to answer such a question. He still has a 50% chance of being wrong. In fact, in debates on the subjects of ‘The God Delusion’, and ‘Has Science Buried God?’ poor Richard got an **** whooping from John Lennox both times (Oxford Uni’ Prof’ of Mathematics and Philosopher of Science). Chris Hitchens fared slightly better against Lennox in debate about whether ‘Atheism is Good for Europe’, but only because he had a better grasp of biblical scripture than Dawkins. That said, I’m afraid he roundly lost the debate.

In debates with William Lane Craig (Prof’ of Philosophy’ and leading American Christian apologist) Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, fell short again. Whilst many of the objections made against holding a ‘theistic worldview’ are/were entirely valid, within a philosophical context the objections made proved to be more emotively driven than logically, and rationally based. As it goes, if these debates were anything to go by, according to the laws of logic and reason, ‘belief in God’ is the more rational and logical worldview.

So, my message to those of you happy Christian mockers 'n bashers who 'don't believe in God’, by all means, hold your belief as fervently and passionately as you like but remember:
a) There still remains a 50% chance you’re wrong and the other guy is right.
b) Just like the other guy, you will never be able to empirically prove your case.
c) You can’t make a case FOR atheism by ‘attacking’ and undermining ‘theism’, nor conclude ‘there is no God’ on the basis of how the average muddled Christian behaves. If you’re going to make a credible case for any ideology you believe in, at least let it be on its own merits.

Meanwhile, my own observation is that Brighton is indeed an ‘ungodly’ city; in as much as its overrun with too many people who place themselves at the centre of the universe whilst believing they themselves are ‘gods’. And, that includes a large number of Brighton’s professing Christians.

Cheers

I am keen to point out that you are wrong on a number of levels.

As time is short lets just take a look at your comment ' In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.'

Anyone who has studied basic maths and grasped the concept of statistical probability will know that your comment is nonsense. Accordingly we can assume there is a very high probability that the rest of your post is ridiculous as well.

Perhaps you could review, correct and resubmit, or alternatively retract it? Many thanks

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:

ARealBessie wrote:
Reading through these comments, I think there's a few points worth making.
What strikes me is how various commentators are apparently so certain about the one thing in life than can be neither proved, nor disproved.
In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins, the big daddy of the ‘New Atheists’ claims he is 99% certain that God doesn’t exist (which technically makes him ‘agnostic’ but hey... that's by the by). But, whether Dawkins is 99% certain of his own belief is neither here nor there. His viewpoint is merely his opinion because ‘science’ in and of itself, is unable to answer such a question. He still has a 50% chance of being wrong. In fact, in debates on the subjects of ‘The God Delusion’, and ‘Has Science Buried God?’ poor Richard got an **** whooping from John Lennox both times (Oxford Uni’ Prof’ of Mathematics and Philosopher of Science). Chris Hitchens fared slightly better against Lennox in debate about whether ‘Atheism is Good for Europe’, but only because he had a better grasp of biblical scripture than Dawkins. That said, I’m afraid he roundly lost the debate.

In debates with William Lane Craig (Prof’ of Philosophy’ and leading American Christian apologist) Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, fell short again. Whilst many of the objections made against holding a ‘theistic worldview’ are/were entirely valid, within a philosophical context the objections made proved to be more emotively driven than logically, and rationally based. As it goes, if these debates were anything to go by, according to the laws of logic and reason, ‘belief in God’ is the more rational and logical worldview.

So, my message to those of you happy Christian mockers 'n bashers who 'don't believe in God’, by all means, hold your belief as fervently and passionately as you like but remember:
a) There still remains a 50% chance you’re wrong and the other guy is right.
b) Just like the other guy, you will never be able to empirically prove your case.
c) You can’t make a case FOR atheism by ‘attacking’ and undermining ‘theism’, nor conclude ‘there is no God’ on the basis of how the average muddled Christian behaves. If you’re going to make a credible case for any ideology you believe in, at least let it be on its own merits.

Meanwhile, my own observation is that Brighton is indeed an ‘ungodly’ city; in as much as its overrun with too many people who place themselves at the centre of the universe whilst believing they themselves are ‘gods’. And, that includes a large number of Brighton’s professing Christians.

Cheers

I am keen to point out that you are wrong on a number of levels.

As time is short lets just take a look at your comment ' In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.'

Anyone who has studied basic maths and grasped the concept of statistical probability will know that your comment is nonsense. Accordingly we can assume there is a very high probability that the rest of your post is ridiculous as well.

Perhaps you could review, correct and resubmit, or alternatively retract it? Many thanks

I retract nothing. By all means, prove me wrong.

