RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster

RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 3:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Communism has nothing to do with it which is another thing that bemuses me. Why do capitalist materialists attack communism for being materialist while captialism is every bit a materialist philosophy as communism Because Communism is often refered to a Scientific socialism, and holds as a central tenant that There is no God, that it is a delusion, an Opiate for the Masses, ect. Not all Capitalists are Materialists, that simply does not follow and is a basic logical fallacy( Ironically Logic is result of Science, it's a form of math). There are Capitalist Materialists, but thier problems with Marxism are not based on theology, but on economics. Marx's quote is not a central tenant of communism, it was an observation, nothing more. To put it into some context what he said was.... Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 3:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 What experimental investigation has been done on the creation of universes? What Data do we have on that which is outside of our universe? luckydog. It is up to those who believe the universe was “created” to propose and conduct those experiments. Scientis tell us the Universe was created in a big Bang some 3.8 billion years ago. Religion also tells us the Universe was created. Commonsense tells us the world was created. Until those results are in you should know that merely refuting someone else’s theory does not automatically validate your own. Yes I agree 100%, yet that is the nature of all of Dawkins and his supporters (including yours) arguments. I am not trying to convince you that God exists, Dawkins is trying to prove God doesn't, and we are discussing the validity of his arguments. I find them weak, and the people supporting him generally are not using science. Dawkins is pretending Science has answered questions, which it has not, thats not science. And if science is an illusion because perception is an illusion, then god must be an illusion too, right? No as I have stated many times, the Time/space of our universe is an illusion, and we do not have any data to speak of of what is beyond it. Perhaps what is there is an illusion. We have no data from outside this universe. So what? The existence of unknowns or even unknowables does NOT prove the existence of god. But it does indicate the existance of a supernatural. As yet unanswered questions about the origins of life are not proof of the literal existence of ol’ man YHVH or any other creator being from any other human mythology. It just doesn’t work that way. And no one says it does. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 You can think that, but you would be at odds with most every serious scientist. There was indeed, at least according to scientific consensus, an objective reality for billions of years before the elements of the earth( dust) became alive. Chrsitian fundamentalists think there was one for only 5 days before the creation of Man. You think it was concurrent with the creation of Man? Does that mean that all reality and variety of creatures were created in the same instant? And you think that is Science? I don't know what to actually say about that. Also the early attempts at explaining phenomena were religous, yet you define them as science????? What are you saying in this paragraph? Objective reality is a concept, not a thing, luckydog. Nope, a subjective reality is a concept. Objective reality is indeed a thing, it is all things. Your subjective reality can be sitting in a park happily with out a care in the world. Yet the objective reality could be a sniper in the woods taking aim at you, completely with out your knowledge. Thats not in your subjective reality( happy in the park), but it is in objective reality. He takes a silenced shot, adn with no awareness on your part, your skull explodes. Your subjective reality ends, and in the objective reality you are dead. Likewise, the universe chugged along for billions of years before Man had a scientific thought. After that the rest sort of falls apart. Why does you making a false statement make my point fall apart? Are you calling chaingang a creationist? If he thinks," that Objective reality is predicated on scientific thinking" , Yes it would logically follow as I explianed. Objective reality does not require anyone percieving it to exist, at least according to science. Chain made a false statement, I called him on it, and he wont concede, kind of childish in a debate What proof do you have that “the early attempts at explaining phenomena were religious.” ? Archeological evidence, and the universal development of religion by Primitive man, and all culturesA talent for abstract thought is what differentiates us from our primate ancestors, not a flair for superstition. Yet they all Developed one. abstraction to be adaptive it must be scientific – it must be able to recognise the useful and discard the useless as efficiently as possible. Look up a definition of Science, that is not what it is. The bow and arrow did not float to the surface of the wellspring of faith. It was developed in an informal but scientific manner. Nope, the making of Arrows and Boats is full of superstition. Alchemy is not science, but it can make gunpowder. The sun will appear to rise wether you accept scientific teachings on it or some old Pagan belief. Z Luckydog

