This book changed my life
The Goat writes, "Some books have made a huge impact on my life." It's true. It wasn't until the b3ta mods read the Flashman novels that we changed from mild-mannered computer operators into heavily-whiskered copulators, poltroons and all round bastards in a well-known cavalry regiment.
What books have changed the way you think, the way you live, or just gave you a rollicking good time?
Friendly hint: A bit of background rather than just a bunch of book titles would make your stories more readable
( , Thu 15 May 2008, 15:11)
The Goat writes, "Some books have made a huge impact on my life." It's true. It wasn't until the b3ta mods read the Flashman novels that we changed from mild-mannered computer operators into heavily-whiskered copulators, poltroons and all round bastards in a well-known cavalry regiment.
What books have changed the way you think, the way you live, or just gave you a rollicking good time?
Friendly hint: A bit of background rather than just a bunch of book titles would make your stories more readable
( , Thu 15 May 2008, 15:11)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Oh, dear.
Look, folks: the onus isn't on the atheist to prove that there's no god, any more than it's on him to prove that there's no unicorn wearing an aqualung in orbit around Neptune. If you think that such a thing exists, then you need evidence. Absent evidence, it's not only permissible, but rationally demanded not to believe in it.
Atheism is not a faith or a religion: it's the rejection of faith. Nor is it just agnosticism with bells on, since agnosticism implies that the evidence is equivocal. It isn't. There is no evidence at all for any supernatural creature at all, let alone any god in the traditional sense.
Be fair, though: Dawkins is annoying. Still, he's largely right (if you ignore his moral arguments against religion, which are all rubbish).
( , Thu 22 May 2008, 9:17, Reply)
Look, folks: the onus isn't on the atheist to prove that there's no god, any more than it's on him to prove that there's no unicorn wearing an aqualung in orbit around Neptune. If you think that such a thing exists, then you need evidence. Absent evidence, it's not only permissible, but rationally demanded not to believe in it.
Atheism is not a faith or a religion: it's the rejection of faith. Nor is it just agnosticism with bells on, since agnosticism implies that the evidence is equivocal. It isn't. There is no evidence at all for any supernatural creature at all, let alone any god in the traditional sense.
Be fair, though: Dawkins is annoying. Still, he's largely right (if you ignore his moral arguments against religion, which are all rubbish).
( , Thu 22 May 2008, 9:17, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread