651. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78885 by phasmagigas on October 15, 2007 at 8:58 am

Dianelos:

Indeed, only some knowledge about phenomenal reality is quite sufficient to get one through life.

Well, incidentally, the same people think that my soul will also suffer eternally because of my ontological beliefs. But I find such is more of a curiosity than actually annoying. I mean who cares what these people think.

:-) Right, it's funny to consider all the many a theistic sects which teach that only they have gotten it right and that everybody else is going to hell.

652. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78881 by phasmagigas on October 15, 2007 at 8:43 am

dianelos

Nobody has done such and thought 'this is because there is God' either

653. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78532 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

dianelos:

In other words no matter how well a naturalist writes a book on ethics, that book will not make as much sense as a book on ethics written equally well by a theist

But this is a quarrel I have with my fellow Christians, which I suppose is irrelevant for people in this thread.

654. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78529 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 1:13 pm

steve99:

I am gay. The majority of religions condemn me

655. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78528 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Dianelos:

Sam Harris argues that one's ontological beliefs affect one's behavior very strongly, but I doubt it noting that naturalists and theists display very similar behavior on average

656. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78520 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Dawkins for example thinks that naturalistic ontology is the more reasonable one and indeed that the probability of the theistic ontology being true is very low indeed. But if you personally judge that there is not sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other (i.e. you remain in the "I dunno" state) then you are declaring yourself agnostic in this issue, which is an entirely valid cognitive position.

657. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78516 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 12:20 pm

northern bright:

Personally I always learn a great deal from the posts that attempt to flesh out the science and logic of the discussions and am grateful to people like steve99 and others for posting as they do.

658. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78488 by phasmagigas on October 13, 2007 at 7:53 am

Well, again, suppose that God exists. Then God could easily arrange the state of affairs in such a way that His/Her existence were easily detectable by science (i.e. by objective observation). But clearly God has not done that (for some reason or other we can discuss later if you like).

659. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78399 by phasmagigas on October 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm

dianelos:

But I understand you don't wish to discuss naturalism and its implications. And it appears that nobody else here wishes to answer this question either. Which I suppose is answer enough

660. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78397 by phasmagigas on October 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm

steve99

but you have no basis on which to describe any author

661. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78207 by phasmagigas on October 12, 2007 at 6:54 am

revcort. (warning, this is a rambling post)

remember 9/11?

Its interesting to think that whilst that was happening live on tv were you praying? were millions of americans (and others)praying for the people in the towers? im sure they were. now, im sure there were also many praying for the towers to fall and kill all inside, most of those would have been muslim, I guess that there were less people wanting a bad outcome for several reasons (most peole just arent that 'bad' to want people they dont know to die).

The people praying for a better outcome were thinking several things eg 'how can god let this happen' 'god please stop this' 'god help us' and the people praying for a more destructive outcome were thinking things like 'god is doing this' 'kill all the infidels' 'god has helped the pilots fly the planes into the towers' 'we pray the towers fall'.

the towers of course fell (although some people on this forum (no names needed) could explain to us that its all a mere metaphysical naturalistic illusion). if there is a god (or maybe there are actually two or more) then which set of prayers were answered and why?? maybe the pilots were praying harder just before they went into the building.

what i saw were 2 buildings, some pilots and they fly the planes at the building and they fell, end of story. as the outcome matched the prayers of the muslims who wanted destruction I must side (all other things being equal) with the assumption that allah is a more powerful god than yours or perhaps even THE god (if there is one). of all events in recent history this is the one which quite possibly had more people praying simultaneously than any other, and interesting experiment that would according to those with belief systems suggest that allah is the true god.

a similar but smaller situation (and i mention these events as they were covered worldwide and have religion as a central issue), the various people who have had their heads unceremoniously (or ceremoniously) removed as one would a chicken for a meal (eg the british man ken bigley) would have had prayers directed at god for weeks, maybe the prayers of the executioner were stronger in this case, i know of no divine intervention as that blade cut through bone and sinew and its possible the last thing that ran through kens mind as it permenently got deleted was 'god help me'. once again, allah must be all powerful. and again, its so much easier and makes so much sense when there is no god, one man merely kills another (as dreadful as it is and i am not one of those ghouls who could ever watch such monstrous footage).

anyway whay am i posting this you may ask? actually im not sure but I get fed up of massively contradicting nonesense daily when people talk of god will and all the metaphysical junk that goes with it. what is tough as an atheist is that when i consider the plight of a beheadee there is a final outcome and thats it, a believer will think that somehow god will (once again) intervene and bring justice to the beheader (in hell), and once again the beheader and the beheadee are praying for 2 different outcomes, the beheader is indeed doing the beheading for/because of god and believes he will go to heaven for it!!! incredible is the only word.

its time we replaced the letters GOD with PBS (P is for pure), when i say 'we', i dont mean you, i mean generally. i did a long time ago.

662. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78003 by phasmagigas on October 11, 2007 at 12:59 pm

walk

Phasmagigas, here's a thought. Seeing as how each believer thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong, heaven must be a VERY lonely place!

663. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77985 by phasmagigas on October 11, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I have numbered those points because they are the essential ingredients for one who desires to obey that Holiness command. I recommend it to you because I think you may be one of the disciples who shows a desire to go the 101% with the carpenter from Nazareth.
If you DO want to go that distance with the Saviour -it WILL take you to a Calvary experience sooner or later. I am not there yet but will be some day - If you DO want to walk that walk to which we are called, then work on living those 7 steps. They are trustworthy. You should recognise their source.

664. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77981 by phasmagigas on October 11, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Why are there several thousand Religions/denominations/beliefs in the world, but the claim of one true God by most..theirs!?..

665. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77770 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 12:53 pm

revcort, I think you're taking LOTR and Star Wars too seriously. The spiritual aspects of these films are fantasy and I think you're perceiving a threat where there isn't one. I crack up everytime I hear someone moaning about the spiritual implications of Harry Potter.

666. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77767 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm

revcort.
i think youll find the science of dating techniques and all that it leads to very illuminating, even the relatively simple dendrochronolody using tree rings can take us far back when you overlap equivalent rings from a series of trees, actually im not sure just how far back it can take us, maybe past 6000 years!!

Accepting god is one thing (and a matter of faith for sure) but ignoring evidence for evoluton is another. I'd be suprised if you didnt find an evolved biology MORE interesting than created biology (even if you dont believe it!). At some point you could well read dawkins evolution series: selfish gene>ancestors tale, id be VERY suprised if you read that and then said, well thats a load of nonsense I can balance that weight of knowledge with 'god did it in mysterious ways'.

667. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77765 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 12:36 pm

revcort, well im glad we get your seal of approval.

irrespective of what we do/dont believe you and most of us agree on what makes somebody bad and good (or inbetween), televangelists such as peter poppof (or whatever his name is) are scum by any standard. Your views on how my non belief affects my eteranl soul is a non starter for me, its how people treat each other whilst alive that is the key. you believe in god but would wish me well, others would convince me they do in order to fleece me and some would kill me for it!!

668. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77677 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 6:02 am

one wonders what type of attack hirsi may one day endure. If she is attacked by a group of men theres a good chance they will be muslim and that the attack will possibly be centered around her genitals. In the minds of the attackers the words god, infidel and whore will feature prominently. religion poisons just about everything.

669. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77674 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 5:47 am

Anyways, worse things out there. There's this http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3043739.ece - arse! Buggers!

670. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77673 by phasmagigas on October 10, 2007 at 5:33 am

revcort.

posts between you and the other members are worthwhile as at least it allows us to consider our own arguments without everybody just nodding in agreement. i especially enjoyed the evolution bit which has fizzled out somewhat, and thats a shame as you were beginning to sound like you were actually accepting some of the points made. Trolls tend to post youtube type comments, if you hang around long enough you'll hear one or two trolls. you know stuff like 'you damn atheists, wot do u know, how can we come from slime, geddit?? you fools burn in hell'.(hey, even i can play at being a youtube creationist! smart eh!)

thats the type of stuff that an atheist can be exposed to regularly. I threw a few posts on youtube esp on the evo side, i stopped bothering as the short and very unpredictable posting format is dreadful and I was sick of being told to die or go and kill myself simply for desribing evidence for evolution, interesting that hate mail is always from the religious.

anyway as youve spent time chatting to non believers what do you think? what would you say to somebody who was ranting that those 'immoral atheists just want to eat steak all day and watch pornography and they deserve to burn in hell'?? (im guessing that there are some christians out there who would feel that was a reasonable description). Would you rather spend a day at some atheist gathering or a day at (fallen) ted haggards church for eg? edit, actually revcort, instead of teds church, what about a gathering of fundamental muslims (atheists are fundies according to many) instead, just how far do you think pro christian dialogue will go there before you are subject to animosity?

671. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77482 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm

walk, I think the church of walkerian has been officially founded!!

awalk.

672. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77479 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Islam appears to be unique in being a religion that tries to control so many aspects of life. Well, all aspects really.

673. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77475 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 11:57 am

i guess those med students would really be against treating some guy who 'fell on' a cathode ray tube (ok, thats probably an urban myth but there you go).

674. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77459 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 11:13 am

id love to ask 10 creationists the same question without any of them knowing the question beforehand and not knowing what the others were to write.

Once i have their 10 answers i would let them decide who actually had the correct one in their shared opinion (maybe some of the answers will correspond anyway but i feel that most would not), maybe they would never reach a concensus but thats another story.

The question is something like this: If god created man in his image then why does he share more DNA with a chimp than a chimp does with a gorilla?

actually now thats got me thinking 'in his image' just what does that mean, does god look like a tall blonde swede or maybe a shorter darker baka tribe member or maybe somebody else entirely.

I already have lots of creationist potential answers but heres three

' god did it to test the faith of believers'

'chimps were the prototype attempt at creating man and then god tried again by tweaking the DNA'

'man and chimps share a more recent common ancestor than either does with gorillas with god guiding the process over millions of years'

oh and another one that is also a possibility is that chimps were people but who were particularly evil and god tweaked their DNA as punishment, oh and gorillas were even worse!! orangs are off the hook, they were never people, god made orangs from scratch.

edit, and another 'pure coincidence, the similarity of dna has no bearing whatsoever on so called relatedness'

anybody else got a creationist answer?

revcort, maybe the creation museum gave a specific answer to this question. interestingly the dna similarity is something that was predicted by evolutionary theory based on the anatomical similatities of man and chimp, a perfect opportunity to falsify evolution once again failed.

this post seems rather trollish but its hard (if not impossible) to distinguish parody from the real thing.

675. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77386 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 7:21 am

oh dear, if famous atheists start to argue/misunderstand each other its going to be used as 'evidence' that god does exist!

676. The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

Comment #77370 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 6:29 am

so maybe we'll hear some islamic prayers in texan schools, that will go down well.

677. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #77001 by phasmagigas on October 8, 2007 at 6:06 am

rational teacher:

I teach science in a large high school in London. We have 25% muslim students. You would be surprised how willing to engage in debate the vast majority are, when challenged really quite strongly (as I tend to do!) about their negation of evolutionary theory.

Many, many students have borrowed books such as The Blind Watchmaker. I get a sense of yearning for something better in many of these children, a sense of wanting a more rational explanation for things. They are of course hamstrung by their upbringing, but it is not quite so bleak a view as some would have.

However, it is a problem that faith-heads are allowed to teach science at all. There really should be some kind of test to weed these people out of our beloved profession. Anyone out there fancy a career change and the chance to change the world? Train as a teacher - it is the most wonderful job.

678. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76998 by phasmagigas on October 8, 2007 at 5:54 am

psypro:

I may be alone on this, but I see both the original article and most of the posts here as over-the-top reactions. I have yet to see any students pay more than exam-time lip-service to anything ``taught'' in high-schools (or the UK equivalent). And a good thing, too.

679. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76533 by phasmagigas on October 6, 2007 at 5:42 am

the problem with debates is that they only ever seem to touch the surface, nobody gets time to really get the good arguments out there. I suspect its that the questions are to metaphysical or involve so much relativism (good/bad).

Id like to have the likes of lennox thrown an 'earthy' question such as 'can you explain why humans and chimps share more DNA than either does with any other organism, why does a chimp for example not have more in common genetically with a gorilla or a mouse'.

Now this is what i'd love to see: a panel of say 3 theists could give their own answer independent of the others (and not hear what the other shave to say)and id be VERY interested to hear the the non conforming maybe contradictory versions of truth that emerge (we could get anything from 'god did it to test faith' to 'of course it has to be similar, god only has so much to tinker with and we do look a bit like chimps i suppose' and of course 'god guided evolution' from the evolutionary theist'. three evolutionists would give similar at least conforming answers (would the religites than accuse them of sticking to a dogma?)

another question could be something like 'can you explain why the drug LSD affects the soul so profoundly'. Ok, so sounds almost silly doesnt it but then its upto the theists to provide their three answers, the three different answers (they may start to sat things like, 'but just what is the soul/mind? but its up to them to answer) with possibly very little in common, which one to believe??

another: 'do you accept that dogs have some degree of self awareness? give reasons for your answer. (to the evolutonist the answers are quite simple, again the theists could have a rather mixed bag). I personally am suspicious of a religious person who says animals dont have souls therefor dont have feelings ar self awareness, i am just thankful i at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they might be.(to a skeptic of animal self awareness, i would offer them the challenge of climbing into the chimp enclosure of a zoo, spend a bit of time in there running around and then tell us those things dont 'know' you are there!)

