51. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67073 by PeterK on September 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Mind-numbingly and as laughably as it is pathetically stupid.

The 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' of all book reviews.

However, what I do enjoy doing--as I'm sure many other do--is reading the comments that follow on this website whenever an article such as this is posted. And about a quarter of the way theough this one, I smacked my lips in anticipation of would I would be reading after finishing this gem.

52. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #65081 by PeterK on August 22, 2007 at 9:09 pm

down to a mere 70% now...

53. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65079 by PeterK on August 22, 2007 at 8:59 pm

54. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65066 by PeterK on August 22, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Ohnhai--Well written post!

Dutch cartoon? Yikes!!! No, Danish is not Dutch, any more than German is Italian.

Dutch=Netherlands
Danish=Denmark

You probably are unable to change the E-mail you sent to CNN, but before any parallels are made in this forum to Dubya's knowledge of the world....

55. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64779 by PeterK on August 21, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Darwin2-- well, since you have declared you really aren't here to 'debate', but rather to 'discuss'-it would seem that your unsupported beliefs at this point are indistinguisable to saying nothing whatsoever.

56. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64586 by PeterK on August 20, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Behind the creation of our universe and all universes is God, The Supreme Designer and Creator.

I say it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

57. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63788 by PeterK on August 15, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Darwin2

Of course I would believe in a God, if the evidence supported it.
What what I consider to be convincing evidence? Any evidence that would suggest that any other proposition to be factual.

This is where you and I differ, and this is how my position is in line with reasonable discussion, and yours is not.

58. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63553 by PeterK on August 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm

102. Comment #63480 by darwin2 on August 14, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Comment #63315 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 9:55 pm
49. Comment #63297 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Comment #63287 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm
"Darwin2"

"Before you post again, do you think that you would be able to envision an argument, or a series of events that would make you doubt the existence of God?"

I am willing to listen openly to any arguments and am willing to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue with anyone who would like to discuss in depth their arguments against the existence of God.

"Thank you for your response, but you haven't answered my question. It is a 'yes' or 'no' question."

My answer is "NO."

So what would be the point of any one debating you if you will not alter your position, regardless of what counter-arguments are presented? You wish to engage "in a mutually respectful dialogue with anyone who would like to discuss in depth their arguments against the existence of God" , implying you wish to defend your argument in the province of logic--but to claim nothing will alter your position disqualifies you from that playing field. You have to understand that atheists do not embrace their position first, and then search for arguments to defend it--as do theists--their position is simply the result of critical examnination of the evidence which theists present as evidence to support their claims, and then arriving at an honest conclusion, without any self-deception or embracing a belief because they want to or it feels good. Atheism is simply the result of applying reasonable thought--and if you or anyone else would do likelwise, then tah dah!--you will become atheist as well.
I strongly suspect that the idea of you being an atheist frightens you, as the result of what your notion of what God is, and what the repercussions would be if you no longer believed in GOd would be--I daresay that at some point most atheists deal with this frightening thought when abandoning their beliefs, but nothing is more exhilarating that knowing that all your beliefs are the result of good, honest thinking--and knowing how to recognize the traps that exist out there to deceive, frighten and control your mind. It's your mind, and only YOU can control it. I wish you well.

59. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63322 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 10:31 pm

"How is it that generations of biologists since Darwin have no trouble understanding the emergence of complex design through natural selection, but you don't get it?"


Ohhh how I wish I had said this...

60. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63315 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 9:55 pm

49. Comment #63297 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Comment #63287 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm
"Darwin2"

"Before you post again, do you think that you would be able to envision an argument, or a series of events that would make you doubt the existence of God?"

I am willing to listen openly to any arguments and am willing to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue with anyone who would like to discuss in depth their arguments against the existence of God.

Thank you for your response, but you haven't answered my question. It is a 'yes' or 'no' question.

61. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63287 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Darwin2--

Before you post again, do you think that would you be able to envision an argument, or a series of events that would make you doubt the existence of God?

62. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63283 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:43 pm

icouldbewrongbut--

As we have all more than likely heard, many theists insist they just don't know how one could deal with the death of a loved one without a belief in God.
Recently I have lost a daughter, and my father, and am almost in fear of being reprimanded by my family for being too "cold and heartless" for behaving so calm and controlled since their deaths. It's almost like I have to ACT remorseful
to show that I'm grieving--which I am--of course I miss them. All I hear is 'they are in a better place' they are 'looking down at us now'..and although I feel I can FULLY realise them being gone, I want to shout at them sometimes 'They are DEAD, dammit..that means, they can no longer 'do' things that they could when they were alive. They are like topsoil now--and this will happen to everyone. I celebrate the memories they have given me over the years, and I reflect on them positively, but for the deceased, regardless how anyone feels about it--it is over. In fact, I feel to do otherwise to in fact to dishonour them them dignity of being deceased.
Actually it is in times like this I am so happy I am an atheist. I have that ability to let go, and understand the finality of death, just so much more rationally and subsequently in a manner so obviously more healthy than they can, and dammit I will never let anyone make me feel guilty for doing so.

63. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63264 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Wright's constant chuckling throughout, trying to have the audience join him in his joy ride of jocularity--as if Dawkin's views are somehow on the fringe of credibilty, gives me the impression that he doesn't really have too much respect for what Dawkins is saying to him. But as many other of his ilk are continually shown by Dawkins that their chuckling retorts reside in the province of unsupported beliefs, Wright quickly moves on to another subject.
Sadly however, I fear the viewer who embraces the beliefs that Dawkins is attacking, is reassured that there is someone of notability who also feels the Richard Dawkins of the world aren't to be taken to seriously. They hear Wright's chuckles, not Dawkins' calm and articulate responses.

64. 'Delusion' Revisits Faith Vs. Reason Debate

Comment #63009 by PeterK on August 12, 2007 at 9:50 pm

"And another question that will always be directed at an atheist such as Dawkins is that can morality be explained without religion?"

I think I am going to scream now.

65. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62379 by PeterK on August 9, 2007 at 1:47 pm

What frightens me is there has to be a certain percentage of children brought up in households that support this type of education, and just want to scream in utter agony at the prospect of being forced to attend a school like like this. There must be a place where they can go to be rescued from this chamber of horrors. We have now seen hell for children.

66. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #59004 by PeterK on July 26, 2007 at 11:32 pm

..and there you have it from the brilliant Bonzai!

67. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58815 by PeterK on July 26, 2007 at 8:18 am

"The question is not whether God exists. ...blah blah blah...... And God is inescapable."

So we cannot escape from something whose very existence is in question?

Typical theist talking from one side of his mouth at the beginning of the paragraph, and then from one of the other seventeen sides of his mouth at the end of the paragraph

68. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58132 by PeterK on July 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Henri--

Many would feel being members of the groups I mentioned as being an honor. Nevertheless I merely inquired if you were member as well, when examining your comments.

"If you think being logical is being 'KKK' or 'skinhead', it says a lot about you."

You seem to think you are being logical..yet you sound pretty well like how a member of those particular groups I mentioned justifies their platform.

69. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58049 by PeterK on July 23, 2007 at 6:29 am

238. Comment #58046 by Henri Bergson on July 23, 2007 at 6:08 am

Simple point:
"phobia" means irrational hatred or fear.
"Islamophobia" can therefore exist if it is based on irrational hatred or fear.

BUT, one can hate and fear Islam RATIONALLY. This fear or hatred is not irrational and therefore not "Islamophobia".

Are you a skinhead or a member of the KKK? Sure sounds like it to me, in your attempt to justify
any fallacious thinking involving compostion and division.

Just think what would happen to our world if your rationalization were a widespread accepted method of assessing particular groups and individuals? It is unfortunately accepted many slimy corners of our globe, and that's how those corners remain--slimy

70. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57978 by PeterK on July 22, 2007 at 6:14 pm

71. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57976 by PeterK on July 22, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Just another bloke preaching to his choir; a choir who he presumes is familiar with TGD and needs some theistic voice of authortity to reassure their pleads of "Say it isn't so, Joe!"
He again simply pounds home the same arguments
that have always convinced the choir that theism indeed remains a valid worldview.

"Let us pray."

..Organ blares in all its diatonic splendor.

..small, proud grins of reassurance fill the congregation

72. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57973 by PeterK on July 22, 2007 at 5:48 pm

"There is no Islamophobia" is a little strong.

