Evidence for the existence of God (Part 3)

First topic message reminder :

The problem with discussions between theists and atheists is that eventually it comes down to the argument of not being able to prove a negative false. As a statistician, in my working life, I have often come across this as a problem. It really ends up as a lack of understanding of the concept of an hypothesis and the nature of the contrary position, the null hypothesis.
 
Consider the following example
 
Hypothesis 1 - There are fairies at the bottom of my garden. (My hypothesis or H1 for short)
 
In stating this I automatically generate a contrary (null) hypothesis which would be
 
Hypothesis 0 - There are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. (The null hypothesis or H0 for short)
 
The null hypothesis is entirely a consequence of stating the first hypothesis. If H1 is not true then we would automatically assume that H0 was true.
 
At this point (courtesy of the Cottingley Fairies and Arthur Conan Doyle) I produce a set of photographs. On scientific scrutiny these are held to be jolly fine photographs and completely fake. At this point I retreat into my bedroom to sulk and it is held that H1 fails on the basis of no evidence and therefore we accept the null hypothesis viz. there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Postulating that at some time in the future someone may come up with evidence that confirms H1 in no way changes the argument. We are dealing with NOW and as of NOW there is no evidence and the hypothesis fails. We accept H0. Wish fulfillment does not give you a reason to accept H1 in spite of the lack of evidence.
 
So now lets look at the existence of God argument.
 
H1 - God exists (the theist position)
which then automatically generates a contrary position
H0 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
 
In passing it is worth noting that the atheist position is a default one. It does NOT require belief. It is simply what is left when the H1 proposition fails, however this is for another time.
 
Now atheists would claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and therefore H1 fails. (In passing one might wonder why, if there is evidence for god, that the religion that has that evidence has not therefore swallowed up all the others who clearly would be lacking in this respect. Is simply a multiplicity of religions an argument for the non-existence of God I wonder?)
 
At this point many theists go for the 'You cannot prove god does not exist' argument. This is the hypotheses above the other way around.
 
H1 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
and
H0 - God exists (the theist position)
 
The atheists just shrug and the theists jump up and down with glee saying the null hypothesis has it, God exists. The problem is that when you consider what the null hypothesis is, you have to ask one crucial question. Is the null hypothesis compatible with a stated position of no evidence.
 
Consider
H1 - Unicorns exist
and hence
H0 - Unicorn do not exist
 
Is a non-existent unicorn compatible with no evidence for the existence of unicorns? Yes it is. Now ask yourself the question if the hypotheses are reversed. Is an existing unicorn compatible with no evidence? No it isn't. Where are the hoof prints and the unicorn poop!!
 
So here we reach the crux. Is a null hypothesis of H0 - God exists compatible with no evidence for God existing. Clearly, as with the unicorn, the answer is no.
 
Atheists do not have to prove God does not exist. It is a meaningless quest because, without evidence, there is no reason or logic in believing that god does exist.

Present day man has nothing to do with anything prior to the birth of Jesus.

Those times are well gone and the terminology used are not applicable to today, a person is made blind, you can be blind and still have your sight.

A person can be having a life of pain etc; and releived of the pain can be said to have a new lease of life etc;etc; etc;

So present day man doesn't use the wheel because it was invented prior to the birth of Jesus? Or does this only apply to certain things? Because that would render your comment meaningless, which it essentially is.

I am talking about God and not man made toys.

God gave those prior to the birth of Jesus the rules by which they could best enjoy life and material things of that time or since have no relevance.

I find it amusing you'd write off one of the single most significant inventions in the history of mankind as a toy.
But anyway, following your 'logic' that would mean the Ten Commandments are an irrelevance.

polyglide wrote:Present day man has nothing to do with anything prior to the birth of Jesus.

Those times are well gone and the terminology used are not applicable to today, a person is made blind, you can be blind and still have your sight.

