Who come first the theist or the atheist

[ZAV]

The wiki page did not counter my claim. I said that Elohim can be either plural or single, and that the verb determines it. So did thw quote from Wiki you presented. How is that a contradiction?

 

[kx000]

Militaristic atheist? Must be a hell of a weak army.

 

[wynn]

probably a good example of neti neti struggling to affirm positive qualities

Yes, it is the usual problem that comes with (strong) atheism.

 

[spidergoat]

Good example how if one messes up at the point of theory there is no question of practical application (much less evidence)

Correct. God is simply a nonsensical proposition for which there can be no evidence. You might as well look for an invisible pink unicorn.

He doesn't even stop to ask himself whether empiricism is the best tool for the job.

And why would he? Empiricism is for finding things that are real. If you want to find an invisible pink unicorn, your imagination is the best tool.

But anyways, I think you have just recanted on your position that atheism is not a faith because it is open to the possibility of evidence to the contrary.

It's still open to evidence of things that do effect our natural, measurable, physical, everything. I trust in the material world, but do not have an absolute faith in it. Empiricism leaves room to debunk itself.

 

[universaldistress]

The wiki page did not counter my claim. I said that Elohim can be either plural or single, and that the verb determines it. So did thw quote from Wiki you presented. How is that a contradiction?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were saying "elohim" is always singular. So what is the specific passage we are referring to?

What is your take on the following:

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

כו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.

I believe the following means "god", but also means "elohim":
אֱלֹהִים

So within the context of this passage is "elohim" singular or plural? Many would say that use of "us" and suchlike is evidence of polytheism, pointing toward plurality of power/power of god/s. Can you counter that? or indeed any of the other content within the article by Abrams?

Even without this the Bible is clearly a polytheist text. Father, son and holy spirit. Not to mention catholic tendency to pray to Mary as if she were a god too. Polytheism if I ever saw it.

It's obviously not as cut and dry as you state, otherwise why the forthcoming contention/alternative-interpretation on the subject?

 

[ZAV]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were saying "elohim" is always singular. So what is the specific passage we are referring to?

What is your take on the following:



כו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.

I believe the following means "god", but also means "elohim":
אֱלֹהִים[/quot5e]


Read the thread, I already covered this. Genesis 1 can’t be Polytheistic because it uses bara and not baro as the verb for Elohim. The “Us” is usually understood as the Angels in Judaism, and in some Christian commentaries, and as the trinity in other Christian commentaries. The passage is not clear, but it is clearer that Elohim is itself Singular.

So within the context of this passage is "elohim" singular or plural? Many would say that use of "us" and suchlike is evidence of polytheism, pointing toward plurality of power/power of god/s. Can you counter that? or indeed any of the other content within the article by Abrams?

The counter is the same. You can’t have a polytheistic implication in a singular verse and expect that to be final. The text overall reads Elohim as singular, and with no evidence of other elohim about, must be taken as a singular god.

Even without this the Bible is clearly a polytheist text. Father, son and holy spirit.

I always hated when this happens. I still do. Let me explain.

1: Even if you are right and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost make a Polytheistic group of gods, that is not what “the Bible” says, that’s what some books in the New Testament say at best. One of the biggest problems in the net discussions is treating the Bible as a singular comprehensive work, when its actually several separate Volumes. Heck, the New testament can outright accept the Greek Pantheon of Olympus, complete with Zeus, and just say the God of Israel is on top of it all, and that would still not impact the book of Genesis written Hundreds of years later.


You can’t prove the Author of Genesis 1 was Polytheistic just because the New testament writers were. Just like you can’t prove the New Testament writers were Polytheistic just because Genesis is. ( this is of corus4 for the sake of argument.)


The works are not the same thing and it’s a mistake to try to study them as if they were. While related, and while one does influence the other, they are still utterly distinct.


2: The idea that the Trinity is Polytheism is an old complaint but one that simply put rests on ignorance of Christian Theology. While the Standard belief in the Trinity sees each member as a distinct person, they are also all of one essence and one being. Christianity is thus Monotheistic since each person in the Trinity is actually just a different facet of the same being. So, Christianity is not really Polytheistic either and citing the Trinity is not valid to prove that it is.

Not to mention catholic tendency to pray to Mary as if she were a god too. Polytheism if I ever saw it.

Except they don’t pray to her as if she is a god(dess). Not that it matters as it still has nothing to do with the actual original point about Genesis/The Bible.

But to explain as its been broached, in short, My be best.


In Catholic Theology, the Saints are in heaven in glorified and perfected Bodies and have similar abilities as the Angels. They can thus do far more than their older mortal bodies could. Mary is therefore still Alive and well, as are all the other Saints. What’s more, she was given one of the top Honours in Heaven and the Highest Honour in all Humanity Which is why I think the accusations of Misogamy against the Catholic Church are also faulty. Mary’s status is as one of the most important persons around, but she’s still no where near as powerful as God and is not a god herself. Her ability to intervene is mainly the same as someone on Earth who is Righteous. Mary can ask God to help you. She can only intercede via prayer for you. It’s only because of her Righteousness that she has God’s rapt attention. She is not in herself powerful.

It's obviously not as cut and dry as you state, otherwise why the forthcoming contention/alternative-interpretation on the subject?

Actually most of the conversation has been AID avoiding a direct answer. Its also faulty logic to assume that if something is cut and dry then no one could argue it. If this were the case, then what do I make of those who still insist that Obama was born in Kenya even after he revealed his Long Form Birth certificate? I’m sorry but, simply because someone persists in arguing something doesn’t mean the solution is not Simple.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@ZAV

I saw my name taken in vain in scattered posts you’d made, so came to say:

YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ YAZ…..oke:

Hopefully that won’t trigger a tsunami or crash the stock market again.

I’ve got a tow rope if you need help getting out of the semantic quagmire you’re bogged down in. :itold:

Grab ahold of any of the Bronze Age artifacts lashed on to the bumper of your getaway car and pull and you’ll be free :bravo: before you can say “monotheism”.

My curio shop shelves were already loaded down, and now there’s a delivery van here unloading 1,000 Asherah figurines. Unless you propose that these were archetypal Barbie dolls, I’m going with the conventional wisdom that says they exemplify polytheistic expression by Hebrews.

For centuries the Abrahamic religions generally were built up on foundations of the Genesis myth, attributing pantheism and animism to the wayward inventions of reprobates, after humans had purportedly already been in contact with their putative one true God. That foundation has crumbled due to the soft ground of its own quagmire. And apologists who go in to shore it up with pilings only find more artifacts, bringing the old traditions down even harder. Talk about archaeological ruins.

If you want to dwell on Hebrew--since we are exploring beginnings--you at least should be tracing paleo-Hebrew to its Phoenician roots. If you like, there’s a manuscript I can get you from the collection at Qumran. Really, though, I have such a surplus in stock, and you seem so empty-handed: go ahead and take one of the simulated vellum souvenirs. Use them to protect your fine traditional furniture from getting scratched by the Asherah statuettes you’ll want to take home later, to offset all that Victorian décor and liven up the hearth a bit.

All your ruminations on Bible text won’t yield any artifacts earlier than Qumran anyway so you can just reshelve all the books you were rummaging through on Aisle 1, if you don’t mind.

So: what have you got to trade for…Tiamat? She’s one ugly beastie, but, hey, that’s our mom, too, so show a little respect and bring her a fitting gift. How about some pearl of lore from your reliquary of goodies from ancient mythology, maybe even earlier? Something befitting a ferocious sea-monster /slash/ she-monster whose sushi-fied body was strewn across the sky to light the Miky Way. Go for it bard, play us a tune.

 

[ZAV]

AID- Childish outbursts do nto prove you are intellectually superior. Your argument about Elohim was wrong. The rest will be delt with later.

 

[Aqueous Id]

AID- Childish outbursts do nto prove you are intellectually superior. Your argument about Elohim was wrong. The rest will be delt with later.

Whatever do you mean oh Great Patronizing One.

