Forum home Road cycling forum The bottom bracket

God Botherer's

1234579

Posts

  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    MattC59 wrote:
    I have a question for those who do believe in god, and I don't intend this in any disrespectful way:

    At what point in your life did you subscribe to the idea of god, and what was it that convinced you that there is an all powerful entity, dispite a complete lack of anything to suggest that there is a god ?

    I guess what I'm trying to say, is what made you think, 'there's nothing to suggest that there is a god, but yes, a single all powerful entity sounds perfectly reasonable' ?

    Fair question. And you'll love the answer - when I abandoned reason.

    I wasn't brought up with church or God. I have a fairly scientific background, and know my way around an academic paper. I'm a big fan of logic and reasoning, and naturally when I got curious about philosophy and religion I used these tools. Quite handy in philosophy. Quite handy in theology*. Utterly useless when exploring the nature of faith itself. Fortunately, cold reason is not the only valid method of thought, for example the (much misunderstood) idea of mysticism**.

    For me, it was an experiential thing. That's why I'm not going to waste my time with half-baked arguments for why God exists. God Himself is so far beyond what I can comprehend that me trying to reason Him into existence in my comparatively miniscule brain is a non-starter. I tried that for years and it didn't work. So He has to come to you, and nudge you with little things - experiences, answers to prayer, odd coincidences, the transformation of lives and the love and community of church (it does exist, I promise!), the gentle, kind nature of believers and some of the wonderful things they've done. And of course, all these things can be explained away in a perfectly rational way. But that doesn't necessarily mean that God isn't in them. For me, there was no blinding revelation, no booming voice. The process took years. I will always have doubts; heck, I may not always believe.

    Just please don't assume I am an idiot who hasn't thought things through. In truth I don't feel I have abandoned reason but in some way moved beyond it. Well, that's a little grandiose, but hopefully you know what I mean!


    *Theology doesn't spend its time trying to prove God or do battle with atheists. It's concerned with the study of God based on the assumption that He exists, and uses logic, reasoned argument and sources (Holy texts are an obvious example) to do this like any other academic discipline.

    **My understanding of this is it is the belief that some things are beyond the obviously limited powers of human reasoning.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    edited July 2011
    ddraver wrote:
    AidanR wrote:
    You haven't actually bothered reading a word of what I've written have you?

    -Just in advance - A hissy fit does nt count as a scientific argument either

    Never argued that it was ;)
    ddraver wrote:
    I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

    - The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.
    Why?

    Because it is not possible to prove. Science deals in proof. Nobody has definitively proved it one way or another, but if you feel that you can manage it I imagine there's a prestigious award in your future.
    ddraver wrote:
    - Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy

    Disagree - Atheism is the absence of a philosophy

    The defining feature of atheism is that there is no God. How that is not a philosophical position I do not know.
    ddraver wrote:
    - Not believing there is a God = believing there is no God (for all intents and purposes*)
    Agreed, same sentence reworded

    Jolly good.
    ddraver wrote:
    - Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.

    But neither does this mean that there is a god/spag monster/celestial teapot. However applying rational thought suggests that there is not. Given the knowledge can only be an accumulation of facts, and there are no facts suggest there is a god, rational thought concludes that there is no god.

    One last crack at this - I am not trying to prove there's a God. I'm just saying it's not the clear-cut faith vs. reason argument atheists assume it to be. And the statement "knowledge can only be an accumulation of facts" is philosophically very simplistic on multiple levels.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • rhextrhext Posts: 1,639
    AidanR wrote:
    *Theology doesn't spend its time trying to prove God or do battle with atheists. It's concerned with the study of God based on the assumption that He exists, and uses logic, reasoned argument and sources (Holy texts are an obvious example) to do this like any other academic discipline.

    See, this is the bit which makes me smile! Logic - great, reasoned argument - great. Both good strong academic disciplines. And then you base it on 'holy texts'! Seems a bit like using The Lord of the Rings as the basis of a sociological study of Hobbits.

