You had me at fire breathing dragons...

Once you've been through Art School, everything is a phallic symbol!

>> ^ant:
>> ^Sagemind:
I'm sorry, but that totally looks like an erect penis - I'm just sayin"

Sicko.

>> ^Sagemind:
I'm sorry, but that totally looks like an erect penis - I'm just sayin"


Sicko.

When Bill Clinton was in the alps, fighting grizzly bears
He used his magic fire breath, and saved the maidens fair!

So what would Bill Clinton do if he where here today,
I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two, that's what Bill Clinton'ed do.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

One thing that jumps out at me here in your comment is the line The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way...
Wouldn't you believe that somebody who believed in Zeus was crazy? How about somebody who believed in fire breathing dragons? Unicorns? If you met anybody who believed in these things you'd think that there's something very very wrong with them. What makes Christianity so different? The amount of people that believe it? Does that make it more valid? You know up to a certain point, everybody in the world thought the earth was fucking flat? Does that make it true, too?
Now that we have things to explain what we once filed under "god's doing" why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?


Perhaps the way Christianity threats the existence of god is ridiculous. But that means Christianity is ridiculous in the way it addresses the question. The question of the existence of a being of maximal greatness is separate. Why then do philosophers bother to bring arguments for and against its existence? where is the philosophical argument saying:

Belief in Zeus is silly
Therefore belief in the christian god is silly too

'why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?' because they are taught as children, and many don't bother to question, and they certainly wont start questioning much if the opposite side simply says: you are being ridiculous. Saying that does not help either cause.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

One thing that jumps out at me here in your comment is the line The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way...

Wouldn't you believe that somebody who believed in Zeus was crazy? How about somebody who believed in fire breathing dragons? Unicorns? If you met anybody who believed in these things you'd think that there's something very very wrong with them. What makes Christianity so different? The amount of people that believe it? Does that make it more valid? You know up to a certain point, everybody in the world thought the earth was fucking flat? Does that make it true, too?

Now that we have things to explain what we once filed under "god's doing" why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?

Additional safety notices concerning the corn starch fire breathing:
make sure you don't get any of the corn starch into your lungs..blow in a 60-80 degrees angle..first practice with water..and before fire breathing check the wind conditions by looking at how your torch flame moves.


>> ^Eklek

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Hydrogen atoms are not "creators" or Gods in any reasonable sense of the words. Therefore, on some level, anything that fit the description "god" has to be by definition, complex.

That does not follow.

To simply reply "no, no, god is SIMPLE, you see" isnt an argument, unless you can provide a convincing argument to support that, at the very LEAST. its like the kid who says he has fire-breathing dragons in his house, and when confronted comes up with all sorts of excuses. ie: "they are only visible to me", "they dont always spew fire" and "they are really, really quiet" Whats left isnt much of a fire-breathing dragon at all, and it boils down to imagination and wishful thinking.


You mean like the kinds advanced by Thomas Aquinas?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article7

The theological literature on divine simplicity is quite diverse, however, and the arguments for and against it are not exhausted by a single article from the Summa Theologica. One could bring up Saint Augustine's defense of the idea from the viewpoint of a Christian Platonism.

The doctrine of divine simplicity long predates Dawkins' argument (which is the only one of its kind that I am aware of, by the by). To advance it as a serious attack on theism betrays ignorance of the idea he's trying to attack. If you don't know what theologians mean by the word "God," you're going to have difficulty, as Dawkins does, raising an argument that does not involve a straw man fallacy.

You seem to characterize the theist response to Dawkins as some kind of ad hoc excuse for theistic belief. The fact is, however, that the response follows straightforwardly from the very theistic belief Dawkins attempts to criticize.



And finally, as I said earlier, even if it's true that God cannot be simple, a maximally complex God defeats Dawkins' argument just the same as a maximally simple God does. Unfortunately for Dawkins, the idea of a maximally complex God is one of the most popular alternatives to divine simplicity.

Dawkins says that God must be complex because he otherwise could not have created a complex world. I was calling that assumption into question;there is little reason to think it would be true of God, and numerous reasons (as many theologians have argued) to think that it's false

Thats what I tried explaining, if the word "God" is to have any meaning, he/she/it has to be in the form of some creator, unless you define god as hydrogen and helium atoms plus 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution.. Hydrogen atoms are not "creators" or Gods in any reasonable sense of the words. Therefore, on some level, anything that fit the description "god" has to be by definition, complex. To simply reply "no, no, god is SIMPLE, you see" isnt an argument, unless you can provide a convincing argument to support that, at the very LEAST. its like the kid who says he has fire-breathing dragons in his house, and when confronted comes up with all sorts of excuses. ie: "they are only visible to me", "they dont always spew fire" and "they are really, really quiet" Whats left isnt much of a fire-breathing dragon at all, and it boils down to imagination and wishful thinking.

To me, it is much more likely that the field of theology is basically the equalent of painting yourself into a corner, you start of by assuming God does exist, and thus conclusions like "there are numerous reasons(..) to think that [a complex God is] false. " ultimately pop up. Had they started with an open mind, it would be obvious that if the complex god is a mistake, its probably all a mistake. Of course, they wouldnt be theologians then..

