posted
Most atheists, even hard-core "God is dead" atheists, try to distance themselves from the idea of faith as much as possible. They usually try to frame their belief in the absence of God in terms of science, logic, and fact. Even though it takes some measure of faith to make the leap from "I can't prove that there is a God" to "I know that there is no God," you rarely hear them speak about their belief in the same terms, or from a similar perspective, as a theist.
NPR is doing a series on faith, and as part of this series, they asked Penn Jillette to write a piece on atheism. He came up with an essay that frames his belief in terms of religion, which it sort of is. The essay not a slam on theists, like he's made so many times before. Rather, it's positive, thought-provoking, and even inspiring.
I thought some of you might like to see it, so HERE IT IS
There's a button with a speaker icon underneath the title of the essay, if you want to hear it read in his own voice. Either way, it's worth reading.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: The essay not a slam on theists, like he's made so many times before. Rather, it's positive, thought-provoking, and even inspiring.
"I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something."
If you don't consider that a slam on thiests, I hate to think of what you do.
I didn't think what he had to say was thought-provoking at all. Of course, since I believe in God, that's simply because I'm closed-minded and incapable of appreciating a different point of view.
edited* funny how a single letter can change your entire point
posted
Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a good piece by Penn. I really respect the man. He can be loud and obnoxious, but he doesn't put up with any BS, and he sticks to his convictions.
Plus, he puts on a wicked awesome magic show.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Or about the faithful who are willing to discuss and re-examine their beliefs, but when put up against a metaphorical wall by atheists, rely on faith alone.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
What God means in His context and what I think He means in mine are likely to be two different things. How can anyone as limited in view as a mortal, fallible being ever truely hope to know exactly what God meant by any statement other than "Love me; love your neighbor"?
It's kind of nice to see the other side's point of view. I think too often the religious don't understand it and dismiss it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
This is generally why an atheist is, generally speaking, going to be more flexible in what they believe than a religious person. Because of the fact that "God can't be wrong" is floating out there, the religious person is not going to change a whole lot in what they believe.
But then again, both being flexible about what one believes and being immovable about what one believes can be seen as positives or negatives.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, the viewpoint of every atheist or even every theist from a different faith about your own religion boils down to "as far as I'm concerned, you believe in a fairy tale." It's difficult not to treat religionists condescendingly from that viewpoint, like talking to children about Santa Claus.
Which is why I remain agnostic. Your religion? Might be right, although I doubt it, and that keeps me respectful even though I completely agree with the attitude towards life and growth that Jillette expresses here. I just don't agree with Jillete's own immovable belief in the nonexistence of god, something that is surely as blind (and non-scientific) as the inflexible theists he rails against.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
This sentence assumes, though, that you cannot be mistaken about your god - not only its existence, but also about its ability to be mistaken.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. On that point, we just have to agree to disagree.
The central point that all religious folk are 100% certain in every belief and never change their minds or express doubt on anything I take issue with.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
This is a question I had about other Christians even when I was Christian. The chance of any one person's interpretation of the Bible being 100% correct is vanishingly small. So why was it so hard for them to acknowledge that there was a chance that the people who interpreted it differently from them were right on one or two points?
I guess the best commonly accepted word to describe my religious beliefs now would be agnostic. I prefer "confused". I'm not going to tell anyone if what they belief is wrong because I have no idea. I am going to try to learn from people's beliefs in the hope that somehow that will untangle my own.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Or about the faithful who are willing to discuss and re-examine their beliefs, but when put up against a metaphorical wall by atheists, rely on faith alone.
No, I'm pretty sure he was referring to people who believe in God.
I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith, as evident in the repeating theme of "stupid faith" vs. "scientific evidence." Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which is why I remain agnostic. Your religion? Might be right, although I doubt it, and that keeps me respectful...
My problem with this position, Chris, although I respect it and used to share it, is that I eventually realized that even if their religion was right, I didn't like their God very much. There are a handful of exceptions out there, but in general I wouldn't want the God described by most American faiths to actually exist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which is why I remain agnostic. Your religion? Might be right, although I doubt it, and that keeps me respectful...