A person can be having a life of pain etc; and releived of the pain can be said to have a new lease of life etc;etc; etc;

Present day man has everything to do with everything prior to the birth of Jesus. Without early civilisation we would not be where we are today. Medicine, science, art, religion were all recognised and practised long before Jesus. Forms of psychiatric disorders were also recognised.
As for Jesus, there would be no Christianity without Judaism or without the Tanakh. Matthew 5:17. If there were no Law or prophets there would be nothing for Jesus to fulfil. Christianity relies on the Tanakh prophecies for its own version of them. Without the Tanakh Jesus would be redundant. As he is to most Jews anyway. The whole story starts, according to the Bible, long before Jesus.

Not to mention that were it not for the Old Testament the chroniclers of Jesus' life wouldn't have been able to make out that his life was a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy.

Oh PG, please read Trevor's post, as Christianity did not come about if it was not for the Jewish religion and their prophet's, their holy law, and their commandments. They were all in the Jewish Tanakh, long before the Christian bible.

[quote="stuart torr"]Oh PG, please read Trevor's post, as Christianity did not come about if it was not for the Jewish religion and their prophet's, their holy law, and their commandments. They were all in the Jewish Tanakh, long before the Christian bible. Also before jesus lived.

I would imagine the comments about stuff prior to Jesus being irrelevant is purely as a means of glossing over the malevolence attributed to god in the OT.

The original OT Dan was in the TANAKH. That's where the Christians got it from.

Hi Trev.
Well it seems like our conversation has come to a sudden halt mate, is there no more for us to discuss about anything?

stuart torr wrote:Hi Trev.
Well it seems like our conversation has come to a sudden halt mate, is there no more for us to discuss about anything?

Let's try this quote by Dan Fante on Wed Jun 04, 2014 4:21 pm
I would imagine the comments about stuff prior to Jesus being irrelevant is purely as a means of glossing over the malevolence attributed to god in the OT.

Is the god of the Tanakh really as malevolent as said? Or is it simply the way that the Hebrews saw their god.

They believed that Jahweh chose them above all the other tribes. Is it just their way of saying that god punished them when they did wrong, and blessed then when they did right. When they were faced with an enemy they prayed for help. If they won, god had blessed them. If they didn't, god had punished them. Wars were a fact of life in the old times, like now. Destruction of nations, men, women and children were often the victims.

Read this which I came on many years ago during studies. Assur-narsipal II was an Assyrian Emperor

Ashurnasirpal II succeeded his father, Tukulti-Ninurta II, in 883 BC. During his reign he embarked on a vast program of expansion, first conquering the peoples to the north in Asia Minor as far as Nairi and exacting tribute from Phrygia, then invading Aram (modern Syria) conquering the Aramaeans and neo Hittites between the Khabur and the Euphrates Rivers. His harshness prompted a revolt that he crushed decisively in a pitched, two-day battle. According to his monument inscription while recalling this massacre he says "their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire." Following this victory, he advanced without opposition as far as the Mediterranean and exacted tribute from Phoenicia. On his return home he moved his capital to the city of Kalhu (Nimrud).

Assur-narsipal II was perhaps the most cruel of Emperors, but others weren't far behind.

Undoubtedly the Israelites had to battle to keep 'the Promised Land'. Though it's fairly evident that they never conquered it as is said in the Tanakh.

Does that leave any questions?

Hi Trev.
Well for starters, I don't think the god of the Tanakh is that malevolent.
That emperor was some cruel guy though was he not? where in the east is the actual promised land now then Trev?
If the Israelites had to battle to keep it, but never conquered it? does it say in the Tanakh then that they did conquer it?
I thought that one of the reasons of Shabbat-Sabbath was to commemorate their freedom from slavery,is it not also to commemorate keeping the promised land?

stuart torr wrote:Hi Trev.
Well for starters, I don't think the god of the Tanakh is that malevolent.
That emperor was some cruel guy though was he not? where in the east is the actual promised land now then Trev?
If the Israelites had to battle to keep it, but never conquered it?  does it say in the Tanakh then that they did conquer it?
I thought that one of the reasons of Shabbat-Sabbath was to commemorate their freedom from slavery,is it not also to commemorate keeping the promised land?

Crumbs. That will be a 6 month Study in itself.

The land promised to the Jews. The easiest way is to show you http://www.bible-history.com/geography/maps/map_canaan_tribal_portions.html.
Not quite all this land was taken as the tribe of Dan on the Mediterranean coast found the inhabitants too strong to conquer so they moved north and occupied some of Mannaseh.

If you compare this with a modern map you will see the extent of the area. Into Syria, Jordan the borders of Lebanon and to the borders of Egypt.

The Tanakh tells us that David extended the area but there is little evidence of this.

When I said 'The Israelites had to battle to keep it, but not conquer it' I meant this.

Much of the Tanakh is a story written to explain what they believed about their god. He had rescued them from the 'heathen' nations around. They used the Egyptians for this. There is no evidence they were ever actually in Egypt, or slaves. Egypt symbolised their captivity by the morals of the world around. The Exodus was their escape from this captivity. There is no evidence for their actual stay in Egypt or for the Exodus. There is little evidence for their fighting their way into the Promised Land. It is probable they were already there as a tribe but became the most powerful by fighting the other tribes.

Today they occupy part of the land, the Arabs the rest.
Hope you understand this. It's a bit of it in a nutshell.

Hi Trev.
Well when I ask questions I ask questions eh Trev? see you in six months then when you can answer my questions,  
I'm afraid I don't understand it fully Trev, as a lot of it goes over my head, even after the studying I've done.
You can see that the Romans were a powerful bunch of whotsits were they not? especially with the amount of countries they seemed to be in charge of.
Which part of the promised land then do the Jewish people occupy, as they are who the Tanakh is about is it not?
Please forgive me Trev, as not knowing the lands etc, I find it difficult to put names as to who is who so to speak, when you are talking of Palestine, Syria, Israel, etc.
Then Jews, Hebrews, etc I am starting to get mixed up as to who is where if you know what I mean. 

I don't see a distinction between the way the Hebrews viewed god and god himself given I believe they invented something which doesn't exist. So I don't believe in a malevolent god but, if you read the acts attributed to him then that description seems to fit him rather well.

stuart torr wrote:Hi Trev.
Well when I ask questions I ask questions eh Trev? see you in six months then when you can answer my questions,  
I'm afraid I don't understand it fully Trev, as a lot of it goes over my head, even after the studying I've done.
You can see that the Romans were a powerful bunch of whotsits were they not? especially with the amount of countries they seemed to be in charge of.
Which part of the promised land then do the Jewish people occupy, as they are who the Tanakh is about is it not?
Please forgive me Trev, as not knowing the lands etc, I find it difficult to put names as to who is who so to speak, when you are talking of Palestine, Syria, Israel, etc.
Then Jews, Hebrews, etc I am starting to get mixed up as to who is where if you know what I mean. 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sa=G&q=israel+palestine+map&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSZxplCxCo1NgEGgQIBAgLDAsQsIynCBo8CjoIA
This will help you to see the situation in Palestine today. Palestine is the name for the general area occupied by Israel, Palestinian Arabs and part of Sinai and Jordan. In the map Jews occupy the green areas and the Arabs the red areas. Top right is Syria, and Jordan is south of Syria.
They Jews were expelled from Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans. In 1948 the United Nations gave them back an area of Palestine. They have expanded this mainly by defeating the Arabs who have attacked them and tried to destroy their state. The map shows you where they are today. The Jews and the Hebrews. Different names for the same people. The 'Jews' name came from a son of Jacob - Judah. The 'Hebrews' from the language they wrote and spoke early in their history.

Dan Fante wrote:I don't see a distinction between the way the Hebrews viewed god and god himself given I believe they invented something which doesn't exist. So I don't believe in a malevolent god but, if you read the acts attributed to him then that description seems to fit him rather well.

Then you don't have a problem. Neither do I, being agnostic. But others do and always trying to distinguish between the god of the Tanakh and the god of the NT.
Jews had their own ideas I have mentioned, of a seemingly malevolent god, though they would not agree that he was malevolent, just acted as a father would and punished wrong doing and blessing for doing right. Whereas Christians prefer their view of a benevolent god who is willing to forgive if one is penitent.

