BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:21 AM

hi smokey-seems i have limitations in science and you in theology.i think dawkins makes a similar argument.he either lacks understanding on that subject or perhaps ignores it.

the creator God described in the bible is eternal so no one made him.being all powerful he spoke creation into being.i am quite aware that this is a non provable doctrine scientifically but perfectly reasonable if the existence of God is at all allowed.evolution certainly has no proven answer either.as i posted earlier,everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause.that cause would need to be spirit/supernatural or would itself need creating,thus pushing the problem further back and unresolved
i am aware that atheists dismiss this as "god of the gaps"but they have nothing better to offer.

i should mention that i am not defending the pope.i am not qualified on that subject,though you may well be right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:08 PM

i fail to see that believing in a creator God can be delusional when atheists maintain that matter and life happened by itself.

I don't think that is actually claimed, Pete, it's just not known, but consider this: If nothing can 'happen by itself' and God made the universe, what did he make it from, who made that, and who made God? As far as I can see, creationist theory gives rise to a lot more unanswered questions than that which is currently accepted by mainstream science.

As for the present Pope, there is no doubt whatsoever that he has been despicable in the past, that is a matter of record. True, he could now be a changed man, but for me his crimes are unforgiveable. There is no excuse for knowingly preventing the discovery and prevention of child abuse. At the very least he should be in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM

stringsinger-i dont think i claimed that dawkins attacked personalities.but since you mentioned it .im sure he has attacked the pope.there have been some bad popes but i dont know if the currant one is bad.
i fail to see that believing in a creator God can be delusional when atheists maintain that matter and life happened by itself.atheist delusion indeed!.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:49 AM

From the link above:

"Approximately 70% of Vietnam was Buddhist, however the under the rule of the French and Diem there was significant favoritism shown to Christian followers, particularly Catholics. Vietnamese were encouraged to convert in order to get jobs or avoid harassment from government officials. A well known Vietnamese proverb of the time was "Turn Catholic and have rice to eat." Oppressive laws were passed against non-Christian religious practices. Monks were sent into exile and those that attempted to practice their Buddhism in spite of laws against it were harassed and even killed. In 1963 American backed Vietnamese forces opened fire on South Vietnamese demonstrators that were demonstrating for religious freedom. Nine people were killed".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:47 AM

Can the Vietnam War be (also) seen as a Chriatian (RC) versus Buddhist religious war under France and US Kennedy?

Vietnam

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM

"stringsinger-are you claiming that dawkins gives a 2sided presentation that doesnt attack religion?sure did,nt look that way to me when i watched his series on UK tv."

Pete, I am claiming that Dawkins is far more sympathetic to religious delusion that you give him credit for. Have you read any of his books? He hasn't attacked anyone personally but
always confined his discussion to religion and not the religionists. This is intelligent conversation and not the ad-hominem crap that you find on Mudcat.

The argument is not whether people who practice religion are good or bad people. It's about religion itself and there is no 2 sides to delusion. It's crazy or it's not.

The reason it's deluded is that it is a system of practice that can claim no reality that can be proven but just an opinion that has been handed down from generation to generation like a disease which Dawkins refers to as a "meme". It's kind of like a computer virus that hits the net and is given the misnomer of "fact".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM

2100!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:10 PM

Well, now that I think about it, I'm one of those who hopes that if we point and laugh at the silly superstitions, maybe they will all go away... and I am serious about that hope.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:59 AM

>>Ever heard of bullying? <<

Until Steve Shaw, I've never heard it defended as serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:55 PM

Delusions in Pursuit of Theory

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:55 PM

Disrespect and taunting are very serious. Ever heard of bullying?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM

Pete I am not OK with it. I would like to know what serious purpose it served. I would like to see all of his snide remarks and silly nicknames explained in light of this odd odd statement that he made.

>>if you don't think this is serious discussion, why are you so deeply involved in it? Do you think that's a particularly sane approach, old bean??   Now don't go running away with the idea that I'm questioning your sanity (as you did mine). Heaven forfend! I just wondered, though, going from this interesting post of yours, whether you're questioning it yourself. <<


What is serious about taunting people? About disrespect? About degenerating a conversation into name calling?

Tell us, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM

...and don't call me Shirley!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 05:28 PM

jack-i seem to remember steves jibe was directed at me.just to say-im ok with it on my own behalf, though i would that some posters had been more respectful about my God at times.im sure im not the only one steve has been[shall we say]direct with!
hopefully we can get back to respectful debate/discussion.
i half heard a discussion programme on premier radio today[you,re unbelievable] and was struck by the total non aggression of the opposing participants.surely this is what this thread ought to be like.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 10:52 PM

Shaw, I said that you were insane to wind you up. Little did I know that you would be so easy to wind.