I call on the local council to stick to order 66 and wipe out the last few remaining jedi.
St Barts would make an excellant climbing wall.

ARealBessie wrote:
Reading through these comments, I think there's a few points worth making.
What strikes me is how various commentators are apparently so certain about the one thing in life than can be neither proved, nor disproved.
In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins, the big daddy of the ‘New Atheists’ claims he is 99% certain that God doesn’t exist (which technically makes him ‘agnostic’ but hey... that's by the by). But, whether Dawkins is 99% certain of his own belief is neither here nor there. His viewpoint is merely his opinion because ‘science’ in and of itself, is unable to answer such a question. He still has a 50% chance of being wrong. In fact, in debates on the subjects of ‘The God Delusion’, and ‘Has Science Buried God?’ poor Richard got an **** whooping from John Lennox both times (Oxford Uni’ Prof’ of Mathematics and Philosopher of Science). Chris Hitchens fared slightly better against Lennox in debate about whether ‘Atheism is Good for Europe’, but only because he had a better grasp of biblical scripture than Dawkins. That said, I’m afraid he roundly lost the debate.

In debates with William Lane Craig (Prof’ of Philosophy’ and leading American Christian apologist) Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, fell short again. Whilst many of the objections made against holding a ‘theistic worldview’ are/were entirely valid, within a philosophical context the objections made proved to be more emotively driven than logically, and rationally based. As it goes, if these debates were anything to go by, according to the laws of logic and reason, ‘belief in God’ is the more rational and logical worldview.

So, my message to those of you happy Christian mockers 'n bashers who 'don't believe in God’, by all means, hold your belief as fervently and passionately as you like but remember:
a) There still remains a 50% chance you’re wrong and the other guy is right.
b) Just like the other guy, you will never be able to empirically prove your case.
c) You can’t make a case FOR atheism by ‘attacking’ and undermining ‘theism’, nor conclude ‘there is no God’ on the basis of how the average muddled Christian behaves. If you’re going to make a credible case for any ideology you believe in, at least let it be on its own merits.

Meanwhile, my own observation is that Brighton is indeed an ‘ungodly’ city; in as much as its overrun with too many people who place themselves at the centre of the universe whilst believing they themselves are ‘gods’. And, that includes a large number of Brighton’s professing Christians.

Cheers

Since atheism is the lack of a belief in a god and agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of a god, they are not therefore mutually exclusive. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist. I don't believe that a god exists, but I also can't know.

ie, your points a,b,c

a. Just because something is either true or not, does not stack the probabilities of either case at 50%. I claim there is an invisible unicorn living under the surface of the planet Venus. That is either true or false, but not 50% likely to be either.

b. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Making a claim that a supernatural omnipotent being created the universe is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. Atheism is about belief not asserting a claim.

c. Not sure what you mean here? Seems to be pointing at other Christians claiming they are 'muddled' whilst they would point at you saying you are muddled. The age old they are not 'true Christians' thing.

ARealBessie wrote:
Reading through these comments, I think there's a few points worth making.
What strikes me is how various commentators are apparently so certain about the one thing in life than can be neither proved, nor disproved.
In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins, the big daddy of the ‘New Atheists’ claims he is 99% certain that God doesn’t exist (which technically makes him ‘agnostic’ but hey... that's by the by). But, whether Dawkins is 99% certain of his own belief is neither here nor there. His viewpoint is merely his opinion because ‘science’ in and of itself, is unable to answer such a question. He still has a 50% chance of being wrong. In fact, in debates on the subjects of ‘The God Delusion’, and ‘Has Science Buried God?’ poor Richard got an **** whooping from John Lennox both times (Oxford Uni’ Prof’ of Mathematics and Philosopher of Science). Chris Hitchens fared slightly better against Lennox in debate about whether ‘Atheism is Good for Europe’, but only because he had a better grasp of biblical scripture than Dawkins. That said, I’m afraid he roundly lost the debate.

In debates with William Lane Craig (Prof’ of Philosophy’ and leading American Christian apologist) Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, fell short again. Whilst many of the objections made against holding a ‘theistic worldview’ are/were entirely valid, within a philosophical context the objections made proved to be more emotively driven than logically, and rationally based. As it goes, if these debates were anything to go by, according to the laws of logic and reason, ‘belief in God’ is the more rational and logical worldview.

So, my message to those of you happy Christian mockers 'n bashers who 'don't believe in God’, by all means, hold your belief as fervently and passionately as you like but remember:
a) There still remains a 50% chance you’re wrong and the other guy is right.
b) Just like the other guy, you will never be able to empirically prove your case.
c) You can’t make a case FOR atheism by ‘attacking’ and undermining ‘theism’, nor conclude ‘there is no God’ on the basis of how the average muddled Christian behaves. If you’re going to make a credible case for any ideology you believe in, at least let it be on its own merits.