If it means I am supposed to emulate you, then no, I will not put the paddles to your dead argument. Call the coroner, get grief counseling, and try to let go. :bawl:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

The atheists came first. The OP has been captured and our invisible flag of nothingness waves proudly on yon hill. :cheers:

Since there is no physical evidence presented by the Tories that even remotely points to the origins of humankind expressing a monotheistic worldview, we are again left to wonder: what was all the blunderbuss about? :shrug:

Next!

 

[kx000]

How can one have FAITH that God does NOT exist? He is God, he can be there right in front of your face and you wouldn't know it. Atheisim is ignorance. Most atheist are scientist, and philosophers. By nature God is perfect, and created everything; nature, time, self, etc. So we can not know of him if He DOES NOT want us to know of him. The question is, does God not want us to know that he exist? I believe that God wants us to have faith in him, not know of him as a test to good and evil.

 

[Aqueous Id]

How can one have FAITH that God does NOT exist?

That would indeed seem odd. If the question is sincere, then I can only conclude that your ability to reason through this is impaired by a disconnect between your own beliefs and the conversation you are exploring.

Atheism is the belief that reality is completely defined by nature, and the disbelief in any supernatural sentient being that rules over it. In other words, there are mysteries that remain to be explained, but atheists do not attribute these to any God.

Theism is the disbelief that reality is completely defined by nature, and the belief in some supernatural sentient being that rules over it. In other words, there are no mysteries that remain to be explained, because theists attribute these to some God.

Beyond this are variations such as polytheism, pantheism, animism, the henotheism we mention particularly in the history of Judaism, and other forms of mystery attribution such as shamanism, animal worship and others normally associated with the occult.

So it is not a FAITH in God's NONexistence, as you put it, but a belief that, lacking evidence of a supernatural sentience, it merely does not exist.

That may be difficult for you comprehend since you are looking at the atheist through the lens of your own disbelief (that nature runs itself). In this regard, the atheist tends to think of you as the one who is disavowing something reasonably logical about reality.

He is God

But it is not logical to the atheist that a supernatural sentience would possess a sexual identity, since we know from studying nature alone that this is a biological feature associated with animal reproduction. Furthermore you are requiring the supernatural sentience to possess an anthropomorphic (human-like) persona, which requires an unusual digression in logic, for example, maleness is generally associated with the male hormone testosterone. What could that possibly have to do with the ruler of the universe? It's hard enough for the atheist to find a cause or evidence for God, so this is quite a bit harder to accept.

he can be there right in front of your face and you wouldn't know it.

But you believe he is supernatural, so he is not physically present. You don't know of his presence, you just feel very strongly about it. You have no physical evidence of his presence, obviously, it's your logic dictating that he is present, otherwise some other belief you have would break down.

I understand that. That's one of the main reasons atheists cannot cannot accept your belief. It requires too much digression from logic.

Atheisim is ignorance.

What is the atheist ignoring? Untestable claims? That is not the definition of ignorance, just common sense.

Historically, theists have famously ignored some of the best evidence of experts, believing instead that the world was flat, the center of he universe, and that all the species were created in seven days. This would better fit the definition of ignorance.

Most atheist are scientist, and philosophers.

I'm not sure about that, but without a doubt, a training in science or philosophy will develop one's ability to reason and test inferences. To that extent, these folks would tend to answer their own questions about nature, so that the supernatural cause would tend to disappear from their world view.

By nature God is perfect, and created everything; nature, time, self, etc.

I think atheists generally would agree that this appears to be a common belief among theists, but that it exceeds all of the best evidence available, and so this can be attributed to superstition.

So we can not know of him if He DOES NOT want us to know of him.

This hide-and-seek game attributes some of the worst of human qualities to this highest of idealized entities. So it seems absurd to an atheist.

The question is, does God not want us to know that he exist?

Interesting twist you put on this. Why would the perfect entity engage in what an atheist might call a childish game? The reasoning that concludes this has again digressed so far from logic that atheists reject it as unreasonable.

I believe that God wants us to have faith in him, not know of him as a test to good and evil.

Yes and atheists simply don't believe in that.

So now you see that the atheist doesn't necessarily come after the theist. The paleolithic man that began worshiping the gods who send lightning lived a long time before the idea of this personal God ever arose.

