Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Shaker

Religiosity in the USA

While looking back through some older posts the other day I came across a passing reference to a theme which, had I not been sidetracked by another discussion on a different subject, I really ought to have picked up and ran with, so I shall do so now.

Everyone is aware that levels of religious adherence and affiliation in the First World are eroding pretty much everywhere. Church attendance falls year on year, fewer people self-identify as belonging to a religion and the numbers of those who disclaim religious affiliation rise accordingly.

Some people will be aware that, especially within the last decade and a half or so, this is likewise true of the USA. The number of 'nones' (no religious affiliation) and even of explicit atheists is going up and up by the year. However, most people are aware that amongst First World countries the USA, a truly de jure secular nation in a way that the UK is not, is an anomaly in having a populace with a very high degree of religious adherence and affiliation, particularly with regard to Christianity. That picture is changing as already noted but it nevertheless remains the case that Americans are religious in a way not seen in practically any other developed secular liberal democracy.

A great many hypotheses have been advanced to explain this phenomenon: one that I came across not too long ago really caught my attention. This particular hypothesis suggests that Americans have atypically high levels of religiosity when compared to other nations because America has a much lower level of social security, using that phrase in its broadest possible interpretation. To see the point of this it's necessary to compare and contrast the USA with countries such as the UK and Sweden, for example: both of these nations - the former a nominally Christian country with an established church, a situation which obtained in the latter until 2000 - have strong welfare states predicated on cradle-to-grave social security, some universal benefits and universal healthcare free at point of need. Thse countries have systems and the populace has expectations that their taxes will support them in sickness, in unemployment and in retirement.

The thesis is that since none of these things apply to the USA, Americans have a much more fragile, even downright shaky, sense of social security: life is a consistently (and constantly) far more precarious thing without the safety net to fall back on that other countries enjoy and therefore is a possible contributory factor to looking to religious (that's to say, supernatural) sources of assurance and security in life which the state does not provide. The situation with regard to healthcare alone in the US is iniquitous. I will quote, without comment, this section of the Wikipedia page on Healthcare in the United States:

Quote:
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 (up from 49.0 million residents, 16.1% of the population, in 2009). A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report said: "The United States is among the few industrialized nations in the world that does not guarantee access to health care for its population." A 2004 OECD report said: "With the exception of Mexico, Turkey, and the United States, all OECD countries had achieved universal or near-universal (at least 98.4% insured) coverage of their populations by 1990." Recent evidence demonstrates that lack of health insurance causes some 45,000 to 48,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. In 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. A 2013 study found that about 25% of all senior citizens declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses, and 43% are forced to mortgage or sell their primary residence.


This lengthy and detailed post, with sources, from Jerry Coyne's website covers the ground admirably, as does this one. Healthcare is a specific example (perhaps the most important one, though) of economic inequality and the broader lack of social/civil/personal security in life which, it has been hypothesised, leads to disproportionately higher levels of religious adherence. The hypothesis proposes that, unlike Britons and Swedes and a great many others, Americans generally in sickness and in unemployment are pretty much left to their own devices and expected just to get on with it, and if poverty leads to a lack of healthcare or unemployment benefit, too bad. This lack of grounding in civil security, it's said, leads to a much higher (abnormally higher) level of people leaning on supramundane sources of stability.

Thoughts?
The Boyg

I don't discount it as a possibility but you'd need a much larger sample before you'd even established a correlation, never mind a causal link.
Powwow

Yes, I've heard that retarded atheist argument before. Usually it's the arrogant atheists with a superiority complex that will babble on about the reason Christianity is growing in Africa is because they are poor and stupid.
And once they get themselves some schooling and money in their pockets they will leave God behind.
Well I know several wealthy educated people that became Christians long after they left university and made all their money. I know a couple lawyers that actually leave their practices for a year at a time to go to Africa and S America to do relief work.

http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/fgr.html
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Yes, I've heard that retarded atheist argument before. Usually it's the arrogant atheists with a superiority complex that will babble on about the reason Christianity is growing in Africa is because they are poor and stupid.
And once they get themselves some schooling and money in their pockets they will leave God behind.
Well I know several wealthy educated people that became Christians long after they left university and made all their money. I know a couple lawyers that actually leave their practices for a year at a time to go to Africa and S America to do relief work.

http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/fgr.html

I'm sure your anecdotal examples far, far outstrip the patient work over decades of umpteen sociologists, anthropologists, statisticians and other social scientists the world over, powsers  
Lexilogio

Hmm.

