11 Dec '06 03:47>
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesthats second worse thing next to abortion
That's exactly what it is and the reason it is done.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOk I mean if I agree with the book, then you think it is true, but that doen't make it true.
At least one of us is very confused.
Why would I, how could I, and what would it mean for me to agree with something that I think is false?
That you think the Koran is true has nothing to do with your agreement with it? I simply can't understand this. Can you give an example of something you agree with that you think is false?
I'm not claiming that agreeing with something imparts truth unto it.
Originally posted by whodeyI agree with for the first time I think, but I don't know why you use the word Jihad, I don't think it is an English word.
What about children who are taught that God does not exist? Is this child abuse as well? After all, can one prove that God does not exist? I think not teaching a child something purposefully is the same as teaching something to them purposefully. What it really comes down to is teaching your children what you know or think to be right.
I think his main ...[text shortened]... many of the religious have taken up a jihad against men of science. Both are equally as guilty.
Originally posted by whodeyit should be a choice for the kids
What about children who are taught that God does not exist? Is this child abuse as well? After all, can one prove that God does not exist? I think not teaching a child something purposefully is the same as teaching something to them purposefully. What it really comes down to is teaching your children what you know or think to be right.
I think his main ...[text shortened]... many of the religious have taken up a jihad against men of science. Both are equally as guilty.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, though just the few pages I have glanced at seem to contain errors. Just simple errors. I will collect a list of them when I have finish the book.
I would be interested in hearing rebuttals from this forum's theists to the arguments Richard Dawkins presents in his book The God Delusion.
Originally posted by Conrau KYou should have ended your post here. You will be ashamed, or at least ought to be, by the rest of what you wrote after you have actually read the book.
I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI have read the book. I never said that I hadn't. But I have had to pick it up and put it down over the pasts weeks due to a pretty time-full weeks.
You should have ended your post here. You will be ashamed, or at least ought to be, by the rest of what you wrote after you have actually read the book.
In particular, the author does in fact address the work of a great number of theologians, he does address polytheism, he does address the evolutionary value of religion, he does address the good religion does, etc.
Originally posted by Conrau KYou said in your very last post:
I have read the book. I never said that I hadn't.
I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, though just the few pages I have glanced at seem to contain errors
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You said in your very last post:I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, though just [b]the few pages I have glanced atseem to contain errors
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, I'd have to be an insipiens to continue a discussion with a person who not only cannot say what means and mean what he says, but doesn't even seem to know what it is that he means to say. For someone with such a meticulous command of Latin grammar, your lack of rudimentary English composition skills is difficult to comprehend.
I think I was being hyperbolic. I am not saying that I have comprehensively read the book, but I have gone over it. I think my reading is better than glancing over "a few pages" though.