    But to bring the discussion back to the OP: I recall a beautiful circular discussion with a pair of JWs where I was invited to believe in the existance of God on the basis that the bible proved that he existed. When I then asked why I should give the bible any credence, the answer was along the lines of 'because God gave it to us to show that He exists'. Doh!
  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    rhext wrote:

    See, this is the bit which makes me smile! Logic - great, reasoned argument - great. Both good strong academic disciplines. And then you base it on 'holy texts'! Seems a bit like using The Lord of the Rings as the basis of a sociological study of Hobbits.

    You've been to a university English department, right? :wink:

    But in all seriousness, all academic disciplines will be based on an assumption. Usually it's far more subtle, and not immediately obvious, but dig deep enough and it's there. That's kinda been my point all along...
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • elliebellieb Posts: 436
    Aidan, the problem people have with your reasoning is that nobody equates the 'beilef' that you get from faith with the 'belief' you get from physical evidence. My believing that there is a kettle in my kitchen is based onwhat I can see & experience through my senses. (it may be wrong because the kettle may have disappeared as I write). It isn't the same as me believing that God is in my kitchen.

    The 'evidence' you use for your belief in God is based on faith. I have no problem in that although I happen to think that 'faith' is the expression of some deep psychological need. The' evidence' I use for my lack of faith is there in the real world. Some of it may be contentious or only partially understood, but when it comes down to it I can point out where the evidence for evolution is in a physical sense. There is a fundamental difference between 'belief' based on that which can be shown to exist (the kettle) & belief which cannot (God)
  • Cleat EastwoodCleat Eastwood Posts: 8,191
    ellieb wrote:
    There is a fundamental difference between 'belief' based on that which can be shown to exist (the kettle) & belief which cannot (God)

    Like the Higgs Boson?
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,637
    We really have been through all of these already
    ddraver wrote:
    I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

    - The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.
    Why?

    Because it is not possible to prove. Science deals in proof. Nobody has definitively proved it one way or another, but if you feel that you can manage it I imagine there's a prestigious award in your future.
    ddraver wrote:

    Non argument - spaghetti monster/celestial teapot etc... (discussed above)

    [
    quote]- Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy

    Disagree - Atheism is the absence of a philosophy

    The defining feature of atheism is that there is no God. How that is not a philosophical position I do not know.
    ddraver wrote:

    You are assuming that god is the default position again. Atheisim is not JUST the absence of a belief in God it is the absence of a belief system (discussed above)

    ddraver wrote:
    - Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.

    But neither does this mean that there is a god/spag monster/celestial teapot. However applying rational thought suggests that there is not. Given the knowledge can only be an accumulation of facts, and there are no facts suggest there is a god, rational thought concludes that there is no god.
    One last crack at this - I am not trying to prove there's a God. I'm just saying it's not the clear-cut faith vs. reason argument atheists assume it to be.

    Again Why isnt it? You have decreed this based on what? Whys is the argument against the lack of a spag monster/teapot superfluous whearas god is nt. Again, your making god a special case which is abandoning reason altogether.You have admitted that you are religious so you ve chosen to fill the gap in knowledge with a thing called god.

    What are we discussing otherwise? Because things are difficult should we just give up or should we apply the best of our reasoning to it to think of an answer?

    And the statement "knowledge can only be an accumulation of facts" is philosophically very simplistic on multiple levels.
    [/quote]

    The simplest answer is often the best
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    ellieb wrote:
    Aidan, the problem people have with your reasoning is that nobody equates the 'beilef' that you get from faith with the 'belief' you get from physical evidence. My believing that there is a kettle in my kitchen is based onwhat I can see & experience through my senses. (it may be wrong because the kettle may have disappeared as I write). It isn't the same as me believing that God is in my kitchen.

    The 'evidence' you use for your belief in God is based on faith. I have no problem in that although I happen to think that 'faith' is the expression of some deep psychological need. The' evidence' I use for my lack of faith is there in the real world. Some of it may be contentious or only partially understood, but when it comes down to it I can point out where the evidence for evolution is in a physical sense. There is a fundamental difference between 'belief' based on that which can be shown to exist (the kettle) & belief which cannot (God)

    I'm not suggesting that belief/faith is the same as physical evidence. Other people have brought up the (rather pointless) question of "does anything exist?". I believe there's a kettle in my kitchen. Because I can see it right now, I believe it in a very different way to the way I believe in God.