Meanwhile, my own observation is that Brighton is indeed an ‘ungodly’ city; in as much as its overrun with too many people who place themselves at the centre of the universe whilst believing they themselves are ‘gods’. And, that includes a large number of Brighton’s professing Christians.

Cheers

Believing yourself to be your own god was one of the central teachings of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan.

Godless = More Intelligent
Spiritual = HIPPIES

Brighton is the hippie capital of the UK.

FC wrote:
Godless = More Intelligent
Spiritual = HIPPIES

Brighton is the hippie capital of the UK.

True. Athiest Brightonians might be feeling very pleased with themselves right now (what's new?), but in place of religion what we have is a load of ning-nang, jingle-jangle, dream-catching, pass-me-the crystals, homeothapy worshipping, weak-bladdered, vegetarian-shoe wearing arses....

The Church of England is to be banned, by law, from peforming same sex marriages.
By taking the stance it has the end of the organisation as any kind of credible influence, except for a few die hards, is gone.
Let's hope that shortly we will see the unelected, all male, bishops removed from their privileged seats in the House of Lords.
When that is done we will be one more step along the road to become a proper, modern, civilised country.

Most Godless place - and - what a coincidence - some of highest rates of alcoholism, violence, drug abuse in whole of Europe.


Religion doesnt STOP these things - but a wholesale, reactionary, ill-thought rejection of anything even associated with religion WILL.


Thats because most of these people who reject religion dont simply do it because its not for them, or they dont believe it - they do it much as a teenager deliberately does the opposite to everything any adult suggests.


Religion carries notions of compassion, charity, and caring for fellow human.


Too many of those who are described above think only of the latest iphones / being 'hipster cool', and getting what they want - and to them, religion is to blame for EVERYTHING in their lives that didnt go exactly as they want.


If that sounds like the behaviour of a teenager, thats because it is.....


And no, Im not religious - but I believe in tolerance.

Meant to say a wholehearted rejection of religion in the way I described above will CAUSE the negative things I mentioned (not that it will stop them!). Oops!

http://www.google.co
.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=e
n&sa=N&tbo=d&biw=119
2&bih=552&tbm=isch&t
bnid=2UsWTR5lLfL9kM:
&imgrefurl=http://al
ittlebitleft.wordpre
ss.com/2012/05/08/th
e-proof-that-god-exi
sts-is-the-same-proo
f-that-spiderman-exi
sts/&docid=Vtst23Tdq
ZunRM&imgurl=http://
alittlebitleft.files
.wordpress.com/2012/
05/proofgodexists.jp
g&w=960&h=632&ei=otL
JUKf9DaTJ0AX-q4CgCw&
zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=6
5&sig=11299863093632
1041038&page=1&tbnh=
149&tbnw=227&start=0
&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,
r:0,s:0,i:83&tx=194&
ty=93

Presumably there won't be many parents going to their toddlers nativity play then. That's good

God either exists or doesn't. There's no way to know so I don't really care either way

Presumably there won't be many parents going to their toddlers nativity play then. That's good

God either exists or doesn't. There's no way to know so I don't really care either way

Joshiman wrote:
On the first day .God created Brighton and made it heaven on earth .Then the politicians/druggies

/streetdrinkers/squa

tters/demonstrators:

hens/stags and finally the Greens took over and carried on the good work.God decided enough is enough I am out of here.

brilliant!

Of course we know that women should not be priests as the priests only want themselves to wear dresses. Marriage is for two people to decide not anyone else to decide. This wonderful so called god is letting dictators killing people by the millions so why does this god not intervene and please if he exists I would ask him to please send down some bread for the starving,or is his bakery on strike.

for a city where 42% don't have a religion theres a hell of alot of people buying mindless junk to give each other to celebrate something they don't believe excists,why don't all the atheists and haters of religion have your own gift giving ceremony at another time of year and leave the rest of us to celebrate our beliefs

bluemonday wrote:
for a city where 42% don't have a religion theres a hell of alot of people buying mindless junk to give each other to celebrate something they don't believe excists,why don't all the atheists and haters of religion have your own gift giving ceremony at another time of year and leave the rest of us to celebrate our beliefs

This short bout of ill-punctuated whining doesn't take into account that it was Christians who came along and usurped the pagan festival of Saturnalia in the first place.

bluemonday wrote:
for a city where 42% don't have a religion theres a hell of alot of people buying mindless junk to give each other to celebrate something they don't believe excists,why don't all the atheists and haters of religion have your own gift giving ceremony at another time of year and leave the rest of us to celebrate our beliefs

Christmas is a secular holiday.
Like Easter, established celebrations, hijacked for convenience by Christians.