The Israeli army Trev, must either far outnumber the Arabs, or just have better firepower, as the fighting especially over the Gaza strip has been going on for years.
The Israeli's have gained ground back off the Palestinians by the miles have they not? do both sides see this as a holy war?
It will be going on a lot longer before the Jews regain their land will it not, I do not think there will be peace there in our life time do you Trev.?

stuart torr wrote:The Israeli army Trev, must either far outnumber the Arabs, or just have better firepower, as the fighting especially over the Gaza strip has been going on for years.
The Israeli's have gained ground back off the Palestinians by the miles have they not? do both sides see this as a holy war?
It will be going on a lot longer before the Jews regain their land will it not, I do not think there will be peace there in our life time do you Trev.?

The Israeli army is composed of every man person who is old enough to carry arms. Besides the regular army, every male citizen has to do 3 years in military training and women 2 years training. They have the backing of the US. Better organised and equipped. Not only that, they are inventive society, forward looking.
The Arabs have a different culture. Women are still under the control of men in most places, therefore not involved in most military activity.
Their weapons are supplied by other states like Syria.
Religion has kept them still in the dark ages in some respects.
Arab countries, if you look, are backward looking. If something is of benefit to them, but against their religion, they reject it. Palestinian Arabs are not strong enough on their own.
It is my opinion that if the Arab nations got together they could defeat Israel, but at great cost to themselves. I don't think they will publically do it. This would bring the US, UK and probably other European countries, into the conflict. The UN gave the Jews their own state, they would need to defend it.
Or prove ineffective, like the old League of Nations.

Hi Trev.
Well looking at the maps that you showed me of Israel's ownership of their own land, it looks like they have another 20% to regain.
Comes as no surprise to find out that the US, is on their side, but what do the yanks actually gain from helping them, because they usually pick the side who can help them the most.
If all the other Arabian countries got together then you reckon that us the yanks and quite a few euro countries would have to pile in to help Israel? almost like wwiii in a way then?

stuart torr wrote:Hi Trev.
Well looking at the maps that you showed me of Israel's ownership of their own land, it looks like they have another 20% to regain.
Comes as no surprise to find out that the US, is on their side, but what do the yanks actually gain from helping them, because they usually pick the side who can help them the most.
If all the other Arabian countries got together then you reckon that us the yanks and quite a few euro countries would have to pile in to help Israel? almost like wwiii in a way then?

Many of the rich and powerful in the USA are of Jewish descent. It's a lot more complicated than that involving Zionism, Zionist illuminati, world order and much more. I don't intend going into it as it is something I know about but have not studied.

Hi Trev.
No offence meant I hope none will be taken, when I suggest to you that you do not like passing comment on any subject unless you have studied it.
Again please don't take offence the gate by all means, but not offence,  
Do you not have your own opinions on things that happen in the world, or even here in England?
Do you watch sport of any kind? do you support a football team?
or rugby team?
Can I ask you what is your idea of relaxation?

stuart torr wrote:Hi Trev.
No offence meant I hope none will be taken, when I suggest to you that you do not like passing comment on any subject unless you have studied it.
Again please don't take offence the gate by all means, but not offence,  
Do you not have your own opinions on things that happen in the world, or even here in England?
Do you watch sport of any kind? do you support a football team?
or rugby team?
Can I ask you what is your idea of relaxation?

I'm not easily offended by anyone. The problem with changing the subject of the thread is that it will be closed. This thread is about evidence for the existence of god. If we go off the subject for more than a few posts the moderators will probably close this thread. They have already done this on another. It would have to be a new thread opened up.

Ok Trev.
Forgot about that they are strict on here are they not.
Right back to the existence of god, now you know my opinion on that matter from the beginning, one I do not believe in god, angels, hell or anything that is written in the book called the bible written by man.
There was a man around who was a preacher, that the bible named jesus, and the romans crucified him, which made him a martyr.
Now this guy jesus was also supposed to be the son of mary and the holy spirit? now how a spirit can make a woman pregnant is downright daft if you ask me.
That is unless she had drunk a bottle of the stuff then she would not know who made her pregnant would she? might have been peter paul Joshua or luke.

