[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Ah yes very nice.But what about when we die and go to heaven?Where is it?Is it in another universe?Or ours? Was more my question.

Hmmm hard question to answer for me.
Personally I do think the spirit goes on, now I am not sure if that spirit is in a pace called heaven or if indeed there is a God, all I do know is that I believe in some sort of afterlife, nothing to do with if you are a perfectly good person or not either. Or if you believe in God or not.

[Jords]

invisibility cloak

[rubymoo]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

So is there multiple heavens in our universe?Or a heaven in each universe assuming there are more than one?So you are saying it's essentially part of a galaxy?A place in a galaxy where souls go?

It could be, nobody knows

That's where faith comes in, i can only go on my beliefs.....

I've always had this thing about death and dying and leaving my loved ones behind, and i believe that this sadness was impacting my life, one night i cuddled up to my husband and closed my eyes, i was immediately transported to the stars, it was the most amazing feeling and the love i felt was multiplied by a million, i can honestly say i didn't want to come back

It was if someone was showing me that there's nothing to fear.......i tried to get back there for 2 weeks, but i was offered merely a glimpse, now i know where i'm going, i'm not afraid.

[billy123]

Grrrrr next year santa next year.

Youtube video

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Is there any point posting an opinion here? there are many good hearted people who would think nothing of whipping the wheels off a strangers car to sell ,shoplifting etc and helping their 'mates' out ,I said I know a FEW not many ,no one mentioned animals did they,but being as you know me better than I do,you put your own spin on it eh?

"Feral" (which is what I assume you meant by "ferrel") means wild / untamed / animalistic.

If that's not what you meant, then I'd suggest you probably shouldn't be using words that you don't actually understand...

[rubymoo]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Grrrrr next year santa next year.

Youtube video

I knew it!!!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Grrrrr next year santa next year.

Youtube video

Hold on a second... the **** er just came in, scribbled all over the note to santa, ate the pie and then left! He didn't even leave any presents! was it even santa at all?

.... ... NO! It's that bloody trickster at it again! How is Santa supposed to keep his blood sugar levels up flying all around the world, if bloody Loki has already snuck into all of the houses and eaten the pies?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by rubymoo

It could be, nobody knows

That's where faith comes in, i can only go on my beliefs.....

I've always had this thing about death and dying and leaving my loved ones behind, and i believe that this sadness was impacting my life, one night i cuddled up to my husband and closed my eyes, i was immediately transported to the stars, it was the most amazing feeling and the love i felt was multiplied by a million, i can honestly say i didn't want to come back

It was if someone showed me there was nothing to fear.......i tried to get back there for 2 weeks, but i was offered merely a glimpse, now i know where i go i'm not afraid.

Sounds amazing.You did'nt take note of directions on the way though?Nevermind.The search continues.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Kazanne mentioned "a few" people she has known.

Nowhere in her post has she suggested everyone from a particular background is anything.

And people say that the believers read into something that's not there.

When is TiBB going to introduce a backpedaling smilie? Hate having to google it every time...

[rubymoo]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Sounds amazing.You did'nt take note of directions on the way though?Nevermind.The search continues.

I'll have a one way ticket one day, but until then i'll believe and live my life.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

When is TiBB going to introduce a backpedaling smilie? Hate having to google it every time...

Yeah, you didn't misread anyone's post. They're back peddling. Yeah.

This is still serious debates, right?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah, you didn't misread anyone's post. They're back peddling. Yeah.

This is still serious debates, right?

If you weren't making a general statement about "people from council estates" with your posts, and Kazanne wasn't furthering it by pointing out that the few, *ahem*, "rough, feral" people she knows are also non-religious...

...then both posts, rather than being offensive, were simply entirely pointless. As in... they were saying nothing. At all.

I might as well say

"Oh yeah I knew a random guy once of non-specific origin who wasn't religious, and he owns a hat. So there. Also I know a girl who IS religious, and she has both a face and also feet."

What you WERE, in fact, suggesting was that you have anecdotal evidence that "uneducated scheme folks" are often non-religious, in an attempt to disprove LT's suggestion that there is a correlation between education and religiosity. Kazanne replied to you in order to back up this statement, by confirming that the "rough diamonds"(??? she just means rough people) she knows are indeed non-religious - and also "Feral, uncaring and hostile".

