Are RC's Christians?

I'd love to say that to Dawkins though, imagine his face!

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:I understand and appreciate that, all I was saying was it does alot of good that you probably won't ever hear about, i.e. 90 year old Mildred who has no friends and family and is very lonely, joins the local church, not because she whole-heartedly beleives, but just for the social aspect. Would change her from very unhappy, to happy. Capiche?

No I would not.

I thought I had made that clear in my previous post?

Indeed, I would state that the majority of those that attend church etc, in the UK today, are just like your 'Mildred'. It is a social thing for them, and deep down, they don't really beleive all the stories, but hey, they are good stories, and they have a nice cup of tea and a chat.

Tradionally, the disenfranchised and lonely have been good recruting ground for the various religions.

Is that a problem? Using them to wage Jihad is a problem, same as the crusades. But giving a social and support network.

HotParadox wrote:Great post, Sir Bonvolio. And let me add that it is often the atheists who claim to be truly enlightened, compassionate and morally better people, "because we are not doing good things for the sole purpose of going to 'heaven' ", that seem, for such compassionate people, to have an awful lot of resentment and hostility towards faith and people of faith. And, for that matter, an awful lot to say about something they reject. This is contradictory to their claim of being intrinsically good and caring people. Actually, coupled with the fact that some are so strangely preoccupied and irritated with matters relating to God, they amuse me. To see how my faith causes the arrogant ones to come so unglued and uncomfortable, gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

However, let me say, straight up, most atheists that I come in contact with, are not the type I just described. They are more like Peregrine, whose faith or lack of I do not know, bless her heart. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, I think you may fall in that category, too.

Thankyou, it reminds me of a film called Constantine. He is a demon hunter, sending them back to hell from Earth, but he knows he is going to hell. So he keeps hunting demons to try and 'buy' his way into heaven. It never works, it's only when he stops trying to get to heaven, and becomes good for the sake of being good does he earn redemption. And for the record, I'm an atheist, who likes books by Richard Dawkins.

Your welcome.

I know the movie, with Keanu Reeves, an excellent flick!
And for the record, it is a pleasure to meet you, an atheist, who likes books by Richard Dawkins.

Then you know why it reminds me of the film then

It is entirely reciprocal, I do find that some of Dawkins theories in the Selfish Gene lend themselves (inadvertantly) towards intelligent design.

And CH, it isn't when their aims are pure. The base level of most organisations are honest, it's only when you go up the ladder that the messages get convaluted. Think of it like this, just because the oil companies make shady business deals and exploit people causing death and unrest, doesn't mean that the man in the petrol station is also trying to fuck you over. You'll find that most vicars are actually very nice, very genuine people.

I'm not gonna lie. You are one of the most laid back, least uptight atheists/people I have met in a long time. Damn, I'm just gonna come out and say it. I would love to hang out with you.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:I'd love to say that to Dawkins though, imagine his face!

He'd look at you like you were Ted Haggard!

And he has met him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr0RgqxadTI&feature=related

Why thankyou very much indeed HP. High praise indeed, not really sure why though...

CH, "Dr. Goebbels himself would have been proud!"

hahahahahahaha!

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Why thankyou very much indeed HP. High praise indeed, not really sure why though...

CH, "Dr. Goebbels himself would have been proud!"

hahahahahahaha!

Exactly. That's what makes you so disarming.

Thankyou once again HP.

Check out the link on the side of the Dawkins video CH posted, the one with Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly.

Hilarious.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Thankyou once again HP.

Check out the link on the side of the Dawkins video CH posted, the one with Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly.

Hilarious.

Ted Haggard, non..?

Ted Arthur Haggard (June 27, 1956) is a former American evangelical preacher. Known as Pastor Ted to the congregations he served, he is the founder and former pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado; a founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches; and was leader of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) from 2003 until November 2006.

In November 2006, he resigned or was removed from all of his leadership positions after he admitted soliciting prostitute Mike Jones for homosexual sex and methamphetamine. Initially Haggard denied even knowing Mike Jones, but as a media investigation proceeded he acknowledged that some allegations, such as his purchase of methamphetamine, were true. He later added "sexual immorality" to his list of confessions.

After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers. In February 2007, one of those ministers, Tim Ralph, said that Haggard "is completely heterosexual.". Ralph later said he meant that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side."As of early 2009, Haggard continues to receive counseling, and now he says that he is a “heterosexual with issues.”

*wiki*

Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA (Hater?)

Or just a lying hypocrite?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbCRUucI1zk&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLncv9ubwGk&NR=1

This un's good, mate.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

The other fella comes across as a total simpleton!

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Thankyou once again HP.

Check out the link on the side of the Dawkins video CH posted, the one with Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly.

Hilarious.