Sorry TREV.
That is how I feel about god/religion and I'm just about fed up with the lot at the moment as there is only so much you can say as an atheist and keep the discussion going etc etc , been on these sites a few years now and they are beginning to bore the hell out of me when you can't have a chat about other things without the thread being locked. so take care.

stuart torr. We are expected by the site owners to keep threads on topic:-
 
User Levels and Groups
What are Moderators?
Moderators are individuals (or groups of individuals) whose job it is to look after the running of the forums from day to day. They have the power to edit or delete posts and lock, unlock, move, delete and split topics in the forum they moderate. Generally moderators are there to prevent people going off-topic or posting abusive or offensive material.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/faq
 
It does make sense. The alternative would be that all threads just turn into discussions which have no bearing on the subject. However, the title of this thread is sufficiently generalised to allow all manner of comments!
 
When we offered to have a chat room on the forum, only three members voted in favour of the idea:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t910-would-you-like-to-see-a-chat-facility
 
If you want to have a private chat with trevor2539 or anyone else, there is the personal messaging system on the bar at the top of the home page. It also has the advantage that whatever you write to each other cannot be seen by anyone else, not even the staff.
 
I would also get bored discussing religion, year in year out (we do have 19 other boards you could explore). At the end of the day, my view is that either you believe in things that cannot be proved (or disproved) or you don’t. I don’t. One of my few heroes, Richard Dawkins, would disagree with me as, in ‘The God Delusion’, he came up with seven categories of belief as follows:-
 
1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Jung, "I do not believe, I know".
 
2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
 
3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
 
4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. "God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
 
5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. "I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical."
 
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
 
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one."
 
Dawkins placed himself in category 6, leaning towards 7. He adds that "atheists do not have faith, and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist".

Thanks Ivan
 
Stuart

stuart torr wrote:Sorry TREV.
That is how I feel about god/religion and I'm just about fed up with the lot at the moment as there is only so much you can say as an atheist and keep the discussion going etc etc , been on these sites a few years now and they are beginning to bore the hell out of me when you can't have a chat about other things without the thread being locked. so take care.

Stuart. I agree there is only so much that can be discussed about religion. My interest is in the relationship between the Jewish religion and culture and those in the same region, and their inter-action. Did you know that some of the Jewish religious ritual and religious items resemble those of the Egyptians. Monotheism wasn't a new idea. Circumcision wasn't new although it was supposed to be a sign of the Jews being gods own people.

Hi Trev.
I knew about the Jewish religious rituals and religious items or some, resembling those of the Egyptians.
I didn't know that circumcision was a sign of the Jews being gods own people.

stuart torr wrote:Hi Trev.
I knew about the Jewish religious rituals and religious items or some, resembling those of the Egyptians.
I didn't know that circumcision was a sign of the Jews being gods own people.

It's found in Genesis 17. Talk again tomorrow. Bedtime for me.

Afternoon Trev.
well got to start again as computer crashed.
If I remember rightly all I had got as far as saying was, that I was going to ask you a few questions and you did not have to answer them straight away, just when you had the time.
The first was how do you think that the Earth came into existence?
Are you actually a believer in god?
How did joseph's Mary get pregnant?
How does cutting off a foreskin make a it a sign that the MALE Jews only being gods own people?
What about the female Jews Trev?
Do they have circumcision also?
So they can be gods own people?
I doubt that very much at all Trev, so why is it a male dominated society that can be gods own people?

Firstly I don't know how the Earth came into existence. I accept the evidence of the  Big Bang 'theory'. However, what caused it and the mechanics involved I don't think even science can answer yet.
 
I am agnostic. Whether there is a spiritual superior being or not I don't know. I don't believe in the Biblical god as revealed there.
 
How did Mary get pregnant? The Bible says by the intervention of god. If you check your biology lessons you will see that it is possible for a virgin to become pregnant without actual penetration by the male. And today, by scientific means, virgins can produce children.
 