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 3:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Those people in this thread who point to what they see as the weaknesses in the belief in a Deity do so by criticising the inconsistancies/weaknesses that may be exposed by using their rational scientific attitudes to examine the concepts present in the teachings of the major religious sects. The problem is far deeper than this. For example the idea of the Big Bang may or may not explain the origin of things. It is most likely an idea based on the maths of calculus when combined with what is currently known about the state of the Universe. That does NOT make it TRUE.Our knowledge is so limited that it is a conceit to think otherwise. Unlike religion, science does not claim truth, it puts forward observations and theories and any truth it claims it recognizes might be proved wrong but it puts itself up to be proved wrong, unlike religion which says, this is the truth and it cannot be questioned. Unfortunately it is being question. Religion has had thousands of years to prove the existence of god and the more it is questioned, the more tenuous its claim to be the truth is, though GOD ALONE knows which religious truth is supposed to be true. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I challenge the Rationalists to explain for instance the infinitude or otherwise of space. A scientific problem if ever there was one ! The actual concept of infinite space. You cant so dont bother !!!! If your sole argument is to look for gaps in knowledge and then say because there is a gap in knowledge, that is proof god exists, your argument for a diety is as weak as watered down pap.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 3:53:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Science says there is "stuff" outside our universe(but we have no data whatsoever about it), and that our universe had a start point. Science teaches that Space/time as we know it doesnt actually exist. Anything that exists beyond Time/space is by defintion supernatural (above or beyond natural). How is accepting such a silly analogy "thinking rationally"? Science doesn't say anything of the sort. It puts forward theories for independent examination. In fact the more people test scientific theories the stronger science becomes regardless of whether current theories are proved wrong because science seeks knowledge and not some universal truth which religion claims to be, even if it can't put forward a shred of evidence for such a claim.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 4:00:34 PM)
luckydog1: Zensee has already answered you in the mainNot very well, but I just wanted to add this... Science does not pull explanations out of its collective ass. No one said anything about its ass. But it does go for a consensus/collective view It attempts to put forward theories that are based on observed phenomena( yet God and the true nature of reality (beyond our universe) are not observable Phenomena, so Science has nothing to say on them. Yet Dawkins and his supporters are attempting to pretend that Science has settled the question by using science. , And yes, they are generally expected to be replicable. The field known as "theoretical physics" is an area that provides fewer "near certainties" because much of it remains in the decidedly theoretical stages - attempts are made to explain the model of creation as we understand it now, the more we understand the more we alter our original model, and so on. Science does not explain the first cause but that doesn't mean that any alternative explanation - like a god idea - is either necessary or suitable in the meanwhile. That is not the basis of my or anyone posting on heres faith. You can also flip that argument around, it is still weak. Personally, I simply withhold judgement on the notion of first cause as I wait to see what turns up. It's not a question I trouble myself over because it has no practical utility. I allow for the tiny possibility that there is a god of some kind out there; not because I believe in god or want to hedge my bet on the issue of judgment but because just as his possible existence cannot be proved I cannot disprove it either - but that doesn't make the idea of god true, necessary or even useful. Neccessary and Usefull are subjective, they may not be to you, but they are to most. The whole problem with the idea of god is summed up in the phrase: "non sequitur." Just because the world is round it does not follow that there is a god. Just because the wind is high it does not follow that there is a god. Just because the sky is blue it does not follow that there is a god. Ok, I nor anyone made thses points, yet you are pretending they prove the idea of God is a non Sequitur? It just doesn't follow. The idea of god isn't true(unproven even you admit the possibility), necessary or useful( both subjective). It explains nothing. To you perhaps, but that is your personal belief system, not based on science in anyway. your stating that the "idea of God isn't true" and that you "allow for the possabillity of Gods existance" is a non sequitur