Interesting, but I'm not convinced.

I think there are two different things going on. There is the "sheep effect". This is where the majority of unthinking people go along with something because that is what you do. And it is linked to education. Lots of people buy "The Sun". It doesn't mean it is worth reading, it means they do it because people they know do it. Same as watching soaps. In some places, people go to church because it is a community.

Along the same lines, I was reading the website of the local Quaker group this week. They don't see belief in God as a pre-requisite of joining. Apparently its a quasi humanist organisation there. Its more about the sense of meditation and community.

Then there are those genuinely touched, moved - who feel God / Holy Spirit within them, and with them. I do not believe this group is linked to education. Its much smaller, but this group is varied, and includes people who have sceptically challenged their own beliefs.
genghiscant

Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


History tells us that anyone who believes that their actions are mandated by "a greater good" is capable of acting without conscience.
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


History tells us that anyone who believes that their actions are mandated by "a greater good" is capable of acting without conscience.


That may well be so, but I was talking about religion. Tony Blair thought his actions were guided by God. Nice attempt at deflection though.
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


History tells us that anyone who believes that their actions are mandated by "a greater good" is capable of acting without conscience.


That may well be so, but I was talking about religion.


But what you described is not unique to religion. Have you borrowed Leonard's Bumper Book of Atheist Platitude?

Quote:
Tony Blair thought his actions were guided by God.


Did he? Which actions? All of them?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
But what you described is not unique to religion.

No it isn't: but on a broadly religion-based forum and on a thread entitled 'Religiosity in the USA' it's really not, on the whole, a massive stretch to take it that that's what he was talking about. Genghis was indeed talking about religion: his first post on this thread reads:
Quote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


So the whole religion angle wasn't incredibly hard to spot. But of course YMMV.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
But what you described is not unique to religion.

No it isn't: but on a broadly religion-based forum and on a thread entitled 'Religiosity in the USA' it's really not, on the whole, a massive stretch to take it that that's what he was talking about.


And yet his comments had nothing specifically to do with the topic, i.e. religiosity in the USA (likewise his subsequent reference to Tony Blair), and appears to be nothing more than an irrelevant denunciation of the religious, so l was merely following his off-topic strand.

Still, I suppose it would be too much to ask to expect you to criticise anyone for bleating an atheist mantra that has no relevance to the actual topic of discussion.
Shaker

Mantra? No, that'll be the Hindus and the Buddhists: try the 'Other Religions' sub-forum.
The Boyg

Quote:
man∑tra [man-truh, mahn-, muhn-]
noun
1. Hinduism.  a word or formula, as from the Veda, chanted or sung as an incantation or prayer.
2. an often repeated word, formula, or phrase, often a truism: If I hear the ďless is moreĒ mantra one more time, I'll scream.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mantra?s=t&path=/
Shaker

Whoosh ...
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


Some of them, yes. As are some people who believe that their actions are guided by patriotism, or ideology or family duty or racial purity etc etc
The Boyg

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


Some of them, yes. As are some people who believe that their actions are guided by patriotism, or ideology or family duty or racial purity etc etc


Ohhh, you're gong to get told off by Shaker now!

Don't you realise that because this is a "broadly religion-based forum" only comments that say that religion causes people to do bad things are acceptable?  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


Some of them, yes. As are some people who believe that their actions are guided by patriotism, or ideology or family duty or racial purity etc etc


Ohhh, you're gong to get told off by Shaker now!

Don't you realise that because this is a "broadly religion-based forum" only comments that say that religion causes people to do bad things are acceptable? †

Not told off, but reminded that we're supposed to be discussing religion. When we have a discussion about patriotism or family duty or racial purity, that's the place to discuss those things - chances are they'll be in the thread title. But frankly this sort of whataboutery is really, as genghis said, an attempt at deflection and diversion.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Not told off, but reminded that we're supposed to be discussing religion.


I thought that you wanted to discuss religiosity in the USA (the clue is in the thread title), more specifically a hypothesised inverse relationship between levels of religiosity and levels of social welfare.

In which case ghengis' comment that people may act without conscience because of their religious belief would appear to be as irrelevant to the discussion as the subsequent comments about other motivators also causing people to act without conscience.