A little strong? You must be bloody joking, mate!It is probably the most delusional utterly and stupidest thing I think I've seen in print out side the website "Fundies say the Darndest Things" spewed out by someone who has a perspective on the real world that I have clue at all what it would be. I guess she never heard of what happened in NYC and DC on Sept.11

It would be close to being on par saying "No one in the United States believes in Jesus Christ.

73. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57907 by PeterK on July 22, 2007 at 5:55 am

after being away all week on business, my dear wife watched this interview yesterday, and I asked her what she thought about Ali.

She called her a 'delusional snob'

sound familiar?

PEWKATCHOO?..who is the simple 'fool' here? The one who can so easily see through the complete nonsense Ali spouts, or the one drawn in by her mousy monotone rhetoric?

She is a moron.
And she is a snooty bitch.

74. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57408 by PeterK on July 19, 2007 at 8:37 am

What's this, an atheist telling other atheists to put a sock in it? And asserting the futility of deconverting theists as his primary reason for all atheists on earth ( or in his immediate reading area anyway ) to clam up? So the real words of truth shall never be spoken to the poor deceived?

And what a lousy atheist, referring to these new atheists as 'militant' and 'evangelical'. I thought this was a ruse implemented primarily by the theists, displaying their own ignorance of what an atheist actually is.

I feel he has become frustrated in his own attempts of deconverting and debating, and coming to a realization it just isn't all that easy as he may have thought it would be. More than likely he laid some of his new-found knowledge on his craggy 80-year-old grampa, and got nothing but a series of inflexible reponses in the form of grumblings and nasty looks in return, and threats to remove poor misguided Tyrone from a hefty inheritance. Maybe in some time he'll learn some ways to broach the subject without having to resort to the snorting and stamping of the feet.

It's just right now this Tyrone hath no Power.

75. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57262 by PeterK on July 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm

USA_Limey--Depending on their gender, I just would have used something as equally and applicably condescending


Lagomort--I'm a jazz pianist by trade, but I ain't no Greek

76. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57212 by PeterK on July 18, 2007 at 2:56 pm

USA_Limey..

The fact that Ali is a woman has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my attack. It is in her presentation, and its content that I would attack just as vehemently, had this been any person on earth.

77. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57157 by PeterK on July 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Limey--

You know, I seriously have this queasy feeling that if you go on defending her horseshitful pap, you could possibly be as full of it as she is..

I hope this won't be shown to be true.

78. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57040 by PeterK on July 18, 2007 at 7:45 am

She is snooty in that she states the obvious in that adolescent self-assured pedantic manner that resembles someone running for high school council.

She is a moron for saying so many wrong things.

.."Only one form of Islam"

"Well I guess for starters, the words "sunni" and "Shiite" are ones she has never heard of.

"Old Testament being 'obsolete'( Not to almost every evangelical and jew it ain't )

"I think you're exaggerating"

if anything, it would be played down, hun-bun

"there's no Islamaphobia in the world"

whha-a-a-at? And just what world do YOU live on?

( and when she attempts to defend herself here she actually LISTS instances where there IS Islamaphobia )

"How about anti-semitism?"
"That's different"
Well geez, n-o-o-o-o- kidding, but this is a 'yes-no' question, dearie. What's the matter, didn't the social studies teacher give you an answer for this question?

"The US is the only country where you can enter with nothing and,,blah ..blah"

Well good for the United States, and good for the dozens of other countries where you could do the same thing.

Lewis' response here was perfect. He in fact demonstrated remarkable restraint throughout, because if I were him, I would have ripped her face off earlier, more often and with way more teeth.

She wouldn't get my vote for school council.

She's snooty.
She's a moron.
AND she is as full of it as any interviewee I've seen in a long time

79. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56934 by PeterK on July 17, 2007 at 10:34 pm

huh? Just what video were you guys watching?

She's a snooty moron.

80. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56806 by PeterK on July 17, 2007 at 10:28 am

"The DEATH [capital letters mine]of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West"

.."The authors cannot satisfy me on the bankruptcy of religion since so many people believe in God....."

uhhh, so which one is it, Peter?

81. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56640 by PeterK on July 16, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Just a few thoughts about the question as to whether God exists or not, that I'm not sure has been touched on before. Mention has been made by recent atheist writers that it would seem the greater the intelligence and education, the less likely one is a theist, and conversely the less intelligent and educated, the more likely one is a theist.

