The God Delusion
discussion
agnostic: the way to go.
cs wrote: "The same reason you know, but I have arrived at a different conclusion. I pick and choose the bits of my religion that are appropriate to me, mix it with a bit of science and some of Shannon’s spirituality and arrive at what I believe in. "Trying to put it back on me is not an answer. It's another dodge of the question. I'll ask again:
How do you know that your belief is not the result of cultural/parental brainwashing?
If you are that afraid of a real answer, then just say that you don't know. You're allowed to pretend that things you don't want to be true are not true just based on the fact that you don't want them to be true. All I'm asking is that you answer the question or admit that this is your reasoning.
cs wrote: "It new to me. We have Catholic schools but non Catholics go there as well. "It's one thing to say that you don't think there's anything wrong with people doing that, but are you really claiming that you've never once in your life heard a child referred to as "christian" or "catholic" or "muslim" or any other religious affiliation?
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "It new to me. We have Catholic schools but non Catholics go there as well. "It's one thing to say that you don't think there's anything wrong with people doing that, but are you really..."
further to this, is cs claiming that no children in the UK are baptised, or otherwise devoted to their parents religion when they are too young to make the choice themselves, that they then don't go to sunday school, and told that what they're being taught is true. My nephew was, I was, so its demonstrably not true. My daughter won't be, she can make her own choice when she's old enough to weigh the information and make an informed decision.
cs wrote: "Have you any proof that god exists."The only two things I feel can be proved, at this point, are:
1. Humans can take something with a possibility for infinite greatness (such as internet message boards), and turn it something quite dull.
and
2. "Angainst stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" (Actually I have to give you credit for proving this one).
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The same reason you know, but I have arrived at a different conclusion. I pick and choose the bits of my religion that are appropriate to me, mix it with a bit of science and some of Sha..."How do you know that your belief is not the result of cultural/parental brainwashing?
My parents never taught me about religion, thats how I know.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "It new to me. We have Catholic schools but non Catholics go there as well. "It's one thing to say that you don't think there's anything wrong with people doing that, but are you really..."
Maybe on television.
Devin wrote: "cs wrote: "Have you any proof that god exists."The only two things I feel can be proved, at this point, are:
1. Humans can take something with a possibility for infinite greatness (such as internet message boards), and turn it something quite dull...."
internet message boards............infinite greatness?
I don't see that. Maybe I am just the exception to the rule.
cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Tim wrote: "But nobody thinks twice about referring to "Catholic Children," or "Muslim babies." .....thats not said in my neck of the woods. And do parents still call da..."
In the UK babies and children aren't called Muslim, seikh, anglican, or catholic by virtue of their parents faith, pull the other one cs... and don't feed in some irrelevant crap about catholic schooling, it has nothing to do with original point of infants and children being nominally regarded as a particular faith because of their parents subscription to it.
Hazel wrote: "further to this, is cs claiming that no children in the UK are baptised, or otherwise devoted to their parents religion when they are too young to make the choice themselves, that they then don't go to sunday school, and told that what they're being taught is true. My nephew was, I was, so its demonstrably not true. My daughter won't be, she can make her own choice when she's old enough to weigh the information and make an informed decision."In fairness to cs ignorance on this point, in general baptism in the UK is much more to do with being a 'cultural norm' than anything religious (in spite of what a baptism really is). I was baptized, as were my brothers yet my parents are neither religious nor ever have been, both my parents were baptized yet I know for sure that my dads parents were both atheists (was to young to remember my mums), most of my friends were baptized yet most (if not all) come from none religious backgrounds. Even some of my friends who have kids of their own have had them baptized yet they to are not religious nor believe in any god. While it is a practice I don't agree with it is merely out of following tradition that the majority do it, and the only reason the vast majority will ever set foot inside a church will be weddings, funerals and christenings.
Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means saying it doesn't happen, just if somebody is willfully ignorant by nature then it's not to surprising they could be completely unaware, and as we know, most brainwashing is subtle enough for religious people to think that they came to their position themselves rather than were pushed into it. Also I don't think Sunday school is that big over here, while I'm pretty sure my town had one I don't actually know a single person who ever went to it.
cs wrote: "It new to me. We have Catholic schools but non Catholics go there as well. Maybe on television."
