Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

moneyer12

what else do you collect?

Recommended Posts

i also have a decent collection of beermats, they can be had for free and it's interesting to see how many different ales i have drank in the last couple of years..............it's strange that i can still walk in a straight line.

Ah, that's more my thing. Since I barely have enough money for coins let alone classic cars (Dinky or otherwise) I collect rubbish ephemera and oddities. Bottle caps (of bottles I have emptied myself usually!), fossils, beach pebbles, shells, bits of bone, religious medallions and talismans, four leaved clover and stuff people have thrown away or that catch my eye and imagination. Sometimes I make them into .. assembages.

DivinersToolssmaller.jpg

bit.jpg

Other times, they just sit in a box.

Edited by TomGoodheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very creative Richard, thst's the sort of thing I'd have on my wall. That "M" on the first one doesn't half remind me of our Council logo though! :D

post-7102-031122600 1337443773_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip] ...one side of the road would have been Protestant, and the other Catholic.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?

Most of us have which is why we tend to be tolerant and indifferent to religion on the whole.

The big problem with all religions is they will never acknowledge that another one has a good idea. Everything is black and white, for us or against us. It is the root cause of immigrant minorities failing to integrate and often the fundamental reason behind racial tension. Although not the full story, when a religion forbids you to inter-marry without the outsider adopting the other's religion, you have just ensured another generation of resentment by outsiders and another course of brickwork added to the wall. There are people who bridge the divide, but they tend to be in the minority and are frequently helped by a degree of affluence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also have a decent collection of beermats, they can be had for free and it's interesting to see how many different ales i have drank in the last couple of years..............it's strange that i can still walk in a straight line.

Ah, that's more my thing. Since I barely have enough money for coins let alone classic cars (Dinky or otherwise) I collect rubbish ephemera and oddities. Bottle caps (of bottles I have emptied myself usually!), fossils, beach pebbles, shells, bits of bone, religious medallions and talismans, four leaved clover and stuff people have thrown away or that catch my eye and imagination. Sometimes I make them into .. assembages.

DivinersToolssmaller.jpg

bit.jpg

Other times, they just sit in a box.

That's my man! Are you sure you're not living in a caravan too? Looks a tad hippy to me! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My record collection became a collection simply through inertia - they were bought as records, but I suddenly found circa 1989 that people collected vinyl, so I've hung onto them ever since!

I don't know whether it's my imagination or not, but to me, stylus on vinyl sounds better than a CD, or downloaded track played through a PC. Deeper richer & more lifelike tones

My collection pieces other than coins, are decorative plates. They're plastered on every wall all over the house. It's only a small house, so I'm running out of room.

Not your imagination - I have a subscription to MOJO and each month their featured interview asks "L.P., CD, or MP3?" - nine times out of ten the answer is LP. The most hated format is CD by a nose.

The vinyl must be played through valves rather than hissing transistors. <_<

Obsessive!! As a child of the 60s, when hissing transistors became all the rage, I can assure you that vinyl still spanks its rivals :P

My record collection became a collection simply through inertia - they were bought as records, but I suddenly found circa 1989 that people collected vinyl, so I've hung onto them ever since!

I'm with you here regarding records. I built up a collection of about 200 vinyl LPs, eventually found that the stereo I had was on it's last legs and bought a new system. Didn't bother with a record deck and so I'm left with a pile of LPs. All in pretty good nick as I wasn't careless with them when they were bought and I'm amazed at the going prices for some of them. For example I have some early stones stuff, like 'Between the Buttons' and 'Aftermath' and these can go for around the £60 each mark. Ditto The Beatles and some of the other early rock material like the Who. There's a vinyl record specialist shop next to where my other half works part time, and they have some really interesting old and new material, and they have a phenomenal knowldge base.

As for other other interests, I have a Volvo P1800, but that's just a labour of love, not part of a collection. My other main interest is a Yamaha Motif XS synthsiser, which I have learned to use and have produced several songs on. Eventually, I want to get enough material together to produce a full blown album - top of the charts here I come. My stuff is my own style and as a result, and in keeping with my personal vintage, I call it the 'mature retro' genre! There's something about modern styles, using an older person's themes and Stratocasters that works for me.