JohnSteed1967 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/1/2007 4:03:41 PM)
OK, you want to start in on God and say that He is not real and that He is a delusion, well if that is the case then its a delusion on a MASSIVE scale considering the billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and etc. If 1 person, 10 people, 1000 people believed in God but Billions didn't then I would say they were crazy. That's Just logical if "Billions and Billions" of people believe in something then I have to accept just on that evidence alone that they believe in something and something quite real. NOW, If you want to get into Jesus, then I point you not at the Son of God but at his followers. Of the 12 disciples (Substitute Paul for Judas) not a one of them went back to their old lives, not one of them gave up their belief even when they were tortured, assaulted, humiliated and the list goes on. Before and after Jesus there were literally hundreds of messianic movements and people claiming to be the Messiah. According to my old Religion professor there were four other men during Jesus' life time that claimed they were the Son of God. In fact one went so far as to encourage open rebellion against the romans and several hundred Jews were slaughtered. The point that I make is that the changed lives of these men, showed that they possessed the truth. You don't get tortured and humiliated for something that you believe is a lie or know that you can escape pain and death by just denying the deity of one man. They put trash like the Di Vinci code on paper and the movie for any other reason that to plant the seed of doubt in the mind of man. Because if Christ had a son then that makes him human, that makes Him no better than anyone else, that means that their is no reason to believe in Him or to change your life because if He isn't God then it means nothing. Truly isn't that what the devil wants, you to doubt and do his work for him?

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/1/2007 4:10:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnSteed1967 The point that I make is that the changed lives of these men, showed that they possessed the truth. You don't get tortured and humiliated for something that you believe is a lie or know that you can escape pain and death by just denying the deity of one man. People have endured torture and death for all sorts of reasons. Communists endured torture and death for their beliefs, I doubt many communists claimed there were supernatural reasons for their willingness to die for their cause. There are countless reasons and causes why people have been prepared to endure torture and death throughout history. Christians have far from a monopoly on such things.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 4:14:05 PM)
When challenged to explain the infinitude of space Meatcleaver said... If your sole argument is to look for gaps in knowledge and then say because there is a gap in knowledge, that is proof god exists, your argument for a diety is as weak as watered down pap. MC, the well informed historian, you just dont get it. This is not simply a gap in knowledge it is a chasm, a fissure, a discontinuity in the capacity TO know. It transcends the intellect of the human mind, as does the existence of homo sapiens. Dawkins is clearly emotionally committed to his ideas. It would not surprise me at all if at some time in the future, having watched him being interviewed by Paxman , that he suffers a nevous breakdown.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 4:19:26 PM)
So we are all in agreement that Science does Not proove either the Existance or non existance of God( in some form). And that anyone claiming by virtue of Science to have prooven God doesn't exist, is delusional(and ignorant of science). Likewise anyone Claiming Scientific Proof of God is also delusional( and ignorant of theology). I do notice that no athiests will take me up on the issues of :Does Love exist? or can Free Will exist in a purely materialistic universe? If God exists he created the scientific laws, which we are struggling to learn. Personally I have no conflict at all. Science and religion are complamentary in my opinion. I find Dogmatism to be problematic on both sides. I find Logicall fallacies and un retracted false statements to really hurt a discussion. And I hope you all have a Happy and Healthy New Year full of Joy....