But I don't see you pulling him up over his thread derail that lead to the subsequent comments though. †

Atheist clannishness?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Not told off, but reminded that we're supposed to be discussing religion.


I thought that you wanted to discuss religiosity in the USA (the clue is in the thread title), more specifically a hypothesised inverse relationship between levels of religiosity and levels of social welfare.

Yes, you can read the thread title - well done.

Quote:
In which case ghengis' comment that people may act without conscience because of their religious belief would appear to be as irrelevant to the discussion as the subsequent comments about other motivators also causing people to act without conscience.

But I don't see you pulling him up over his thread derail that lead to the subsequent comments though. †

Probably because I'm not bothered.

Quote:
Atheist clannishness?

Certainly.

I do hope you're not going to suggest there's no such thing as theist clannishness, are you?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Probably because I'm not bothered.


You're not bothered by the clear thread derail by your fellow atheist but will berate theists when they pick up on that strand of discussion.

So it's not actually the thread derail that disturbs you, it's just that you can't miss an opportunity to have a go at a theist.



Quote:
I do hope you're not going to suggest there's no such thing as theist clannishness, are you?


I can't see anything in what I have written that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that this is what I am suggesting.

Why do you ask?

Is it to set up a fallacious tu-quoque defence?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
You're not bothered by the clear thread derail by your fellow atheist but will berate theists when they pick up on that strand of discussion.

Who's berating whom?

Quote:
So it's not actually the thread derail that disturbs you, it's just that you can't miss an opportunity to have a go at a theist.

That's anti-theism for you - didn't you know?

Quote:
I can't see anything in what I have written that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that this is what I am suggesting.

Why do you ask?

Is it to set up a fallacious tu-quoque defence?

No ... just clarification.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Quote:
So it's not actually the thread derail that disturbs you, it's just that you can't miss an opportunity to have a go at a theist.

That's anti-theism for you - didn't you know?


Just so long as we're clear that your little outbursts can be safely ignored since they are merely an expression of your prejudice and not actually motivated by a desire that people keep to the topic.  
Shaker

Does that mean you'll be ignoring my posts in future, then?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Does that mean you'll be ignoring my posts in future, then?


Not in general, possibly the tantrums against theists though.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Does that mean you'll be ignoring my posts in future, then?


Not in general

Didn't think so  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Didn't think so †


Unsurprising, since I never gave any indication that I intended to ignore your posts in general.  
Shaker

Unfortunately not, no.
The Boyg

Anyway, back to the OP and away from genghiscant's derail, I don't know if the different states in the US have different levels of welfare provision or whether these are set by the federal government.

If it's the former then you may be able to find some more data to investigate your hypothesis by comparing religiosity with welfare provisions on a state by state basis.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Anyone who believes their actions are guided by God is capable of acting without conscience.


Some of them, yes. As are some people who believe that their actions are guided by patriotism, or ideology or family duty or racial purity etc etc


Ohhh, you're gong to get told off by Shaker now!

Don't you realise that because this is a "broadly religion-based forum" only comments that say that religion causes people to do bad things are acceptable? †

Not told off, but reminded that we're supposed to be discussing religion. When we have a discussion about patriotism or family duty or racial purity, that's the place to discuss those things - chances are they'll be in the thread title. But frankly this sort of whataboutery is really, as genghis said, an attempt at deflection and diversion.


OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?

Do you agree that if someone did make such a contribution, do you not agree that it would be valid, and on topic, to point out that they have not added to our understanding of theism, because what they have said is equally true of people who do not believe in a deity?

Which is what I did. I pointed out (though perhaps it went over your head, and you saw only the face value of the remark) I pointed out that genghiscant had, while purporting to make an observation about religion, had not done so, becaus ehe had merely uttered a truism which could be applied to far too many categories of people to be useful. So my remark was on topic, in that it pointed out that genghiscant's remark about religion was misleading, and in pointing this out I was making a point about religion, which is that it does not have a unique quality of causing amoral behaviour.
genghiscant

My post was in response to a post from Lexi, which preceded mine, saying:
Quote:
Then there are those genuinely touched, moved - who feel God / Holy Spirit within them


The Tony Blair comment was in relation to an interview I saw him give in which he said that his actions Re:Invasion of Iraq, he felt, were guided by God.
genghiscant

Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".
The Boyg

FFS, you try and get things back on topic and Genghis tries to drag it off again.  
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
FFS, you try and get things back on topic and Genghis tries to drag it off again. †


It's a good job that at least we have one poster who never goes off topic.
Shaker

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
FFS, you try and get things back on topic and Genghis tries to drag it off again. †


It's a good job that at least we have one poster who never goes off topic.

