201. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133787 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 7:28 pm

It is no surprise to me that some registered drugs work little or no better than placebo for various reasons.

The homeopathic industry used it in their marketing a few years ago when they announced that "Arnica cream works just as well as Ibuprofen gel". Of course, massaging the area probably helps, but over and above that, what use is either of these and both are more expensive than massage oil.... gosh, it couldn't be about money could it? [sarcasm]

202. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133780 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Sorry Goldy, I hadn't seen your link to the article.

I wouldn't want to take away their right to speak, I am just not sure about giving them platforms in scientific educational institutions.

203. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133774 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Freedom of Speech is a tricky one.

I'm all for freedom of speech in principal and yet I am SO against allowing creationists to lecture in "science" in educational establishments...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/feb08/extremecreationists.htm

I'm interested in what other people on here think about this.

EDIT: The article from The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/23/darwinbicentenary.evolution

204. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133518 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 9:27 am

Irate,

I sympathise and I know how frustrating Wooter can be (I have ended up being somewhat less than civil myself!) and yet there is part of me that feels uncomfortable about banning people from this site because they are ill-informed, irritating etc. I know he is closed-minded but at least he comes on here, there are many who wouldn't even do that, and he, and those like him, CAN be ignored.

The only people I would ban are those who are really offensive (from what I understand, DR/wee flea fell into that category because he stirred up trouble). Wooter CAN be ignored and, like someone entering a room where they are not wanted, will probably eventually just go away. If not, you never know, he may just learn something (!) which is why I thought I would give it one last go before I started to skip his posts entirely. :o)

205. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133473 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 8:15 am

Wooter

Please understand that we really have tried to help you to understand why we think of evolution the way we do.

On another thread, I advised you to watch these videos (at least, I may have only suggested the first two, but all three are good) and if we get frustrated because you don't seem to have any understanding of what you are so determined to debunk, and yet you refuse to learn about it, then please do not blame us if some people get cross with you and make clear that they do not want to waste their time.

These short videos are very well done and each one takes less than 10 minutes to watch.

For those of you who hadn't heard of Ring Species before, there may be a few things that would interest you too.

Natural Selection Made Easy (9minutes 48 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy (9 minutes 51 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related

Human Evolution Made Easy (9minutes 59 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&feature=related

206. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #133334 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 4:47 am

But seriously, here's a blog posting that might help answer your question:

http://athinkingman.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/r/

207. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #133251 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 1:26 am

mdowe

This seems like an overdue trend, but it is raises the question of why now? The celibacy rule certainly hasn't stopped enrollment for last 700 years.

I can't believe that *reason* could suddenly be having any influence on the Catholic mind, so I can only propose that ubiquitous net-porn has given them a generation that is just too horny to give the priesthood a second thought.

208. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133191 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Max D

Watership Down, yes, it is a good one. Shame it was spoiled by having the awful film made! :o)

Years ago, there was a butcher in Nottingham (Robin Hood country for the none UK people on here) who used to hang rabbits up (you know, full ones, skin on, heads down and bloody noses) in his window and he thought the popularity of Watership Down could help with his sales. However it back-fired a bit as there were complaints and he had to take his marketing sign down... it read:

"You've read the book, you've seen the film, now eat the bastards"!!

209. Fleabytes

Comment #133190 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Oh, oh, I know this is COMPLETELY off thread (sorry Prof. Dawkins) but the "gilded turd" thing reminded me of a sketch, years ago, (I think it was on "Not the Nine o clock news") where Griff Rhys-Jones was going around "highlighting the problem of dog turds in our street by spraying them all with gold spray paint".

"We got the idea", he said, "after seeing Rod Stewart in concert".

Well I thought it was funny!

Sort of more on topic.... Songs of Praise from Not the Nine O clock News....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2GFfpgTBt0

210. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133182 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Steve,

I suppose what I was saying is that any "evidence" for the existence of God, any god of any or all religions, would have to be so far outside my current understanding of how things work, that I would have to reassess all my beliefs and lack of beliefs and my world would lose all its integrity.

So I DO agree with you, I can't think of anything that I currently believe to be possible, that would make me believe in any God/creator.

BUT... if every person from one particular religion had their wishes fulfilled, even ones that went against every natural law, I suspect that even you would be forced to concede that there MIGHT be something in it!

