Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Christopher Hitchens has died

1…1719212223

Comments

  • #542
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,474 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    After all these years I've seen no solid basis on boards.ie for why belief in God is stupid.

    I suppose that's understandable when you run away from the posts that demonstrate just that.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72817595&postcount=1157


  • #543
    AnnyHallsal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,118 ✭✭✭AnnyHallsal


    later10 wrote: »
    It is public, the reason I said it's not really so is that the most vocal fans of Dawkins rarely refer to Dawkins's academic research in evolutionary biology. 99 times out of 100 they refer critics to the large print pages of his penny paperbacks, available now at a newsagents near you.

    These people, as far as I have ever seen, are not in the habit of referencing Dawkins's more serious work. These people base their admiration for him on what they have read, which compliments neither Dawkins nor themselves.

    I don't find it at all surprising that Dawkins's most popular work is not his best or most intellectually distinguished. It is that which resonated most with the spirit of an age, and profound cultural upheaval. The 'best' books are rarely, if ever, the most popular anyway, rather they tend to say something about the state of the reading public. That's where your issue lies, clearly.


  • #544
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    later10 wrote: »
    It is public, the reason I said it's not really so is that the most vocal fans of Dawkins rarely refer to Dawkins's academic research in evolutionary biology. 99 times out of 100 they refer critics to the large print pages of his penny paperbacks, available now at a newsagents near you.

    These people, as far as I have ever seen, are not in the habit of referencing Dawkins's more serious work. These people base their admiration for him on what they have read, which compliments neither Dawkins nor themselves.
    Like "The Selfish Gene"?


  • #545
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    drkpower: I discuss with those who are willing to respect me. I gave nozzferrahhtoo several replies to his objections only to be met with false accusations of dishonesty. This meets the level of my patience, and if I did respond it would have probably not been in a favourable manner. As a result, I concluded it would be best if I didn't. In the event that he was actually willing to discuss without employing those tactics, I'd be up for it.

    Otherwise, I'll use my free time as I deem fit. I enjoy respectful discussion, I don't particularly enjoy any other kind of discussion.


  • #546
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,474 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    drkpower: I discuss with those who are willing to respect me. I gave nozzferrahhtoo several replies to his objections only to be met with false accusations of dishonesty. In the event that he was actually willing to discuss without employing those tactics, I'd be up for it.
    No; you never replied to the points he raised in that post. And now you are lying.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Take a search. I sent numerous posts back and forward to him in respect to his disagreements with my reasons why I believe in God post. When it was going nowhere, and it went sour with accusations of dishonesty I stopped replying as it wasn't a productive use of my time.

    I'm quite happy to discuss with anyone about my faith in God, the prerequisite is that they show me grace and respect. I'll do the same in return.

    Actually, PM me if you have anything to say on this so that we don't take the thread off the topic at hand.


  • #548
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    The selfish gene has nothing to do with religion and was widely accepted as a ground-breaking book in the world of biology,
    Now I think you're exaggerating a little there. This is the work for which Dawkins is best known, it is not the work that has won him his deserved praise from an academic viewpoint. If anything that would be The Extended Phenotype, which I'm surprised you aren't mentioning.
    hence my comment about you having not read it
    If you demonstrate some basic respect I will do the same. But please don't start insisting that others have not read this book just because you're shocked that someone might disagree with Dawkins. That's exactly the sort of arrogance I referred to earlier, and that is why I replied with the quote about the first line of defence always being that a critic hasn't really read Dawkins's books.

    I presume you will soon move on to the second line of defence, that of the critic actually being a secret believer.


  • #549
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    later10 wrote: »
    It is public, the reason I said it's not really so is that the most vocal fans of Dawkins rarely refer to Dawkins's academic research in evolutionary biology. 99 times out of 100 they refer critics to the large print pages of his penny paperbacks, available now at a newsagents near you.

    These people, as far as I have ever seen, are not in the habit of referencing Dawkins's more serious work. These people base their admiration for him on what they have read, which compliments neither Dawkins nor themselves.

    It's unreasonable to expect that people who got to know Dawkins through The God Delusion to be knowledgeable about his other stuff, particularly his earlier stuff - 'though I'm sure many are. The ability to refer to the The God Delusion shouldn't infer any knowledge of evolutionary biology at all.

    One was a discussion on evolutionary biology, a fairly narrow topic; the other on religion, - much wider.


  • #550
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    philologos wrote: »
    Not particularly. Choosing to create people who are freely willed doesn't make you responsible for what they all do. Much in the same way that a parent isn't responsible for what their children necessarily do.
    If you create them you are creating everything about them, doing this knowing what they will do as a consequence of your creating, makes you responsible.
    There is no comparison whatsoever with a parent rearing a child and a deity creating one.
    Simply put as I would understand it, God in making us free clearly set boundaries that we should follow, and legislates ultimately on the basis of these boundaries. We have no excuse if we disobey Him.
    He knew at the moment of creating every individual whether or not that individual would obey him and since he made everything about that individual he also "made" the disobedience.
    I don't think your argument is a particularly good one.
    I fairness P you don't accept any argument whatsoever regarding the illogicality of any aspects of your faith (that I have seen).
    Not at all. God created us to be autonomous. You seem to think that knowing is the same thing as preordaining. That isn't particularly logical and one could give a number of examples where this doesn't make much sense.
    God could control us entirely, but He has chosen not to because he desired for us to be free for the most part.
    This is just repeating the mantra again and again.
    As much as I don't like breaking Godwin's Law on the thread: I don't think God is responsible for the Holocaust either. This isn't even referring to omnipotence and free will any more, this is referring to why doesn't God prevent every bad thing from happening[.......].Again, I don't see what this part of your post has to do with the free will, divine foreknowledge, predestination theme we have going on here.
    Godwin is about making comparisons, not just mentioning the man.
    I used him as a well know figure who could have done something different if he had free will. The good or evil of the events was neither here nor there.
    Indeed, the question is what is actually logical, and whether Christopher actually argued it while he was alive.
    No it's not, he would like the fact of a debate, whether or not he himself ever debated that particular aspect of a topic.