Circumcision. This was meant to be a sign, a covenant between god and the Jewish individual and nation.
In Patriarchal societies the male was dominant and the woman considered as property.
However the woman in traditional Judaism was considered of higher importance than this. She was considered as equal, but separate. In simple terms, the male had his duties to provide for the family, the woman her obligations to look after the home and her family.
Hebrew women had more rights than women in the west had before 1900. They could buy, sell and own property. In fact the Bible highly recommends a virtuous and capable wife. 'She is more precious than rubies...' Proverbs 31  mentions things she can do to make her husband proud. But still the male represented the Jewish house and it was he who was circumcised.

Hi Trev.
Well the big bang theory, and now just about almost accepted as fact, science has explained just about 95%.
Well as Ivan put Dawkins 1-7 YOU ARE ABOUT NUMBER 5.in being an agnostic that doesn't believe in the bibles version of god but are not sure if there is such a superior being or not.
I know about IVF these days Trev that were not invented back in the biblical days and they are the ones I was talking about Trev,
the bible says the holy spirit got mary pregnant, can you believe that?
The women in Judaism was considered of higher importance and was considered equal? how could she be equal if her job was to stay at home like a good little girl and look after the house and kids?
She is more precious than rubies, yet the male represented the Jewish house!! sounds a little hypocritical to me Trev.

Quoting previous messages
 
If you are answering the most recent message on a thread, there is no need to quote it. We only need to see messages once.
 
If you’re answering an earlier message on a thread, then it's a good idea to quote some of it for reference. However, if it’s a long message, please just quote the part of it that you wish to answer.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips

I didn't say IVF was available in those days. I was merely saying that there are ways a virgin can give birth. I have no idea how Mary got pregnant. I merely quoted what the Bible says.

And think about it. What is more important than bringing up children. A son in those days was the most precious thing a man could have. The mother was entrusted in with that privilege. In Judaism they shared the responsibilities of the family. For us to criticise their way is to criticise our own ways. Even till recently it was expected that the man of the house would be the breadwinner. It wasn't until 100 years ago, during WWI that women started to move into the workplace.

If you read the Tanakh you will find several women who had prominent places in Israel. Deborah was a leader of Israel, and even led them into battle.

The phrase 'more precious than rubies' is metaphorical.
This woman is an excellent wife and mother.

We need to understand the language and culture of the Tanakh

Hi Trev.
Well I'm sorry to say, that I cannot study anymore of the Tanakh,
it may well be your cup of tea so to speak, but I'm afraid it isn't mine. Therefore I will not be able to understand your posts, because of the language and culture of it. Very sorry once again.

Stuart. No problem. We can't all like the same thing. Good luck.

Seems very strange though Trev, that no-one else seemed to join in the discussion apart from myself and you, does it not?

stuart torr wrote:Seems very strange though Trev, that no-one else seemed to join in the discussion apart from myself and you, does it not?

Everyone has their own opinions, mainly based on 20th century thinking. They are satisfied with that without the inconvenience of actually looking into things that were written in a different age, culture and against a different background. Quite often the Tanakh does not makes sense for that reason.
We read of a king killed by Davids' troops and being resurrected two chapters later. Of course, it didn't happen. Read the two events carefully and you can see the scribal error.
Did Solomon have 700 wives and 300 concubines? Almost certainly not. BUT if you substitute 'Many' in place of 700, and the same for concubines, the answer would be almost certainly 'yes' knowing the customs of the day.
Did Solomon have 1400 chariots? Archaeology tells us that this is unlikely. The finds tell us that Megiddo was known as the 'chariot' city of the Israelite kings. The Royal stables at Megiddo would not have held anywhere near that amount, nor the horse numbers mentioned, and no other location has been found.

So it takes some effort to find out the real truth. Most people don't bother.

Hi Trev.
I have actually opened a new thread, comes under other matters at the top of the page.
called "bored, fed up, let's get smiling.
I'm trying to break the apathy on this forum, Ivan has posted with some great jokes for starters, just want others to join in and discuss anything.
IE, what is happening in Britain or the world and it does not have to be religious and even tell a joke or two to get the forum smiling.