ask Dawkins and the like - there's no pill to cure it :

1. the failure of JC to arise from the dead on the appointed Sunday morning

2. a Xtian losing his religious grounding and rejecting the dogma in which s/he was raised

3. any attempt to subject a core myth of Xtianity to objective analysis [another myth - the Immaculate Conception - will be discussed on 1208]

4. anything charlie 445 posts today

Have a happy and healthy 0412, whatever body of organized ancient superstition commands your belief, and even if, like GaGam, none does.

wow, I feel sorry for you ,dude. You went through a lot of effort to talk about something that you don't believe in. It seems like you have it really bad when you can't even type the name Christ as a prefex to another word. What would you do if a friend was chrisening a new boat? Would it then be xening?
bty, He did rise from the dead, and conqued death for all of us sinners. Even you brother.

the last time I dropped in to abase myself via submission to this particular insane myth was in the waning days of the Johnson administration. So i hope you are not rushed for time.

Xending: I really like that.

Kennedy says there is no error, that cant be fixxed...UNLESS, you refuse too ....You know in the political activist world ...They call the moment of truth...''swallowing the red pill''

-and the thing about the truth, ITS SO CRAZY, it must be true- or the people tell you are nuts-->
The media played us like that too..So you wouldnt entertain foolishness, and they could get away with their wrong doings..Wellcome to the twi -=lite.. Once you know the truth,there is NO WAY OUT- WITH OUT A FIGHT..and you know that... xoxox

TJ, thanx for responding, but how does this relaate to Resurrection Dysfunction?

You wanted to attach this to one of the discussion threads you started Friday and/or Saturday?

2. a Xtian losing his religious grounding and rejecting the dogma in which s/he was raised

3. any attempt to subject a core myth of Xtianity to objective analysis [another myth - the Immaculate Conception - will be discussed on 1208]

Clinton Richard Dawkins is a British scientist type, and recently published a defense of atheism entitled "The God Delusion."  Several other authors in the same period, Christopher Hitchens beig one, have also contributed to a recent
boomlet in pro-atheist tracts.  Hence, Dawkins is mentioned in a post questioning the central tenet of the Xtian faith.

Something dncphil contributed to charlie445's discussion about Easter a few hreads below prompted it.



-- Modified on 4/12/2009 8:24:12 PM

"It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of DARWINIAN means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, that is a possibility, an intriguing possiblity. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence of that if you look at the details of biochemistry/molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But the higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point".

It seems Xiaoming Lover that apparently, your atheist hero is dismissing the idea of the big theory of creation and is in fact adovocating a creator but the only difference being; Dawkins thinks of the creator as an alien rather than GOD.

Do you agree?

-- Modified on 4/12/2009 7:59:06 PM

in all honesty, i really don't care where and how human life came into being, only where it might go.

Dawkins is no hero to me, but nor is he a villian. While I always look askance upon the religious, I never try to convince them they're wrong in holding their beliefs. [And there are remnants of my own RC upbringing which I will never shake off in my lifetime.] Telling me that God is the author of all creation is fine if that's what you believe.  Telling me that I have to accept your belief in preference to scientific explanation is not so fine.  But I don't argue this with any great intensity, since I'm not going to unconvert anyone.  And WTF, I could be wrong and they could be right.  

BTW, his alien panspermia/seeding conjecture is clearly labeled by Dawkins as a POSSIBILTY, unlike those who hold to a creationist viewpoint. By implication Dawkins is open to other interpretions for the origin of life on earth [but appaarently not the creationist interpretation]. Can you point to any creationists open to the possibilty of a non-deistic explanation for the origin of life on earth?

Here's a thought : any alien so powerful to be able to create life on earth, if not some other planets in the universe, would have powers and intelligence so far beyond our understanding that he would, in a figurative or colloquial sense, appear to be a god in our feeble eyes.  So you see, Dawkins, unwittingly, may be a faux-creationist or a theist-lite.

see all the agruments I hear of the non-existence of God. No matter who they are; be it Charlie445, you or Dawkins none can provide satisfactory answers to life's basic questions.

Yes, indeed my friend, knowing how life and yes human life began is important. If you do not know how life began, how do you expect to know your purpose in this life?... or as you say; "where it might go"?

purpose of life" seems to bea philosophic question, telelogical, but I understand where you're going with it.

like I said, no great intensity for me in this argument, as I will never convince anyone who believes otherwise.

to the contrary, i have beliefs, about which i feel free to entertain doubts

you seem to have little understanding of a position other than the one you hold. not at all profound, just interesting shading into sad

not matter. I do. I have no doubts in my beliefs, but you my friend, apparently do.

That's my point - those are your beliefs, about which you have no doubt. Good for you, but include me out.

Look up several entries.  i conceeded that you could be right, and I could be wong.  

I wonder, are you trying to convince yourself about the rightness of your beliefs about which you may have doubts, with your insistence that you harbor none?

Or is it "act as if ye have faith, and faith will be given."  Whatever, you are secure and content in your beliefs, so i can only say,and i say this rarely, God bless you.

there, there.

sorry, I do not live in Oakland