My problem with this position, Chris, although I respect it and used to share it, is that I eventually realized that even if their religion was right, I didn't like their God very much. There are a handful of exceptions out there, but in general I wouldn't want the God described by most American faiths to actually exist.
Agreed. I do believe in God...but not one that has been described by any "mainstream" (if I can use that term here) religion.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I just don't agree with Jillete's own immovable belief in the nonexistence of god, something that is surely as blind (and non-scientific) as the inflexible theists he rails against."
Well, no... its very scientific. It doesn't exist, as far as science is concerned, if we can't measure it, or at the very least figure out how to indirectly measure it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My problem with this position, Chris, although I respect it and used to share it, is that I eventually realized that even if their religion was right, I didn't like their God very much."
I'd agree. But that doesn't mean I should look down upon people who believe it.
"Well, no... its very scientific. It doesn't exist, as far as science is concerned, if we can't measure it, or at the very least figure out how to indirectly measure it."
Then the only scientific conclusion that can be reached is "inconclusive." If you tell me that Steve is hiding somewhere in Newark and I cannot see him myself, find anyone who can prove he exists, or find him in Google, claiming therefore that I know for a fact Steve does not exist is inaccurate. Some people may have "proven" the nonexistence of a god thoroughly enough for their own needs, but in this realm where a conclusive answer is virtually impossible "we don't know" is always going to be more accurate than "it doesn't exist."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith...
Funny, I've encountered exactly the reverse on this very forum. The difference is that theists often don't realize they're doing it.
Also:
quote:Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
""Well, no... its very scientific. It doesn't exist, as far as science is concerned, if we can't measure it, or at the very least figure out how to indirectly measure it."
Then the only scientific conclusion that can be reached is "inconclusive.""
Nope. No known way to measure god, or detect the presence of god. Therefore scientifically non-existent. There are known ways to detect steve, even if at the moment you can't detect him.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scientifically non-provable at this point. Not non-existent. There was no known way to detect a quark a hundred years ago, but I submit it would be foolhardy to suggest that they didn't exist until 1961.
The net effect is the same -- I'm not suggesting god be used to solve for any formulas or phenomena -- but to declare anything as being an absolute fact in the absence of proof strikes me as fundamentally unscientific, like scientists flatly denying for years that meterorites existed. It ensures that even if evidence of proof was discovered, or a new method of detection, it would be ignored because the book has been closed on that issue.
A professor at my son's college once spent 45 minutes talking about all the times in history scientists have been certain they had all the laws of physics figured out. Had a ball laughing at them too, those wacky primitive scientists. Then he ended by saying that by now, of course, we really do. And he was serious. Or else irony is scientifically non-existent.
[ November 04, 2006, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Scientifically non-provable at this point. Not non-existent. There was no known way to detect a quark a hundred years ago, but I submit it would be foolhardy to suggest that they didn't exist until 1961."
Of course, no one hypothesized a quark before Murray Gel-Mann did in 1960. Lots of people have hypothesized god, and yet haven't been able to suggest a way we can measure him that passes scientific muster.
"but to declare anything as being an absolute fact in the absence of proof strikes me as fundamentally unscientific,"
I'm using "scientifically non-existent" to mean something different then "fact."
I mean "something that cannot be dealt with by scientific means, and completely outside the realm of scientific epistomology."
Someone who uses the scientific epistomology as their only means of gathering data about the universe would be forced to declare that god is some imaginary concept developed by people that has no basis in reality, because not only can't those people tell the uber-scientist how to detect or measure god, but they can't even come up with a test that passes scientific muster as to how to measure god.
If it can't be dealt with by scientific means, for all intents and purposes, it does not scientifically exist.
And god isn't the only idea that doesn't exist scientifically. Its just one of a whole group.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith...
Funny, I've encountered exactly the reverse on this very forum. The difference is that theists often don't realize they're doing it.