The fact that you're noting that "non-catholics go there as well" means that the other children (the ones who aren't "non-catholic") are considered "catholic".
In fact, by referring to the other kids as "non-catholics" you're actually doing what you claim you've never seen done. Right now. You're doing it and claiming you've only heard of that "maybe on television".
Is there anything you'll be honest about?
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "It new to me. We have Catholic schools but non Catholics go there as well. Maybe on television."
The fact that you're noting that "non-catholics go there as well" means that the other...Is there anything you'll be honest about?
"
The biggest problem I see, is that so many people are so RARELY honest with themselves; truly honest. Given that, it is not a big step to project that onto others.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "It new to me. We have Catholic schools but non Catholics go there as well. Maybe on television."
The fact that you're noting that "non-catholics go there as well" means that the other..."
How the hell did I miss that? Thanks Daniel
Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Tim wrote: "But nobody thinks twice about referring to "Catholic Children," or "Muslim babies." .....thats not said in my neck of the woods. And do parents st..."
You don't seem to follow the flow of the debate, you jump in and out.
Tim said....
Daniel has a point and it's the same point Sam Harris makes so often: it would be absurd to say "Meet my 6 year old, Claude. He's a Marxist." Or "This is Myrtle, our 5 year old daughter. She's a Republican." But nobody thinks twice about referring to "Catholic Children," or "Muslim babies."
Using that context..
No I have never heard anyone say
"This is Myrtle, our 5 year old daughter. She's a Catholic".
or
"This is Myrtle, our 5 year old daughter. She's a Protestant".
If Myrtle walks into a Catholic school you may assume she is Catholic, the same if she walks into a Church of England schoolshe is protestant.
Shanna, I still think you are using your wooden spoon here.
Shanna wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "It new to me. We have Catholic schools but non Catholics go there as well. Maybe on television."
The fact that you're noting that "non-catholics go there as well" means..."
You missed it because as I said you don't follow previous posts.
No how did I miss you doing (labelling a child a certain faith) exactly what you said didn't "happen in you neck of the woods".You are being disingenuous cs
cs wrote"But nobody thinks twice about referring to "Catholic Children," or "Muslim babies."
.....thats not said in my neck of the woods
Of you've never heard someone say it in that way, as Tim said it's absurd but people refer to christian/muslim/sikh ect children all the time as you did when you suggested that catholic and then differrentiated by saying non-catholic children go to catholic schools, something that didn't happen in your neck of the woods.
And as I understand it the "catholic" schools in the uk are the "free" schooling available to all.
Shanna wrote: "No how did I miss you doing (labelling a child a certain faith) exactly what you said didn't "happen in you neck of the woods".You are being disingenuous cs
cs wrote"But nobody thinks twice about..."
And as I understand it the "catholic" schools in the uk are the "free" schooling available to all.
Catholics would be considered first with some places for others.
Of you've never heard someone say it in that way,
That was how the statement was put and that is how I answered it.
When I meet someone I don't say to them 'what is your age and what is your occupation'. But on a TV quiz show that is the first questions asked.
I was taking Tim's statement in context you were taking it out of context.
cs wrote: "I was taking Tim's statement in context you were taking it out of context."The reverse is true cs, Tim's comment was in reference to the assuption of a religion for children by society at large based on the parents faith, thus referring to Catholic childen and muslim babies when the ascribing of religion to immature individuals below the age of consent is part of the indoctrination process. Sam Harris' point I believe
Mike wrote: "The biggest problem I see, is that so many people are so RARELY honest with themselves; truly honest. Given that, it is not a big step to project that onto others."That's true, but I'm not sure it's a good excuse.
Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "I was taking Tim's statement in context you were taking it out of context."The reverse is true cs, Tim's comment was in reference to the assuption of a religion for children by society..."
I responded to Tim's comment in the vain it was written. You may have read more into it, by knowing about this Sam Harris.
I don't know Sam Harris and I was not responding to him.
cs wrote: "Using that context..No I have never heard anyone say
"This is Myrtle, our 5 year old daughter. She's a Catholic".
or
"This is Myrtle, our 5 year old daughter. She's a Protestant."