This is SO hypothetical - a bit silly really! :o)

211. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133161 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 6:29 pm

emmet and Mitchell Gilks

I agree totally. :o)

Especially

As for being closed minded to these fleas. A constructive debate or discussion involves arguments, and refutations, and then confrontation. You put forth an argument, it is refuted, you need to address the refutations of those arguments, not restate your argument. I have heard the arguments, I have heard their refutations, I want waiting for a theist to take the next step and actually address the refutations, instead of ignoring them and restating the arguments ad infinitum. When such a book comes out, I will read it.

212. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132648 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 4:35 am

I would be seriously interested to know what these would be! Life after death need have nothing to do with theism, and if we are in some kind of simulated universe, it could be an entirely "natural" phenomenon in some sense. And the same for prayer answering.

As Bonzai said, it is to do with definitions, and the term God is so slippery...

The religious view often seems to be "I am not sure what I mean by God, but I'll be happy with what I can get".

It seems to me more useful to think of "God" as a desire for something, rather than anything specific.

213. Fleabytes

Comment #132626 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 4:04 am

Why would anyone feel the need to "try to be an atheist"?

Because of the most excellent atheist lifestyle:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2294,Over-half-of-Britons-claim-no-religion,Times-Online,page2#131460

214. Fleabytes

Comment #132609 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 3:28 am

Why would anyone feel the need to "try to be an atheist"?

215. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132607 by PJG on February 25, 2008 at 3:24 am

Steve,

As a lifelong atheist, I can think of one or two things that would make me believe that there was life after death and/or a deity who answered prayers.

However, something like an angel appearing in front of me (or anything that COULD be "a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick") just wouldn't come close!

I wonder if Mr. Fish represents all the people who claim to be Jesus, Napoleon, Cleopatra etc., in our Psychiatric Units because their revelation can be so clearly proved to be evidence, or does he think they may be a little bit confused?

216. Fleabytes

Comment #132512 by PJG on February 24, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Has anyone here lost their faith because they realised that the whole "religion" thing is just one big marketing machine?

Watching any decent preacher (I use "decent" in a comparative way here!) is, to me, like watching a salesman trying to convince someone that their vacuum cleaner is a better product than the next religion... er... I mean... vacuum cleaner. The nonsense about scared.... oops...sacred texts and miracles is just used in the marketing. The actual value of the argument and words are irrelevant, it is the emotional (fear, need to be looked after and loved "unconditionally"*) appeal that is important.

(*"unconditionally, there's a laugh!!)

Incidentally, from a post some time ago... my understanding of an ad hominem is that, rather than dealing with the argument, the opponent makes a personal attack ... without dealing with the point raised, that is not the same as answering the point but then expressing the belief that the holder of the opinion is full of s***.

Statement: "The Human Eye is so perfect that it must have been intelligently designed"

Ad Hom: "You are a stupid, ill-informed prat"


Statement: "The Human Eye is so perfect that it must have been intelligently designed"

Not Ad Hom (but rather rude and probably still best avoided!): I think you will find that this is incorrect and perhaps I could respectfully recommend that you look at the following evidence that refutes your statement [reference a, b, c, etc.]..... and by the way, I believe you are a stupid, ill-informed prat".

Please correct me if I am wrong.

217. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132499 by PJG on February 24, 2008 at 9:26 pm

The Black Cloud is the only one of RD's choices that I have read too. It is still on my bookshelf, being good enough to have survived the periodic "clear out" for over thirty years.

Favourite fiction is a tricky one (I don't think my 10 favourite books would include any works of fiction) but I'll join in. In no particular order:

1. Catch 22, Joseph Heller
2. Flowers for Algernon, Daniel Keyes (LOADS better than the film they made of it)
3. Love of Seven Dolls, Paul Gallico
4. The Chrysalids, John Wyndham (I read this about thirty five years ago - still on my shelf and I often remember it - must re-read - it may not be as good as I remember)
5. Longitude, Dava Sobel (does this count as "fiction"?)

Oh dear, I just realised that the list goes on and on, Asimov, Austen, (Douglas) Adams, Du Murier, ......