Maybe on this forum. And I wasn't saying that there isn't a streak of condescension that runs through the community of the faithful. I was saying that it the one practically guaranteed characteristic of an athiest, as evidenced by THIS statement:
quote:
quote:Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us?
I mean, how condescending is that? What am I, a caveman in a Geico commercial? Besides that, your argumentation is faulty, inasmuch as my rejection of your hypothetical whitewashing of said condescension does not imply that I have not considered it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. I'll retract the "non-scientific" portion. I'll leave "blind" though, because I don't think that most atheists are using the same definition you are.
I'd also suggest that there is nothing that cannot be dealt with by scientific means or completely outside the realm of scientific epistomology, but we may not be capable of it at this point.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Fair enough. I'll retract the "non-scientific" portion. I'll leave "blind" though, because I don't think that most atheists are using the same definition you are."
Oh, I agree. Being immovably inflexible on ANYTHING is a bad idea.
"I'd also suggest that there is nothing that cannot be dealt with by scientific means or completely outside the realm of scientific epistomology, but we may not be capable of it at this point."
I think most of what might be outside the scientific epistomology needs to be redefined in certain specific ways in order for science to get a handle on it.
Justice is a good example. What the heck do we MEAN by justice? Since its not something we, as people, can even agree on a meaning for, and since the definition is abstract to begin with, I don't think we'll ever be able to "measure" justice.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Resh, in the paragraph you quote I believe he's speaking to those faithful (whether theist or atheist) who's faith is entirely blind. Those that cannot brook any discussion, any variance in point of view.
Or about the faithful who are willing to discuss and re-examine their beliefs, but when put up against a metaphorical wall by atheists, rely on faith alone.
No, I'm pretty sure he was referring to people who believe in God.
I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith, as evident in the repeating theme of "stupid faith" vs. "scientific evidence." Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
I don't see how I was claiming that Penn was talking about anybody but theists. All I said was that I think Penn was also talking about theists who use faith as a last resort argument.
As for atheists always being condescending towards faith, that's simply not the case. We simply don't put stock in it, and don't want to debate the matter as if they do. The same goes for theists - some are condescending of the atheist's belief in the supremacy of reason in all matters, some aren't. They do put stock in faith, and aren't willing to debate the matter as if they don't.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I was saying that it the one practically guaranteed characteristic of an athiest, as evidenced by THIS statement:
quote:
quote:Whitewash it all you want, you are about as likely to convince me that any athiest dosn't look down on the faithful as you are that John Kerry meant to tell a joke.
This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us?
I mean, how condescending is that? What am I, a caveman in a Geico commercial? Besides that, your argumentation is faulty, inasmuch as my rejection of your hypothetical whitewashing of said condescension does not imply that I have not considered it.
I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered it. I meant that you weren't being considerate, not that your position was necessarily unconsidered.
Given that there's a multi-page thread here discussing what Kerry meant to say and what he said in context, even conclusions as obvious as you apparently think yours is in that case aren't as unassailable as you suggest.
Added: To clarify a little bit, I'm basically saying that there's no reason for me, as an atheist, to discuss anything with you when your default assumption is that I'll be condescending to you.
You know, given that, I'm not sure why I'm even trying to have this conversation. Forget it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: twinky: "I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered it. I meant that you weren't being considerate, not that your position was necessarily unconsidered.
You said, "This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us," in response to me saying that I'm extremely unlikely to be convinced by any attempts to show that atheists are not condescending to theists. Aside from proving my point more beautifully than I ever could, when you you talk about "granting consideration," that sounds more like you are using the verb "to consider" rather than the adjective "considerate."
quote: Given that there's a multi-page thread here discussing what Kerry meant to say and what he said in context, even conclusions as obvious as you apparently think yours is in that case aren't as unassailable as you suggest.
