I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power. Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.
So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...
I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?
Your being a jackass, mainly.
oh
Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question. What, exactly, don't you get?
just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.
Aside from one spelling mistake, one letter omission, and having accidentally repeated a phase, I really don't see what is so laughable.
The real irony is that by pointing out these errors, rather than attacking my actual argument, you are proving my point.
I have to agree with Aizen here. What were you trying to say in that post? Why do you think "scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible"? Also do you think there is anymore "proof" for god than there is for a flying spaghetti monster? Of course the truth is that both cannot be proved by the scientific method, or at least with the scientific knowledge and resources we have currently. Someone out there may believe a spaghetti monster created the universe and they would be just as justified in holding that position as you in holding the mainstream catholic position.
Also I am pretty sure theoretical physics is based more in rational thought than a belief in god, allah, ganesh, moses or the flying spaghetti monster.