Now that really was a    moment for once!
The Boyg

genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
FFS, you try and get things back on topic and Genghis tries to drag it off again. †


It's a good job that at least we have one poster who never goes off topic.


Who's that then?  
genghiscant

The Boyg wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
FFS, you try and get things back on topic and Genghis tries to drag it off again. †


It's a good job that at least we have one poster who never goes off topic.


Who's that then? †


Ralph!
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


What, you're asking if I have evidence in support of something I haven't said or claimed?

You really do struggle with these conversations, don't you? Brave of you to keep trying, though.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


What, you're asking if I have evidence in support of something I haven't said or claimed?

You really do struggle with these conversations, don't you? Brave of you to keep trying, though.


Ah yes, the old "attack is the best defence" ploy.
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


What, you're asking if I have evidence in support of something I haven't said or claimed?

You really do struggle with these conversations, don't you? Brave of you to keep trying, though.


Ah yes, the old "attack is the best defence" ploy.


Best defence against what? Against you asking me for evidence of something I haven't said and don't believe? What exactly have you said against which you are fantasising that anyone might need to defend themselves?
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


What, you're asking if I have evidence in support of something I haven't said or claimed?

You really do struggle with these conversations, don't you? Brave of you to keep trying, though.


Ah yes, the old "attack is the best defence" ploy.


Best defence against what? Against you asking me for evidence of something I haven't said and don't believe? What exactly have you said against which you are fantasising that anyone might need to defend themselves?


You can pretend.But I know that you know.
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


What, you're asking if I have evidence in support of something I haven't said or claimed?

You really do struggle with these conversations, don't you? Brave of you to keep trying, though.


Ah yes, the old "attack is the best defence" ploy.


Best defence against what? Against you asking me for evidence of something I haven't said and don't believe? What exactly have you said against which you are fantasising that anyone might need to defend themselves?


You can pretend.But I know that you know.


Yeah, nice try chum. You have nothing, or you'd state it. Night night. Better luck next time.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


What, you're asking if I have evidence in support of something I haven't said or claimed?

You really do struggle with these conversations, don't you? Brave of you to keep trying, though.


Ah yes, the old "attack is the best defence" ploy.


Best defence against what? Against you asking me for evidence of something I haven't said and don't believe? What exactly have you said against which you are fantasising that anyone might need to defend themselves?


You can pretend.But I know that you know.


Yeah, nice try chum. You have nothing, or you'd state it. Night night. Better luck next time.


Maybe I don't want to goad you into another foul mouthed, sixth form rant.
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
Quote:
OK - so (now be honest here) do you think that the observation "anyone who believes in a deity is capable of buying toothpaste" would be a valid and useful contribution to a discussion about theism?


No, because I didn't mention "believes in a deity". I said someone who feels their actions are "guided by god".


You didn't mention toothpaste, either. Grown ups use analogies and metaphors sometimes, geng.; if you struggle with these things, you'd better sit this one out.


I wouldn't have thought that many people have been guided by God to buy toothpaste, although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?


What, you're asking if I have evidence in support of something I haven't said or claimed?

You really do struggle with these conversations, don't you? Brave of you to keep trying, though.


Ah yes, the old "attack is the best defence" ploy.


Best defence against what? Against you asking me for evidence of something I haven't said and don't believe? What exactly have you said against which you are fantasising that anyone might need to defend themselves?


You can pretend.But I know that you know.


Yeah, nice try chum. You have nothing, or you'd state it. Night night. Better luck next time.


Maybe I don't want to goad you into another foul mouthed, sixth form rant.


You have nothing, or you'd state it.
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:


Maybe I don't want to goad you into another foul mouthed, sixth form rant.


Says the oaf who called my mother a cheap whore.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:


Maybe I don't want to goad you into another foul mouthed, sixth form rant.


Says the oaf who called my mother a cheap whore.