I'll have to check that page out. But the reason why I don't believe I'll change my mind about that is because I'm not the idiot liberals seem to take us conservatives for. I heard what he said, I saw the revised version of what he was supposedly meaning to say, and I recognize that there is no way that that was a "botched joke."
quote: Added: To clarify a little bit, I'm basically saying that there's no reason for me, as an atheist, to discuss anything with you when your default assumption is that I'll be condescending to you. "
Is that because you approach all debates with absolutely no pre-conceived notions? Or is it because my arguments are so meaningless that any discussion with me is pointless? Either way, it says I am obviously an inferior person.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, why shouldn't I assume before going in that I am going to be condescended to? Seeing as how I have been condescended to in this pseudo-debate, it turns out that that pre-conceived notion was spot on.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll have to check that page out. But the reason why I don't believe I'll change my mind about that is because I'm not the idiot liberals seem to take us conservatives for
I see - those conservatives who think he did blow a dumb joke about Bush are idiots now? Or is it only you, not other conservatives, who require idiocy in addition to conservatism to believe that a seasoned politician purposefully called the American troops dumb right before the election?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The forums on this website have a higher caliber of analytical thinking compared to many others I have visited. Even so, the lack thereof is still pervasive. People hear what they want to hear.
I NEVER said he meant to call our troops stupid, though I think it may have been a freudian slip and that it is actually how he feels, at least in his subconscious. I said that it was never meant as a joke. And if anyone, conservative or otherwise, does not recognize that, they need to stop drinking the kool-aid, as O'Reilly would say.
I mean, look at what he said compared to what was supposedly written. They weren't close. He deviated from the script and started speaking what he thought. And if he wasn't mindlessly reading from the page, then he had to be aware of what he was saying. And he didn't try and correct himself, he just kept on going unfettered in any way.
quote:Is that because you approach all debates with absolutely no pre-conceived notions? Or is it because my arguments are so meaningless that any discussion with me is pointless? Either way, it says I am obviously an inferior person.
It doesn't. It says that if you are not going to assume the atheist will argue honestly, why would we want to have a discussion with you? It is extremely annoying to have people going "OMG you're being condescending" rather than addressing the actual arguments.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does assuming (correctly, I might add) that an atheist is going to be condescending also require assuming that an atheist is not going to argue honestly? When have I ever not addressed the argument? I don't use cheap tricks or try to change the subject.
And of all the false assumptions about me, when have I EVER said "OMG"? Never!!!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: How does assuming (correctly, I might add) that an atheist is going to be condescending also require assuming that an atheist is not going to argue honestly?
This is somewhat off the topic, but why do you deal in such stark terms of black and white? It is incredibly insulting to assume someone will act a certain way merely because of their belief, whether they are atheists or theists.
Telling someone that you're absolutely sure they will be condescending to you is no way to endear yourself to them, and does not promote a good environment for discussion and debate.
So c'mon, at least wait until we condescend, and then you can tell me you told me so. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that one atheist was condescending (assuming that's true) does not make correct the assumption that all atheists will be condescending. Or should we assume that all fundamentalists are closeted tweakers?
Surely, out of millions of atheists there are some who are not condescending? Sorry, Reshpeckobiggle, I don't mean to call you Shirley. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because once you assign someone to a group in your mind, you can forever after assume that that person always agrees with the extremist opinions or actions of that group (even the ones that never existed) and argue from that position. It's fun! And way easier than actually, you know, trying to find out what that specific person actually believes and discussing it.
"But the reason why I don't believe I'll change my mind about that is because I'm not the idiot liberals seem to take us conservatives for."
"Is that because you approach all debates with absolutely no pre-conceived notions?"
These two lines, delivered in the same post, are a nice summary of most political arguments, at least outside Hatrack. ALL liberals share exactly the same outlook in stark opposition to ALL conservatives, and the person speaking is clearly speaking on behalf of every member of whichever party he or she belongs to while claiming to have an open mind. Never mind the wide variety of opinions on both sides, or the conservative Democrats (i.e. OSC) or the Republicans with liberal views (such as Schwartzeneggar) or the many, many voters who are drifting towards Independent after getting fed up with both sides.
Just about any sentence that begins with "All Democrats" or "All Republicans" or "Liberals always" or "Conservatives just want to" or, for that matter, any sentence that takes it as a given that every single member of a group acts in perfect lockstep, that's an indication that the discussion has nothing useful for me.