    My point is, and always has been, that belief in God or not in God is a matter of faith. I cannot see God, so can't prove his existence. You cannot see God, but equally cannot disprove his existence. The kettle never comes into it.

    And FWIW, I believe in both evolution and God.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,637
    We really have been through all of these already
    ddraver wrote:
    I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

    - The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.
    Why?

    Because it is not possible to prove. Science deals in proof. Nobody has definitively proved it one way or another, but if you feel that you can manage it I imagine there's a prestigious award in your future.
    ddraver wrote:

    Non argument - spaghetti monster/celestial teapot etc... (discussed above)

    [
    quote]- Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy

    Disagree - Atheism is the absence of a philosophy

    The defining feature of atheism is that there is no God. How that is not a philosophical position I do not know.
    ddraver wrote:

    You are assuming that god is the default position again. Atheisim is not JUST the absence of a belief in God it is the absence of a belief system (discussed above)

    ddraver wrote:
    - Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.

    But neither does this mean that there is a god/spag monster/celestial teapot. However applying rational thought suggests that there is not. Given the knowledge can only be an accumulation of facts, and there are no facts suggest there is a god, rational thought concludes that there is no god.
    One last crack at this - I am not trying to prove there's a God. I'm just saying it's not the clear-cut faith vs. reason argument atheists assume it to be.

    Again Why isnt it? You have decreed this based on what? Whys is the argument against the lack of a spag monster/teapot superfluous whearas god is nt. Again, your making god a special case which is abandoning reason altogether.You have admitted that you are religious so you ve chosen to fill the gap in knowledge with a thing called god.

    What are we discussing otherwise? Because things are difficult should we just give up or should we apply the best of our reasoning to it to think of an answer?

    And the statement "knowledge can only be an accumulation of facts" is philosophically very simplistic on multiple levels.
    [/quote]

    The simplest answer is often the best
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • dodgydodgy Posts: 2,890
    I am reminded of Russel's Teapot :lol:
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,637
    I did nt know about that but yes, that's one of the points exactly!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • FYI it is very easy to prove if god exists , he/she just has to show up.

    Also the question as to if something is true is the fundamental question that all science is about.

    Ps god doesn't exist
    All hail the FSM and his noodly appendage!
  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    @ddraver: OK, the formatting seems to have gone askew so I'll abandon it!

    - The problem with defining atheism as simply the absence of everything is that it becomes, quite literally, nothing. That is the only way I can see it is not a philosophy. Note here that I'm not claiming that it is a complete philosophy - a way to run your life. Neither is theism, though subsets of theism (e.g. Christianity) may be, just as subsets of atheism (e.g. humanism) may be.

    Besides, if atheism is absence of any philosophy, why are so many people so keen to label themselves as atheist? A keen sense of irony, perhaps? ;)

    - There are arguments for and against believing in God. To be honest, I haven't found any of them particularly convincing on either side. That's why I said I "abandoned reason". I do not mean it in the sense that I stuck my fingers in my ears and refused to listen to any arguments; rather I realised reason wasn't getting me anywhere because it was inadequate for the task. Arguments against God may seem sensible, or even self-evident but they can never constitute proof. You cannot reason God out of existence any more than you can reason God into existence. So smug atheists who say that they are rational and that theists are irrational are kidding themselves.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • MattC59MattC59 Posts: 5,433
    AidanR wrote:
    MattC59 wrote:
    I have a question for those who do believe in god, and I don't intend this in any disrespectful way:

    At what point in your life did you subscribe to the idea of god, and what was it that convinced you that there is an all powerful entity, dispite a complete lack of anything to suggest that there is a god ?

    I guess what I'm trying to say, is what made you think, 'there's nothing to suggest that there is a god, but yes, a single all powerful entity sounds perfectly reasonable' ?

    Fair question. And you'll love the answer - when I abandoned reason.