Are you trying to make be believe that I was right?

Certainly, it is astounding that you consider these threads a serious matter given your tone and what you have said.

What "serious" goal is accomplished by saying childish, silly, mean and rude things like "Your God didn't teach you how to spell?"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 08:22 PM

Gosh, I've been out a lot today and I've only just realised that Wacko Jacko is actually Nobody. I note that, in spite of his very numerous and contentious posts to these threads, he still denigrates others who post for taking the threads seriously. Again, he questions the sanity of those who, just like him, post to such threads. I'm trying to get my head round what this might actually say about Wacko. It isn't easy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 08:05 PM

BTW if you were to read the post in the context of those preceding it you might have a clue why it is there. You might not at least take it quite so personally. If you think back as to how Einstein has been used by your allies in these threads, you might also have an inkling.

also BTW, This is not a cross examination. You are not a prosecutor. Ask point blank all you want. I am not obliged to answer. Especially when being accused to denigrate etc.

Steve Shaw. Taking a discussion like this seriously is insane.

If anyone can enlighten me as to what this post actually means I'd be glad to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM

thank you for you explanation re-evolutionary theory.however i think i more or less already understood that much.it was not the question i originally asked.howbeit i suppose it may be too complex to answer on here.i shall just have to leave the question hanging.
ebbie-what do you mean re-see results of evolution every day.do you mean micro evolution?eg darwins finches developing diferently via natural selection to suit environs.no argument there,but they are still finches.no observed macro change.
john-of course creationists start with presuppositions.so do evolutionists.its the same data variously interpreted.
stringsinger-are you claiming that dawkins gives a 2sided presentation that doesnt attack religion?sure did,nt look that way to me when i watched his series on UK tv.
johnathan sarfati,s book is a answer to dawkins book.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:02 PM

1. I'm not taking it personally.

2. I'm not demanding anything; I'm just trying to get a fix on what you are saying so I can respond appropriately.

3. If I get to be the one who decides whether or not the quote you posted is relevant, I say it's not. So why did you post it?

4. I haven't used Einstein in this discussion.

5. I don't have allies in these discussions. There are some atheists and some believers. We're not a club.

6. If you are going to post comments about atheists in general with no indication that you are not talking about me personally, expect to get called on it.

7. Be easy, dude!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM

>>I just asked why you quoted them. If there wasn't any particular reason, fine, just say so. In most cases, when someone introduces concepts into a discussion it's because they think those concepts are pertinent to the discussion. If you want to post things that you think are meaningless to the discussion you should be prepared to get called on it.<<

you didn't ask, you demanded. You still are demanding. It is you that is saying that the quote is meaningless and not pertinent. I think it stands on its own and does not require a defense.

BTW if you were to read the post in the context of those preceding it you might have a clue why it is there. You might not at least take it quite so personally. If you think back as to how Einstein has been used by your allies in these threads, you might also have an inkling.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 01:21 PM

Jack, again and again and again and again, I never asked you to justify Einstein's words. I just asked why you quoted them. If there wasn't any particular reason, fine, just say so. In most cases, when someone introduces concepts into a discussion it's because they think those concepts are pertinent to the discussion. If you want to post things that you think are meaningless to the discussion you should be prepared to get called on it.

And yes, introducing the concept that atheists are bitter about being brought up in religion IS an attempt to discount the words of the people you are talking to. It's making judgments about their emotional state without having any actual information about it.

I know this isn't a cross examination. It's a discussion. I'm just asking you to pay attention to that fact, which, for me, includes meaning what you say and supporting your statements if they are shown to be off base.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 12:13 PM

Ebbie,

What you describe is entropy. In general all thinks go from a higher state of potential energy to a lower one and from more complex to less complex.

Think of the Biosphere of Earth as a complexity engine. The fuel is energy from the sun. Plants, animals and humans use this energy to grow and reproduce creating more complexity. Humans build things (like bicycles) which eventually decay. All this is due to the massive amounts of energy created by the entropy of the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:55 AM

You know, I have no argument with evolution as such; we see its results every day.

But here is a (simplistic) question I have never seen debated - this may be the perfect spot for it:

When a bicycle, say, rusts away into the ground, the rust does not rise up and become a building; a wheel that has lain there for 100 years has not become a wagon; a human skeleton does not, by itself, become more complex.

To me, it appears that everything becomes LESS complex but more basic. In what way does evolution accomplish the opposite?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM

BTW if you were to read the post in the context of those preceding it you might have a clue why it is there. You might not at least take it quite so personally. If you think back as to how Einstein has been used by your allies in these threads, you might also have an inkling.

also BTW, This is not a cross examination. You are not a prosecutor. Ask point blank all you want. I am not obliged to answer. Especially when being accused to denigrate etc.