You're now trying to claim that you were only talking about those specific people. For, presumably, absolutely no reason at all because if you WERE both speaking just about those people, then you were not trying to make a point and thus had... well... no point.

Just to be illustrative of the backpedaling, though...

Originally Posted by Kazanne

none of them are religious in any way,they are ferrel ,uncaring and hostile.

7 posts later, the same people are suddenly described as "good-hearted". What? Are they uncaring and hostile, or are they good-hearted?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Feral" (which is what I assume you meant by "ferrel") means wild / untamed / animalistic.

If that's not what you meant, then I'd suggest you probably shouldn't be using words that you don't actually understand...

I know what it means ,and as far as I know this is not a school,so I made a spelling mistake, and?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I know what it means ,and as far as I know this is not a school,so I made a spelling mistake, and?

You don't, or didn't, know what it means

Originally Posted by Kazanne

they are ferrel

You called them animals. THATS WHAT IT MEANS.

Originally Posted by Kazanne

no one mentioned animals did they

You didn't know that you called them animals. So you didn't know what it meant (or are backpedaling.. .. ....)

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Feral" (which is what I assume you meant by "ferrel") means wild / untamed / animalistic.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If you weren't making a general statement about "people from council estates" with your posts, and Kazanne wasn't furthering it by pointing out that the few, *ahem*, "rough, feral" people she knows are also non-religious...

...then both posts, rather than being offensive, were simply entirely pointless. As in... they were saying nothing. At all.

I might as well say

"Oh yeah I knew a random guy once of non-specific origin who wasn't religious, and he owns a hat. So there. Also I know a girl who IS religious, and she has both a face and also feet."

What you WERE, in fact, suggesting was that you have anecdotal evidence that "uneducated scheme folks" are often non-religious, in an attempt to disprove LT's suggestion that there is a correlation between education and religiosity. Kazanne replied to you in order to back up this statement, by confirming that the "rough diamonds"(??? she just means rough people) she knows are indeed non-religious - and also "Feral, uncaring and hostile".

You're now trying to claim that you were only talking about those specific people. For, presumably, absolutely no reason at all because if you WERE both speaking just about those people, then you were not trying to make a point and thus had... well... no point.

Just to be illustrative of the backpedaling, though...



7 posts later, the same people are suddenly described as "good-hearted". What? Are they uncaring and hostile, or are they good-hearted?

Have you never known people who look after and care for their own but are absolutely vile ,wild and cruel to others ? even the Krays adored their mother.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If you weren't making a general statement about "people from council estates" with your posts, and Kazanne wasn't furthering it by pointing out that the few, *ahem*, "rough, feral" people she knows are also non-religious...

...then both posts, rather than being offensive, were simply entirely pointless. As in... they were saying nothing. At all.

I might as well say

"Oh yeah I knew a random guy once of non-specific origin who wasn't religious, and he owns a hat. So there. Also I know a girl who IS religious, and she has both a face and also feet."

No, because you see, it wasn't a random comment.

It was a response to LT bringing the prospect of level of intelligence/education having a bearing on whether someone may be a believer or not. He made a point about there possibly being less believers in a group of people with higher intelligence. I was providing experiences of my own that show a counter argument to that.

But, by all means, take posts in a 20 page thread individually and see them as random and adding nothing and not in the context of the discussion continuing in a... thread.

You think I entered this thread and just decided "Oh, I'll make a random observation about a council estate"? In that case go back and read again.

What you WERE, in fact, suggesting was that you have anecdotal evidence that "uneducated scheme folks" are often non-religious

Where, exactly, did I say my anecdotal evidence proved LT wrong or even was evidence that proved anything about a general population of people? I didn't.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Have you never known people who look after and care for their own but are absolutely vile ,wild and cruel to others ? even the Krays adored their mother.

I know plenty of them, I'd call them loyal rather than good-hearted but that's not even the point, is it?

The point is... why did you mention those people at all, if you weren't suggesting the same as Marsh? Which is - though I'm sure he'll deny deny deny until the day he die - that his experience of "council estate people" is that they are less caring and less likely to be religious, and that because of this, it fdollows that those sorts of people in general are often like that.