218. Fleabytes

Comment #132038 by PJG on February 24, 2008 at 1:37 am

Diacanu

1) 18 inch pecker isn't very practical in a human.
2) All the ladies would have run away! :o)
3) Therefore 18 inch pecker would not have been selected for
4) Your ancestors would have died out
5) You would not exist

Ok, according to theist logic.... I believe, I believe!

219. Fleabytes

Comment #132035 by PJG on February 24, 2008 at 1:30 am

Steve,

I am very impressed.

I started to read Vox's book but from the very first line of the first chapter, "I don't care if you go to Hell", the thing was so obviously written by a very angry, disturbed individual that I couldn't bear to read it. I felt the way I felt on the one occasion that I watched "DIY SOS" on TV... the people who had lived in the houses didn't need help with their DIY, they needed THERAPY!

As I said in another thread, if you take the ad hom attacks out of it, it would shorten the book by 50%. Maybe you could do that... save yourself some time!!!

220. Fleabytes

Comment #131868 by PJG on February 23, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Free download of The Irrational Atheist for anyone who fancies doing a critique (relax Paula, I'm not suggesting it should be you!)

http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html

Steve Zara, since you suggested starting a "review" section, maybe it should be you? :o) Only kidding!

221. Whale Evolution

Comment #131770 by PJG on February 23, 2008 at 8:01 am

Regarding recommending books:

I'm reading "The Making of the Fittest - DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll at the moment.

It is very readable. I'm only about a third the way through (spending too much time on other things... including this site) but so far, so good..

222. My Argument With God

Comment #131659 by PJG on February 23, 2008 at 12:31 am

Ricky Gervais and Archbishop of Canterbury

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZGO4Y6WTUM

223. My Argument With God

Comment #131652 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 11:40 pm

I just loved "...evolution, a theory so simple and obvious that only England's greatest genius could have come up with it."


Maybe someone can help me.

Many years ago I wrote down a quote, attributed to Darwin:

"Free-will is a delusion caused by our inability to analyse our own motives."

It was one (another!) thing that made me realise that Darwin was, indeed, "England's greatest genius". I have no idea where I read it and now can't find it - except in the book I've written it in.

I have Googled it but have given up... anything with "delusion" and "Darwin" in Google keeps coming up with a bloody book called "The God Delusion" by some "Richard Dawkins" bloke!

224. Missing link found in Sydney Harbour

Comment #131549 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Vadjong

Of course there is no problem using "as if..."

I don't think it would be a problem using "design" or any of the other examples given above if Joe Public were more aware.

However, when more than 50% (if I remember rightly) of the American and about 95% of the worldwide Muslim population (again, if my understanding is correct) do not believe in evolution, then I think we should all be careful not to use vocabulary that may increase their number.

The word "design" does imply a designer and I think there are more appropriate words to use as a title (in the example I give above) - in the circumstances.

When I said "mis-USED" I meant "used by the creationists to mislead"... not mis-used by the scientists.

EDIT: I used to say "the human body was not designed to...[whatever]". Now I ALWAYS say "The human body did not evolve to...."

225. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #131186 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 3:34 am

I know this is an old thread now but I thought I would let you know what is happening (as well as sending PMs to some of the Leicestershire people). If you read this, please "spread it". I will also repeat it on the post I put in the Forum.

With the help of AllanW and Steve Zara, my husband and I have put together an A5 (folded A4) leaflet to hand out to people going into Ken Ham's little talk.

Rather than just the two of us (my husband and me) we would really like to get six or seven people to hand out leaflets (and maybe talk to anyone who wants to have a chat about evolution) as it looks more organised and less like a couple of strange "protesters". We don't want to protest, we want to appeal to these people - at least to TRY.

We aren't saying anything about God/atheism, just that we don't want children's scientific education to be compromised.

The leaflet is entirely about the creationist/ID threat to science education with an easy to read front cover (a title and a couple of short sentences). Inside, there is a page about the difference between the word "theory" and a Scientific Theory, then a page about ID not being science (with details of the British Centre for Science Education at http://bcseweb.org.uk * - which is very interesting - have a look) and a quote from Judge Jones from the Dover Trial

Finally, on the back page, I have detailed three of the Potholer54 "Made Easy" videos on YouTube

I have checked with the Leicestershire Police and there is nothing to stop us giving out the leaflets (there is nothing racially or religiously inflammatory in the leaflet and we are not going to obstruct anything or be violent or abusive).