In response to the recent atheist writers have been rebuttals from seemingly educated and
well spoken theist individuals vehemently defending their faith with their version of sound argument. I give credit to those who do so, mainly because unlike most theists, they have at least attempted to enter the playing field upon which the atheist plays upon. The fact that when attempts are made to present what they feel are profound arguments that rebut the atheists claims, the results resemble that of a fish on land. So far I have yet to see any theist even come close to successfully defending his position, but witness a virtual outpouring of logical fallacies knowing no bounds, and not really understanding the atheist position or how one arrives at it.

By this fact alone, it is clear which position is more than very likely the correct position. It just would not make sense that there exists a certain belief held by the less reasoned folk, and then a contradicting far more logically sound belief held by the more reasoned folk—and then the same belief held by the less reasoned and shared by the very most reasoned is shown to be true.

82. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56444 by PeterK on July 15, 2007 at 8:02 pm

133. Comment #56409 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Comment #56203 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"The problem with the idea of omniscience is that it contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it—in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it prior to it's actual happening—in which case he cannot be omniscient."

"read this one a few times too."

Omniscience and omnipotent are not contradictory. If God wanted to change the variables of existence He can. Has God changed the variables in the past? I don't know. I have doubts that He did.

darwin2--

I think the reason why every atheist I know is able to see the simple logic this statement, and how the two ideas contradict each other, and somehow it always seems to be beyond the grasp whenever presented to any theist.

(a)Either the theist doesn't understand the logic (and this is why he remains a theist.)
or Or(b) he does understand it, and rather than just admitting God is omniscient and omnipotent but only within reasonable parameters ( thus limiting His power )he again counters with an inapplicable argument, rather than just conceding his assertion was wrong.

83. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56428 by PeterK on July 15, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Darwin2 says

"I do not have any scientific evidence to prove my contention that God exists or that consciousness continues after death. You do not have any scientific evidence to prove your contention that God does not exist or that consciousness ceases at death. You accuse me of being an insistent evangelist to support my singular ideas about God and the survival of consciousness but aren't you an insistent evangelist to support your singular ideas about the non-existence of God and the cessation of consciousness at death. My fellow insistent evangelist it is a pleasure to meet you."

The problem with this above declaration is that if it were a valid argument, any person could claim the existence of anything, and attach limitless characteristics to it and then claim some sort of logical victory because no one can 'disprove it'.

Again, I don't think you've ever read or absorbed the contents of any book or documents that argues
against your position. In post #116 Laurengon mentions that the burden of proof lies with the person you postulates the existence of something. And in this case that would be you.

"Again He is conscious of Himself"

To say so, you are contradicting yourself, he couldn't then exist in the first place if he is pure consciousness ( i.e. a spirit )-- there is nothing to be conscious of.

( AGAIN, re-read post #32 )

This is simply an application of the principle called the primacy of existence. Existence must precede consciousness, not the other way around. God just cannot be around before anything else is.

call them "singular ideas" if you wish, but I at least logically support them.

84. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56291 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 7:25 pm

You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty.

so far, that's about it.

85. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56206 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Darwin2 ALSO says:

"We agree that God created all that exists."

So God once existed before anything else did, if he created all that exists? RIGHT?

( and if the contents of post #32 on this thread had sunk in the first time, I wouldn't be posting this--again )

86. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56203 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Darwin2--for goodness sakes, aren't you aware with ANY of the arguments against you position?

here's one:

....We agree that God is infinite, all-powerful and all-knowing.

Problem of OMNISCIENCE and Omnipotence (I'm just cutting a pasting these now. )

The problem with the idea of omniscience is that it contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it—in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it prior to it's actual happening—in which case he cannot be omniscient.

read this one a few times too.

87. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56166 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 7:39 am

1392. Comment #55975 by Stuart Paul Wood on July 13, 2007 at 4:42 am

...."I'm not saying be rude to the guy but he asserted not just that God existed, indeed, he didn't have to make that point because he was already explaining the nature of God's character!! Quite frankly that is the moment intelligent discussion goes out of the window! It begs for a dose of humour."