 

[kx000]

Atheism is the belief that reality is completely defined by nature, and the disbelief in any supernatural sentient being that rules over it. In other words, there are mysteries that remain to be explained, but atheists do not attribute these to any God.

Unless, of course God created nature as well. God IS natural.

Theism is the disbelief that reality is completely defined by nature,

We have no idea what reality is. Yes, our world is defined by nature because God let nature take its course, because he too believes in nature.

and the belief in some supernatural sentient being that rules over it. In other words, there are no mysteries that remain to be explained, because theists attribute these to some God.

Well, everything is attributed to God. But we did it, and we discovered it in this world, doesn't mean God isn't watching.

So it is not a FAITH in God's NONexistence, as you put it, but a belief that, lacking evidence of a supernatural sentience, it merely does not exist.

How do you know the evidence is lacking? I think we all carry the evidence in our face, one just needs to understand what they are looking at. We are dealing with God, nothing like anything to happen before, or anything that will happen hereafter can compare to him. He can bend a atom, he's God.

That may be difficult for you comprehend since you are looking at the atheist through the lens of your own disbelief (that nature runs itself). In this regard, the atheist tends to think of you as the one who is disavowing something reasonably logical about reality.

I think you are illogical to dis-believe in God for any reason, you have never spoken to him, but I claim to, and I claim to be a honest man.

But it is not logical to the atheist that a supernatural sentience would possess a sexual identity, since we know from studying nature alone that this is a biological feature associated with animal reproduction.

Got it covered:
Me: Are you man or woman?
YHWH: I identify more as a male.

Furthermore you are requiring the supernatural sentience to possess an anthropomorphic (human-like) persona,

Or does mankind display a YHWH-like persona?

which requires an unusual digression in logic, for example, maleness is generally associated with the male hormone testosterone. What could that possibly have to do with the ruler of the universe?

YHWH does not have sexuality, there isn't anything for him to bilogicaly reproduce with to make a little YHWH jr. He identifies as a male because of his personality, which is very passive, and very faithful.

It's hard enough for the atheist to find a cause or evidence for God, so this is quite a bit harder to accept.

Cause? YHWH caused the universe...

But you believe he is supernatural,

No I believe he is the most natural thing in the universe.

so he is not physically present. You don't know of his presence, you just feel very strongly about it.

I talk to him every day.

You have no physical evidence of his presence, obviously, it's your logic dictating that he is present, otherwise some other belief you have would break down.

HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE FOUND! If he is known to man then everything he has worked for goes out the window.

What is the atheist ignoring? Untestable claims? That is not the definition of ignorance, just common sense.

They are ignoring the fact that they can't disprove God's existence, they can only prove that we can not see him above us. I claim I talk to him every day, and in fact im looking at him right now, you just have to know what he looks like.

Historically, theists have famously ignored some of the best evidence of experts, believing instead that the world was flat, the center of he universe, and that all the species were created in seven days. This would better fit the definition of ignorance.

Your ignorant to the fact that if I existed then I would have been on team science, not ignorance. Just because most people, atheist, and theist alike are retarded does not mean that God does not exist.

I'm not sure about that, but without a doubt, a training in science or philosophy will develop one's ability to reason and test inferences. To that extent, these folks would tend to answer their own questions about nature, so that the supernatural cause would tend to disappear from their world view.

What is supernatural? Shooting fireballs out your ass, apparently. However, what if we have always been able to shoot ass fire, and we just didn't know how to? Then what? It becomes natural. Trust me, God is not supernatural, we are lacking.

This hide-and-seek game attributes some of the worst of human qualities to this highest of idealized entities. So it seems absurd to an atheist.

He's not hiding, we just don't have the ability to perceive him. I talk to him every day. Why does he not show himself? Well, then everyone see's him and everyone plays ass kiss even the rapist and murderers so they can exist for an eternity. This would result in imperfection for the rest of existence in God's eyes, allowing the natural murderers and liars into Heaven.
Interesting twist you put on this. Why would the perfect entity engage in what an atheist might call a childish game? The reasoning that concludes this has again digressed so far from logic that atheists reject it as unreasonable.