I have My Generation, the original Brunswick release, which was a chart album. I was utterly gobsmacked to see that the latest Record Collector price for it (in mint) is £400 !!

[snip] ...one side of the road would have been Protestant, and the other Catholic.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?

Most of us have which is why we tend to be tolerant and indifferent to religion on the whole.

The big problem with all religions is they will never acknowledge that another one has a good idea. Everything is black and white, for us or against us. It is the root cause of immigrant minorities failing to integrate and often the fundamental reason behind racial tension. Although not the full story, when a religion forbids you to inter-marry without the outsider adopting the other's religion, you have just ensured another generation of resentment by outsiders and another course of brickwork added to the wall. There are people who bridge the divide, but they tend to be in the minority and are frequently helped by a degree of affluence.

Well, quite. Except for Quakers. Oh, and Buddhists. And Menonites, the Ba'hai, Sikhs, many branches of Hinduism, Taoism, Unitarians, Jains, Sufis, ... um, shall I go on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My record collection became a collection simply through inertia - they were bought as records, but I suddenly found circa 1989 that people collected vinyl, so I've hung onto them ever since!

I don't know whether it's my imagination or not, but to me, stylus on vinyl sounds better than a CD, or downloaded track played through a PC. Deeper richer & more lifelike tones

My collection pieces other than coins, are decorative plates. They're plastered on every wall all over the house. It's only a small house, so I'm running out of room.

Not your imagination - I have a subscription to MOJO and each month their featured interview asks "L.P., CD, or MP3?" - nine times out of ten the answer is LP. The most hated format is CD by a nose.

The vinyl must be played through valves rather than hissing transistors. <_<

Obsessive!! As a child of the 60s, when hissing transistors became all the rage, I can assure you that vinyl still spanks its rivals :P

My record collection became a collection simply through inertia - they were bought as records, but I suddenly found circa 1989 that people collected vinyl, so I've hung onto them ever since!

I'm with you here regarding records. I built up a collection of about 200 vinyl LPs, eventually found that the stereo I had was on it's last legs and bought a new system. Didn't bother with a record deck and so I'm left with a pile of LPs. All in pretty good nick as I wasn't careless with them when they were bought and I'm amazed at the going prices for some of them. For example I have some early stones stuff, like 'Between the Buttons' and 'Aftermath' and these can go for around the £60 each mark. Ditto The Beatles and some of the other early rock material like the Who. There's a vinyl record specialist shop next to where my other half works part time, and they have some really interesting old and new material, and they have a phenomenal knowldge base.

As for other other interests, I have a Volvo P1800, but that's just a labour of love, not part of a collection. My other main interest is a Yamaha Motif XS synthsiser, which I have learned to use and have produced several songs on. Eventually, I want to get enough material together to produce a full blown album - top of the charts here I come. My stuff is my own style and as a result, and in keeping with my personal vintage, I call it the 'mature retro' genre! There's something about modern styles, using an older person's themes and Stratocasters that works for me.

I have My Generation, the original Brunswick release, which was a chart album. I was utterly gobsmacked to see that the latest Record Collector price for it (in mint) is £400 !!

[snip] ...one side of the road would have been Protestant, and the other Catholic.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?

Most of us have which is why we tend to be tolerant and indifferent to religion on the whole.

The big problem with all religions is they will never acknowledge that another one has a good idea. Everything is black and white, for us or against us. It is the root cause of immigrant minorities failing to integrate and often the fundamental reason behind racial tension. Although not the full story, when a religion forbids you to inter-marry without the outsider adopting the other's religion, you have just ensured another generation of resentment by outsiders and another course of brickwork added to the wall. There are people who bridge the divide, but they tend to be in the minority and are frequently helped by a degree of affluence.

Well, quite. Except for Quakers. Oh, and Buddhists. And Menonites, the Ba'hai, Sikhs, many branches of Hinduism, Taoism, Unitarians, Jains, Sufis, ... um, shall I go on?

Theology is an area best left to Theologians.

I was going to study Horology but found I did not have the time for it.

Edited by argentumandcoins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also have a decent collection of beermats, they can be had for free and it's interesting to see how many different ales i have drank in the last couple of years..............it's strange that i can still walk in a straight line.