aSlavesLife -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/1/2007 4:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnSteed1967 OK, you want to start in on God and say that He is not real and that He is a delusion, well if that is the case then its a delusion on a MASSIVE scale considering the billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and etc. If 1 person, 10 people, 1000 people believed in God but Billions didn't then I would say they were crazy. People do believe untruths. Many people believe that men have one less rib than women despite any basic examination of the human body proving them wrong. Spouses force themselves to believe that their cheating spouses are faithful. There are probably dozens of examples of things that people believe that aren't true. This doesn't make them crazy, just ill informed. That's Just logical if "Billions and Billions" of people believe in something then I have to accept just on that evidence alone that they believe in something and something quite real. So since " Billions and Billions " of Hindi throughout the ages have believed in Krishna, you believe in Krishna too? NOW, If you want to get into Jesus, then I point you not at the Son of God but at his followers. Of the 12 disciples (Substitute Paul for Judas) not a one of them went back to their old lives, not one of them gave up their belief even when they were tortured, assaulted, humiliated and the list goes on. Before and after Jesus there were literally hundreds of messianic movements and people claiming to be the Messiah. Using this logic, you must surely accept that David Koresh, leaded or the Branch Davidians, was the returned Messiah, right? After all, nobody would ever die for a lie! According to my old Religion professor there were four other men during Jesus' life time that claimed they were the Son of God. In fact one went so far as to encourage open rebellion against the romans and several hundred Jews were slaughtered. The point that I make is that the changed lives of these men, showed that they possessed the truth. You don't get tortured and humiliated for something that you believe is a lie or know that you can escape pain and death by just denying the deity of one man. There were more than 4 men of that time claiming the title of the Annointed. Monty Python's Life of Brain was closer to the truth than what is taught in most churches today. But this only supports the points I have made above. People will die for beliefs. They BELIEVE that it is the truth, but that does not MAKE it the truth. They put trash like the Di Vinci code on paper and the movie for any other reason that to plant the seed of doubt in the mind of man. Because if Christ had a son then that makes him human, that makes Him no better than anyone else, that means that their is no reason to believe in Him or to change your life because if He isn't God then it means nothing. Truly isn't that what the devil wants, you to doubt and do his work for him? I do have to agree with you that the Da Vinci Code was pseudoscientific garbage. But lets look at Jesus as a man for a moment using the Bible as our basis for determining the outcome of several scenarios. 1. Jesus is supposedly the son of god. 2. The Messiah must be of Davidic lineage. 3. Jesus is the Messiah. 4. Jesus is in heaven. According to the Bible, some of the above things " known " about Jesus cannot be true. If Jesus is the son of god, he cannot be the son of Joseph, thus being denied Davidic lineage. Therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah. But if Jesus is the Messiah, he is not the literal son of god and the virgin birth is a lie. Furthermore, if Jesus is not the son of Joseph, then according to the Bible, he cannot be in heaven as Deuteronomy 21 tells us that a bastard cannot enter into heaven. What does this leave us with? 1. Jesus is fully a man, not the son of god, and seen by Christians as the Messiah. or 2. Jesus is the son of god, not the Messiah, and is buring in hell as a bastard. or 3. Jesus is the son of god and the Messiah, residing in heaven, making god an inconsistant liar and hypocrite that cannot follow his own rules and is therefore wothy only of our contempt. :) Have a nice day.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/1/2007 4:46:18 PM)
I agree with you that popularity does not equal truth, but your last part doesnt work. But lets look at Jesus as a man for a moment using the Bible as our basis for determining the outcome of several scenarios. 1. Jesus is supposedly the son of god. 2. The Messiah must be of Davidic lineage. 3. Jesus is the Messiah. 4. Jesus is in heaven. According to the Bible, some of the above things " known " about Jesus cannot be true. If Jesus is the son of god, he cannot be the son of Joseph,( actually civil law both then and now say if a married couple have a kid, its the dad's, regardless of if she actually concieved with another) thus being denied Davidic lineage( His legal dad was Jospeh, his real dad was Holy Spirit). Therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah. But if Jesus is the Messiah, he is not the literal son of god and the virgin birth is a lie. Furthermore, if Jesus is not the son of Joseph, then according to the Bible, he cannot be in heaven as Deuteronomy 21( no it doesn't, and Christian faith teaches that Jesus made a new deal and replaced the old Law of which Dueteronomy was a part, setting new standards of who gets into heaven) tells us that a bastard cannot enter into heaven. What does this leave us with? 1. Jesus is fully a man, not the son of god, and seen by Christians as the Messiah. or 2. Jesus is the son of god, not the Messiah, and is buring in hell as a bastard. or 3. Jesus is the son of god and the Messiah, residing in heaven, making god an inconsistant liar and hypocrite that cannot follow his own rules and is therefore wothy only of our contempt. :) Have a nice day. Actually you didn't really proove anything there, there were serious flaws in your premise, but you have a nice day also!!

