God prevented me from uploading this image of Himself correctly. It will be lightning bolts next!
I suppose he did not let me download or upload it because (a) fuck's sake, He's God or (b) it was a bad likeness or (c) copywright infringement or (d) he really is just a greenish panel of nothingness.
Those of you who believe (a) to be the correct answer may as well turn your monitors off. You are beyond redemption and beyond reason. Restarting the computer is probably too difficult for you, so I have kept it nice and simple. If you cannot find the button to turn off the monitor, pull the plug out of the wall and go to bed with a nice cup of chocolate. When you wake up, sell your computer. Knowledge and information are not things you need. Buy a PlayStation. I believe (without knowing and without having any evidence at all and, indeed, without caring whether there is any evidence) that they include a free game entitled "Suicide Bombers and the Ultra-Virgins". You will like it.
Those who answered (b) or (c) are only mildly less insane.
The correct answer was, of course, (d).
There is no God. Professor Dawkins has proved it.
Well, he didn’t really need to. The basic idea is obvious. Did he really need to write a whole book about it? Most of the book is either elaboration or written in support of his alternative explanation for life: Darwinian evolution. His alternative theories may be right (and they are certainly interesting) but you do not need to buy into the positive exposition to realise that the Christian, Jewish or Muslim “god” is an improbable explanation for life on earth.
The improbability of god is summed up in a three word question. Who created god? Once you realise the infinite regression this traps you into (Who created the being or thing that created the being or thing that created god?) no sane person can believe in god.
My school had a joint debating society with a nearby girls’ school. I ran it (essentially, this was the 70’s and the girls mostly just did as they were told - with the exception of my girlfriend: see below). I once held a debate on the existence of God and the utility (or otherwise) of Jesus as a role model. The headmistress of the local girls’ school forbade her pupils to even attend.
That’s right! She did not say “Go forth, and defend Jesus.” She simply did not want the pure little ears of “her girls” to be exposed to contrary opinions. As I remember it, she did not let them attend a debate on homosexuality either. So, god and gayness had a special status. You were not allowed (at least, her girls were not allowed) to dispute the given truths that god was good and gay was bad.
You probably think I am making this up and you will be reinforced in your belief if I tell you that the girls’ school was called Nonsutch School. OK, ye unbelievers go to their website and be justly smited for thy unbelief! And, one girl did turn up! Admittedly, she was my girlfriend at the time but she went to Nonsutch School and defied her headmistress.
Well, he didn’t really need to. The basic idea is obvious. Did he really need to write a whole book about it? Most of the book is either elaboration or written in support of his alternative explanation for life: Darwinian evolution. His alternative theories may be right (and they are certainly interesting) but you do not need to buy into the positive exposition to realise that the Christian, Jewish or Muslim “god” is an improbable explanation for life on earth.
The improbability of god is summed up in a three word question. Who created god? Once you realise the infinite regression this traps you into (Who created the being or thing that created the being or thing that created god?) no sane person can believe in god.
My school had a joint debating society with a nearby girls’ school. I ran it (essentially, this was the 70’s and the girls mostly just did as they were told - with the exception of my girlfriend: see below). I once held a debate on the existence of God and the utility (or otherwise) of Jesus as a role model. The headmistress of the local girls’ school forbade her pupils to even attend.
That’s right! She did not say “Go forth, and defend Jesus.” She simply did not want the pure little ears of “her girls” to be exposed to contrary opinions. As I remember it, she did not let them attend a debate on homosexuality either. So, god and gayness had a special status. You were not allowed (at least, her girls were not allowed) to dispute the given truths that god was good and gay was bad.
You probably think I am making this up and you will be reinforced in your belief if I tell you that the girls’ school was called Nonsutch School. OK, ye unbelievers go to their website and be justly smited for thy unbelief! And, one girl did turn up! Admittedly, she was my girlfriend at the time but she went to Nonsutch School and defied her headmistress.
I went to Sutton Manor High School (as it was briefly called in an attempted act of camouflage) or, as it is now proud to call itself, its original name, Sutton Grammar School.
I bet the headmistress in question would like me to give her a capital letter. She, dead or alive, does not deserve one (and that goes for god too), but my Headmaster does. Dr Walsh was a religious man and his doctorate was in science (I think, physics). But, although he suspended me on three occasions, he ignored reported sightings of me on the premises and was always a lively and interested participant in our personal debates (otherwise, my harangues, or, from his perspective, the disciplinary interviews).
Lots of (but, crucially, not all) theists act as if they are sane in other aspects of their lives.
It is the “not all” bit that justifies Professor Dawkins’ book and the time and trouble he took to write it.
Incidentally, he is also a very good writer and I have found it difficult to put down this book notwithstanding that I had other pressing matters requiring my immediate attention. That is about as good as it gets if you are looking for praise from me. But, of course, neither “god” nor Professor Dawkins will be even slightly interested in my opinion. On the other hand, at least one of them exists.
I am so convinced of his existence that I have pre-elected myself as High Priest of the cargo cult that will arise around Professor Dawkins' bones. So please address me as Your Holiness in future. Otherwise, Steven will do. But NOT Steve. I'll cast a spell on you if you call me Steve. And you know that, as the preemptive High Priest of the Church of Richard Dawkins, my spells work.
I bet the headmistress in question would like me to give her a capital letter. She, dead or alive, does not deserve one (and that goes for god too), but my Headmaster does. Dr Walsh was a religious man and his doctorate was in science (I think, physics). But, although he suspended me on three occasions, he ignored reported sightings of me on the premises and was always a lively and interested participant in our personal debates (otherwise, my harangues, or, from his perspective, the disciplinary interviews).
Lots of (but, crucially, not all) theists act as if they are sane in other aspects of their lives.
It is the “not all” bit that justifies Professor Dawkins’ book and the time and trouble he took to write it.
Incidentally, he is also a very good writer and I have found it difficult to put down this book notwithstanding that I had other pressing matters requiring my immediate attention. That is about as good as it gets if you are looking for praise from me. But, of course, neither “god” nor Professor Dawkins will be even slightly interested in my opinion. On the other hand, at least one of them exists.
I am so convinced of his existence that I have pre-elected myself as High Priest of the cargo cult that will arise around Professor Dawkins' bones. So please address me as Your Holiness in future. Otherwise, Steven will do. But NOT Steve. I'll cast a spell on you if you call me Steve. And you know that, as the preemptive High Priest of the Church of Richard Dawkins, my spells work.