So now you see that the atheist doesn't necessarily come after the theist. The paleolithic man that began worshiping the gods who send lightning lived a long time before the idea of this personal God ever arose.

Im sorry, but atheism is ignorance, I have clearly showed why. Main point is He is God, he can do what he wants when ever he wants and it would be moral, and natural because it is theoretically his creation, everything. Luckily we inherit our morality from him.

 

[Aqueous Id]

In order for anyone to understand you, they either need to recognize the words you use because they are commonly understood and they reasonably match the dictionary, or, if you have your own terminology, then you would need to define the terms first, before you can hope to be understood.


For example:

God IS natural.

Maybe this statement alone best defines the difference between your ideas of God and the ideas most commonly held. For example, if I go to the dictionary:

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

The word "God" is commonly understood to refer to a supernatural being. So by changing that definition, you cut the cord between yourself and any other person trying to understand you.

This is why I am having difficulty understanding you. You seem to be speaking a foreign language. The words that you write are recognizable, but I do not recognize the special definitions you have decided to give them.

You might as well be speaking Greek.

 

[kx000]

God is natural. You do know what the world natural means, right?

 

[Aqueous Id]

God is natural. You do know what the world natural means, right?

Natural: produced in and brought about by nature; conforming to the laws of nature; physical...

Supernatural: being beyond or exceeding the powers or laws of nature; of or pertaining to that which is above or beyond nature.

How do you expect to be understood if you arbitrarily swap one word for another?

If you say God is natural, then God is a person (you?), who lives and dies as a human, with no spirit or afterlife, just decomposing in the soil, and with no role in Creation or control over anything. Is that your definition, if so, how have you come to determine this?

No one could possibly guess this is your meaning unless you establish how your language stands apart from common speech.

 

[kx000]

No, sorry you are dead wrong my friend. GOD IS NATURE. Have you discovered all the knowledge in the world? How can you possibly define what is natural when we can discover shooting thunderbolts out of your shoes was completely natural all along. If God exist then he is nature, because he discovered it in the first place.

Explain in vivid detail why humans are natural, but a god, or the God would not be a natural occurence? If anything, humans aren't part of nature. Where oh where did we find a neuclear missile tree?

 

[river]

No, sorry you are dead wrong my friend. GOD IS NATURE. Have you discovered all the knowledge in the world? How can you possibly define what is natural when we can discover shooting thunderbolts out of your shoes was completely natural all along. If God exist then he is nature, because he discovered it in the first place. Explain in vivid detail why humans are natural, but a god, or the God would not be a natural occurence?

If anything, humans aren't part of nature. Where oh where did we find a neuclear missile tree?

from god

 

[universaldistress]

Hi ZAV

I have to say I was quite impressed with your POV and demeanour in post #406. Thanks for the reply, and taking your time to explain some of the intricacies of christian belief; I have to admit I know little on this and was wholly out of my league there.

But it was interesting nevertheless. I suppose, if christians want to state that their belief is monotheistic then that's their perogative.

So are you a theist? and if so what is your faith?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

How can one have FAITH that God does NOT exist? He is God, he can be there right in front of your face and you wouldn't know it. Atheisim is ignorance. Most atheist are scientist, and philosophers. By nature God is perfect, and created everything; nature, time, self, etc. So we can not know of him if He DOES NOT want us to know of him. The question is, does God not want us to know that he exist? I believe that God wants us to have faith in him, not know of him as a test to good and evil.

One could replace "God" with any name or any noun and that argument would have the same effect: None.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not want us to know that he exists so he does not reveal himself to us. But I am special so he has revealed himself to me. Therefore you must all trust me and believe me when I assure you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and wonderful and has fantastic plans for all of us. Please just have faith.​

Unless, of course God created nature as well. God IS natural.

The usual way of stating it is that God is part of the universe and God created the universe, but your statement that God is part of nature and God created nature is equivalent.