My findings on what happens when one debates with a theist is that the atheist is dealing with what his idea is of what he thinks the theists idea of God is. When feeling defensive about his belief, the theist never really defines clearly what he means when he says 'God', and it certainly works to his advantage. The atheist is literally chasing a ghost as the theist will continously slap on new conditions, at his convenience, simply to escape any conditions that he feels are a threat to topple his position that God exists, and defends his entitlement to do so, just as a characeristic of God by something like "We really don't know all about God". God is a floating concept, and that's just the way the theist wants it.

How often have we heard theists accuse the like of Dawkins, Hitchens et al, for "beating the strawman" and not talking about "the God *I* know."? I truly suspect in many cases atheists are talking precisely about the God the theists believe in and rather than admit to themselves, or to the atheist "Oh, you are correct, I guess there really ISN'T a God" they will re-invent their concept of God, so the conditions that the atheist put forth no longer apply. Their own integrity is in question, and they'll fight long and hard before ever admitting defeat.

In his book "Atheism: The Case Against God" George H. Smith says:

"Defining the concept of God is not an optional chore to be undertaken at the theists's convenience. It is a necessary prerequiste for intelligibility. Assuming that the theist does not believe his theism to be nonsense, he has the responsiblty of explaining the content of his belief. Failing this, to state that 'god exists' is to communicate nothing at all; as if nothing has been said"

And unless the atheist demands the theist do so, endless arguments will inevitibaly be the result which can be interesting at first, but in the end frustrating in that the atheist feels he has constructed a sound, well thought argument only to have the theist invent another avenue of how that argument isn't QUITE applicable. Sound familiar?

88. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #56022 by PeterK on July 13, 2007 at 10:43 am

This anti-science, anti-knowledge, mentality from the right is precisely why I have bared my atheist teeth once again in the past year. And sharpen them I will.

89. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56008 by PeterK on July 13, 2007 at 8:02 am

106. Comment #55869 by Lauregon on July 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

..."I do wonder what you hope to accomplish by doing it---especially when you readily admit that finite beings can't possible know or understand "God," an infinite being. You seem to be insisting, "Trust me, atheists. MY subjective theistic beliefs are well worth trusting, but your atheism isn't...."

I ran across an interesting quote dealing with the idea of God's 'unknowability'

"The assertion that a thing is unknowable carries the necessary implication that you are omniscient — that you have total knowledge of everything in the universe and, from your unique vantage point, are able to proclaim that something is inherently beyond the reach of man's knowledge and understanding"

90. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55917 by PeterK on July 12, 2007 at 8:54 pm

DIANELOS--
Actually I think you did well--defending a position which you should at least know by now has absolutely no logical foundations whatsoever.

91. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55897 by PeterK on July 12, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Oh oh my oh MY!!...this discussion has become so unnecessarily and horrifyingly convoluted!!! Yikes!!! I can only say at this point--whenever the convulution factor reaches this level in a discussion of this nature--it is the theist who gains and maintains the upper hand, as their lifeblood is wholly dependent on their abililty to introduce new methods to undetectingly speak though as many sides of their mouths a they possibly create. At this point DIANELOS' mouth is so misshaped right now, I'm amazed anyone can even comprehend what's coming out of it now.

92. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55838 by PeterK on July 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm

103. Comment #55835 by darwin2 on July 12, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Comment #55646 by PeterK on July 11, 2007 at 9:00 pm

"However I can assure you, if you chose to remain posting and debating here; continuing your attempts to defend the position of theism you have posted, I can guarantee you they will all be refuted with sound reasoning. If you have even shred of respect for the veracity of reason, hopefully sooner than later you will clearly discover this to be the case."

That is why I love this website. It is nice to experience "sound reasoning." I have tried to discuss my beliefs with born again Christians. Unfortunately what I experienced was everything but "sound reasoning."

Terrific. Now it's your turn. Let's see some sound reasoning from you.

93. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55774 by PeterK on July 12, 2007 at 7:56 am

1193. Comment #55145 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 10, 2007 at 5:41 am

PeterK (post 1159, or #54927):


Just for my own point of reference, would you agree that God at one time existed as pure consciousness before anything else existed?