I actually saw that interview! O'Reilly, who is brilliant and a graduate of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, never loses an argument. Both were awesome, I thought.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

That's the one I saw, Sir! What else could Bill say? He can't prove that God exists anymore than Dawkins can prove that He doesnt.

O'Reilly did have that air about him that suggests he is well educated, however, did you not find his arguments a bit, simplistic?

Or was that just his game plan to deal with Dawkins?

I really would have like it to have gone on longer

Sir Bonvolio wrote:O'Reilly did have that air about him that suggests he is well educated, however, did you not find his arguments a bit, simplistic?

Or was that just his game plan to deal with Dawkins?

I really would have like it to have gone on longer

Oh, that's his MO! He lived in my area for years and was a local political newscaster in Boston before he went national. I've met him and he's a sweetheart. He's too funny, tbh great Irish sense of humor.

Tbh, I thought Dawkins was a bit "slow", myself. Nothing stunning, but again, neither one of them can prove this baby.

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

The other fella comes across as a total simpleton!

Simpleton you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

The other fella comes across as a total simpleton!

Simpleton you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

I've got to say, it appears he was pwned. By a female creationist.

There's alot around about that being used out of context though...

Sir Bonvolio wrote:There's alot around about that being used out of context though...

Yes, how right you are, my friend. But, don't think for a minute that I don't know that Dawkins is one of the most brilliant minds of modern times.

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Thankyou once again HP.

Check out the link on the side of the Dawkins video CH posted, the one with Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly.

Hilarious.

I actually saw that interview! O'Reilly, who is brilliant and a graduate of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, never loses an argument. Both were awesome, I thought.

Honestly..?

I thought the interviewer sounded like an ignorant old drunk bloke, and I think SB put that link here to laugh at the fella!!!

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

That's the one I saw, Sir! What else could Bill say? He can't prove that God exists anymore than Dawkins can prove that He doesnt.

Same old stance.

Same old flaws in it.

No matter how many times they are pointed out, just forget then repeat, right...

Never assume, as you make an ass out of u and me.

Ignorant, maybe, intelligent, definately.

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Thankyou once again HP.

Check out the link on the side of the Dawkins video CH posted, the one with Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly.

Hilarious.

I actually saw that interview! O'Reilly, who is brilliant and a graduate of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, never loses an argument. Both were awesome, I thought.

Honestly..?

I thought the interviewer sounded like an ignorant old drunk bloke, and I think SB put that link here to laugh at the fella!!!

He does sometimes!!!

But he's not.

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

The other fella comes across as a total simpleton!

Simpleton you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

I've got to say, it appears he was pwned. By a female creationist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4&feature=related

Shame that is just one of series of hoaxes put around by creationists, who wish to suppress science.

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Thankyou once again HP.

Check out the link on the side of the Dawkins video CH posted, the one with Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly.

Hilarious.

I actually saw that interview! O'Reilly, who is brilliant and a graduate of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, never loses an argument. Both were awesome, I thought.

Honestly..?

I thought the interviewer sounded like an ignorant old drunk bloke, and I think SB put that link here to laugh at the fella!!!

Really? I saw it as O'Reilly asking a legitimate question and that simpleton answered "We're working on it." He no more proved there is no God than we can that there is. lol

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

The other fella comes across as a total simpleton!

Simpleton you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

I've got to say, it appears he was pwned. By a female creationist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4&feature=related

Shame that is just one of series of hoaxes put around by creationists, who wish to suppress science.

Or the scientists are trying to suppress creationism?

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

That's the one I saw, Sir! What else could Bill say? He can't prove that God exists anymore than Dawkins can prove that He doesnt.

Same old stance.

Same old flaws in it.

No matter how many times they are pointed out, just forget then repeat, right...

Haha, you crack me up!!! Interesting enough, neither side can prove themselves as the clear winner. Even a dope like me gets that.

Hardly. If it were of any scientific value, then they would be all over it, for Gawd's sake!

Sir Bonvolio wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

The other fella comes across as a total simpleton!

Simpleton you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

I've got to say, it appears he was pwned. By a female creationist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4&feature=related

Shame that is just one of series of hoaxes put around by creationists, who wish to suppress science.

Or the scientists are trying to suppress creationism?

There ya go. The whole thing looks like two dogs chasing their tails stopping from time to time to snap at each other. It's a useless battle. Believe what you believe and leave those that believe something else alone about what they believe. Just doesn't seem like it should be that hard to do. lol

HotParadox wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

That's the one I saw, Sir! What else could Bill say? He can't prove that God exists anymore than Dawkins can prove that He doesnt.

Same old stance.

Same old flaws in it.

No matter how many times they are pointed out, just forget then repeat, right...

Haha, you crack me up!!! Interesting enough, neither side can prove themselves as the clear winner. Even a dope like me gets that.

