by cedars 130 Replies latest jw friends
adamant that this life could not possibly include the spirit or a creator...because there is no evidence...but leaving that 0.1% open if evidence should appear.
That is contradictory...are they his words?
He points out non belief because of lack of evidence...but allows for the possibility of anything. I am not sure he says it couldn't possibly include a creator... Allowing for some doubt is an admission that anything is possible...however unlikely.
Am I going to have to step in here and make peace again?
No...we love each other....just not each others beliefs...LOL
I never want tec to go away....
pssst...tec...lets poke James in the eye...
Whose quote is that above... the first part is mine, but the rest leads it to being out of context.
Dawkins sounded excited and open to the possibility... and I got from his talk that I listened to him about this, that he was quite accepting of this possibility of life forms we cannot even imagine yet. Can you say that he is even remotely as open or excited about the possibility of angels (spiritual beings), the spiritual realm itself, or God? He calls belief in any of these to be superstitious and ignorant, at the least.
So it just seems to me that if you're that open to these other prospects (as well as acknowledgment of things we cannot even imagine, much less measure scientifically yet), that you might be a little more open to life as a creator. If not, then I simply wonder why the different standard?
Peace,
tammy
Am I going to have to step in here and make peace again?
I'm tempted to put in a biblical quote about peacemakers, but then Still would really want to kick my butt, and you WOULD have to step in.
Peace,
tammy
pssst...tec...lets poke James in the eye...
At least you did not do it with a sharp stick...
Can you say that he is even remotely as open or excited about the possibility of angels (spiritual beings), the spiritual realm itself, or God? He calls belief in any of these to be superstitious and ignorant, at the least.
Well, I would say that he calls them ignorant because they are based on no evidence. Not because they are not possible...just as belief in unicorns is ignorant without evidence. And I doubt he is excited about the possibility of them too.
Do you think he should respect every god belief that ever has been created? Why, is there evidence for all the gods? Do you respect all those beliefs or do you think some are based in ignorance? I'd say he allows for that in his .01%
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they bend over to get their butts kicked....
At least you did not do it with a sharp stick...
Just a freakishly long finger.
*shudders*
Peace and happiness, my friends.
We will not settle it here.
Wibble.