Chaingang -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 5:18:37 PM)
There is no definitive statement on the origins of the universe from scientific quarters as of yet. Competing theories abound. Hardly a weakness, this is yet more proof that veracity is the guiding light of the scientific process and not answers imposed from above. How many times or ways must this be stated? As to silly issues like whether love exists - of course it exists. It's an electro-chemical response observable in the nervous system of the human body. Do I as a person of science think about love in the exact same terms as do other people? I really couldn't say. What does it matter. This is just another non sequitur. Just because what might be called love exists it doesn't follow that there is a god. Just because warm, fuzzy puppies exist it doesn't follow that there is a god. Just because babies smell good it doesn't follow that there is a god.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 5:53:16 PM)
As to silly issues like whether love exists - of course it exists. It's an electro-chemical response observable in the nervous system of the human body. Do I as a person of science think about love in the exact same terms as do other people? I really couldn't say. What does it matter. This is just another non sequitur. I didn't draw a conclusion, so you can't accuse me of a non sequiitur, unless you simply have no idea what the word means. Love is a response? Prayer also creates measurable elctro chemical responses. But thank you for responding.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 5:53:37 PM)
Luckydog – Your use of the terms subjective and objective reality bear scant resemblance to any definitions I am aware of. In fact you have them interchanged. Subjective reality is the experience of being we have after we have filtered it through our senses and interpreted it with our minds. Objective reality is the theoretical state of the stimulus before it was received and processed by the observer. Objective reality can only exist as a concept because as soon as it is observed it becomes subjective. Herein lies the problem - it is difficult to hold a discussion with someone who consistently misuses and reinvents definitions for existing terms and peppers their arguments with distractions like “love”. Love nothing to do with this discussion. Aside from numerous threads on collar me that have attempted to define it, and despite eons of musing by humans of all cultures trying to understand it, it remains a nebulous category of feelings so vast, subtle and personal as to be immune to definition. Yours is an appeal to emotionality, using the indefinable term “love” as bait. The reason no one has engaged you on this point is because it is irrelevant, not because it is some sort of scary talisman which will demolish rational explanation. How can you claim we are in agreement about how science does or does not prove or disprove the existence of god when you do not even share a common understanding of what science is or how it operates? You can’t have it both ways. Seeksfemslave - Gods of some sort have always occupied the gaps in our understanding. So what? Again, the existence of unknowns and unknowables proves only that there are limits to our understanding, not the existence of gods and monsters in the cracks. As to speculations about Dawkins emotional state, that of course means nothing in this debate. That’s just a personal attack and an attempt to invalidate his arguments by labeling him incompetent, based not on evidence but on cruel, wishful thinking. Z.