The argument you're calling a "context" argument is really an attempt to avoid the fact that you were dishonest. It's not a context difference, you are trying to argue that you weren't lying because you never heard anyone say that particular phrase.
The problem with that approach to avoiding admitting you were wrong is that it's not true. You were not "keeping it in context" as you claim. I know because of your own quotes when answering the question. I stated the issue to you in Message 663 as whether you had ever heard a child referred to as a "muslim" or "catholic" and you replied to my message (your reply was message 667) even quoting message 663 saying that you you had only heard it "maybe on television."
You can't go back now and claim you were only ever answering to Tim, because you replied directly to me about it, so the "context" in that situation was the way that I had phrased it.
So you don't get out of it by attempting a legal trick of saying "I was only saying I'd never heard that one exact precise phrase" because I phrased it completely differently, in no uncertain terms to you what we were talking about, and you denied having ever heard it outside of television and even then, only maybe. You wouldn't even admit to having heard it on television! Just how in denial are you?
Once again, CS, we have an issue of you refusing to admit when you were wrong/dishonest. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal. Everyone is wrong sometimes. What's wrong with being an adult about it?
cs wrote: "My parents never taught me about religion, thats how I know. "Now you're just an outright liar. You said (in message 646):
"I was brought up with religious parents teaching me their religion."
So either you were lying when you said that in 646 or you were lying when you denied what you already said (quoted above) in message 666 (a sign, perhaps?). Which is it?
Also, CS, when you have a chance, I'd like an answer to my question that isn't a lie. How do you know that your belief is not the result of cultural/parental brainwashing?
Daniel wrote: "Also, CS, when you have a chance, I'd like an answer to my question that isn't a lie. How do you know that your belief is not the result of cultural/parental brainwashing?"
I do not agree at all with your 'brainwashing' question and I even said to you that I was never brainwashed.
But for the last couple of pages I have been humouring you by answering your questions as best I could, as and when you asked them. I was curious to know where you were going with this questioning, but when I gave you an answer all I got was more questions.
My parents both are/were both Catholics; they did not sit me down and teach me religion as a lesson but they did take me to church and sent me to a catholic school.
Your questioning is beginning to get ridicules since I have no idea where you are going with it.
I also do not like been called dishonest and a liar.
cs wrote: "I do not agree at all with your 'brainwashing' question and I even said to you that I was never brainwashed."You don't "agree with the question"? What does that even mean? As far as I can tell it doesn't mean anything. What are you talking about?
Is this just your way of saying "I don't have an answer so I'll avoid the question"? Maybe that's what you mean by "agree with the question"?
cs wrote: "Your questioning is beginning to get ridicules since I have no idea where you are going with it."
This doesn't even make sense. A question is not ridiculous because you can't imagine where it's going. What you can or cannot figure out has no bearing on the question at all.
I'm not even sure why you are assuming there is somewhere for it to go. It's just a question.
If you don't want to answer, just admit that you "refuse to answer on the grounds that you don't have an answer and you are unwilling to seriously consider the question for fear of looking bad or accidentally reaching a reasonable conclusion."
cs wrote: "I also do not like been called dishonest and a liar. "
Then perhaps you shouldn't lie. Even now, you are not admitting that you lied about that answer. The answers are opposite to each other. They cannot both be true. You said both. You said two things intentionally and at least one of them is not true. You knew when you said it that it was not true but said it anyway. That's what lying is.
Is this one of those things where you pretend lying means something else? Have you made up a definition for that word that doesn't include, you know, lying?
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I do not agree at all with your 'brainwashing' question and I even said to you that I was never brainwashed."You don't "agree with the question"? What does that even mean? As far as I..."
How do I know I am not missing out on that great brainwashing so many children are abused with? I was brainwashed in childhood like most people. As an adult, I learned to prioritize the truth over what was brainwashed into me.
So now that I've answered your question, perhaps you will answer mine:
How do you know that your belief is not the result of cultural/parental brainwashing?
You started the ball rolling with the above.You learned to prioritize the truth over what was brainwashed into you.
But you are not able to prove that what you think is the truth.....really is the truth. And you seen very conceted if you think you as an adult are is some way better at prioritising that others, without knowing them.
