Finally! a 'definition' of god that I understand.

Why is God not a woman, Orca? Without the need for hetero sex to perpetuate God's line, surely there is no need to be either male or female? It was only when he sent a child to earth as a human that the question arose. Than it was a choice of one or other, and the tossd coin dropped tails up.

Nice one Elegran good to see someone has a sense of humour!

Interesting point about males' genitals, Sunseeker, though if they were internal for both sexes procreation would be a challenge. Not sure I'd be up for it!

grumppa you are from London, I was beginning to think I was the only Londoner on here!!

cathy, we are an oppressed minority!

An un wanted minority more like just joking

RE:Male dangly bits - I think temperature has something to do with their external location - and then of course somebody has to have things on the outside, don't they? It would be very awkward, to say the least, otherwise.

Lotsoflove animals have internal male organs. Usually retractable. A much better design.

You bored Feetlebaum?

Cathay and grumppa from London too, there are a few of us.

@j08 - Not particularly - why you ask, Grasshopper?

Given the stereotype of religious people as always boringly banging on about religion, trying to convert people, it seems to me that the boot is on the other foot on GN. There aren't many spontaneous lyrical statements about the consolations of faith but there are a lot of snide comments about religion from self- defined non- believers. Then some of us feel we have to try to dispel some of the sillier misrepresentations or misunderstandings.

Yes, the OP is snide, Bags.

I thought it was funny.

It comes from here:

Pakistani Atheists (@PakistanAtheist) tweeted at 7:56pm - 26 Apr 13: 

He's everywhere,in the heavens and Earth
Yet he cannot be seen pic.twitter.com/WOf0kGewxO (https://twitter.com/PakistanAtheist/status/327858655028449280) 

Michael White (@mypalmike) tweeted at 8:56pm - 26 Apr 13: 

@PakistanAtheist He is an inert gasbag. (https://twitter.com/mypalmike/status/327873891160711168) 

My comment was not snide. I actually meant exactly what I said. The Pakistani Atheist's 'definition' of god IS the first one I've ever felt anything remotely like understanding for. If anyone thinks it's a snide view, so be it, but the snideness is in their minds, not mine. If other people have an over-sensitive understanding of "god" that's their problem. If I needed a god, this definition would be the closest description of what that god would mean to me. I think it's quite scientific in an ethereal sort of way that admits that we simply don't know.

Calling all that snide is a bit pathetic, I think.

Sorry, forgot to blue the links. You can do that yourselves. Copy, paste, etc. Have fun.

PS there are several more lines to the PakistaniAtheist's post.

The original post is simply in bad taste. And not worth bothering about. Like so much on Gransnet at the moment.

Yes, what is happening to Gransnet at the moment? Are we getting jaded?

Although I thinks Bags post was very interesting, and would love to discuss it, it really isn't worth the sneers and insults at the moment.

I agree with what you say about GN at the moment, jings. Anodyne, on the whole. Some nice chatty posts, mind you, and I do enjoy them very much. Talking to friends and being normal is good!

Just what we were saying at lunch! We need a new good stimulating topic like or
Hasn't anyone any good ideas?

perhaps GN needs a bit of this

That'll help. No end.

Well, I suppose someone could discuss the concept of time-lapse photography, or the importance of colour in our lives, or urban art, or the city of Sydney, or opera, or water fountains .......... stuff like that.