    I wasn't brought up with church or God. I have a fairly scientific background, and know my way around an academic paper. I'm a big fan of logic and reasoning, and naturally when I got curious about philosophy and religion I used these tools. Quite handy in philosophy. Quite handy in theology*. Utterly useless when exploring the nature of faith itself. Fortunately, cold reason is not the only valid method of thought, for example the (much misunderstood) idea of mysticism**.

    For me, it was an experiential thing. That's why I'm not going to waste my time with half-baked arguments for why God exists. God Himself is so far beyond what I can comprehend that me trying to reason Him into existence in my comparatively miniscule brain is a non-starter. I tried that for years and it didn't work. So He has to come to you, and nudge you with little things - experiences, answers to prayer, odd coincidences, the transformation of lives and the love and community of church (it does exist, I promise!), the gentle, kind nature of believers and some of the wonderful things they've done. And of course, all these things can be explained away in a perfectly rational way. But that doesn't necessarily mean that God isn't in them. For me, there was no blinding revelation, no booming voice. The process took years. I will always have doubts; heck, I may not always believe.

    Just please don't assume I am an idiot who hasn't thought things through. In truth I don't feel I have abandoned reason but in some way moved beyond it. Well, that's a little grandiose, but hopefully you know what I mean!


    *Theology doesn't spend its time trying to prove God or do battle with atheists. It's concerned with the study of God based on the assumption that He exists, and uses logic, reasoned argument and sources (Holy texts are an obvious example) to do this like any other academic discipline.

    **My understanding of this is it is the belief that some things are beyond the obviously limited powers of human reasoning.

    And that's just it, if they can be explained in a rational way, why would you decide to attribute them to something for which there is nothing to suggest that it is exists ?
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • It seems the definition of atheism has somewhat been lost. It's not the belief that there isn't a god, it's the lack of a belief in a god. Most rational atheists wouldn't claim that there isn't a god as they would be well aware that you cannot prove a negative.
  • DIESELDOGDIESELDOG Posts: 2,087
    Is there a "God"?

    Oh there's a God alright... :wink:

    Love n hugs

    DD
    Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    www.onemanandhisbike.co.uk
  • 97th choice97th choice Posts: 2,305
    rhext wrote:
    AidanR wrote:
    *Theology doesn't spend its time trying to prove God or do battle with atheists. It's concerned with the study of God based on the assumption that He exists, and uses logic, reasoned argument and sources (Holy texts are an obvious example) to do this like any other academic discipline.

    See, this is the bit which makes me smile! Logic - great, reasoned argument - great. Both good strong academic disciplines. And then you base it on 'holy texts'! Seems a bit like using The Lord of the Rings as the basis of a sociological study of Hobbits.

    But to bring the discussion back to the OP: I recall a beautiful circular discussion with a pair of JWs where I was invited to believe in the existance of God on the basis that the bible proved that he existed. When I then asked why I should give the bible any credence, the answer was along the lines of 'because God gave it to us to show that He exists'. Doh!

    I see it as two different arguments. There is way more evidence that Jesus lived than evidence that Hannibal lived for example (both biblical and extra biblical). The fact that some bloke call Jesus lived and died in the area around Galilee region during the time of the Roman occupation is pretty much accepted by mainstream historians.

    So, from that basis, are the historical texts, themselves taken from an oral tradition, an accurate relection as to what this bloke may or may not have said? And if they are, was he mad, or actually what he is reported as thinking he was. i.e. the son of God. that's where faith comes in to the argument IMHO.

    Regardless of your position on the above, the bible contains some stunningly insightful work on the human condition. The sermon on the mount being perhaps the best example of unique understanding of human morality.

    (The above is a massively dumbed down argument, but hopefully you get my drift).
    Too-ra-loo-ra, too-ra-loo-rye, aye

    Giant Trance
    Radon ZR 27.5 Race
    Btwin Alur700
    Merida CX500
  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    MattC59 wrote:

    And that's just it, if they can be explained in a rational way, why would you decide to attribute them to something for which there is nothing to suggest that it is exists ?