Says the condescending, arrogant "Brain of Britain" who called my mother a liar.
Ketty



** Moderator:  Gentlemen, both: take this to the Bear Pit or desist. **
genghiscant

Ketty wrote:


** Moderator: †Gentlemen, both: take this to the Bear Pit or desist. **


I don't really mind where it's put, ** Edited **
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:


Maybe I don't want to goad you into another foul mouthed, sixth form rant.


Says the oaf who called my mother a cheap whore.


Says the condescending, arrogant "Brain of Britain" who called my mother a liar.


I have never referred to myself as Brain of Britain (but your flattery is appreciated), and I have never called you mother a liar.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
Quote:
Really, this does not bode well. You didnít get the answer you wanted, so you call me a liar. Childish nerk. You want to talk to a liar, call your mother.
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Quote:
Really, this does not bode well. You didnít get the answer you wanted, so you call me a liar. Childish nerk. You want to talk to a liar, call your mother.


Fair enough, I forgot that. It doesn't justify your childish behaviour though.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Quote:
Really, this does not bode well. You didnít get the answer you wanted, so you call me a liar. Childish nerk. You want to talk to a liar, call your mother.


Fair enough, I forgot that. It doesn't justify your childish behaviour though.


Is your own behaviour justified then?
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Quote:
Really, this does not bode well. You didnít get the answer you wanted, so you call me a liar. Childish nerk. You want to talk to a liar, call your mother.


Fair enough, I forgot that. It doesn't justify your childish behaviour though.


Is your own behaviour justified then?


Yup. You have a fuck you attitude. When I tried (foolishly) to engage you in debate you said, quite unprovoked "Think what you like, I don't give a shit". You called all Christians on the board a cunt. You are despicable.
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Quote:
Really, this does not bode well. You didnít get the answer you wanted, so you call me a liar. Childish nerk. You want to talk to a liar, call your mother.


Fair enough, I forgot that. It doesn't justify your childish behaviour though.


Is your own behaviour justified then?


Yup. You have a fuck you attitude. When I tried (foolishly) to engage you in debate you said, quite unprovoked "Think what you like, I don't give a shit". You called all Christians on the board a cunt. You are despicable.


And you are a typical bully. You love dishing it out, but you don't like me giving it back.
That's why you never start a thread, you hate the thought of people critisising your opinions & asking you questions, prefering to snipe at others threads from the safety of distance. Using deflection &  pedantism against any opinion that you disagree with, instead of answering intelligently.
I'm obviously not as educated as you. I left school at 15yrs & have worked on building sites ever since. I've met your kind many times, people who will put me down because of my lack of education, but I refuse to be bullied by you.
The only poster you can't be condecending with is Shaker, because you know he has the beating of you.

You are a bully & coward.
The Boyg

So ..... Religiosity in the USA, any thoughts about that?
Shaker

Anyone fancy a pint?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Anyone fancy a pint?


Still 'dry January' . . . maybe at the weekend?
genghiscant

Shaker wrote:
Anyone fancy a pint?


Mine's a Ringwood forty niner, if you're buying.
Powwow

http://www.economist.com/blogs/de...erica/2012/02/americas-safety-net
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
Anyone fancy a pint?


Guiness please.
Ketty

Lexi you've got another day to go!  Be strong.  
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
I left school at 15yrs & have worked on building sites ever since. I've met your kind many times, people who will put me down because of my lack of education


I don't put you down because of your lack of education. I put you down because **edited - This is not The Bear Pit** (TV Moderator)
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
I left school at 15yrs & have worked on building sites ever since. I've met your kind many times, people who will put me down because of my lack of education


I don't put you down because of your lack of education. I put you down because **edited - This is not The Bear Pit** (TV Moderator)


Such wit, such charm.
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
I left school at 15yrs & have worked on building sites ever since. I've met your kind many times, people who will put me down because of my lack of education


I don't put you down because of your lack of education. I put you down because **edited - This is not The Bear Pit** (TV Moderator)


Such wit, such charm.


Do you remeber when you, for several months on end, called all Christians 'cunts' on a daily basis?
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
I left school at 15yrs & have worked on building sites ever since. I've met your kind many times, people who will put me down because of my lack of education


I don't put you down because of your lack of education. I put you down because **edited - This is not The Bear Pit** (TV Moderator)


Such wit, such charm.


Do you remeber when you, for several months on end, called all Christians 'cunts' on a daily basis?