I don't believe in the Norse god of thunder, but I still call the day after Wednesday Thursday. (Named after Thor)

Good really proud to live in Brighton. Now lets get rid of the Greens and it will be perfect.

ps if you are black gay and a woman the church are not very welcoming Mr Chisnall.Why does the church judge and exclude human beings? Join the Humanist Society if you need to belong to something otherwise do what you wish with your private parts and don't worry about what colour you are?

pps. Oh yes and I agree we should get rid of this lot as well the "ning-nang, jingle-jangle, dream-catching, pass-me-the crystals, homeothapy worshipping, weak-bladdered, vegetarian-shoe wearing arses...." well said...!

I used to be a fairly vocal Unbeliever years ago, and like many people just wanted to live and experience everything life had to offer...all that changed when I had a direct encounter with the living G-d, and experienced first-hand two things....the knowledge that my sins had been forgiven, and what I call a 'G-d awareness' kicked in...by that I mean from that time onwards I knew the presence/awareness of the reality of G-d all day long. He permeated my consciousness.

Ok so many people will have a chuckle or think I must have been brain-washed or injecting something...that's fine it goes with the territory...but I have come to see first hand that even many of the scoffers and the sceptics reach moments in their lives when they can't grasp the point of their existence and long for a reality that gives a deeper sense of purpose and provides the hope that this life is not the end.

The thing is that G-d has made Himself known...and He is found by those that seek Him.

Why all the aggression aimed towards the Christian church in the UK? It is a weak, declining and (these days) harmless institution. A bit of a soft target really, there are more worrying religious trends in our society these days. You may not believe, agree or follow Christian principles, but you should at least respect its significance in making the country the affluent, civilised, tolerant nation it is today.

I read some of the comments above, then got bored.
How about we all do the usual Brighton and Hove approach - those that believe, carry on - those that don't, carry on.
Neither side tries to convert the other - we all live in peace and harmony....and make up our own minds.

ourcoalition wrote:
I read some of the comments above, then got bored.
How about we all do the usual Brighton and Hove approach - those that believe, carry on - those that don't, carry on.
Neither side tries to convert the other - we all live in peace and harmony....and make up our own minds.

I think one of the ways a person gets to make up their own minds about anything is by dialogue, and the presentation of facts and experience...this is just as true of belief as anything else.

The truths that Jesus taught did not spread by people keeping quiet, complacency or indifference....but a passionate belief that what He taught was in fact true and could impact a persons life to the very core of their being.

^ "A passionate belief that what he taught was in fact true and could impact a persons life to the very core of their being" is a trait shared by all schizophrenics - the Jewish zombie carpenter type being no exception.

Atheism is a religion as militant as any
other belief system. It's based on pseudo-science that requires more faith
than the Christianity it bashes in the name of "education". The only effect
is a decline in morals. Brighton is also more crime ridden than other cities. Bravo Mr Atheist!!!!!

Nitrous_McBread wrote:
^ "A passionate belief that what he taught was in fact true and could impact a persons life to the very core of their being" is a trait shared by all schizophrenics - the Jewish zombie carpenter type being no exception.

Cute...I had similar things to say years ago, could probably have been just as disparaging, and might well have retorted with something just as foolish...but you got one thing right...He is Jewish.

Goyboy wrote:

Nitrous_McBread wrote:
^ "A passionate belief that what he taught was in fact true and could impact a persons life to the very core of their being" is a trait shared by all schizophrenics - the Jewish zombie carpenter type being no exception.

Cute...I had similar things to say years ago, could probably have been just as disparaging, and might well have retorted with something just as foolish...but you got one thing right...He is Jewish.

Having worked for many years with schizophrenics, I've witnessed their utter conviction in their own delusions, and have had many try for hours to convert me to their own skewed, labyrinthine worldview, for what they believe is my own salvation. And was Jesus not a carpenter? Mark 6:3 certainly claims so. And the definition of 'zombie' is a corpse revived by supernatural intervention - is this not what you believe happened to Jesus (as a Bible thumper)? But you got one thing right... I am cute.