aSlavesLife -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1/1/2007 6:38:03 PM)
( actually civil law both then and now say if a married couple have a kid, its the dad's, regardless of if she actually concieved with another) The word translated as bastard is memzer or mamzer in Hebrew, and means illegitemate child born out of fornication or rape. Read the same verse in the Jewish Tanakh for a more accurate translation. The idea of the word not meaning literal bastard was formulated by Abraham Geiger in the 1800's due to his theory that it was referring to people of mixed blood, such as children concieved in unions of Philistine and Hebrew couples. This translation was quickly adopted by Christian apologists in an effort to reconcile the problem. But the theory wa incorrect. The literal translation is correct, only the Hebrew extended it to include such unions as they were forbidden by Judaism. Therefore the mixed bloods were considered to be mamzer, not recognized as legitimate offspring. If Jesus was not literally the son of Joseph, her was mamzer, a bastard. Im the book of John ( 8:19), the Pharisees ask Jesus where his father is. This is basically saying " You are a fatherless bastard, and do not belong here. " ( His legal dad was Jospeh, his real dad was Holy Spirit). There were no " legal dads ". Adoption happened, but this did not elevate a mamzer beyond their birthright. They were excluded from the temple, and according to Deuteronomy, heaven. Remember that the temple housed the Holy of Holies, which amounted to a mystical portal between heaven and earth. ( no it doesn't, and Christian faith teaches that Jesus made a new deal and replaced the old Law of which Dueteronomy was a part, setting new standards of who gets into heaven) Jesus made some changes to food and marriage laws, but said nothing at all on many other subjects, including the matter of bastards. But there again, if he were the son of Joseph, he had no divine authority to make any theological changes at all. And if he were the son of god, does this give him some right to rewrite the law in order to pardon himself? Sounds like a biased character there if he did. Should we trust someone that is so quick to modify law in order to serve his own needs? . Actually you didn't really proove anything there, there were serious flaws in your premise, but you have a nice day also!! Actually you didn't offer much in the way of disproving me, and I think I did a fair job of correcting any supposed flaws. I'm sure you'll point out if I am wrong. Have a wonderful night. :) [/quote]

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/1/2007 11:11:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou So, if he's not seeking these people out to disprove God becuase he can't as you assert, then what is his point. He knows before he enters the church he can't disprove God to them. He knows he will fail in his confrontations. So, he's just going to argue, and stir the flames and create a divide. He's basically wanting people to think rationally and open up to knowledge rather than believe in superstition and the fairy tales about supernatural god. You only have to look at the grip religion has over otherwise intelligent people to see his reasoning. Bush (and he is not the only leader and I'm not refering to him as otherwise intelligent) talked about god's influence on his actions. Isn't it scary to you that a world leader puts fairy tales before logic and reason? I never saw any hate posts but I guess they were removed while I was away. They removed them becuase it was just saying people should be locked up for believing in god, and other such helpful suggestions. I agree with most of what Dawkin's says.... My point is no one is convinced of anything by being ridiculed. I've not read his books but I've watched his TV series where he confronts religious people, and he's rude and arrogant and pretty much just goes straight to the core of their beliefs, without regard to them emotionally or their present world view. If the presumption is that he wants to change their minds, one wouldn't be rude and arrogant, one would be respectful. If one wants to argue, then a person throws out inflammatory examples, and pokes at the core beliefs. You don't change someone's mind doing that as its nearly universally human to reject the beliefs of those attacking you. He may be "smart" from a scientific view, but his approach if indeed his objective is to honestly change peoples minds, is very immature and ultimately I think ineffective.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 12:10:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave When challenged to explain the infinitude of space Meatcleaver said... If your sole argument is to look for gaps in knowledge and then say because there is a gap in knowledge, that is proof god exists, your argument for a diety is as weak as watered down pap. MC, the well informed historian, you just dont get it. This is not simply a gap in knowledge it is a chasm, a fissure, a discontinuity in the capacity TO know. It transcends the intellect of the human mind, as does the existence of homo sapiens. The nonsenne of your argument is like the king of Spain saying to Columbus, there is nothing out there but sea because no one has been and no one has comeback. Well if no one has been, no one will comeback. But it doesn't mean there is nothing there, its just a lack of knowledge and just because the mind can't imagine that great leap, doesn't mean it won't get there in incremental steps. At the moment it is a gap in our knowledge, maybe it always will be, who knows? However, I would put my money on science to come up with a theory about infinite space before religion because the religious are just lazy thinkers, to them infinite space exists because there is an infinite god, period. Well I'm sorry seeks, that doesn't even get past nursery school level of thinking.

dcnovice -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 12:12:45 AM)
quote: the religious are just lazy thinkers That Thomas Aquinas -- such a slacker.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 12:16:55 AM)
If you read his reasoning for there being a god, he will confirm it for you himself.

Zensee -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/2/2007 1:07:22 AM)
One of my fave St. Thomas quotes: "That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." Pure charm. Z.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

7.177734E-02