Also 'prioritise' is to Determine the order for dealing with things.
Maybe you just have your priorities wrong, or you did not like your parents.
cs wrote: "You started the ball rolling with the above.You learned to prioritize the truth over what was brainwashed into you.But you are not able to prove that what you think is the truth.....really is the truth. And you seen very conceted if you think you as an adult are is some way better at prioritising that others, without knowing them."
Here you go again attacking me as a way to avoid the issue at hand.
I didn't say I was better at anything. In fact, I stated quite clearly that I am not special, but you already know that. You know (I suspect) that the statements you're making are dishonest and yet you keep making them.
You try to lash out at me as if that will distract from you taking responsibility for what you've said.
I don't assume anyone is better at anything, but I can form assessments about the way people prioritize based on how they bahave. The fact you consistently show disregard for the truth in this thread tells me that you are not a person who cares about the truth. And before you try to pretend I'm talking about whether or not there is a god and make some phony argument about how "just because you think it's the truth doesn't mean it is", I am not talking about that.
I am talking about how you claim you have evidence of something, but then fail to come up with it (as you did in the debate with Shawn and Hazel). I'm talking about how you claim words don't mean things you don't want them to mean despite the dictionary proving you wrong. I'm talking about how you don't admit you are wrong when you objectively are. I'm talking about how you give everyone two opposite stories about your parents (depending on what you think suits your argument at the moment) and then dodge responsibility for your lies when it's pointed out to you.
I'm only talking about things that are objectively the case. There is not a difference of opinion on what words mean. There is not a difference of opinion on whether you offered evidence when you didn't. There is not a difference of opinion on whether you made two opposing statements. There is not a difference of opinion on whether or not you lied in at least one of those statements.
These things are evidence (I know you hate actual evidence) of your disregard for the truth. I don't need to know your whole life story or be your very bestest friend in the whole wide world to be able to determine how much you care about the truth based on your actions related to truth.
So I can say with plenty of hard evidence to back me up that I prioritize the truth higher than you do, because I care about it at all and the evidence indicates you do not. Or at the very least, that you don't care about it when it comes to having to admit you were wrong or to make a truthful statement.
cs wrote: "Maybe you just have your priorities wrong,"
This is your default evasion maneuver so I'll save you the time of having to manufacture a case here. I prioritize the truth over looking good to others and I prioritize it over winning disagreements and I prioritize it over my personal pride. You do not seem to do any of that.
If, in your mind, "not admitting you're wrong no matter what" is more important than the truth, then you would think I have my priorities wrong. If, in your mind, "lying to make a point seem stronger" is more important than the truth, then you would think I have my priorities wrong. If, in your mind, "avoiding questions that are uncomfortable and then attacking people for asking them" is more important than the truth, the you would think I have my priorities wrong. You do seem to prioritize things in that way. At least, that's what the evidence indicates.
You're right that "priorities" refers to the order of dealing with things, but it also refers to the relative importance of things. This is important because what people tell themselves and tell others are their priorities are often not the same as their actual priorities. For instance, if a person claims that their top priority is "spending time with their family", but they work 80 hours a week, then we know that their real priority is work or money or whatever other satisfaction they get from that. We know, in this example, that their top priority is not "spending time with their family" regardless of what they tell themselves or others.
Grasping this is key in this discussion because I suspect that you tell yourself that you do value the truth highly. And maybe you do, just not above admitting you were wrong or mistaken or not looking "bad" or losing an argument or whatever your reason for dodging issues and lying is.
cs wrote: "You learned to prioritize the truth over what was brainwashed into you.
But you are not able to prove that what you think is the truth.....really is the truth."
Now that we've talked about priorities and what they mean, it should make more sense when I explain that the quote above makes no sense at all. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Prioritizing the truth in no way makes one infallible. You can still be wrong, the point is what happens when you turn out to be.
What it means when I say I prioritize the truth over, say atheism, is that if the two concepts are ever in conflict, I choose the former. So if evidence were to prove there was a god, then I would cease to be an atheist because truth is more important to me than atheism.
[Note: Incidentally, this is the case with every atheist I've ever encountered. It's one of the things that separates atheists from religious people- a fierce dedication to the truth.]
