Are you religious?

[Rodcx500z]

I am sat here it's 08-45am looking at 24 bottles of my first ag brew, so I looked up to the ceiling and said god can you speed this along please, will I get a reply no, there is no god and please if they explode don't tell me he is angry

 

[An Ankoù]

I am sat here it's ther hans08-45am looking at 24 bottles of my first ag brew, so I looked up to the ceiling and said god can you speed this along please, will I get a reply no, there is no god and please if they explode don't tell me he is angry

On the other hand, if you unexpectedly get a thunderbolt up your jacksie!!!
We try not to pisss off the gods here in Valhala. (Even if they are a limp-wristed lot who can't hold their beer without having a tantrum. But shhh, wasn't me who said that).

 

[Rodj]

We try not to pisss off the gods here in Valhala. (Even if they are a limp-wristed lot who can't hold their beer without having a tantrum.

Interesting thought, about the gods being unable to hold their beer. I'm now totally confused. Do gods have a stomach? (I mean one each, not one shared between the lot of them.) (Although that is also an interesting, if rather horrific, thought.) Do they have a bloodstream? What would happen if a god were breathalysed? Could you lock one up if he (/she / it) was over the limit? What is the limit for a god - is it the same as for us lesser beings?
Please describe the Valhala gods, An Ankoù. And if you did want to piss them off, how would you go about it? Maybe give them Vimto?
You have just thrown my entire day into a state of total uncertainty. I don't know what to believe or to think. It's lunchtine, so maybe I can allow myself a drink. First I'll have a chat with Cokou (one of my budgies). At least when he answers my questions he doesn't cast into doubt the entire world of rationality.

 

[An Ankoù]

Please describe the Valhala gods

If you insist. But my earlier comment was tongue-in-cheek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard

Regards to Cokou. She's not what she appears to be.

 

[Rodj]

my earlier comment was tongue-in-cheek.

I hadn't actually imagined that it was anything other than tongue-in-cheek, but thanks for the reassurance. Nonetheless, if you care to offer an equally tongue-in-cheek description of the Valhala gods I'm sure it will brighten the humdrum existence of many of those who read these posts. I looked at the link and wished I hadn't.

Cokou is most certainly not what she appears to be. For a start, she is a he. And yes, we snog, BUT although I am a male and he is a male, he's a budgie, and budgies are different. Same-*** snogging is wholly acceptable if you're a budgie (or if you're snogging a budgie). If you have experience of budgies you'll understand this; if you haven't, don't worry about it.
I've passed on your regards. He says chirp.

 

[BarnBrian]

I hadn't actually imagined that it was anything other than tongue-in-cheek, but thanks for the reassurance. Nonetheless, if you care to offer an equally tongue-in-cheek description of the Valhala gods I'm sure it will brighten the humdrum existence of many of those who read these posts. I looked at the link and wished I hadn't.

Cokou is most certainly not what she appears to be. For a start, she is a he. And yes, we snog, BUT although I am a male and he is a male, he's a budgie, and budgies are different. Same-*** snogging is wholly acceptable if you're a budgie (or if you're snogging a budgie). If you have experience of budgies you'll understand this; if you haven't, don't worry about it.
I've passed on your regards. He says chirp.

I think it's about time Chirppy closed this thread

 

[kelper]

Yeah, me too. It's a beer forum, not a theology university. But there are some deep thinkers on this thread. Kudos to them but I have just unfollowed.

Beer is proof that god loves us. Utter tosh but makes me smile.

 

[Rodcx500z]

I agree

 

[Chippy_Tea]

It's a beer forum, not a theology university

We see this posted fairly often so can I remind everyone especially new members that the Snug is a place where all topics that do not fit in the other forums can be discussed.

Could I ask why after 249 posts some members want the thread closing as the mods have not received and complaints/reports.

Members can report a post using the report link under each post.

 

[kelper]

Sorry, you are right Chippy. I won't follow this thread anymore because it seems to be too esoteric for me. But I don't want you to close it.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

No problem Kelper, I haven't read every post so if anyone has seen something that breaks the forum rules feel free to report it, all reports are confidential so no one will know who sent the report.