It was used as a counter argument to LT's argument that uneducated people are more likely to be religious. It's all that can POSSIBLY have been meant by it. Otherwise there would literally have been no point in saying it at all. You, and he, were trying to make a point about religiosity vs education by using the "few" people you know as representative examples of a larger societal sub-group. I'm afraid that much is completely obvious.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You don't, or didn't, know what it means



You called them animals. THATS WHAT IT MEANS.



You didn't know that you called them animals. So you didn't know what it meant (or are backpedaling.. .. ....)

I haven't got time for people trying to impress others that they are a smartarse,you know full well what I meant,feral to me means wild and untamed,I had a ferel cat once,plus some people are animals ,infact worse than animals,but this is going off topic so,I will continue to let you lecture to the board the rights and wrongs of religion ,I am not here for point scoring,so off you go on that bike you are so fond of

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No, because you see, it wasn't a random comment.

It was a response to LT bringing the prospect of level of intelligence/education having a bearing on whether someone may be a believer or not. He made a point about there possibly being less believers in a group of people with higher intelligence. I was providing experiences of my own that show a counter argument to that.

But, by all means, take posts in a 20 page thread individually and see them as random and adding nothing and not in the context of the discussion continuing in a... thread.

You think I entered this thread and just decided "Oh, I'll make a random observation about a council estate"? In that case go back and read again.

Originally Posted by me, just now

You, and he, were trying to make a point about religiosity vs education by using the "few" people you know as representative examples of a larger societal sub-group. I'm afraid that much is completely obvious.

Thankyou for confirming this.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Thankyou for confirming this.

So, in the end, it was your comments coming several pages late that were actually pointless and nothing to do with the conversation being had?

Good to know.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I haven't got time for people trying to impress others that they are a smartarse,you know full well what I meant,feral to me means wild and untamed,I had a ferel cat once,plus some people are animals ,infact worse than animals,but this is going off topic so,I will continue to let you lecture to the board the rights and wrongs of religion ,I am not here for point scoring,so off you go on that bike you are so fond of

So they are just wild and untamed people. You're not comparing them to animals at all. My apologies for this gross misunderstanding.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, in the end, it was your comments coming several pages late that were actually pointless and nothing to do with the conversation being had?

Good to know.

No, it just took you several pages to admit that you were using your limited experiences of "rough people" to make generalised statements about all people with a lower level of education.

Now that you have confirmed that this WAS what you were doing, we can indeed move on .

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, it just took you several pages to admit that you were using your limited experiences of "rough people" to make generalised statements about all people with a lower level of education.

Now that you have confirmed that this WAS what you were doing, we can indeed move on .

No dear, keep up. I WASN'T doing that.

Again, Kizzy wasn't able to do this so maybe you can, show me where I made a comment generalising about all lower class people, rough people, low educated people or otherwise? I didn't.

But I do find it funny that I'm being accused of back pedalling. If I wanted to make a generalisation, I would do so and admit to it. I never post anything to then deny. I've been banned several times for saying what I think.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No dear, keep up. I WASN'T doing that.

Again, Kizzy wasn't able to do this so maybe you can, show me where I made a comment generalising about all lower class people, rough people, low educated people or otherwise? I didn't.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It ("it" being your use of examples of people of lower education and socioeconimic status) was a response to LT bringing the prospect of level of intelligence/education having a bearing on whether someone may be a believer or not (in general). He made a point about there possibly being less believers in a group of people with higher intelligence (in general). I was providing experiences (anecdotal examples) of my own that show a counter argument to that (...by being representative of the group in general, as a whole.)

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But I do find it funny that I'm being accused of back pedalling. If I wanted to make a generalisation, I would do so and admit to it. I never post anything to then deny. I've been banned several times for saying what I think.

I am starting to accept that you're not backpedaling though. I think that, bizarrely, you just have no idea that you actually did it in the first place .

[user104658]

tl;dr - Using your own, personal, anecdotal experiences of a few examples as a counter-argument to a statement made about groups of people in general, is generalising. It can't possibly, in any way or under any circumstances, be described as anything else.