[ November 04, 2006, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just did. But more to the point, saying "You are saying I am an inferior person" when clearly no such insult was intended is a cheap trick and a change of subject.
You may be right that there is no necessary correlation between thinking you'll be condescended to, and thinking you won't be argued honestly with. It seems to me, however, that these two things usually go together. You, in particular, seem to assume that all liberals and atheists are not only out to get you, they will get you purely through groupthink, propaganda and shouting you down.
Take your posts in this thread:
quote:I didn't think what he had to say was thought-provoking at all. Of course, since I believe in God, that's simply because I'm closed-minded and incapable of appreciating a different point of view.
quote:I think the single common thread amongst athiests is incredible condescension torwards all with faith, as evident in the repeating theme of "stupid faith" vs. "scientific evidence."
quote:I mean, how condescending is that? What am I, a caveman in a Geico commercial?
quote:Either way, it says I am obviously an inferior person.
Whine, whine, whine. Quite apart from the issue of faith, if you want to be taken seriously, it's not that great an idea to complain about insults that haven't been delivered. It makes you look rather childish. (You can complain about that as an insult, if you like, although it was meant as advice.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think my only disagreement with Penn is that even as a believer, I can still be wrong. The only one who can't be wrong is God.
"The only one who can't be wrong is God"
What does that mean? Since we are all in agreement that God and His actions are undetectable, what difference does it make to us mere mortals if God is somehow "right" or "wrong"? It can have no impact on us here on earth.
posted
It need not be circular. Some theists, myself included, believe that there are rules that God himself has to follow, so if he says it, it's because it's right, not the other way around.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
So you disagree with the "Scientifically non-proveable" comments made earlier?
Either way, there is no way to know that "God cannot be wrong." It is an assumption, made by people, who we know can be wrong.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really confused. There was some other entity, or some pre-existent universe that created rules or established rules that your God has to follow?
And you say, "If he says it..." I assume that by "he," you mean "God." And then "He saying it" I them assume refers to the King James version of the bible? Or what else (what other bible) represents the unequivocal "word of God"?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: I'm really confused. There was some other entity, or some pre-existent universe that created rules or established rules that your God has to follow?
This might not be easy on the head, but throw away the assumption that there was a beginning to the universe and try to imagine that it has always existed, there is no beginning. If you can grasp that, you are closer to environment God works in. The rules were not created, they have always been thus.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Javert and Chris Bridges: Yes, I am definitely dealing in generalizations and down-playing all the grey areas, simply for the sake of the debate. If we didn't do that, I don't think anything would ever get done.
To Morbo: I explained a little earlier that the one common thread between all atheists is condescension. That's pretty much what started this thing (aside from what boothby, mr. potiero head and euripides are going on about). I am aware that there are exceptions, but when it comes to discussing the faith/science issue, I have yet to encounter one who didn't immediatly assume a position superiority.
And to King of Men: I don't think it was a trick, it wasn't cheap, and it most certainly wasn't a change of subject. It believe what I said was effective and made my point exactly. Also, I don't understand why you think condescension and dishonest debating tactics go hand in hand.
And if you thought I was whining, I wasn't. I was being sarcastic. You see, there is a theme to my posts here so far, and it has been about condescension. Now I don't know what your stance is on theism/atheism, because I don't remember if you ever stated it. But another example of condescension (I'm getting sick of typing that word) is you telling me that I'm coming across as childish and then telling me that it's just advice. You may not (or probably not) have meant it that way, but that's how it came out.
And as for those insults you listed as being undelivered, the first two were responses to general attitudes that have most certainly been delivered, the second two were in response to direct...I don't want to say attacks because that's not what they were... comments directed at me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the universe has no begining, or need of beginning, then what's with all the "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."?
Those bibles are wrong, or they just don't get it or something?
I'm perfectly fine with the concept of a universe without beginning. I just don't see any particular God there, then. Certainly not the big three choices most of us have been given (Judeo-Christian-Islam). What are you offering?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