I feel that unexpected questions like this could help sort the wheat from the chaff. Afterall, which person would take their car to 6 mechanics and ignore the three that gave the same answer to the chugging noise in the car instead of picking one of the three non conforming (even contradictory) explanations.

680. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76529 by phasmagigas on October 6, 2007 at 5:19 am

im going to listen to the full 'debate'. i listened to about 20 minutes live and unless i'm mistaken lennox gave little but confidently spoken assertions (as somebody else said before) and no argument, no evidence. To many these assertions equal truth simply because of how they were spoken, as if they were the final word.

681. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76411 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 6:36 pm

the notion that ID/creationism should be included atall in science may not be a good idea even if it was used as a way to explore critical thinking and the scientific method in general.

as we know its the most pathetically contentious issue available. if it was used nationwide as a way to discuss science and darwinism there would almost certainly be minor incidents involving religious pupils. It also can create the wrong impression of an actual 'controversy'. The teachers would have to fully ground themselves with information/argument in both sides of the 'debate' (which could get heated) which is totally unacceptable considering the broad scope that teachers have to deal with on a minute by minute basis anyway:discipline, continual assessement, having the correct information, oh and the actual teaching bit....

682. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76359 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 3:37 pm

they can't be pulled from science classes

683. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76356 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm

found Mr. Thomson's lecture quite fascinating, especially with reference to the chimp's social behavior regarding group raids on other groups of chimps. It seems to contrast the view painted by Oliver Curry, one of Richard Dawkins' interviews on the Root of All Evil? video where Curry observes the moral behavior of chimps as that of good citizens.

684. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76353 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 3:29 pm

evolution is in the national curriculum and it has to be covered by law. Of all the subjects in the science curriculum evolution is possibly one of the worst taught, unless one is really sure about the concepts involved it would be very easy to get confused (teacher) and to pass on that confusion (student). Personally, if creationsm were brought up i'd simply say that its a religious belief and is to be discussed in religious education class which is also part of the UK education system. Unfortunately i can forsee problems in schools with muslim parents wanting their children pulled out of classes with evolution, i'd like to be wrong on that of course

685. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76228 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 6:21 am

prior to a dawkins/lennox debate over 'god' I think it would be important (and this sounds facetious only because it IS ridiculous) to establish just which god we are talking about and then continue.

lennox should debate with say a learned islamic scholar over which god is the true god and why their scripture is the actual word of god. A muslim listening to the debate would surely have sided with the atheist position as they could well agree that lennox was not talkning about allah but the non existent christain one. Now one might suggest that there is but one god and people have different names for it (a more reasonable position) but i have never ever heard a christain or muslim actually say that. Once the true god and its religion is 'decided' then the believers of that god should enter the debate with non believers.

686. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76226 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 6:08 am

dasjoen

phasmagigas,

Your wife's love for you hasn't got anything (at least directly) to do with God's existence.

It wasn't used as an argument for God's existence either, but as an illustration of what faith is: A husband can't see his wife's love for him, but he can see evidence for it, thus he trusts (has faith in) her love.

687. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76213 by phasmagigas on October 5, 2007 at 5:23 am

ideally a debate would have several speakers for the rationalist position. I feel that each of the famous 3/4/5 (harris, dawkins, hitchens, dennet, stenger) have their own strengths (actually ive never heard dennet or stenger speak so im making an assumpition here). Hitchens is thick skinned and can tackle the historical/political points. dennet can soften hitchens blows a bit and wipe believer tears. Stenger does the god/physics bit. dawkins of course is the man for evolution, and harris, well he fits somewhere between hitch and dennet and will with his rather elfish features and uber cool composure convince christians that he is the devil himself.

Dawkins is without doubt his strongest when dealing with evolution, theres no room for opponents to use metaphysics and relativism when it comes to genes, teeth and claws.

I was subject last year to the 'can you prove your wife loves you' question. I struggled a bit with an answer, but now i'd realise how false that argument is, just what the hell has my wifes feelings towards me got to do with gods existence???

688. Researchers devise way to calculate rates of evolution

Comment #76006 by phasmagigas on October 4, 2007 at 9:47 am

so what this is saying is that the hotter an animal the faster its mutation rate or the faster the metabolism the faster the mutation rate. not a paradigm shift as its mutation all the way. so maybe the hotter environment in which the DNA finds itself causes more mutations, that seems a reasonable assumption, cooler temps tend to reduce reactions, fish in fridge and all that. and maybe a faster metabolism swamps DNA with more free radicles or oxygen or some other chemicals that can hit it?? pure speculation of course, i dont even know if free radicles affect DNA.

689. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75690 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 10:47 am

im not sure smoking cognitive dissonance is the same as that involved with religion, i cant see many 'non ignorant' (ie those who at least have been presented with health issue info) smokers agreeing that its a good thing to smoke, they almost all know it is not a good thing, it just feels good. the equivalent would be somebody saying 'i accept/feel/believe god doesnt exist but i pray and read the bible anyway as i like it'. I suppose we should be grateful that smokers dont at least knock on doors and tell us we are going to go to non smoky hell if we dont smoke!

690. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75686 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 10:36 am

silentmike:

64. Comment #75627 by phasmagigas

If your point is that I'm stating the obvious then you may well be right. Sometimes some people tend to forget the obvious though, so it worth mentioning.

I agree with you about the evolutionary cause of this.

691. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75629 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 6:58 am

wednesdayguevara

Yes!! I quit smoking eight months ago. It was during the initial withdrawal period that I became aware of my brain's strange behavior wrt cigarettes. Talk about mutually exclusive goals! My brain several times actually tried to trick me into smoking a cigarette, as if there were two people in there fighting for supremacy (the non-smoker eventually won out, if you care). Now, I'm not remotely educated enough to understand how any of this works, but I think you are on the right track, Richard. Glad I'm not the only person who has noticed this.

692. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75627 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

silentmike

I think we actually agree to a degree. I didn't mean every racist behavior is encoded in our genes, or that there's a "Racist gene" as such. I meant there's a basic mechanism for "us and them" devisions in our minds. I think that the root of racist tendencies is in something like that. Clearly society has an effect. I don't we can make the little bigot inside disappear, but we can probably turn his volume knob down quite a bit.

693. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75622 by phasmagigas on October 3, 2007 at 6:39 am

mat7895

And I agree with him on some points. I agree that the term 'atheist' shouldn't be used so much because its starting to make the religious people think we're some kind of cult or religion of our own

694. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73005 by phasmagigas on September 23, 2007 at 6:39 pm

the world is becoming anything but more secular despite advancing science and technology.

695. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72670 by phasmagigas on September 22, 2007 at 7:23 am

revcort, take care.

oh and by the way, look up 'ring species' involving herring gulls and black backed gulls. I think you will find it quite illuminating. Instead of species gradually changing forward (or back) in time, heres an example of the same but occupying the same time but a different space!! This should destroy any notions that species are fixed. enjoy.

696. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72541 by phasmagigas on September 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm

revcort.

the more i read your posts (and this isnt me having a dig at you its merely something that I notice and want to comment on) about gods glory and all that, the more i think the term 'delusion' is appropriate.

Honestly, if i was thinking right now what you are writing, i'd think i was mentally ill. It would like being in a twilight zone segment for me. Something like 'this is true because it says it is on the inside' and never being able to get away from it, the thought horrifies me. It reminds me of being in infant school, you know when one kid says somethng like 'i know something you dont know, and we just know and you dont, heheheh'.

When i see images of people dancing in church (and I personally find it difficult to watch and its VERY far removed from some genuine 'trance like' state you might see in some other cultures, for one the music is invariably awful in the church. anyway i digress....) I see a kind of large scale kindergarten class having a disco dance, its like a part of the mind truly remains in an infant like state. maybe this is related to the physical neoteny that we humans possibly show????

697. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72342 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 7:14 pm

revcort (yes you again!)



the people you have chatted to on this forum, have you noticed that despite the fact that this is RD site, nobody ever quotes passages of the selfish gene and says see, richard says so and so, so its true. sure, many of the principles of evolution are nicely explained in them but has anybody ever shoved a quote under your nose as if that is evidence in its own right, i can bet not. When i read something of dawkins, or paul davies or whoever, if i want it verified i could easily find out what university the work was done at and actually confirm it myself (if i really wanted to). do you see what im getting at??

I know this anyway from talking to religious people both christians here in america and muslims in the UK but my mind is very different from the religious mind, i cannot begin to understand how you can look at THAT book and accept it as a truth, i just dont get it, its utterly alien to me, must be in the genes.

on that note, can you accept (im doing a sam harris now!) that had you been born in Iran you would actually have been a fundamentalist muslim, just what would that mean for your soul being saved??

698. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72326 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 6:35 pm

I came away unimpressed so far. Actually, I'm more impressed with some of you than with him.

699. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72271 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 3:39 pm

That happens often. In fact, our bodies are defeating tumours all the time. You can see this through the effect of immunodeficiency diseases, when a major symptom can be all kinds of tumours.

700. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72267 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 3:32 pm

but just recently a lady in our church spoke about a tumor that had simply disappeared. It was there before, but when they did further testing, it was gone. Many had been praying for her.