Well, according to idealistic theism it's still true that only pure consciousness exists. But now, apart from God, there are many other persons (i.e. conscious subjects) around. If you are asking if that this was always so, or whether there was a time that the only person around was God, then the answer is I don't know. Reasoning about reality is useful for finding out about the presence and the future because such knowledge is meaningful/testable/falsifiable in one's present or future experience. How reality was way back in the past before any humans existed is not useful knowledge as far as I can see, and I am not sure we have sufficient evidence to argue this question one way or the other. But who knows, maybe one day you'll be able to directly converse with God, and then ask Him/Her that question :-)
-------------------------------------------------

But if God created all that exists, wouldn't this logically be the case that he was at one time existing BEFORE anything else existed?

94. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55646 by PeterK on July 11, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Well PeterK your "awful impression" is wrong. I have read Dawkins book "The God Delusion" and Harris' book "The End of Faith." Both were excellent and I totally agree with their positions on the evils of organized religion. I am now in the process of reading Hitchens' book "god is not GREAT."

I'm not saying this is easy. I would hazard to guess that most of the posters here at some point in their lives had to finally discover what 'reasonable thought' actually is and what all its ramifications entail. I would also hazard to guess many spent many difficult years of honest self inquiry of their entire belief system. Many however, when finding themselves at what can often be an extremely frightening crossroad, choose to remain with the myths from the cave.
This is entirely your choice.
However I can assure you, if you chose to remain posting and debating here; continuing your attempts to defend the position of theism you have posted, I can guarantee you they will all be refuted with sound reasoning. If you have even shred of respect for the veracity of reason, hopefully sooner than later you will clearly discover this to be the case.

95. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55380 by PeterK on July 10, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Darwin2--or we could do it this way: as Hitchens states in this video exerpt:


you give me the awful impression of ( I hate to say it )of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position-- ever.

96. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55379 by PeterK on July 10, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Darwin 2 says:

My spiritual beliefs can be summed up as follows. I believe humans have eternal souls and our eternal souls are relatively new creations of God. I believe God created our eternal souls in a perfect state of pure energy and as pure energy we could assume any physical form we chose and travel to any place in the universe we desired. We were literally born into paradise and heaven. I believe God has a divine purpose and destiny for creating our eternal souls and that divine purpose is for us to participate in the creation process with God by becoming gods ourselves, imitating God and using our god given powers to create our own universes and beyond. To accomplish this God gave us free will and wants us to use our free will to learn, obey and master the laws of physics. When our souls were created, we were instructed by highly evolved spiritual beings as to what we needed to do to achieve our divine destiny. However, shortly after God created our eternal souls we began to make mistakes by misusing or free will and violating God's laws of physics. Soon our mistakes accumulated to the point that they caused us to descend into the temporary hells of the physical world of which Earth is one of these temporary hells and where our eternal souls presently find themselves encumbered in these temporary human bodies. Our mission on Earth is to address and correct our mistakes and to take steps to learn, obey and master God's laws of physics so that we can ascend back to that perfect state of pure energy that God created us in and where we can fulfill our divine destiny. The law of physics that will enable us to accomplish this is the law of reincarnation and karma. The sooner we learn, obey and master the laws of physics, the quicker we will fulfill our divine destiny in life.

again, re-read post #32

and sleep a few nights on it this time until you decide to respond.

97. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55367 by PeterK on July 10, 2007 at 8:11 pm

60. Comment #55297 by darwin2 on July 10, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Comment #55032 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 6:53 pm

"No he didn't. Read my post #32"

Yes, I read your post #32. I disagree. Behind this universe and all other universes is the One True God. The Supreme Designer and Creator. God is infinite. We are finite. Being finite we can never understand or know that which is infinite.

Enjoy your taco dip. I'm glad it is tasty.

------------------------------------------------

I AM enjoying the dip thank you! And I hope you do as well--hopefully after you consider my argument, and how you can even sleep at night thinking you have adequately addressed it.

You see, the beauty of my argument is in its simplicity. There is nothing more to add, and it logically topples yours.

Back to the dip.

98. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55366 by PeterK on July 10, 2007 at 8:03 pm

99. A force for good?

Comment #55054 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Just another theist contorting himself into defining HIS God into virtual incomprehensibilty just so he doesn't feel he has to admit he is wrong.
Corner any a moderate pastor, high-ranking church official or professor of theology and you'll hear something quite similar.
His choir will sing, and we atheists will snicker.

100. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55032 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 6:53 pm

.."Hannity did an excellent job demonstrating that the energy behind the creation of our universe had to come from Intelligent Design...


No he didn't. Read my post #32