ARealBessie wrote:
Reading through these comments, I think there's a few points worth making.
What strikes me is how various commentators are apparently so certain about the one thing in life than can be neither proved, nor disproved.
In terms of ‘provability’ those who hold the view ‘there is no God’ have a 50% chance of being wrong. Either God exists, or doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins, the big daddy of the ‘New Atheists’ claims he is 99% certain that God doesn’t exist (which technically makes him ‘agnostic’ but hey... that's by the by). But, whether Dawkins is 99% certain of his own belief is neither here nor there. His viewpoint is merely his opinion because ‘science’ in and of itself, is unable to answer such a question. He still has a 50% chance of being wrong. In fact, in debates on the subjects of ‘The God Delusion’, and ‘Has Science Buried God?’ poor Richard got an **** whooping from John Lennox both times (Oxford Uni’ Prof’ of Mathematics and Philosopher of Science). Chris Hitchens fared slightly better against Lennox in debate about whether ‘Atheism is Good for Europe’, but only because he had a better grasp of biblical scripture than Dawkins. That said, I’m afraid he roundly lost the debate.

In debates with William Lane Craig (Prof’ of Philosophy’ and leading American Christian apologist) Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, fell short again. Whilst many of the objections made against holding a ‘theistic worldview’ are/were entirely valid, within a philosophical context the objections made proved to be more emotively driven than logically, and rationally based. As it goes, if these debates were anything to go by, according to the laws of logic and reason, ‘belief in God’ is the more rational and logical worldview.

So, my message to those of you happy Christian mockers 'n bashers who 'don't believe in God’, by all means, hold your belief as fervently and passionately as you like but remember:
a) There still remains a 50% chance you’re wrong and the other guy is right.
b) Just like the other guy, you will never be able to empirically prove your case.
c) You can’t make a case FOR atheism by ‘attacking’ and undermining ‘theism’, nor conclude ‘there is no God’ on the basis of how the average muddled Christian behaves. If you’re going to make a credible case for any ideology you believe in, at least let it be on its own merits.

Meanwhile, my own observation is that Brighton is indeed an ‘ungodly’ city; in as much as its overrun with too many people who place themselves at the centre of the universe whilst believing they themselves are ‘gods’. And, that includes a large number of Brighton’s professing Christians.

Cheers

Well said.
'The Fool has said in his heart, there is no God'
There are so many fools on here thinking they are superior because they don't believe in god, yet many have no idea what they are talking about and not even read the 'evidence'.

Nitrous_McBread wrote:

Goyboy wrote:

Nitrous_McBread wrote:
^ "A passionate belief that what he taught was in fact true and could impact a persons life to the very core of their being" is a trait shared by all schizophrenics - the Jewish zombie carpenter type being no exception.

Cute...I had similar things to say years ago, could probably have been just as disparaging, and might well have retorted with something just as foolish...but you got one thing right...He is Jewish.

Having worked for many years with schizophrenics, I've witnessed their utter conviction in their own delusions, and have had many try for hours to convert me to their own skewed, labyrinthine worldview, for what they believe is my own salvation. And was Jesus not a carpenter? Mark 6:3 certainly claims so. And the definition of 'zombie' is a corpse revived by supernatural intervention - is this not what you believe happened to Jesus (as a Bible thumper)? But you got one thing right... I am cute.

Much as you like to believe it, I don't really think your work with schizophrenics gives you quite the right qualifications to make a valid judgment on a persons faith.

The Hebrew word that most bibles translate as Carpenter does have a wider meaning that really incorporates a 'trades-person'...so
me have surmised that it was more likely Jesus worked as a Stone-Mason due to the lack of wood in the Galilee region, others that He built houses, and still others that He was regarded as a Rabbi although without formal training. One cannot be pedantic and only go on the known evidence.

Well I believe the bible, but don't really hold with the term 'bible Thumper'...it paints the picture of a wild-eyed religious maniac hitting his bible and insisting he is right...this has more to do with the popular images in Western Movies.

Zombie....now let me think how they are portrayed in books and films...does the Bible claim Jesus came back to life powder-pale, semi-decomposed, arms outstrecthed, eyes fixed looking to eat any unfortunate He could catch...nope.

If you are going to cite Mark 6:3 as a legitimate biblical claim that Jesus was a Carpenter, you should at least be consistant and cite other biblical references that justify your personal presentation of Jesus as a zombie.
What I believe is what the bible claims
that He was resurrected from the dead, was seen by the disciples and over 500 witnesses and that whoever believes on Him will not perish but have everlasting life....sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

^Hmmm. I don't believe those folk tales. And let's face it, none of the gospel accounts (which vary wildly) were written by first-hand witnesses, or even in the same decade as the events they purport to describe. They even disagree about Jesus' final words.

And after watching mankind evolve for hundreds of thousands of years, you'd think any deity with half a brain would've waited another couple of thousand years until the invention of video cameras instead of appearing to a bunch of illiterate peasants in an obscure region of the Middle East.

I think we all have to own what we say we believe or don't believe.