Steve Shaw. Taking a discussion like this seriously is insane.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM

Whether I agreed with it or not, why on Earth should I be expected to defend Einstein? If you don't like what he said, if you know better than he, then disprove what he said. Or leave it as is. He said he knew professional Atheists. You said you don't. Leave it at that if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:39 AM

Oh, no, I love his atheism. It's his writing I can't stand.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:52 AM

I don't feel obligated or qualified to defend Einstein's words but thank you for thinking I know his thoughts better than you.

Jack, I'm not asking you to defend Einstein's words. I made that very clear. I'm asking you to defend your use of them in this discussion. If you don't agree with them, why post them?

I never had any idea that you know anything at all about Einstein's thoughts, nor did I say that. You are getting more and more into deciding that someone said something that they patently didn't say and then responding to them as if they actually said it. Get off it.

I'll try again:
You posted this quote from Einstein: the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth

Do you actually know anyone who fervently espouses atheism (and that doesn't include having a discussion about it on Mudcat) because they were traumatized by religious teaching as a child? Are there really any "professional atheists", and even if there are does anyone take them seriously?

It's perfectly OK to say, "I just found an interesting quote and posted it. I don't really agree with it, though." But the absence of such a disqualifier in the face of being asked about it pointblank really makes it sound like you agree with Einstein and was trying to make a point. Which is it? If you were trying to make a point, what was it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 12:01 AM

John P,
I don't feel obligated or qualified to defend Einstein's words but thank you for thinking I know his thoughts better than you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:52 PM

You need to much clearer about what you mean by variation, for a start. You might not care much for Professor Dawkins' atheism, but don't forget that his day job is as an evolutionary biologist. I wouldn't care to take him on in that particular field!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM

man, that Dawkins is a terrible writer.

How about since there is variation, and some of those variations are better suited to becoming an ancestor, over time those variations do become ancestors and others don't?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:28 PM

i shall be charitable and accept that its too complicated for a scientist/teacher like you to explain evolutionary theory to a simple man like me.
like i said before:you like to issue challenges but wont accept them.

Pete. For Pete's sake, Pete. I've typed stuff about evolutionary theory on these threads till my bloody fingers bled. You've abundantly proved that you don't listen anyway. However. Here's the theory of natural selection in a nutshell (I wouldn't bother normally, but Darwin's big idea is so devastatingly simple that you can put it into one sentence). PETE, CAN YOU HEAR ME OUT THERE?!! Here goes. And thanks to Richard Dawkins for this definition, which I couldn't possibly better.


"Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design."


There you are, Pete. It's all about the non-random survival of attributes which can be inherited. That's what makes species change. Non-random is the natural selection bit. Miscopies are what we call mutations. Sufficient time means about four and a half billion years (it doesn't work if you think fossils are God's playthings, or that the Earth was created in 4004BC, or that the only creatures to survive were the ones that boarded a small wooden ship two-by-two). Yes, Dawkins' definition is deliberately tendentious, but it's highly accurate nonetheless.

Now go and get yourself a book about Darwin (or even Darwin's own) and flesh it out for yourself, instead of coming on here and asking daft questions with that faux-innocent "simple man" bit. Any more of this and it won't be simple man, it'll be simple-minded.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:21 PM

Perhaps you and Albert Einstein have not traveled in the same circles?

You're the one who inserted it into the discussion, Jack. If you don't think it and are unwilling to discuss it, why do so?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:04 PM

It's amusing to read these persistent attempts to bring great scientists of the past on board the non-atheist wagon. I'm fully aware, nay, in awe, of their scientific credentials, but as arbiters as to the existence or not of God, well, perhaps someone else could tell me how they're more qualified than anyone else to pronounce on the matter. And, Jacko, if they were here today I think they'd probably be embarrassed that you were using them so. They'd be wishing they'd kept their big traps shut, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 07:57 PM

Wacko Jacko's best contribution by far thus far:

This is a serious discussion?

LOL

Jack, if you don't think this is serious discussion, why are you so deeply involved in it? Do you think that's a particularly sane approach, old bean??   Now don't go running away with the idea that I'm questioning your sanity (as you did mine). Heaven forfend! I just wondered, though, going from this interesting post of yours, whether you're questioning it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:28 PM

>>I don't actually know anyone like this.<<

Perhaps you and Albert Einstein have not traveled in the same circles?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:25 PM

the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth

I don't actually know anyone like this. It sounds like an attempt to denigrate the opinions of atheists by assigning negative emotional baggage to them, making it easier to ignore what they have to say.

