The GOD Delusion:

[Killer]

Interesting stuff!

http://www.glumbert.com/media/goddelusion

BTW: Not NWS.

 

[miss_steele_msp]

It was kind of boring.

 

[1st Gen]

He almost comes across as arrogant, but if his premise is allowed the leeway, he makes excellent sense. I would even go further to say that we find these truths to be self evident, that all men/women are “created” equal. In other words, we don’t need religion to tell us what is right and wrong if we’ll only be willing to see the truth of our actions.

It was interesting what he said about Bush’s constituents longing for Armageddon. If I drew a straight line between 6 years ago and today, it would point directly toward that end.

 

[Killer]

He almost comes across as arrogant, but if his premise is allowed the leeway, he makes excellent sense. I would even go further to say that we find these truths to be self evident, that all men/women are created equal. In other words, we dont need religion to tell us what is right and wrong if well only be willing to see the truth of our actions.

It was interesting what he said about Bushs constituents longing for Armageddon. If I drew a straight line between 6 years ago and today, it would point directly toward that end.

(werd)

 

[G-Papi]

Give any articulate butthole a soapbox, and it will invariably blow hot air.

It may even accidentally stumble upon a truthful combination of phrases, as the Bush - conservative agenda.

Otherwise, what is the purpose of this babble?

 

[1st Gen]

You could say the same thing about most evangelists.
I’m not sure what part you consider “hot air”. He seemed to be very sharp both in word and meaning.

 

[G-Papi]

An intelligent elocutionist with a flair for forensics could argue any position effectively. Would that make him right ~ not necessarily.

 

[jersey_emt]

I'm at work, so this link will have to wait until tonight, but if it's anything like I think, I'd like to suggest that people read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

https://www.amazon.com (commissions earned)

 

[gimpo2]

why is this not work safe? its just 2 old guys talking?

 

[Killer]

An intelligent elocutionist with a flair for forensics could argue any position effectively. Would that make him right ~ not necessarily.

Why so angry? Make you think about the empty sky you been looking at for years? (peep)

It is a theory..just like Christianity.

 

[Killer]

why is this not work safe? its just 2 old guys talking?

reading isn't your strong point is it. It says "NOT NWS".(RTM)

 

[G-Papi]

why is this not work safe? its just 2 old guys talking?

not - not

 

[1st Gen]

An intelligent elocutionist with a flair for forensics could argue any position effectively. Would that make him right ~ not necessarily.

Youre using an unknown quantity as a reference point for an argument which youre trying to diminish. That is a flawed tactic which yields no valid points of contest. The idea is the point of interest here. Attacking the speaker in no way diminishes what he is saying.

 

[gimpo2]

the double negative with the acronym throws it off. didn't you guys learn to not use double negatives.

IT IS WORK SAFE

 

[G-Papi]

Youre using an unknown quantity as a reference point for an argument which youre trying to diminish. That is a flawed tactic which yields no valid points of contest. The idea is the point of interest here. Attacking the speaker in no way diminishes what he is saying.

His argument seeks to diminish or disprove an unknown entity. Quite naturally, he only knows those facts to which he has been made privy. They can, at best, be incomplete, and may be false in themselves. Moving from the unknown to disprove the unknown is a fool's errand.

 

[Killer]

His argument seeks to diminish or disprove an unknown entity. Quite naturally, he only knows those facts to which he has been made privy. They can, at best, be incomplete, and may be false in themselves. Moving from the unknown to disprove the unknown is a fool's errand.

he is only discussing a very small part of a BOOK. Jeebus Christmas.(bang)

 

[Killer]

the double negative with the acronym throws it off. didn't you guys learn to not use double negatives.

IT IS WORK SAFE

Thanks for the clarifaication. I am sure the people with no common sense appreciate your efforts.

 

[gimpo2]

thanks ass

 

[1st Gen]

His argument seeks to diminish or disprove an unknown entity. Quite naturally, he only knows those facts to which he has been made privy. They can, at best, be incomplete, and may be false in themselves. Moving from the unknown to disprove the unknown is a fool's errand.

I dont think anyone did this guys thinking for him. He appears to have an understanding of the ideas which he is talking about that shows he came to these conclusions buy deduction. Anyone with a flare for observation can come to the same conclusions. Any unknown that remain in his perspective can be understood by further observation. That is not true for the alternatives which rely on faith to gain large support.

 

[jersey_emt]

His argument seeks to diminish or disprove an unknown entity. Quite naturally, he only knows those facts to which he has been made privy. They can, at best, be incomplete, and may be false in themselves. Moving from the unknown to disprove the unknown is a fool's errand.

I disagree. His intentions are to convince people that questioning the existence of God is in fact rational and should not be feared.

The book I mentioned earlier (The End of Faith by Sam Harris) provides a somewhat extreme extrapolation of this idea -- not only is the notion of a higher being irrational in some ways, it is actually a danger to society.