Ah, that's more my thing. Since I barely have enough money for coins let alone classic cars (Dinky or otherwise) I collect rubbish ephemera and oddities. Bottle caps (of bottles I have emptied myself usually!), fossils, beach pebbles, shells, bits of bone, religious medallions and talismans, four leaved clover and stuff people have thrown away or that catch my eye and imagination. Sometimes I make them into .. assembages.

DivinersToolssmaller.jpg

bit.jpg

Other times, they just sit in a box.

That's my man! Are you sure you're not living in a caravan too? Looks a tad hippy to me! ;)

Looks more like the all seeing eye of the funny handshake crew to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip] ...one side of the road would have been Protestant, and the other Catholic.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?

Ah, but it's not about religion, it's about that which pretty much every conflict ever has been about - LAND.

That's what makes maps like this so fascinating. What are marked here are borders. Not borders that any government has drawn, like the arbitrary straight lines that divide up the indivisible Sahara, but borders that people drew themselves, street by street, house by house. Comparing 1971 to now, it's remarkable how many of those borders have remained in exactly the same place, despite the utter transformation of the urban topography. Not a yard has been given up in either direction, even if the houses have been replaced by factories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip] ...one side of the road would have been Protestant, and the other Catholic.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?

Most of us have which is why we tend to be tolerant and indifferent to religion on the whole.

The big problem with all religions is they will never acknowledge that another one has a good idea. Everything is black and white, for us or against us. It is the root cause of immigrant minorities failing to integrate and often the fundamental reason behind racial tension. Although not the full story, when a religion forbids you to inter-marry without the outsider adopting the other's religion, you have just ensured another generation of resentment by outsiders and another course of brickwork added to the wall. There are people who bridge the divide, but they tend to be in the minority and are frequently helped by a degree of affluence.

Well, quite. Except for Quakers. Oh, and Buddhists. And Menonites, the Ba'hai, Sikhs, many branches of Hinduism, Taoism, Unitarians, Jains, Sufis, ... um, shall I go on?

Ok, point taken. Inappropriate use of the word 'all'. But there are still more than enough of those that are inflexible to drown out the non-aggressive religions. Those religions are still the main reason for a failure to integrate into the general population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theology is an area best left to Theologians.

I was going to study Horology but found I did not have the time for it.

I'm firmly with Richard Dawkins. Theology is defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes and governance of God". It is about as justifiable in the context of learning as the study of leprechauns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip] ...one side of the road would have been Protestant, and the other Catholic.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?

Most of us have which is why we tend to be tolerant and indifferent to religion on the whole.

The big problem with all religions is they will never acknowledge that another one has a good idea. Everything is black and white, for us or against us. It is the root cause of immigrant minorities failing to integrate and often the fundamental reason behind racial tension. Although not the full story, when a religion forbids you to inter-marry without the outsider adopting the other's religion, you have just ensured another generation of resentment by outsiders and another course of brickwork added to the wall. There are people who bridge the divide, but they tend to be in the minority and are frequently helped by a degree of affluence.

Well, quite. Except for Quakers. Oh, and Buddhists. And Menonites, the Ba'hai, Sikhs, many branches of Hinduism, Taoism, Unitarians, Jains, Sufis, ... um, shall I go on?

Ok, point taken. Inappropriate use of the word 'all'. But there are still more than enough of those that are inflexible to drown out the non-aggressive religions. Those religions are still the main reason for a failure to integrate into the general population.

Don't mistake irritating loudness for numbers! I believe that the majority of religious believers are tolerant people quite prepared to listen to opposing views (which - as far as the existence or otherwise of God is concerned - are utterly unprovable).

Theology is an area best left to Theologians.

I was going to study Horology but found I did not have the time for it.

I'm firmly with Richard Dawkins. Theology is defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes and governance of God". It is about as justifiable in the context of learning as the study of leprechauns.

Again, that's going from the sublime to the ridiculous, a common tactic among the more militant and dogmatic atheists (I'm not accusing you of being one of them!). "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio." The problem is that atheists reduce religion to its more laughably superstitious elements (ignoring - for example - the science of mind that Buddhists follow in their non-theistic way) and then debate on that level. Which is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel and conveniently ignores the more inexplicable elements of this extraordinary universe we inhabit. There is room for philosophy and metaphysics, even if there isn't (or shouldn't be) for fundamentalism and the so-called paranormal. Don't equate genuine mystical experience with UFOs : they're chalk and cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip] ...one side of the road would have been Protestant, and the other Catholic.

Religion is the cancer in society, continuing to foster warfare and a host of other ills under a feeble veneer of legitimacy. When will we all wake up to reality?

Most of us have which is why we tend to be tolerant and indifferent to religion on the whole.

The big problem with all religions is they will never acknowledge that another one has a good idea. Everything is black and white, for us or against us. It is the root cause of immigrant minorities failing to integrate and often the fundamental reason behind racial tension. Although not the full story, when a religion forbids you to inter-marry without the outsider adopting the other's religion, you have just ensured another generation of resentment by outsiders and another course of brickwork added to the wall. There are people who bridge the divide, but they tend to be in the minority and are frequently helped by a degree of affluence.

Well, quite. Except for Quakers. Oh, and Buddhists. And Menonites, the Ba'hai, Sikhs, many branches of Hinduism, Taoism, Unitarians, Jains, Sufis, ... um, shall I go on?

Ok, point taken. Inappropriate use of the word 'all'. But there are still more than enough of those that are inflexible to drown out the non-aggressive religions. Those religions are still the main reason for a failure to integrate into the general population.

Don't mistake irritating loudness for numbers! I believe that the majority of religious believers are tolerant people quite prepared to listen to opposing views (which - as far as the existence or otherwise of God is concerned - are utterly unprovable).

Theology is an area best left to Theologians.

I was going to study Horology but found I did not have the time for it.

I'm firmly with Richard Dawkins. Theology is defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes and governance of God". It is about as justifiable in the context of learning as the study of leprechauns.

Again, that's going from the sublime to the ridiculous, a common tactic among the more militant and dogmatic atheists (I'm not accusing you of being one of them!). "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio." The problem is that atheists reduce religion to its more laughably superstitious elements (ignoring - for example - the science of mind that Buddhists follow in their non-theistic way) and then debate on that level. Which is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel and conveniently ignores the more inexplicable elements of this extraordinary universe we inhabit. There is room for philosophy and metaphysics, even if there isn't (or shouldn't be) for fundamentalism and the so-called paranormal. Don't equate genuine mystical experience with UFOs : they're chalk and cheese.

I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but science itself is just another way of interpreting the world. It has proved useful no doubt and is currently the dominant paradigm which means that all the money and research goes into it but who's to say this will always be the case. Even richard dawkins states that he does not apply his arguments to Pantheism and other more esoteric spiritual ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but science itself is just another way of interpreting the world. It has proved useful no doubt and is currently the dominant paradigm which means that all the money and research goes into it but who's to say this will always be the case. Even richard dawkins states that he does not apply his arguments to Pantheism and other more esoteric spiritual ideas.

I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God.

Edited by Accumulator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that's going from the sublime to the ridiculous, a common tactic among the more militant and dogmatic atheists (I'm not accusing you of being one of them!). "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio." The problem is that atheists reduce religion to its more laughably superstitious elements (ignoring - for example - the science of mind that Buddhists follow in their non-theistic way) and then debate on that level. Which is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel and conveniently ignores the more inexplicable elements of this extraordinary universe we inhabit. There is room for philosophy and metaphysics, even if there isn't (or shouldn't be) for fundamentalism and the so-called paranormal. Don't equate genuine mystical experience with UFOs : they're chalk and cheese.

I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby. :D

Ah but science itself is just another way of interpreting the world. It has proved useful no doubt and is currently the dominant paradigm which means that all the money and research goes into it but who's to say this will always be the case. Even richard dawkins states that he does not apply his arguments to Pantheism and other more esoteric spiritual ideas.

I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God.

1. That's another atheist tactic, turning religion on its head and saying "You can't prove or disprove a negative" (actually, in mathematics, you can!). However, to declare oneself an atheist is to state a belief position, albeit the direct opposite to someone religious - they are both belief positions, as the central tenet is unprovable. The intellectually honest position would be to declare oneself an agnostic. However, that word too has been sullied by atheists who have come to the conclusion (at least in militant-atheist-America) that agnosticism is closer to "I believe" than "I don't believe". Which is scandalous as the word simply means "don't know".

2. You're talking about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, home to nearly all the world's fundamentalists. Much of what you say about them is true, though not of the silent mystical branches of them which never make headlines and are far more tolerant to new discoveries and science. It would help if people pontificating about religion would make the distinction between West and East clear before they launch their missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that's going from the sublime to the ridiculous, a common tactic among the more militant and dogmatic atheists (I'm not accusing you of being one of them!). "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio." The problem is that atheists reduce religion to its more laughably superstitious elements (ignoring - for example - the science of mind that Buddhists follow in their non-theistic way) and then debate on that level. Which is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel and conveniently ignores the more inexplicable elements of this extraordinary universe we inhabit. There is room for philosophy and metaphysics, even if there isn't (or shouldn't be) for fundamentalism and the so-called paranormal. Don't equate genuine mystical experience with UFOs : they're chalk and cheese.

I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby. :D

Ah but science itself is just another way of interpreting the world. It has proved useful no doubt and is currently the dominant paradigm which means that all the money and research goes into it but who's to say this will always be the case. Even richard dawkins states that he does not apply his arguments to Pantheism and other more esoteric spiritual ideas.

I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God.

1. That's another atheist tactic, turning religion on its head and saying "You can't prove or disprove a negative" (actually, in mathematics, you can!). However, to declare oneself an atheist is to state a belief position, albeit the direct opposite to someone religious - they are both belief positions, as the central tenet is unprovable. The intellectually honest position would be to declare oneself an agnostic. However, that word too has been sullied by atheists who have come to the conclusion (at least in militant-atheist-America) that agnosticism is closer to "I believe" than "I don't believe". Which is scandalous as the word simply means "don't know".

2. You're talking about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, home to nearly all the world's fundamentalists. Much of what you say about them is true, though not of the silent mystical branches of them which never make headlines and are far more tolerant to new discoveries and science. It would help if people pontificating about religion would make the distinction between West and East clear before they launch their missiles.

We're doing a great job of ignoring the thread specifically created for this very discussion :)

1. I don't agree that I'm employing 'tactics', rather I'm simply supporting my reasoned position, which is one of non-belief in a personal god. It's not a negative that I, or to my knowledge any other atheist, feels the need to prove. Any more than they might set out to prove that fairies don't inhabit the bottom of their garden, ghosts their attic or that crop circles aren't created by aliens.

On the point of atheism being a dishonest position to adopt, I will employ an admitted tactic: Virtually all fervent followers of a particular religion (be they Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or whatever) are themselves ardent atheists in all but the belief in their chosen God. So Christians are atheists, with the exception of a belief in Yahweh, followers of Islam are atheists, except in their belief in Allah, and so the list goes on. Those, such as myself, that you might label true atheists differ only in that they believe in one less god than all the others. There's no other difference. We're not agnostics unless you want to describe all the believers as agnostics too? I'm sure that Muslims, for example, wouldn't be agnostic about Christianity. In fact their beliefs prohibit this.

2. No doubt there are followers of mystical branches of various religions whose beliefs are so vague that they could pass as agnostics, if not indeed atheists. I'm not referring to those. I'm talking about the vast bulk of religious followers across the globe who, I contend, are seriously wrong in their belief in a personal god.

I have to say I'm enjoying this exchange and, above all, accept the right of individuals to belief whatever they like. Maybe the moon is made of cheese! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, that's going from the sublime to the ridiculous, a common tactic among the more militant and dogmatic atheists (I'm not accusing you of being one of them!). "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio." The problem is that atheists reduce religion to its more laughably superstitious elements (ignoring - for example - the science of mind that Buddhists follow in their non-theistic way) and then debate on that level. Which is tantamount to shooting fish in a barrel and conveniently ignores the more inexplicable elements of this extraordinary universe we inhabit. There is room for philosophy and metaphysics, even if there isn't (or shouldn't be) for fundamentalism and the so-called paranormal. Don't equate genuine mystical experience with UFOs : they're chalk and cheese.

I wouldn't say ridiculous. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any supernatural deity, whether God or fairy. It is the default state of reason in the absence of any better information (or, dare I suggest, proof). To my knowledge no such counter evidence exists. It's not a religion or a belief, any more than not collecting coins is a hobby. :D

Ah but science itself is just another way of interpreting the world. It has proved useful no doubt and is currently the dominant paradigm which means that all the money and research goes into it but who's to say this will always be the case. Even richard dawkins states that he does not apply his arguments to Pantheism and other more esoteric spiritual ideas.

I have no problem with esoteric hypotheses and discussions of an entirely philosophical nature. This includes Pantheism, which does not accept the existence of a personal creator but throws the net so wide as to simply state that "God is everything and everything is God'. What I do have a major problem with, are the religious doctrines such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. which are prescriptive and specific in nature and believe in a personal God.

1. That's another atheist tactic, turning religion on its head and saying "You can't prove or disprove a negative" (actually, in mathematics, you can!). However, to declare oneself an atheist is to state a belief position, albeit the direct opposite to someone religious - they are both belief positions, as the central tenet is unprovable. The intellectually honest position would be to declare oneself an agnostic. However, that word too has been sullied by atheists who have come to the conclusion (at least in militant-atheist-America) that agnosticism is closer to "I believe" than "I don't believe". Which is scandalous as the word simply means "don't know".

2. You're talking about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, home to nearly all the world's fundamentalists. Much of what you say about them is true, though not of the silent mystical branches of them which never make headlines and are far more tolerant to new discoveries and science. It would help if people pontificating about religion would make the distinction between West and East clear before they launch their missiles.

We're doing a great job of ignoring the thread specifically created for this very discussion :)

1. I don't agree that I'm employing 'tactics', rather I'm simply supporting my reasoned position, which is one of non-belief in a personal god. It's not a negative that I, or to my knowledge any other atheist, feels the need to prove. Any more than they might set out to prove that fairies don't inhabit the bottom of their garden, ghosts their attic or that crop circles aren't created by aliens.

On the point of atheism being a dishonest position to adopt, I will employ an admitted tactic: Virtually all fervent followers of a particular religion (be they Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or whatever) are themselves ardent atheists in all but the belief in their chosen God. So Christians are atheists, with the exception of a belief in Yahweh, followers of Islam are atheists, except in their belief in Allah, and so the list goes on. Those, such as myself, that you might label true atheists differ only in that they believe in one less god than all the others. There's no other difference. We're not agnostics unless you want to describe all the believers as agnostics too? I'm sure that Muslims, for example, wouldn't be agnostic about Christianity. In fact their beliefs prohibit this.

2. No doubt there are followers of mystical branches of various religions whose beliefs are so vague that they could pass as agnostics, if not indeed atheists. I'm not referring to those. I'm talking about the vast bulk of religious followers across the globe who, I contend, are seriously wrong in their belief in a personal god.

I have to say I'm enjoying this exchange and, above all, accept the right of individuals to belief whatever they like. Maybe the moon is made of cheese! :D

I suppose I'm just mistrustful of anyone who takes a 'position' of absolute certainty, be that religious or atheist. The universe we live in is so vast and so mysterious in so many ways, that to take a position based on our own tiny little rock circling a very ordinary star in one galaxy out of uncountable billions of galaxies, seems somehow perverse. Yet this vast mysterious universe contains certain constants such as the value of pi, the speed of light, the chemical elements, in fact all the laws of physics, chemistry, and quite probably biology too. Yet neither atheists or religios care to address where or how these constants arise; to Abrahamic religions it's not relevant as these are questions that apply outside this parochial little corner of the world; to atheists the answer is "Well, that's just how it is" (yes, I heard Richard Dawkins say just that). I feel I have more in common with philosophers, who aren't interested in a full stop or a 'belief', but simply to keep asking "why" until either they run out of questions (it'll never happen) or the ultimate question is answered and found not to be 42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm just mistrustful of anyone who takes a 'position' of absolute certainty, be that religious or atheist. The universe we live in is so vast and so mysterious in so many ways, that to take a position based on our own tiny little rock circling a very ordinary star in one galaxy out of uncountable billions of galaxies, seems somehow perverse. Yet this vast mysterious universe contains certain constants such as the value of pi, the speed of light, the chemical elements, in fact all the laws of physics, chemistry, and quite probably biology too. Yet neither atheists or religios care to address where or how these constants arise; to Abrahamic religions it's not relevant as these are questions that apply outside this parochial little corner of the world; to atheists the answer is "Well, that's just how it is" (yes, I heard Richard Dawkins say just that). I feel I have more in common with philosophers, who aren't interested in a full stop or a 'belief', but simply to keep asking "why" until either they run out of questions (it'll never happen) or the ultimate question is answered and found not to be 42.

On the contrary, religion is the barrier to discovery and explanation of our universe (the ludicrous creationism, for example), while atheism supports science (which explains Darwinian evolution). Philosophy is little more than pontification on the future of scientific discovery. Replace 'philosophers' with 'scientists' in your final sentence and we are both (Richard Dawkins too, I would suggest) in full agreement with one another. How, why, when, what?.... atheists and scientists will never stop asking these questions while religion, through restrictive doctrine, stultifies such thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that science in fact has little to offer us at this point in history, University specialism is such that it takes years of study to partake in any of it's latest advancements because they are so complicated. I would ask what is it going to give us now and I would question whether the technological-consumerist society is indeed something we should be grateful for. Academics seem to me a slightly funny geeky bunch and not particularly well rounded people. They also come up with stuff that is equally bizarre as religion and I think I am right in saying in quantum theory and suchlike the laws of the universe don't apply. They also come up with nonsense statements such as "when time Began" which is a grammatical error. The buddha by contrast asked how can this life be and what should I do because he could make no sense of the world to find the answer to this he went and sat under a tree for 3 days and it came to him naturally. the buddha is cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm just mistrustful of anyone who takes a 'position' of absolute certainty, be that religious or atheist. The universe we live in is so vast and so mysterious in so many ways, that to take a position based on our own tiny little rock circling a very ordinary star in one galaxy out of uncountable billions of galaxies, seems somehow perverse. Yet this vast mysterious universe contains certain constants such as the value of pi, the speed of light, the chemical elements, in fact all the laws of physics, chemistry, and quite probably biology too. Yet neither atheists or religios care to address where or how these constants arise; to Abrahamic religions it's not relevant as these are questions that apply outside this parochial little corner of the world; to atheists the answer is "Well, that's just how it is" (yes, I heard Richard Dawkins say just that). I feel I have more in common with philosophers, who aren't interested in a full stop or a 'belief', but simply to keep asking "why" until either they run out of questions (it'll never happen) or the ultimate question is answered and found not to be 42.

On the contrary, religion is the barrier to discovery and explanation of our universe (the ludicrous creationism, for example), while atheism supports science (which explains Darwinian evolution). Philosophy is little more than pontification on the future of scientific discovery. Replace 'philosophers' with 'scientists' in your final sentence and we are both (Richard Dawkins too, I would suggest) in full agreement with one another. How, why, when, what?.... atheists and scientists will never stop asking these questions while religion, through restrictive doctrine, stultifies such thought.

There's so much to discuss here. ("Ludicrous creationism" indeed! No argument here). As for atheism and science, that begs two questions or rather issues : 1. atheists are not atheists because of their belief in science, indeed it has been religious believers who have contributed much to scientific discoveries; I cite Copernicus, Mendel, Newton, and people like Jocelyn Bell Burnett in our own era among many others. And it is also true that Jesuits, who had their own astronomical observatories and studied the same phenomena as Galileo, and weren't so far away from making similar claims, who were held back by a Pope who took umbrage at Galileo's personal insults of him in his book. 2. that so-called "classical" science is to be lauded at all times and in all places; if it were so, then particle physics and quantum mechanics would never have stood a chance of acceptance. It's often scientists working at the risky frontiers open to the ridicule of their peers - people who are way ahead of the lab technician mentality of small imagination, aka the public image of scientists - who make the most amazing discoveries.

Then, your statement about philosophy shows that you have never studied even one of them, or you surely wouldn't have come out with such a crass statement! (Sorry, but so it seemed to me). Even modern-era giants like Bertrand Russell and Alan Turing

were - in their own ways - true philosophers, as they dared to ask questions (about logic, mathematics, and the provability or otherwise of theorems and can we build a machine to resolve the dilemma, and would such a machine be intelligent in any sense of the word?) that couldn't be answered purely scientifically but required the invention of entire symbolic languages to encompass. That doesn't even scratch the surface of what philosophy concerns itself with. To hold science up as the ultimate discipline above all others, is to fetishize it, or even - dare I say - make of it something quasi-religious.

I would argue that science in fact has little to offer us at this point in history, University specialism is such that it takes years of study to partake in any of it's latest advancements because they are so complicated. I would ask what is it going to give us now and I would question whether the technological-consumerist society is indeed something we should be grateful for. Academics seem to me a slightly funny geeky bunch and not particularly well rounded people. They also come up with stuff that is equally bizarre as religion and I think I am right in saying in quantum theory and suchlike the laws of the universe don't apply. They also come up with nonsense statements such as "when time Began" which is a grammatical error. The buddha by contrast asked how can this life be and what should I do because he could make no sense of the world to find the answer to this he went and sat under a tree for 3 days and it came to him naturally. the buddha is cool.

I agree with much of this, except the statement "in quantum theory and suchlike the laws of the universe don't apply" - the laws of universe encompass quantum mechanics too! it's just that our limited intelligence struggles to grasp the often ungraspable. But the universe is quantum in its very nature - matter itself could apparently not have emerged were it not for the Higgs Boson they are still searching for.

As for "when time began" - yes, that's a nonsense statement LOL. As for Buddhism, I find it has much to offer the human race, but I do sometimes wonder why it needs statues and temples. Or maybe it doesn't - it's religious-minded people who need them, and enlightened Buddhist abbots decided "Why not?" After all, those who have achieved enlightenment don't need them at all. And am I right in thinking that Zen doesn't feature them at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also have a decent collection of beermats, they can be had for free and it's interesting to see how many different ales i have drank in the last couple of years..............it's strange that i can still walk in a straight line.

What a great idea :) I collect beer (ale) labels and have amassed several hundred local varieties (Wiltshire and Dorset). I blame the copious amounts of drinking I do on my fellow students ;)we have a lovely seasonal ale back at home called 'Sign of Spring' it's green, and perfect for quenching ones thirst during the Easter vacations :D

Darren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I collected stamps when I was a kid, this thread has just reminded me! I wonder what they are worth now?

I have an album full of hundreds GB stamps back to Victoria, lots of old mint sets and mint runs.

I might dig it out the wardrobe and have a look at them! Who knows, maybe I will start collecting them again... This forum is dangerous! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I collected stamps when I was a kid, this thread has just reminded me! I wonder what they are worth now?

I have an album full of hundreds GB stamps back to Victoria, lots of old mint sets and mint runs.

I might dig it out the wardrobe and have a look at them! Who knows, maybe I will start collecting them again... This forum is dangerous! :P

It's really weird. Back in the 60s, and probably for a time after that, stamps put coins right in the shade as a minority hobby. Yet now it has reversed completely, and stamps are almost nowhere. Anyone got any idea why that happened ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I collected stamps when I was a kid, this thread has just reminded me! I wonder what they are worth now?

I have an album full of hundreds GB stamps back to Victoria, lots of old mint sets and mint runs.

I might dig it out the wardrobe and have a look at them! Who knows, maybe I will start collecting them again... This forum is dangerous! :P

It's really weird. Back in the 60s, and probably for a time after that, stamps put coins right in the shade as a minority hobby. Yet now it has reversed completely, and stamps are almost nowhere. Anyone got any idea why that happened ?

It is like comparing oil paintings by a master to a pencil sketch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I collected stamps when I was a kid, this thread has just reminded me! I wonder what they are worth now?

I have an album full of hundreds GB stamps back to Victoria, lots of old mint sets and mint runs.

I might dig it out the wardrobe and have a look at them! Who knows, maybe I will start collecting them again... This forum is dangerous! :P

It's really weird. Back in the 60s, and probably for a time after that, stamps put coins right in the shade as a minority hobby. Yet now it has reversed completely, and stamps are almost nowhere. Anyone got any idea why that happened ?

It is like comparing oil paintings by a master to a pencil sketch.

I got the album out and had a browse. It was nice to have a look at them again, brought back some old memories of me and my mate wandering round the boot fairs as kids with our pocket money!

Your right though, they just do not have the same appeal as a nice looking coin. Maybe I could find a dealer who would swap them for a coin or two!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×