(March 10, 2009 at 10:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I know the Dawkins quote, and I think it supports my statements above EvF. Dawkins consistently quotes Catholic dogma some of which isn't accepted mainstream Christianity, which is not to say he is in error, just educated in a poor example of Christianity. Whilst I regard the Catholic Church Christian I'm also aware of their many errors/ anti biblical teachings/ practices. All Christian churches are united by their acceptance of a certain Nicaean creed.
So you think the Dawkins quote supports your assertion considering that it says that all existence claims are scientific claims so God is a scientific claim and since there is no evidence; then there is no reason to believe he exists?
How does there being no evidence of God when he DOES need evidence - because the above stated its a scientific claim - support what you say, considering you seem to believe the very opposite?: that God is not a scientific claim and that you don't require evidence. That's the bloody opposite statement - so how does that support your view?
Now if you mean it supports your view if you cherry-pick it carefully then I dunno. Kind of like with the bible eh?
Dawkins says God is a scientific claim and needs evidence. You seem to say that God is not a scientific claim and DOESN'T require evidence. And the Dawkins quote is supporting you?! Its in total conflict! Its opposite! Its a contradiction! So how on earth is that supporting you?!
Wtf?! ?
Bloody hell. If you can reconcile that and do that amount of a doublethink then no wonder you can reconcile the contradictions and horror in the bible. No wonder your views are "changeable" its blatant cherry-picking it seems to me at least!
EvF