Careful, you nearly let go of your handbag then.
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
I left school at 15yrs & have worked on building sites ever since. I've met your kind many times, people who will put me down because of my lack of education


I don't put you down because of your lack of education. I put you down because **edited - This is not The Bear Pit** (TV Moderator)


Such wit, such charm.


Do you remeber when you, for several months on end, called all Christians 'cunts' on a daily basis?


Careful, you nearly let go of your handbag then.


No, my handbag is in my locker. What the fuck are you blithering on about this time?
genghiscant

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
I left school at 15yrs & have worked on building sites ever since. I've met your kind many times, people who will put me down because of my lack of education


I don't put you down because of your lack of education. I put you down because **edited - This is not The Bear Pit** (TV Moderator)


Such wit, such charm.


Do you remeber when you, for several months on end, called all Christians 'cunts' on a daily basis?


Careful, you nearly let go of your handbag then.


No, my handbag is in my locker. What the fuck are you blithering on about this time?


Oh, must have been your dummy I saw you fumbling with.

"blithering". there's a word I haven't come across in a long time.
trentvoyager

Not wishing to come between you two with your handbags drawn - but imo blithering is a very fine word and should be used more frequently.
Lexilogio

trentvoyager wrote:
Not wishing to come between you two with your handbags drawn - but imo blithering is a very fine word and should be used more frequently.


I agree. Perhaps we should have a word of the week - and encourage posters to use it?
bnabernard

Where does the word blithering come from   (head scratch)

bernard (hug)
trentvoyager

Not sure Bernie - but used in conjunction with idiot - as in "blithering idiot" it is somehow very satisfactory to my ear.  
IvyOwl

It's a varient of blather which according to the OXFORD dictionary.

Quote:
late Middle English (as a verb; originally Scots and northern English dialect): from Old Norse blathra 'talk nonsense', from blathr 'nonsense'.
genghiscant

A real Captain Mainwaring word.
Lexilogio

Is it related to "Blethering" which is a word I grew up with for general chit chat.
IvyOwl

Lexilogio wrote:
Is it related to "Blethering" which is a word I grew up with for general chit chat.


That's the way I've always pronounced it meaning inconsequential chat particularly persistant,
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
A real Captain Mainwaring word.


No. He was a middle-class southerner; I had a working class northern upbringing. I think you might have got it wrong again.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
A real Captain Mainwaring word.


No. He was a middle-class southerner; I had a working class northern upbringing. I think you might have got it wrong again.

Not necessarily. There was a famous (well, famous if you're a fan, anyway) episode of Dad's Army where Mainwaring's brother turned up, much to M's chagrin since he - the brother; Barry I think he was called - was the black sheep of the family: very much the good time guy, a jovial, smoking, loud-suited old alcoholic. Barry had a Northern accent - not cast-iron proof that Mainwaring and his brother had the same upbringing in the same place and the same time, but a possibility.
Quizzimodo

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
genghiscant wrote:
A real Captain Mainwaring word.


No. He was a middle-class southerner; I had a working class northern upbringing. I think you might have got it wrong again.

Not necessarily. There was a famous (well, famous if you're a fan, anyway) episode of Dad's Army where Mainwaring's brother turned up, much to M's chagrin since he - the brother; Barry I think he was called - was the black sheep of the family: very much the good time guy, a jovial, smoking, loud-suited old alcoholic. Barry had a Northern accent - not cast-iron proof that Mainwaring and his brother had the same upbringing in the same place and the same time, but a possibility.


Dads's Army! Now that's a subject I could bore you with for hours.

Yes the brother was called Barry.
As far as I know where the Mainwaring's were originally from was never mentioned but their father was a tailor in Eastbourne
Shaker

Oh no, not another DA addict
Ketty

Aw, it was lovely at the end of that episode when Mr Mainwaring (Po-face) willingly gave the father's fob watch to his brother.

Yep, Dad's Army addicts here too.
Shaker

Oh noes!!!!one!!! Take to the hills †
Lexilogio

IvyOwl wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Is it related to "Blethering" which is a word I grew up with for general chit chat.


That's the way I've always pronounced it meaning inconsequential chat particularly persistant,


I use both though. Blithering is a description of a person, while blethering is a type of speech.

So - "I saw our local councillor, that blithering idiot, blethering on to the PM as if he was ever going to get picked to stand for the party."

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum