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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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.

I thought it was funny.

Yes, the OP is snide, Bags.

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.

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

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

You bored Feetlebaum?

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

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.

An un wanted minority more like just joking

cathy, we are an oppressed minority!

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

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!

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

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.

Hmm...................

An interesting perspective, if ingratiating.

A woman wouldn't have made such a cock up mess of things!

It doesn't bother me how you choose to define your god, Orca, as I am an atheist.

Oh course god isn't a woman.