How one deals with two conflicting things is what allows us to determine a person's priorities. When the conflict arises, whichever the person chooses is their higher priority.
You choose consistently to prioritize other things over the truth, which leads to my next point. In my opinion, a person who does not prioritize the truth really doesn't belong in any conversation about the truth. Since you don't care about it, what can you offer? It would be the same as if I joined a conversation about how to lie in an attempt to win arguments. While you would belong there, I would not, because I do not value lying as a tool in arguments and you do.
cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "I was taking Tim's statement in context you were taking it out of context."The reverse is true cs, Tim's comment was in reference to the assuption of a religion for chil..."
Tim was quoting Sam Harris in the post it seems you were taking the post out of context if you failed to read it.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "You started the ball rolling with the above.You learned to prioritize the truth over what was brainwashed into you.But you are not able to prove that what you think is the truth.....re..."
With all respect you lost me with that lot. You say you were brainwashed, and now you are not, but you seem to think I was and I still am. You blame your parents and I have nothing to blame my parents for.
You do not believe in a god and I do. You seem to have an issue with anyone who does believe and I am not bothered if someone does not believe.
You don't want to rule out a god completely but want proof first. I am quiet happy to believe in god until I find out otherwise.
Atheists seem to have found a pulpit to preach from, it's called the internet.
cs wrote: "With all respect you lost me with that lot. You say you were brainwashed, and now you are not, but you seem to think I was and I still am."So now you're strategy is to yammer on about nothing and ignore the thoughtful reply I made? I was respectful enough of you to take the time to look at what you said and make a thoughtful reply, but you obviously are unwilling to do the same.
I guess you don't prioritize respect either?
I didn't say you were brainwashed. Read back through the posts. What I did is ask you a question that you have so far not answered (I don't count when you lied as an answer). Perhaps if you dodge the question again this time, you'll at least have the decency to acknowledge that you are avoiding the question.
Here it is:
How do you know that your belief is not the result of cultural/parental brainwashing?
"Atheists seem to have found a pulpit to preach from, it's called the internet."I would disagree with that most strongly, CS. You are welcome to leave this thread any time you like. It is a debate, not a pulpit. In the course of the 15 odd years I was indoctrinated into Catholicism I was never afforded the opportunity to get up and leave because the priest or the nun was boring. I would say our preaching causes you far less annoyance, anguish, guilt and boredom than the preaching I had to endure caused me.
In fact it took me another 15 bloody years to undo all that mess. So you're getting off lightly with just having to put up with a few atheists on the Internet, my friend.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "With all respect you lost me with that lot. You say you were brainwashed, and now you are not, but you seem to think I was and I still am."So now you're strategy is to yammer on about ..."
Because I was never brainwashed. And because I was never brainwashed it can not be a result of anything.
Tim wrote: ""Atheists seem to have found a pulpit to preach from, it's called the internet."I would disagree with that most strongly, CS. You are welcome to leave this thread any time you like. It is a debat..."
It's my British sense of humour, it does not always travel well to certain parts of the world.
I was never afforded the opportunity to get up and leave
I experienced the same thing with history lessons, but religion at my catholic school was ok. An hour a week and it made a change from maths.
In fact it took me another 15 bloody years to undo all that mess
Why?
Tim, just so you now,I'm british, and I don't think that cs was making a joke, I think he has a shitty sense of humour, he's simply not funny if thats what he's attempting. I see nothing british in his "sense of humour", its not self deprecating enough.
Hmmm. What I love most about the Brits is your sense of humour. But that one went over my head, CS.So you also went to Catholic schools? Can you honestly say you never had any feelings of guilt about sex? You never feared hell? What a thing to put into a child: burning forever and ever in a pit of fire. We had this dour little Australian priest called Father Martin who every second Sunday would give sermons on masturbation, fornication and the like. I bet you he was just projecting all his guilt, for constantly interfering with himself, onto us.
The only redeeming feature of my experience of the Catholic Church, looking back, was they at least instilled a sense of social justice in us, and spoke bravely against apartheid. The fundamentalist Christian churches actually preached that the government was put there by god. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," they would say. And these people now have the nerve to say that change happened because they prayed a lot! Puhleez!!!