You believe the bible to be a collection of folk tales, and I don't, although I certainly used to agree with you.
I would take issue on your comment that the Gospel accounts 'vary wildly' having studied the apparent discrepancies...what I would say is that sometimes at first glance there may seem to be conflicting accounts, but on digging deeper they are most often completely harmonious.

Also you are again wrong when you say that none of the Gospels were written by first-hand witnesses...the Gospel of John gives a very intimate and profound account of the life of Jesus from His disciple John....yes the authorship has been disputed like so many things, but historically I believe this is consistant.

I do not believe in human evolution...to me that is a folk tale that has been fostered on us pre-dominently by aspects of Atheistic Science that uses a range of hypotheses to fit in with their flawed theories while ignoring alternatives that counter their world-view or present methods of interpreting scientific evidence.

Many people like to think they could do things better than G-d Himself...I think this exposes the heart of the issue at stake...namely man prefers to trust himself despite his failings/sinfulness than seek G-d...it has to do with our pride...

Lies, half-truths and misinformation are most often the tools employed against the bible and its teachings, while many people scour the web for any theory or information that will endorse their present bias. I think it is far better if people pick up a bible and read for themselves what it contains..I have found that there is something of G-d in what is actually written that can cut to the chase in the heart of every individual...it is the Book of Life.

It's not a book of life. It's a book of recrimination, violence, cowardice and injustice for the fearful and holier-than-thou, wrapped up with a cuddly hippy as its central figure, a very effective and deceptive sleight of hand that has gone a long way to disguising the justifications of rape, child abuse, slavery, bigotry and genocide therein.

By the way, is 'G-d' his hip-hop name?

Much of what you describe is a blend of personal bias, hear-say and sin within the Church. The Bible doesn't pull any punches, and describes the many faults of men that trusted in G-d...Nobody can con G-d, and you can be sure there will be complete justice when each of us appears before Him...wearing a religious mask will not disguise a persons heart...nor will being a vicar or a priest or even a Cardinal or Pope....sometimes it seems as if people get away with things in this life because they do not have to face justice...but there is always a day of reckoning, and the Savilles of this world will pay a price before a Holy G-d.

Yes there are some things in the Bible that are hard to make sense of at times...but like everything when placed in context we can better understand G-ds ways...including some of the harsher stuff that was initiated several millenia ago.

Jesus as some sort of nebulous cuddly hippie type?...Nah...doesn'
t hold water if you read the bible... probably something you've picked up from a wishy-washy version of Christianity...it certainly doesn't tie in with what Scripture records...you seem to get your understanding about biblical things from the cinema, media and comics.

Lol... G-d is simply the Jewish way of writing His title...it avoids profaning it or taking His name in vain, although it extends to G-d and L-rd it especially occurs when the Tetragrammaton is used, and the word might be written yod heh vav hey but spoken out as Adonai...again to avoid possible profaning of the name. I do not have a problem using the 'o' but simply do it out of respect for my Jewish friends.

You only have to look at the bunch of disheveled and scruffy miscreants who congregate outside soadstream on a Saturday to realise there is no god.

What we have instead are clusters of brain washed idiots (I think Nitrous has summed it up quite nicely) who use what they describe as religion, or faith to justify their demands and beliefs.

Unlike god, you couldn't make it up!

Sorry about above post (and now double post) - I lost my connection briefly when I pressed 'send' and something weird happened to the editing in my post (which was properly edited when I sent it.)

Properly edited post below:

I was about to compose a reply to DC78 last friday when I took a quick look at the news and read about the latest whack job spree killing in an American primary school - And, promptly lost my appetite for debating the toss over who bears the burden of proof over claims of invisible unicorns and the like.
As my eyes took in the images of grief and despair, the question I couldn’t help pondering was what ‘atheism’ could possibly offer to those stunned parents and traumatized kids at a time like this?

The answer of course is nothing. Because, the belief in ‘nothing’ is all ‘atheism’ ultimately boils down to.

That got me thinking further.
Resting on a foundation of 'nothing', and offering nothing in the way of a coherent set of core beliefs or practices, it seems to me the only real basis for the ‘atheist ideology’ invariably lies in God bashing and critical opposition (especially to) the 3 main monotheistic faith-based ‘religion/s’ (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all of which, at least are established on a foundation of ‘something’.
If that’s not bad enough, all atheists can really claim as hard ‘evidence’ for such an empty world view is a lack of evidence for God’s existence within the observable material world of atoms and neurons.

What I fail to understand is why such a lack of ‘evidence’ is considered a significant or surprising factor.

The fact that, according to the laws of evolutionary biology, there’s a 99% probability there's no ‘supernatural omnipotent being’ is simply meaningless. ‘God’ is SPIRIT not matter, and as such not bound by time and space, or subject to natural laws - Precisely why science is unable to answer the big question of whether ‘God exists’ or not, and, why you’ll never arrive to an understanding of what ‘God is’ on the back of a mathematical equation.