We REALLY would like some help.

I've checked with Parklands Leisure Centre (a Council owned building but a private company) and the Hall takes about 200 people. I expect most people will come in pairs (like the animals to the ark!!) and so I'll print off about 100 leaflets.

If you can help, please send me a PM and we'll organise ourselves (and I can give you more details about the leaflet if you like)

Finally, I don't know how to post the leaflet on this site so that anyone can download it, use it, amend it, etc., if they want to, but if anyone can tell me how, they are welcome to it.

*Not the rock climbing equipment website mentioned on the post above by AllanW! Sorry Allan... lucky you didn't give those out in Preston!

226. Whale Evolution

Comment #131145 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 2:30 am

One thing that is rather interesting:

Every time a "transitional form" is found and the creationists say "so now there are two gaps", they evidently do not go running to their congregations and excitedly inform them that another gap has been made. The number of creationist (I mean at the REALLY uninformed end) who have no idea that there are ANY transitional forms is mindboggling.

My husband was talking to an Islamic creationist the other day (a medical student *shudder*) who was unaware that any transitional forms had been found... at all.

227. Whale Evolution

Comment #131141 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 2:23 am

gunnar

Evolution is not directed towards a goal. Therefore, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM!

228. Missing link found in Sydney Harbour

Comment #131098 by PJG on February 22, 2008 at 12:52 am

I agree that scientists need to start being more careful about how their words may be misinterpreted or, more importantly, mis-USED!

I recently watched The Life of Mammals again and (my awareness raised) felt quite uncomfortable that the first episode was entitled "A Winning Design".

babrock
There are quite a few examples of ring species :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

229. Fleabytes

Comment #130634 by PJG on February 21, 2008 at 3:49 am

Richard Morgan -

I think you raise an interesting point and one that I may be able to explain from the point of view of someone who has never had any religious belief.

I never had very strong feelings about other people's beliefs. I had a vague feeling that religion was something that consenting adults should do in private but if it spilled over into their wanting to dress up in silly uniforms and waves their arms/incense/"Holy" water about, that was their business.

During the past couple of years, however, I have become increasingly disturbed by what I saw as a rise in religious fervour, particularly noticeable in the increasingly evangelical United States, and also after witnessing the gullibility of those in my own country who fall prey to the marketing machine that is "God TV".

I felt similarly worried about the increase in fundamentalism, the rise in the number of "faith schools" and the indoctrination of children, and the influence of religion on our political and legislative processes.

Most of all, I was disturbed by the number of laws being passed which seemed to restrict free speech and freedom in general in some cases. To criticise someone's beliefs, even when those beliefs are demonstratively untrue (as in the case of creationism), purely because they fell under the umbrella of "faith" had started to move out of the realm of "politeness" and into legislation.

So, I would agree with Paula that it is possible for atheism to be "strengthened". It isn't the non-belief that is increased, you are right in saying that you can't "REALLY-not-believe" but I think you can become more aware of the strength of your own disbelief.

230. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130413 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Sort of on topic...

When you get a minute, please would you give me a hand at.....

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37075

231. Fleabytes

Comment #130361 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Duh! I should've seen that "thingy".

Thanks Diacanu

Ranked "Excellent"

232. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130360 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I have often had the argument about suffering (and God "testing " us) turned around to "God gave us free will" as if it is only about people inflicting suffering and that they will be punished by God. I always ask if a child being used by a paedophile ring has free-will or if a baby whose eyeball is infested with a parasite that will make it blind has free-will. They never have an adequate answer and always move on to some other crap.

233. Fleabytes

Comment #130355 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

How does one rank the article?

Sorry, that sounds so "English"...

How d'ya rank it?

234. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130212 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 7:14 am

.

Isn't it interesting how people have different takes on things? I had seen the T-shirt more as a feminist thing, highlighting domestic violence - in a mildly humorous way (which could be seen as a bit inappropriate, true) - but highlighting it nonetheless.

I do think it is a shame if on this site, of all sites, people start claiming to be "offended" by other people's jokes, attitudes and statements. Isn't this where we want to discuss things openly and have no censorship (unless someone is gratuitously rude of course)? Intent is everything and I doubt chuckgoecke intended to offend.

EDIT: I am a woman, btw.

235. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130089 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 3:52 am

Is he only 20? I thought he was older than that! :o)

20 years isn't too bad. The vast majority NEVER discover logic and common sense!

236. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130032 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:10 am

In view of his feelings about what he was told about Hell, I wonder what Bart Ehrman thinks about the Baby Bible Bashers.

237. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130020 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm

chuckgoecke

I expect BE has read the books by the Four Horsemen but Misquoting Jesus was published before TGD and he mentions his agnosticism in that. He also said he was planning to write a book about how he lost his faith and that it was more to do with the suffering in the world than the fact that he believes The Bible to be the work of man, though that may only be mentioned in the paperback edition (2007).

238. Fleabytes

Comment #129963 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Well done Paula.

I spent about fifteen minutes trying to read McGrath's book (in a bookshop... I wasn't going to BUY it!) and was struck by his "I was a teenage werewolf - erm...sorry - atheist" stance. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I once heard him say that he had swapped his "faith" of atheism for the faith of Christianity. I have never heard an atheist describe their non-belief as a faith (though theists try to suggest it is). I just don't believe him and suspect his "atheism" was either some sort of brief adolescent rebellion or that he feels that suggesting he was "converted" by some vastly superior evidence for the existence of God (that he never shares with us, of course) simply gives his book more credence than those of life-long Christians.

It was, to me, just unreadable. That you read it all, and the other three, to the depth of such a good critique.... I think you deserve a medal.

You wouldn't like to take a look at "The Irrational Atheist" now, would you? On second thoughts, you have suffered enough for one lifetime.

239. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129569 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 10:17 am

I just hope that in 10-15 years' time, one of these kids doesn't turn up at a school with an assault rifle...

240. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129428 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 5:57 am

It's also very interesting how shy he is when not on stage. Of course the grandmother attributes this to the lord working through him.

241. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129382 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 3:30 am

Thanks Quill... that is interesting, though not encouraging!

I come onto this site on most days and find myself either inspired (by the people on here and some of the articles) or deeply depressed (by things like this video). Today is not a good day... I'll have to go and stroke a cat (a remedy for all ills) :o)

242. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129374 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 3:19 am

HunterZolomon

from Skeptics Annotated Bible (always good for a laugh on a damp Tuesday!)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Balaam's talking donkey
"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass..."

Balaam and his donkey have a nice little chat. Apparently, they do this often, since Balaam isn't the least bit surprised when his donkey starts talking to him.

243. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129342 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 1:54 am

I feel physically sick watching this and can't take more than about five minutes at a time. I'll come back to it later when my stomach has settled.

What is going on in the US? I'm not being patronising - I am very much aware that the flow is heading towards Britain, but what can we do to stop this?

Is one of the problems "home-schooling"? Are there any national exams that the children HAVE to take to show that they are being given a general education at home or do they simply withdraw from any recognised education?

Whenever I see anything about home-schooling, it appears to be only the sick/deeply deluded and/or stupid parents who do this. Apologies if I am generalising on very, very little knowledge about it, but that is how it seems from my home in the UK.

244. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128908 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 9:29 am

AllanW

You could grow old and grey.

Pass me a biscuit will you?

245. The Dog Allusion

Comment #128907 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 9:26 am

I can just imagine the hate mail Christopher Hitchens would have received if he had written a book entitled "dog is not GREAT". Death threats from Islamic fundamentalists are NOTHING compared to those from the Canine Defence League!

Sam Harris: The End of Fifi?

246. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128903 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 8:47 am

Maybe, minhuna, you are mistaking "assertion" and "aggression".

I don't see any violence or even aggression in the first five comments. A bit of vexation, maybe, and certainly some strongly held opinions but no hatred or vitriol.

I wonder if you have come into this thread with a certain preconception... our eyes see with us, after all. EDIT: I include myself in this, of course!

247. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128804 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 2:00 am

Trouble is I think the 'peoples front of Judeas' are taking a short-term expediant of uniting against their common enemy - Secularism.

248. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128799 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 1:10 am

The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society.

249. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128397 by PJG on February 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Congratulations!

Wishing you a wonderful life together.

250. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127216 by PJG on February 15, 2008 at 4:01 am

.

Henri Bergsen

If you believe that the existence of God is true, then how can you ask what truth is?

You write as if you know that your belief in God is not true, but that it has value and you prefer self-deception.