    Sorry, I used the phrase "perfectly rational" in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner, as shorthand for an explanation that doesn't involve God or anything beyond the tangible. I find the presumption that there's no reality beyond that which we can perceive a little stifling. It may be correct, but it's not what I believe. That said, I am really not very far from that point of view. I believe that when God does work, it is within the realms of natural laws. For example, it wouldn't at all surprise me if the parting of the Red Sea could be explained as a natural phenomenon.

    It seems the definition of atheism has somewhat been lost. It's not the belief that there isn't a god, it's the lack of a belief in a god. Most rational atheists wouldn't claim that there isn't a god as they would be well aware that you cannot prove a negative.

    This is a debate of "strong" vs "weak" atheism, with you advocating the broad definition associated with the latter; an agnostic atheism if you will. But I don't buy the argument that you can simply lack belief in something instead of not believing in it. This is a sleight of hand to shift the burden of proof onto theists, which is especially unfair when considering something that cannot be proved either way.

    I would say that if there's strong and weak atheism - a narrow and a broad definition - then the same can be said of theism. As I have said before, I don't *know* there's a God, I just belief there is. Or to put it another way, I lack belief that there isn't a God.
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • 97th choice97th choice Posts: 2,305
    Oh, and someone please sort out the apostrophe in the title. It offends me.
    Too-ra-loo-ra, too-ra-loo-rye, aye

    Giant Trance
    Radon ZR 27.5 Race
    Btwin Alur700
    Merida CX500
  • DIESELDOG wrote:
    Is there a "God"?

    Oh there's a God alright... :wink:

    Love n hugs

    DD

    No you just can't think of anything else to say over and over again at certain times...
  • rhextrhext Posts: 1,639
    AidanR wrote:

    You've been to a university English department, right? :wink:

    But in all seriousness, all academic disciplines will be based on an assumption. Usually it's far more subtle, and not immediately obvious, but dig deep enough and it's there. That's kinda been my point all along...

    I don't have a problem with Universities/schools using logic and reasoned argument to carry out a sociological study of Hobbits. Logic and reasoned argument are useful skills and using a fictional starting point for subsequent expansion is not necessarily a bad thing to do. But the English department does not then go on to teach their students that hobbits are real.......

    The point about assumptions may be accurate but it isn't particularly helpful: it's just a restatement of Cogito Ergo Sum. If you take your perception of the existence of the physical world at face value, then some academic subjects allow you to model its behaviour accurately and some don't. Theology frankly doesn't!

    And @ 97th choice: I'm perfectly prepared to accept that Jesus was real; I'm even prepared to accept that the new testament is a reasonably accurate record of his life....except for the miracles and the claim that he's the Son of God.
  • TuckerUKTuckerUK Posts: 398
    You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

    Ah, so it is your belief that there are no pink elephants that fly into the tress and roost every night then? You certainly can't prove it not to be so (very hard to prove a negative).

    Have you considered counselling?
    "Coming through..."
  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    @ rhext

    I'm not really out to justify theology to atheists - if you don't believe in God (or lack a belief or whatever) then you aren't going to be particularly interested in theology. That said, it has contributed a lot to human thinking. Heck, it pretty much was academia for centuries if not millennia.

    You may not agree with its underlying assumptions, but logical arguments have been constructed upon them. Cosmology, for example, has done much the same, though obviously with scientific rather than philosophical methodology. I'd like to think that if the assumptions underpinning either of these disciplines were somehow disproved, both would make a seismic readjustment.

    My point about assumptions is not really supposed to be helpful. Rather, it's to emphasise that there's no such thing as pure, unadulterated reasoned argument standing on its own. Logic, evidence, reason all owe something to the mystical - there are limits to the human mind and our ability to perceive the world around us. I'm not saying that God is the gaps in our knowledge, but I am trying to point out to atheists that theists aren't the only ones forced into leaps of faith.

    I hope that all makes sense. I'm pretty tired and this has been a fairly lonely battle!
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • 97th choice97th choice Posts: 2,305
    rhext wrote:

    And @ 97th choice: I'm perfectly prepared to accept that Jesus was real; I'm even prepared to accept that the new testament is a reasonably accurate record of his life....except for the miracles and the claim that he's the Son of God.

