OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

Maybe he needs some of this - http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/pages/product_detail.asp?pid=5150


"Dr Organic Snail Gel is produced from snails that are farmed under humane and certified organic conditions. The snails are able to roam freely and the mucus secretion is collected from glass panes that they travel over"

 

Remember to delete your internet history after that one, searching for porn you may get away with but snail gel is gonna make her think your nuts.

 

.

 

Discuss the probability of a genetically engineered warty snail-badger. It exudes gel which is good for your hands but you need to keep it away from cows as it carries TB. Warning: It's angry like a badger with a sore head and is deceptively fast!

 

Yeah we already got one of them, we don't need another

 

I thought it pretty much described all of us, tbh.

 

But there's always an underlying love.

 

As Jackie Moon says:

please log in to view this image

 

Fixed it for you.

 

.

 

To which the next logical question then is - who/what created the 'supernatural creator'?

 

Kenny Dalglish.

 

Just been catching up on what's been going on and a post of CCCs got me thinking. If the discussions on these pages are typical then the Agnostics and Atheists appear to spend a lot more time and effort thinking and worrying about the existence of God than those of faith do about Agnosticism and Atheism.

 

Why are you limiting yourself then to the human concept of logic? Surely the search should be for truth and not constrained by logic which is of itself flawed.

 

That's actually an illogical question.

 

Why? Your supposition is that something can't come from nothing, ergo 'God' came from something.

 

Well aren't you by insisting that something can't come from nothing, simply because that is our human experience and intuition? surely you're inventing this Godhead to fill in the 'logical' gaps?

 

Thought my ****ing ears were burning last night. Bunch of sad twats

 

That's not really a surprise, tbh.

I grew up in a fairly religious family. Some were very religious, some moderately and some didn't bother. Religion fascinated me, but mostly because at 7/8 years old I didn't really understand it. My questions put to family members and priests returned only vague and unsatisfying answers (unlike answers to my science / technology based questions which returned answers that automatically registered as sensible to my nascent mind).

I decided, in the interest of research (I started early!), to read the bible from start to finish at the age of 8 (then again at 15 and 25, just to see if my older perspective would change my impression of the text) so I could hopefully get a better handle on it. It just made me more adamant that people generally didn't seem to understand their own religion - their answers to my further questions sometimes sounded like they'd never even read the bible. Indeed, my older brother (who has been an evangelical, born-again Christian for years) has just finished reading the bible although his reading of it was not from start to finish, he read a small passage every day (?) from a random chapter. I engaged him from time to time about his religion as I'm fascinated about how people can believe when their faith is based on such a confusingly contradictory and illogical text (again, religious faith, I guess!). But he would get angry and shout at me. At one point, when I was 18 and he was 29, he screamed at me the I was 'not smarter than God!' I forget the point of debate at the time.

My point is I was always open about religion and religious ideas. I've lost count of the religious books I've been recommended and have read (always disapointing). The difference being, none of my religious friends or family will read any books that I recommend. No Dawkins, no Sagan, no Gould, no Darwin, no Huxley, no Dennett, no Medawar, etc, etc. My frustration is that I've bent over backward to try and understand their position, but refuse (point blank) to look into mine. My conclusion is that they see me as some sort of puppet of Satan, trying to tempt them away from the path of faith with my evil love of logic and knowledge. A bit grandiose perhaps, but it fits with all the known facts.

In answer to your post Dave, and hoping (but probably failing!) not to generalize too much, I've always found that religious-minded people are often the quickest to dismiss naysayers as closed-minded. People who are not religious tend to try and counter this by reading widely around the topic. It has been said that atheists and agnostics often know religion (but not god, obviously!) better than theists do. I somewhat believe this. Obviously there are always exceptions, though.

However, I never worry about the existence of God(s). I worry about others worrying about the existence of God(s), if that makes any sense?

 

Firstly you are shifting goalposts once more. You firstly claim that something cannot be because it is not logical. I forward to you the point that Logic (as we understand it) is a flawed concept (proven so therefore have some scientific credence) and suggesting that you end may be sought by using another focus such as truth. So if you insist on using logic as the basis of your argument then by all means go ahead and forward your logical eidence. However, you are pre-warned that logic is, of itself, not a trustworthy base upon which to found your evidence.

Further, rather than limiting myself I am proposing to you another basis for your argument in Truth which offers far wider (hence less limiting) basis.