This is the Fallacy of Recursion: If God created nature and God is part of nature, then God must have created himself. This is logically impossible, therefore your argument is fallacious. In fact if you had ever set foot in a university and taken Logic 101A you would have learned this within the first few weeks. Then you could have saved yourself the embarrassment being caught in a BONEHEAD FALLACY.

I think you are illogical to dis-believe in God for any reason, you have never spoken to him, but I claim to, and I claim to be a honest man.

One of the cornerstones of science is the Rule of Laplace:

Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.​

You have no evidence at all! You claim that God talked to you, and your so-called "evidence" is merely another claim: that you are an honest man. Since the existence of an invisible supernatural universe, from which fantastic creatures (such as God) and other forces whimsically (and often cruelly) interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, purports to falsify ALL OF SCIENCE (which is based on the premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior), your assertion is the most extraordinary that can be presented. Therefore you are obligated to provide us with some pretty damn good evidence.

You have not done so. You are in the same category as a child who insists that Santa Claus exists because she wrote him a letter and he delivered all the presents she asked for, or that the Tooth Fairy exists because she put a tooth under her pillow and there was a dollar bill there in the morning. This category is populated by people who have not earned our respect. You have already been given more respect than you deserve, by members actually taking the time and trouble to respond to your little fantasy.

HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE FOUND! If he is known to man then everything he has worked for goes out the window.

Don't they say the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I know for sure that Leprechauns don't want to be found, it's clearly stated in Irish mythology. That's why nobody has ever seen one.

They are ignoring the fact that they can't disprove God's existence, they can only prove that we can not see him above us.

There has to be some evidence for a claim, or else no one is obliged to disprove it. Otherwise all the scarce resources of science would be dissipated in disproving every crackpot theory. This is summed up in the scientific principleL

It is not necessary to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the positive.​

I claim I talk to him every day, and in fact im looking at him right now, you just have to know what he looks like.

And what reason do we have to believe you? You could tell us there is a Klingon war base on one of Saturn's moons and they are planning to invade earth and enslave us all, and only you know this because they accidentally directed one of their transmissions to your cellphone. Should we trust you about that to? It is FAR MORE LIKELY than the existence of God. At least it does not require us to throw out everything that makes up the scientific method, from Occam and Newton to Einstein and Hawking.

Just because most people, atheist, and theist alike are retarded . . . .

This is an ad hominem attack. Not only is it yet another Logical Fallacy that you would know about if you had a decent education, it is also extremely rude. Once you insult the people you are talking to, they will stop listening.

Im sorry, but atheism is ignorance, I have clearly showed why.

You haven't shown dick. (You also can't write decent English, which doesn't improve your standing here at all. It's "I have shown," not "I have showed." Now I'm wondering if you even graduated from high school.)

• You have zero evidence. All of your evidence is "I saw this..." or "I talked to that."
• That wouldn't get you very far in court, and it won't get you anywhere in science. Evidence has to be peer-reviewed. We have to be able to recreate it to make sure you're telling the truth.

Main point is He is God, he can do what he wants when ever he wants and it would be moral, and natural because it is theoretically his creation, everything. Luckily we inherit our morality from him.

That is an assertion, and an extraordinary one at that. Every assertion must be supported by evidence, and you have none. Every extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence, and your evidence is just the opposite: The ridiculous fantasies of a child.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (etc.)

I thought maybe something else was going on with Knowledge91, so I just kept tugging on the line, thinking the reel would play out. But it just kept going.

I'm sure you've been told this before, but you project the persona of someone we'd like to see do a screenplay. You have a way of grabbing one's attention, dropping lots of interesting ideas, and almost always mixing teaching moments with humor sure to evoke at least a chortle (in this case falling over belly aching peals of deserved laughter). I just thought I would give credit where credit is due. (translation: That is one of BADDEST ASS posts I have ever read! ~Talk about grammar violations ~ )

...meanwhile...back at the thread:...<<straightens tie, blots brow>>....

...Yes, Mr. Fraggle Rocker, I concur. The subject fails on all counts of fallacy. I still maintain that primitive people, desiring to explain the natural phenomena for which they had no science, invented religion. It fundamentally arises out of superstition, the disconnect between primitive observation and the hidden natural causes.

/snort/