Now, if scientists acknowledge that ‘God’ can’t be ‘measured scientifically’ (even Richard Dawkins), then why, oh why, do all you anti-faith-brigaders insist on using ‘evolution and mathematical probabilities’ as the trump card for concluding ‘there is no God’?

Over to you Oh Enlightened Ones...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:
You only have to look at the bunch of disheveled and scruffy miscreants who congregate outside soadstream on a Saturday to realise there is no god.

What we have instead are clusters of brain washed idiots (I think Nitrous has summed it up quite nicely) who use what they describe as religion, or faith to justify their demands and beliefs.

Unlike god, you couldn't make it up!

Profound...who can argue against this sort of logic...not I.

There is a half-baked idea that floats around that proposes to know there is no G-d, and supposes (because it is blatant assumption) that those of us who believe are deficient in some area, or that we or others before us have made G-d up.

If I gave anyone a blank piece of paper and asked them to fill in what they believe and understand of the sum knowledge of the Universe...most would be reluctant to even place a dot on that piece of paper...so a thinking person must consider that their limited understanding might somehow have missed G-d because He might be found somewhere on the rest of that blank sheet.

I think the majority of people that become Believers, do not do so out of the intellectual acknowledgement of theological truths...they have a personal encounter with G-d in one way or another, and their testimony is that they came to know Him or that He revealed Himself to them in some way...nearly every fellow Believer I have spoken with has this deeply personal and subjective encounter...but it can be checked out against Scripture, and hopefully the persons life and character will lend a degree of credibility to his words.

Amen to that.

Meanwhile, hark at that silence!
Such a peaceful sound...

Goyboy wrote:

Somethingsarejustwro

ng wrote:
You only have to look at the bunch of disheveled and scruffy miscreants who congregate outside soadstream on a Saturday to realise there is no god.

What we have instead are clusters of brain washed idiots (I think Nitrous has summed it up quite nicely) who use what they describe as religion, or faith to justify their demands and beliefs.

Unlike god, you couldn't make it up!

Profound...who can argue against this sort of logic...not I.

There is a half-baked idea that floats around that proposes to know there is no G-d, and supposes (because it is blatant assumption) that those of us who believe are deficient in some area, or that we or others before us have made G-d up.

If I gave anyone a blank piece of paper and asked them to fill in what they believe and understand of the sum knowledge of the Universe...most would be reluctant to even place a dot on that piece of paper...so a thinking person must consider that their limited understanding might somehow have missed G-d because He might be found somewhere on the rest of that blank sheet.

I think the majority of people that become Believers, do not do so out of the intellectual acknowledgement of theological truths...they have a personal encounter with G-d in one way or another, and their testimony is that they came to know Him or that He revealed Himself to them in some way...nearly every fellow Believer I have spoken with has this deeply personal and subjective encounter...but it can be checked out against Scripture, and hopefully the persons life and character will lend a degree of credibility to his words.

Except Your talKinG noNsense AnD CapitlAliSing iN a noNsensicAl WAY. In fAcT YoUr CapiTalisInG is As cOnsIsTent As YOur LogiC.

ARealBessie wrote:
Amen to that.

Meanwhile, hark at that silence!
Such a peaceful sound...

The only silence on this thread is caused by us waiting for you to admit you embarrassed yourself by arguing that that the proposition that god either did or did not exist had a 50 50 chance of being true.

Hove Actually wrote:

bonobofitz wrote:
Brighton and Hove = 42.4% No Religion.
Norwich = 42.5%

But Jedi in Brighton is 1% versus 0.6% in Norwich. This may be counted as an alternative religion on the census but in reality it's really a joke response or moral code by non-religious people.

So I think Brighton should win the enviable title of most Godless, most enlightened city/town in England/Wales (and most certainly UK).

No your wrong
I would say I have a religious understanding but I stated Jedi on my form as I didn't want to be pidgin holed as a Christian, as I am not.
I also believe we are not the only sentient life forms in the Universe but I'm not a green Lucas either. I could have thought of 3 or 4 questions that would have been better on the census form that would have been far more informative.

Honestly, Jedi is not a religion is it?!
It is a well known protest answer in most cases or a bit of census fun. So Brighton wins! At numbers of non religious people and Jedi jokers, with a few exceptions who answered Jedi in some spiritual seriousness (like you 'Hove Actually').

It looks like the 42% should be a bit higher if we also add in the "other" responses such as atheist and agnostic. Maybe they should have just had a "do you believe in God?" question and that would be more conclusive.