Yes, but what you do not get, and refuse to accept are the primary laws of logic, which state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, and no offence, the moment we start speaking about this matter on your 'terms', then we cross over that which is logical and rational. Again, I do not mean that as offence, it is hard to get a message over, on the net, at times.

In short, it was never for Dawkins to prove there is NOT a god, in the Christian sense.

If anything, it was on the other chap.

Do you firmly believe in the god of Zeus?

Can you disprove his existance?

Can you disprove any of the spirits and gods that have been taken on my many cultures, throughout all of mankind?

Cartoon Head wrote:Hardly. If it were of any scientific value, then they would be all over it, for Gawd's sake!

Haha, you're such a parochial soul, bless you. So simple, you're funny.

HotParadox wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Hardly. If it were of any scientific value, then they would be all over it, for Gawd's sake!

Haha, you're such a parochial soul, bless you. So simple, you're funny.

Is that it?

Is that your rebuttal?

Pfffttt.

Poor.

CH, you can argue exactly the same point from the other side, with more weight imo.

The bible has been around a lot longer and is more widely accepted, so it really is on science to disprove the popular theory.

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

That's the one I saw, Sir! What else could Bill say? He can't prove that God exists anymore than Dawkins can prove that He doesnt.

Same old stance.

Same old flaws in it.

No matter how many times they are pointed out, just forget then repeat, right...

Haha, you crack me up!!! Interesting enough, neither side can prove themselves as the clear winner. Even a dope like me gets that.

Yes, but what you do not get, and refuse to accept are the primary laws of logic, which state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, and no offence, the moment we start speaking about this matter on your 'terms', then we cross over that which is logical and rational. Again, I do not mean that as offence, it is hard to get a message over, on the net, at times.

In short, it was never for Dawkins to prove there is NOT a god, in the Christian sense.

If anything, it was on the other chap.

Do you firmly believe in the god of Zeus?

Can you disprove his existance?

Can you disprove any of the spirits and gods that have been taken on my many cultures, throughout all of mankind?

It never gets old, does it Steve! I submit to you that if EITHER side could prove it, they would, and they would not put the burden of proof on the other side. But they can't. Neither one.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:CH, you can argue exactly the same point from the other side, with more weight imo.

The bible has been around a lot longer and is more widely accepted, so it really is on science to disprove the popular theory.

Which it has.

Large chunks of.

Like the world not being a mere few thousand years old, for example.

That is a popular myth among some believers.

And surely I do not need to show someone like you the wealth of evidence that there is out there which totally and consistantly contradicts that?

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Hardly. If it were of any scientific value, then they would be all over it, for Gawd's sake!

Haha, you're such a parochial soul, bless you. So simple, you're funny.

Is that it?

Is that your rebuttal?

Pfffttt.

Poor.

You don't understand and that really is so sad. There is no proof that I can give you. There is no proof that you can give me. Plus, you have been saying the same thing to me for years and I to you. A bright person would simply say, "There's no real win here. She could be wrong. But so could I. Why do I pursue this?" So, my answer and rebuttal to you is, "Who the Hell knows, Steve?"

HP, I completely agree, however, if anyone needs to prove themselves do you not agree that the ball is in science's court as the bible/koran is the most widely accepted theory and has been around alot longer than evolution?

HotParadox wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Nah, this one. Just as funny

Listen to O'Reilly's arguments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&feature=related

That's the one I saw, Sir! What else could Bill say? He can't prove that God exists anymore than Dawkins can prove that He doesnt.

Same old stance.

Same old flaws in it.

No matter how many times they are pointed out, just forget then repeat, right...

Haha, you crack me up!!! Interesting enough, neither side can prove themselves as the clear winner. Even a dope like me gets that.

Yes, but what you do not get, and refuse to accept are the primary laws of logic, which state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, and no offence, the moment we start speaking about this matter on your 'terms', then we cross over that which is logical and rational. Again, I do not mean that as offence, it is hard to get a message over, on the net, at times.

In short, it was never for Dawkins to prove there is NOT a god, in the Christian sense.

If anything, it was on the other chap.

Do you firmly believe in the god of Zeus?

Can you disprove his existance?

Can you disprove any of the spirits and gods that have been taken on my many cultures, throughout all of mankind?

It never gets old, does it Steve! I submit to you that if EITHER side could prove it, they would, and they would not put the burden of proof on the other side. But they can't. Neither one.

Correct.

The reason Dawkins cannot, is that this breaks one of the laws of logic, proving a negative eg; God does NOT exist.

It should however be possible to show that something does exist, if is true.

That is my point.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:HP, I completely agree, however, if anyone needs to prove themselves do you not agree that the ball is in science's court as the bible/koran is the most widely accepted theory and has been around alot longer than evolution?

Hmm.

Wonder how this might go?