 

[MmmBeer]

This has been an entertaining thread and everyone from all angles of the discussion has stayed largely respectful on a potentially explosive subject. (We miss you Gunge!)

Its just that the updates over the last few days have failed to pique my interest, so for that reason, I'm out too.

 

[BarnBrian]

We see this posted fairly often so can I remind everyone especially new members that the Snug is a place where all topics that do not fit in the other forums can be discussed.

Could I ask why after 249 posts some members want the thread closing as the mods have not received and complaints/reports.

Members can report a post using the report link under each post.

Chippy. My post was meant to be a play on words regarding the budgie

 

[An Ankoù]

It is getting a bit weird, and when it comes to weird I can't help rising to the challenge. But it has little to do with beer. It's brought out some great thoughts. It's been amazingly respectful. Shame to close it though, I agree with Chippy, it'll die its own death.



... and go to heaven.

 

[Rodcx500z]

I think it's run it's coarse, so no more from me and thank you all for being civil and tolerent

 

[Rodcx500z]

Reet i'll have another beer then sorry, so the concloution is we are a bunch of beer swilling atheists who can't spell

 

[Rodj]

Cokou likes beer too. Don't know if he's an atheist.

 

[Hoppyland]

Good morning Hoppyland.
We are almost certainly talking at cross-purposes here.

Yep, I guess we are. The most important bit, to me, is the idea that certain things cannot be "immediately" tested, and therefore are not amenable to science. I suppose I am "religious" in the sense that I cannot conceive how anything can ever be understood without the scientific method.
But, I am also not a fan of Popperian "falsifiability". I suppose that this is is because I'm a biologist. I spent much of my working life attempting to understand more about shellfish. (Some may think this sad - for me it was play disguised as work!). So, I'm used to the idea that many experiments only provide an index of probability of "true" or "false". In my field, I felt that we were inching towards a better understanding of an enormously complex, dynamic system (involving biology, oceanography, climatology). Not much progress was made, unfortunately.........
But, you're right, this is becoming well off-topic for this forum.

 

[simon12]

Cheers everyone for a good discussion and I think the main point did did finish a bit ago but thats not a reason to close it. on the science topic I did stumble across this today

Note I did genuinely randomly come across it not search for something to make a point.
and thanks for all for showing religion can be discussed rationally unlike the b word and for contributions in general.

 

[nottsbl]

Good morning Hoppyland.
We are almost certainly talking at cross-purposes here. Popper's principle was about scientific method, not about trying to use science to disprove the existence of (for example) God.
If we formulate a hypothesis, he argues, we must be able to say by what means we could show that hypothesis to be false. If we can do so, then we can do science, if not then the subject is not amenable to science.
Let's suppose our observation leads us to propose that the Earth is, while a bit bumpy, essentially flat. We can devise methods by which we might show that to be wrong, eg., going to an observation point well away from the surface and seeing that we have in fact a rotating sphere.
Similarly, the phenomenon of ships' masts sinking below the horizon might lead us to wonder if the Earth's surface were not curved. We could check whether our theory was false in the same way. Our method shows us that the Earth's surface is indeed curved, but it might have shown us otherwise. We had devised a method which might have shown our hypothesis to be false (even though it isn't) and so according to Popper, the question is amenable to science.
My point was that we haven't yet found a way of demonstrating that "God exists" is false and so the issue is not amenable to science. In fact many would argue that the declaration is, itself, meaningless. Conversely, if we could come up with a reliable method of showing that God does not exist, other than eschatological verification, then we can start doing science.
No doubt Popper doesn't have the last word on the matter. Nevertheless, it's certainly worth looking him up. It works for me.

Perhaps we should move our discussion to a philosophy forum as we've moved a long way away from home brewing and from the original poll. Just googled this to see if there was anything interesting out there:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=science

I think the scientific method would be to read Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, etc (no need to rehash their arguments, just read the books - read, summarize their arguments and then refute if you can); It really boils down to - what created the universe? a God; who created this "God"? gosh, let me get all mystical, circles of life etc. If you really think that when you die you have more continued existence than a squashed dog in the road, I have a gold brick to sell you.