Sorry Hove Actually, you did put Jedi down as a real alternative which is fair enough. But you could have answered any description you wanted (religious understanding, not Christian or whatever) of your beliefs in the "other religion" box.

There was all sorts listed as religions.

No Dudeism reported, maybe next time.

JHunty wrote:

ARealBessie wrote:
Amen to that.

Meanwhile, hark at that silence!
Such a peaceful sound...

The only silence on this thread is caused by us waiting for you to admit you embarrassed yourself by arguing that that the proposition that god either did or did not exist had a 50 50 chance of being true.

And, there was me thinking we'd ended on a happy note. Oh well, we can live in hope.
Not sure about the embarrassing myself part of it... I didn't argue God's existence had a 50% chance of being true, but that YOU have a 50% chance of being right or wrong about the matter. There is a difference.

JHunty wrote:

Goyboy wrote:

Somethingsarejustwro


ng wrote:
You only have to look at the bunch of disheveled and scruffy miscreants who congregate outside soadstream on a Saturday to realise there is no god.

What we have instead are clusters of brain washed idiots (I think Nitrous has summed it up quite nicely) who use what they describe as religion, or faith to justify their demands and beliefs.

Unlike god, you couldn't make it up!

Profound...who can argue against this sort of logic...not I.

There is a half-baked idea that floats around that proposes to know there is no G-d, and supposes (because it is blatant assumption) that those of us who believe are deficient in some area, or that we or others before us have made G-d up.

If I gave anyone a blank piece of paper and asked them to fill in what they believe and understand of the sum knowledge of the Universe...most would be reluctant to even place a dot on that piece of paper...so a thinking person must consider that their limited understanding might somehow have missed G-d because He might be found somewhere on the rest of that blank sheet.

I think the majority of people that become Believers, do not do so out of the intellectual acknowledgement of theological truths...they have a personal encounter with G-d in one way or another, and their testimony is that they came to know Him or that He revealed Himself to them in some way...nearly every fellow Believer I have spoken with has this deeply personal and subjective encounter...but it can be checked out against Scripture, and hopefully the persons life and character will lend a degree of credibility to his words.

Except Your talKinG noNsense AnD CapitlAliSing iN a noNsensicAl WAY. In fAcT YoUr CapiTalisInG is As cOnsIsTent As YOur LogiC.

Lol...never been much good at grammar...

I guess for you it is easier to fault the grammar than develop an argument or counter something I have said that you disagree with...thats ok, but you don't really do yourself any favours.

(committed member of the SFI)

Goyboy wrote:

JHunty wrote:

Goyboy wrote:

Somethingsarejustwro



ng wrote:
You only have to look at the bunch of disheveled and scruffy miscreants who congregate outside soadstream on a Saturday to realise there is no god.

What we have instead are clusters of brain washed idiots (I think Nitrous has summed it up quite nicely) who use what they describe as religion, or faith to justify their demands and beliefs.

Unlike god, you couldn't make it up!

Profound...who can argue against this sort of logic...not I.

There is a half-baked idea that floats around that proposes to know there is no G-d, and supposes (because it is blatant assumption) that those of us who believe are deficient in some area, or that we or others before us have made G-d up.

If I gave anyone a blank piece of paper and asked them to fill in what they believe and understand of the sum knowledge of the Universe...most would be reluctant to even place a dot on that piece of paper...so a thinking person must consider that their limited understanding might somehow have missed G-d because He might be found somewhere on the rest of that blank sheet.

I think the majority of people that become Believers, do not do so out of the intellectual acknowledgement of theological truths...they have a personal encounter with G-d in one way or another, and their testimony is that they came to know Him or that He revealed Himself to them in some way...nearly every fellow Believer I have spoken with has this deeply personal and subjective encounter...but it can be checked out against Scripture, and hopefully the persons life and character will lend a degree of credibility to his words.

Except Your talKinG noNsense AnD CapitlAliSing iN a noNsensicAl WAY. In fAcT YoUr CapiTalisInG is As cOnsIsTent As YOur LogiC.

Lol...never been much good at grammar...

I guess for you it is easier to fault the grammar than develop an argument or counter something I have said that you disagree with...thats ok, but you don't really do yourself any favours.

(committed member of the SFI)

If there was a god he/she/it wouldn't allow priests to b**ger the choirboys and girls

Sorry folks - all of this is based on mistranslations from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc.

What God ACTUALLY said was: "I blame The Greens. And the students. And the cyclists. And the travellers. And the public sector. And the squatters. Get out of My Temple right now, you bearded long-haired hippy scum - how dare you interfere with the Free Market? Oops, sorry Son - didn't recognize you in that carpenter's getup...."