The Catholic Church was the best of a rotten dysfunctional bunch, in my opinion.
cs wrote: "Because I was never brainwashed. And because I was never brainwashed it can not be a result of anything. "The proof that you weren't brainwashed is that you don't think you were brainwashed? That doesn't even make sense.
Please take a moment to read questions before you answer them.
Tim wrote: "The Catholic Church was the best of a rotten dysfunctional bunch, in my opinion."You mean not counting the part where they use their global organization to protect child rapists from justice and work hard to encourage the spread of AIDS in Africa by not allowing their followers to use condoms?
Oh yes, forgot about that little detail. It's amazing how Catholics can be so liberal in some respects and so uncaringly conservative in others. And the 'others' all seem to have something to do with sex...And yet their oldest churches are all full of paintings of naked people. I don't get it.
Daniel wrote: "Tim wrote: "The Catholic Church was the best of a rotten dysfunctional bunch, in my opinion."You mean not counting the part where they use their global organization to protect child rapists from ..."
I think that just says a lot about what the alternatives were near where Tim grew up...
You know there is this account of a group of Catholic missionaries in South America a few hundred years ago. They came across this tribe and discovered that this tribe had no word in their language to encompass the notion of guilt. So they re-wrote the bible and changed it so that it was not the Romans or Jews who had killed Jesus, but this tribe. I guess guilt is pretty central to the whole Christian doctrine. But people must believe whatever they wanna believe. As Trevor from Melbourne said the other day: "Give me a Christian who cares about social justice over an atheist dog-eat-dog economic rationalist any day."
Whatever floats your boat. Just keep your paws off the children and let them make their own choice when they're old enough.
And CS. You're not allowed to respond to what I said until you answer Daniel's question. If you don't I know two really hard-core South African mercinaries living in the UK who will come show you what they used to do to our indigenous inhabitants who got uppity.
Tim wrote: "And CS. You're not allowed to respond to what I said until you answer Daniel's question. If you don't I know two really hard-core South African mercinaries living in the UK who will come show you w..."I think I've fallen in love ;P
No Hazel! Stay away from those mercenaries, baby!
I wasn't talking about the mercanaries...edit... I spelled mercenaries wrong... ooops. But I'm leaving it for posterity, because now I have an image of a small yellow bird with a fish tail...
Hey don't beat yourself up. I spelt it wrong too.
Tim wrote: "Hmmm. What I love most about the Brits is your sense of humour. But that one went over my head, CS.So you also went to Catholic schools? Can you honestly say you never had any feelings of guilt a..."
The only redeeming feature of my experience of the Catholic Church, looking back, was they at least instilled a sense of social justice in us
I agree with that and for me it did more good than harm. Yes we were told that if we did wrong it was a sin and that there was a hell. But we always had the 'get out of jail free card', we could go to confession on a Saturday and with a few Hail Mary’s the sin was rubbed out.
It did instil a sort of discipline for later on in life, I think the army does a similar sort of thing.
I am able to keep the best bits of my religion and mix it with science and I think I have the best of both worlds.
Maybe the Catholic religion is stricter in some countries. The UK is not a Catholic country.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Because I was never brainwashed. And because I was never brainwashed it can not be a result of anything. "The proof that you weren't brainwashed is that you don't think you were brainw..."
Oh, I have read it and re read and I still don't understand what you want me to answer.
How do I know if I was brainwashed if I don't know I was brain washed?
It's a bit like this new TV programme I am watching 'Awake'. The cop does not know if his wife or his son were killed in a car crash.
Sometime he is with his wife and at other times he is with his son. He does not know which one is a dream.
cs wrote: "But we always had the 'get out of jail free card', we could go to confession on a Saturday and with a few Hail Mary’s the sin was rubbed out.."and we finally get a description of christian (or at least catholic) morality...
cs wrote: "It's a bit like this new TV programme I am watching 'Awake'. The cop does not know if his wife or his son were killed in a car crash"aww, shit, I meant to watch that. How many episodes have I missed? Will it be impossible to catch up now? Is it worth it?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Victor: A Novel Based on the Life of the Savage of Aveyron (other topics)The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
Why?"
That was so clever that I now believe in god."
I couldn't resist.
Have you any proof that god exists?