    There, you're defining the boundary between reason and faith. And for many people once they have accepted the historical accuracy of the biblical texts it eases that passage towards an actual faith.

    Of course, for many people on both sides they don't even bother to have that element of insight. Shame really.
    Too-ra-loo-ra, too-ra-loo-rye, aye

    Giant Trance
    Radon ZR 27.5 Race
    Btwin Alur700
    Merida CX500
  • AidanRAidanR Posts: 1,142
    TuckerUK wrote:
    You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

    Ah, so it is your belief that there are no pink elephants that fly into the tress and roost every night then? You certainly can't prove it not to be so (very hard to prove a negative).

    Have you considered counselling?

    No, I don't believe that there are pink elephants that fly into the trees and roost every night. But I can't disprove it, that's why I believe it and don't know it. What exactly is your point?
    Bike lover and part-time cyclist.
  • 97th choice97th choice Posts: 2,305
    AidanR wrote:
    TuckerUK wrote:
    You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

    Ah, so it is your belief that there are no pink elephants that fly into the tress and roost every night then? You certainly can't prove it not to be so (very hard to prove a negative).

    Have you considered counselling?

    No, I don't believe that there are pink elephants that fly into the trees and roost every night. But I can't disprove it, that's why I believe it and don't know it. What exactly is your point?

    Possibly that using the absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence argument dumbs down the abrahamic faith to the equivalent of believing in flying pink elephants or the great spaghetti monster.
    Too-ra-loo-ra, too-ra-loo-rye, aye

    Giant Trance
    Radon ZR 27.5 Race
    Btwin Alur700
    Merida CX500
  • Cleat EastwoodCleat Eastwood Posts: 8,191
    AidanR wrote:

    I hope that all makes sense. I'm pretty tired and this has been a fairly lonely battle!

    And chapeau to you sir, you've held your corner well against the obligatory confusions over belief/faith/scientific sytems of 'logic'.

    For what it's worth I am a believer after years of ignoring events that had no 'normal' explanation. What I believe in i have to call the godhead to avoid inherited misunderstandings about the god we're taught about in schools. The problem I find is that there is no language for spiritual experience, and bizarrely as suggested by no less than Nils Bohr, there is no language for explanations of the subatomic. Strangely under god/science we are all one.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,971
    Here's my religion:

    Believe whatever you want, but just keep it to yourself.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • DIESELDOGDIESELDOG Posts: 2,087
    AidanR wrote:
    TuckerUK wrote:
    You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

    Ah, so it is your belief that there are no pink elephants that fly into the tress and roost every night then? You certainly can't prove it not to be so (very hard to prove a negative).

    Have you considered counselling?

    No, I don't believe that there are pink elephants that fly into the trees and roost every night. But I can't disprove it, that's why I believe it and don't know it. What exactly is your point?

    There are no such things as pink elephants, they are yellow, and they hide upside down in bowls of custard in your fridge.

    And I have a naked man next to me offering me a drink.

    I do believe I am going to Hell, but before I do, can anyone tell me if it is exothermic or endothermic.

    Just askin like...

    Love n hugs

    DD
    Eagles may soar but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    www.onemanandhisbike.co.uk
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,637
    OK, I apologise in advance, I am now drunk!!

    @97th choice - WTF? Some dude called Jesus may have existed 2011 years ago, he may have been a good natured dude who had some good ideas about how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change (Adams, 19??)...who cares?

    The important point is Was he he "son of god" was he resurrected? Science says the above is impossible and ther is no proof to suggest that the biblical story is true. Your drift appears to suggest that because the story is old therefore it is right...Rubbish!

    @Aidan - your paragraph about not believing has been discussed at least 3 times above. There is no sleight of hand - Atheists do not believe - that is all.

    Just because you don't understand it because you have been indoctrinated/grown up with a belief in god does not make it less true! This is Russel's teapot YET AGAIN!!!!!!

    I suspect that your next post about belief vs belief and not proving the absence of god can be answered by...see above

    P.S. Great spaghetti monster Dutch girls are hot!!!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
Sign In or Register to comment.