"professional atheist"?????

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:24 PM

I din't "inflict my views" on my kids, I just taught them all the mythologies, including the judeochrislamic ones. Every time they would come home with a question about deity, usually from school, I would answer it with reality and facts. They have never seen the need to posit deity either.

I never used the sentence There is no such thing as deity. I merely removed any need for it in their education, while making sure that they weren't religiously illiterate.

And when their history book told them that while other religions were myths but christianity is true and we know it from the bible I hit the ceiling, not because christianity isn't true, but because the bible is not an historical text. They understand the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:02 PM

>>Of course it is, Jack, Schrödinger's cat proved that. <<

A talking cat!!! Cool!!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:01 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views

>>Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]<<<


6. Albert Einstein: Nonbelievers Can Be Bigoted Like Believers

    The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

    - Albert Einstein, quoted in: Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God (1997)

7. Albert Einstein: I am Not a Crusading, Professional Atheist

    I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

    - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

ATHEISTS SELECT DES MOINES, IOWA, AS VENUE FOR 2011 CONVENTION

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:51 PM

Of course it is, Jack, Schrödinger's cat proved that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM

Guest Pete,

It's really futile to discuss or debate religionists about atheism. There's really no there, there. What's the point of an organized debate when nothing is provable? I don't know about a book called the Greatest Hoax on Earth but the title itself suggests a one-sided view of a subject that attacks rather than illuminates. (It would be helpful if you would use punctuation to clarify your ideas, BTW.)

Seeing both sides of an issue doesn't mean that one side is necessarily right or wrong.
Objectivity in the debate between Creationism and non-belief is impossible.

It has been suggested that Darwin and Einstein were agnostics and not atheists. This simply isn't something that can be reasonably corroborated. In Darwin's day, to say you were an atheist meant that no one would take Evolution seriously. Einstein was conflicting in his statements about a deity. He certainly was not a fan of organized religion which he considered to be foolish. That much can be brought to light. His view of a supreme being was not monolithic. In this way, it is thought that he suggested Spinoza's "god" which were really "gods", kind of a pantheon.

The atheists that I know would never inflict their views on their children. It's against the whole ethic of free thought. Many of the atheists I know have allowed their children to attend Sunday School or investigate religious practices on their own. Most religionists will not allow any deviation from their point of view with respect to their children.

There are no so-called atheist conventions but there are free thought societies and conventions that accept agnostics, atheists or many forms of secularism. Lectures and educational materials are presented in an un-dogmatic manner despite the misinformation about it here. The atheist is generally a proponent of not being dogmatic.
Dogma is the property of religious belief.

To insist that atheism is a form of "belief" is placing a religious value on it which doesn't apply. For most religionists, belief is essential to their point of view and non-belief is foreign to them. Therefore, it's not possible for a "believer" to understand non-belief because they think everyone must believe in something.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:46 PM

This is a serious discussion?

LOL,

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM

Pete, scientists don't debate with Creationists because Creationism isn't science. There is no controversy about this outside the minds of people like yourself. If you want to take part in discussions outside your church, you need to get educated. Creationism is the exact opposite of science because it starts with a conclusion and then assigns "evidence" to support it. Completely backwards from the scientific method. There is no such thing as "Creation Science" and it's a waste of everyone's time when you keep trying to insert it into a serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:15 PM

steve-i love a bit of harmonica on my gospel blues songs!
i rather suspected you would evade my question again.i shall be charitable and accept that its too complicated for a scientist/teacher like you to explain evolutionary theory to a simple man like me.
like i said before:you like to issue challenges but wont accept them.
if i read greatest show on earth,would you read the greatest hoax on earth?
mrrzy-as above.
jack-perhaps i was unclear.i was really just reflecting on steves post.in mentioning both ends of the discussion,i was not intending to suggest anything else should be left out.i would not want to exclude the beginnings debate either.IMO an unchallenged theory retains its supremacy under false pretenses.i certainly think that is the case in UK education.
you mentioned atheist conventions.i understand the creationists offered to pit their best available men against the cream of the worlds atheist evolutionary scientists at the world atheist convention in australia last year.apparently the offer was declined.
just think-here was their opportunity to expose all this "oxymoron creationist nonsence"in public debate!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:32 PM

Another sane statement from the Atheist in Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:31 PM

Dick, I'd rather hack my own nads off with a rusty machete than take any advice from you. Now, me lad - have you a contribution to make or not?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM

steve shaw, a bit of advice stick to playing the harmonica, something you know a bit about

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM

I am descending into whimsy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM

You and me?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

If you are at a poker table, look around for the suckers. If you don't see any, its you.