Ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere?

[Ruprect]

yes please

[ThomasSoerensen]

not true
and where's the evidence fo the truth you regard as being atheism?

please show us all the repeatable objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural, all-powerful being you call God.

[NotAllThere]

...You are the one positing the existence of something and it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence for existence of said thing...

In fact, I'm not positing anything. I'm rather arguing that some of the atheistic arguments, specifically those of Dawkins, don't hold water. As I said, I find him embarrassing - as do not a few other atheists. Rather like many Christians find Benny Hinn (white suit, sculptured hair) embarrassing, because they feel he brings their faith into disrepute.

Anyway, Dawkins argues that Christianity use the design argument to show that evolution is wrong. And then tries to demolish the argument (using the aforesaid circular reasoning) The design argument was first put forward in response to Darwinisn in the 1800s. But even then, many theologians argued against it as very weak (which it is). Few scholars take it seriously nowadays, and before Darwin, it wasn't even considered.

I get sick of people, regardless of their outlook on life, using weak, intellectually dishonest reasoning. Dawkins should know better, but he seems to be blinded by his hatred about what he thinks Christians believe.

[Ruprect]

please show us all the repeatable objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural, all-powerful being you call God.

Linky

[ThomasSoerensen]

Linky

BUMmer - so the fairy folk are right. Ok - baptize me, please now.

[Ruprect]

BUMmer - so the fairy folk are right. Ok - baptize me, please now.

Before we start could you let the congregation know which bits you are choosing to believe?

[ThomasSoerensen]

Before we start could you let the congregation know which bits you are choosing to believe?

the ones that are written with brushes of canine rectal hair

[sasguru]

In fact, I'm not positing anything. I'm rather arguing that some of the atheistic arguments, specifically those of Dawkins, don't hold water. As I said, I find him embarrassing - as do not a few other atheists. Rather like many Christians find Benny Hinn (white suit, sculptured hair) embarrassing, because they feel he brings their faith into disrepute.

Anyway, Dawkins argues that Christianity use the design argument to show that evolution is wrong. And then tries to demolish the argument (using the aforesaid circular reasoning) The design argument was first put forward in response to Darwinisn in the 1800s. But even then, many theologians argued against it as very weak (which it is). Few scholars take it seriously nowadays, and before Darwin, it wasn't even considered.

I get sick of people, regardless of their outlook on life, using weak, intellectually dishonest reasoning. Dawkins should know better, but he seems to be blinded by his hatred about what he thinks Christians believe.

Well I hope my reasoning is not weak or intellectually dishonest. I've always tried to work this from first principles.
I think there are are many unanswered questions about why the world is as it is - but given what we know about human nature, almost all the religions (and their holy books) can be explained by human nature.
And I think it is quite clear that religions have been responsible for quite a lot of misery in human history.
Show me a strong religious person and 99% of the time they will be a huge hypocrite.

[darmstadt]

In some cases, particularly when staying for evening meetings, food is provided for staff. This is particularly important for Muslims as they haven't eaten since sunrise and will be bloody hungry. In previous years, non-Muslim staff have scoffed all the food before sunset, so the memo was intended to tell them not to be such selfish, greedy bastards.

This bit gets me. Why should food be provided? It is their choice not too eat during the day therefore they should provide their own food, not the taxpayer.

[ThomasSoerensen]

This bit gets me. Why should food be provided? It is their choice not too eat during the day therefore they should provide their own food, not the taxpayer.

people that are on the public tit providing anything? Next you expect them to actually produce stuff and contribute to society, i guess. hrmmmpffff