As Carl Sagan put it: "It is far better to grasp the world as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however reassuring."

Your fire breath came in handy:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~vaintrob/katya/100candles.jpg
Mmmm.. nice cake:)

You can do it. Use the Force.

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Too funny. Not sure how the fire breathing will work through the mask though

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I was bored:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j24/neptunetitan/Darth_Zifnab.png

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j24/neptunetitan/Darth_Zifnab_sky.png

Too funny. Not sure how the fire breathing will work through the mask though

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I was bored:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j24/neptunetitan/Darth_Zifnab.png

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j24/neptunetitan/Darth_Zifnab_sky.png

Hmmmm . . . ‘Sure are a bunch of folks obsessed with rank around here. Need I remind you of another definition of “rank” which reads “offensive in odor."

*sprays Lysol, one can in each hand*

Now I turn to my copy of Dr. Ernest Drake’s Dragonology: the Complete Book of Dragons. I found a map of the world that identifies the various dragon and serpent species and their lands of origin. Focusing on North America I found the American ampithere (Draco americanus tex). This particular species is from the prairie and steppe regions of the continent. It is typically covered in green fur, has no legs and has moth-like wings. It hunts buffalo and other large mammals. A full grown adult is typically 45 feet long and five to ten feet high. It will attack with flaming breath, tail lashing and constriction. The expected lifespan of this kind of dragon is 250 years.


Now I will focus upon our fire-breathing dragon-avatared sifter Zifnab. Apparently he’s only given us part of his sordid story. Several of his disgruntled royal servants have come forth since a “flame ‘n’ tell” book project has promised large sums of money. The book is due out this fall.

Zifnab’s personal chef has shed some light on Zifnab’s fixation with pepper. Unfortunately for the chef, all dishes become blackened at the royal dinner table. This most probably explains Zifnab’s reluctance to consume his ice cream turned soup. Sometimes the chef will cater to Zifnab’s love of strawberries by making Strawberries Flambé.

His personal valet has yet to grow back his eyebrows. According to the valet, Zifnab’s current baldness is the result of a recent hay fever attack. The royal tailor has given up on creating colorful royal vestments. Instead he simply sticks to black materials so that scorched spots are not as noticeable.

One anonymous source did send me a YouTube video to explain the pelt known as Fred. This individual told me that I would understand Fred’s fate better once I had watched it.

The fire department no longer responds to emergency calls from Zifnab’s castle.

Thus I will conclude here. I wouldn’t want this to just DRAG ON . . .

I don't understand how some could call Dawkins "arrogant". Perhaps a misinterpretation on the part of the persecutees? When Dawkins is anything resembling "arrogant" it's usually very tongue-in-cheek, highbrow, sometimes lowbrow banter on the order of Monty Python's Life of Brian. It's hard to be constantly serious when you're dealing with people whose beliefs resemble other less savory beliefs in faeries, boogie monsters, and mogwai.

Of course, this flies right over most of their heads and thus Dawkins gets deemed to be this inhumane, fire-breathing-atheist-dickhead. Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me (one of them damn, dirty atheists) for pointing out the truth, Princess!

Edit: And wouldn't being merely one of God's omnipotent farts be pretty good in their book?

I try to have an open mind about these things, but aside from the accusation of "shadow government" which you could level at any one of these so-called "think tanks", I'm not sure what's so wrong about participating in an international governmental body.

I'm also curious, is Bush part of CFR?

How about European nations, are they?

Are the U.N., WTO, ICC, all hotbeds of CFR activity?

My problem with this whole line of thinking is that while Bill Clinton and Bush agree on the necessity of NAFTA, they disagree on the way they respond to the UN, WTO, and ICC. Bill Clinton, and Bush 41 liked 'em, Bush 43 despises them. McCain talks pie in the sky about replacing them with new organizations with more limited membership, and a more NATO-like bent. Long story short, if all these guys are all marching to CFR's orders, why have their policies toward international governing bodies differed?

Personally, I see changing NAFTA into NAU as a good thing, since it'd temper some of that capitalistic exploitation with a regulatory body that would make the playing field equal between all three countries, like with the EU. I wouldn't mind changing from the dollar to an "Amero" if it's a strong currency, especially if the dollar is gonna keep racing for parity with the Yen.

I hear Hillary Clinton and Obama making minor noises about "renegotiating" NAFTA to move slightly in this direction (and that's probably an exaggeration at that), but McCain says it's fine as is, and should just be expanded to Central America, too.

I may be a fire-breathing liberal, but free trade should be the policy, so long as there are protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. Protectionism ultimately stifles the economy to everyone's detriment, even if in the short term it can be beneficial.

Rage against the machine music notwithstanding, I don't see anything sinister about a group that sees a global governing body as being a necessity for globalization to work properly. I think we're being hit now by the problems of not doing that while still happily globalizing away (e.g. lead paint in toys, jobs moving overseas, stagnant/shrinking wages, etc.).

AIPAC or PNAC on the other hand, those guys are just out to screw with us.