  • #551
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    If you create them you are creating everything about them, doing this knowing what they will do as a consequence of your creating, makes you responsible.
    There is no comparison whatsoever with a parent rearing a child and a deity creating one.

    Creating a person, is creating a person as far as I see it. It doesn't of necessity determine what that person is going to do. One may know what one will do, but it is determined by the autonomous entity rather than the Creator.

    That's what I'm trying to say, I think we're going to simply have to say that we agree to disagree on this.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    He knew at the moment of creating every individual whether or not that individual would obey him and since he made everything about that individual he also "made" the disobedience.

    Sure, but that doesn't mean that He caused that individual not to obey Him. That's my point. You're confusing foreknowledge and predestination as far as I see it.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I fairness P you don't accept any argument whatsoever regarding the illogicality of any aspects of your faith (that I have seen).

    I've explained entirely why I disagree with you. I don't think what you're saying makes a lot of sense.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    This is just repeating the mantra again and again.

    Likewise in respect to your post. We're simply going to have to disagree on this.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    No it's not, he would like the fact of a debate, whether or not he himself ever debated that particular aspect of a topic.

    It's a pertinent question as far as I see it anyway, considering the course of his life.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    I first came across Hitchens when he gave his eloquent defences of the Iraq War.
    The man started out as Leftist and ended up being excommunicated by the Left, much to his relief and became an American citizen, because he recognised besides all America's fault (he was a harsh critic of the Vietnam war) he saw America as the shining city on the hill. He savaged the idea of leftist protesters marching in defense of the fascist dictatorship and pointed out that if any of the arguments put forward by Bush and Blair had been mouthed by a leftist leader, that these serfs would have supported it.
    A wonderfully cogent intellect, a fearless speaker and an utterly moral human being who faced death with utter courage.
    He will be sadly missed but his wisdom lives on in his letters, articles, films and documentaries.


  • #553
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    They say man created god in his own image, and clearly man's self-image is a pretty fcuked up one.:rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #554
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    later10 wrote: »
    Now I think you're exaggerating a little there. This is the work for which Dawkins is best known, it is not the work that has won him his deserved praise from an academic viewpoint. If anything that would be The Extended Phenotype, which I'm surprised you aren't mentioning.
    I didn't mention that because I don't comment on books I haven't read.
    If you demonstrate some basic respect I will do the same. But please don't start insisting that others have not read this book just because you're shocked that someone might disagree with Dawkins. That's exactly the sort of arrogance I referred to earlier, and that is why I replied with the quote about the first line of defence always being that a critic hasn't really read Dawkins's books.
    I didn't say you hadn't read it because you don't agree with the man, it was because of how you commented on what I covered in school, that showed you didn't read it.
    I presume you will soon move on to the second line of defence, that of the critic actually being a secret believer.
    :rolleyes:


  • #555
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    They say man created god in his own image, and clearly man's self-image is a pretty fcuked up one.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    That's anthropomorphism for you.


  • #556
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    philologos wrote: »
    Creating a person, is creating a person as far as I see it. It doesn't of necessity determine what that person is going to do. One may know what one will do, but it is determined by the autonomous entity rather than the Creator.
    As the creator is creating he already knows what his creation will do. He has knowledge of the result of his action, the autonomous entity is only doing what it was created to do, it can have no choice.
    I agree about the agree to disagree, we won't really get any further with this, thanks for engaging me.
    It's a pertinent question as far as I see it anyway, considering the course of his life.
    One that would involve too much googling to find the answer to.


  • #557
    Sisko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭Sisko


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't know if Hitchens is in hell for sure (I really hope he isn't because I wouldn't want anyone to go there), because I don't know what happened in his final moments.

    What I will say is if you reject Jesus Christ there is no other way to salvation. Jesus Christ died on the cross to take the penalty for our sin so that we might be forgiven. Reject Jesus, and one rejects forgiveness.

    God's judgement is righteous, but it is tragic for the individual because they could have accepted Christ and lived for the gospel, and they could have been saved. I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, not even my worst enemy. More importantly God doesn't want people to go there either. God is just and merciful. Those who reject His mercy through Jesus taking away the sins of the world, will have to accept His justice instead.

    I find this post sickening and highly disturbing.


  • #558
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Sisko wrote: »
    I find this post sickening and highly disturbing.
    Mindboggling is the word that comes to my mind.
    The popular concept of hell has always struck me as a reason not to worship that particular deity, anything that comes up with a punishment like that is not worthy of existence let alone worship.
    What I always found interesting is that a sign of enlightenment and "goodness" would be forgiveness and holding no malice towards those who turn against you or even hate you, it seems Yahweh isn't very enlightened.


  • #559
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I didn't mention that because I don't comment on books I haven't read.
    This illustrates the point perfectly.

    The defenders of Dawkins are rarely those most familiar with his academic work.

    Dawkins himself implored his audience that if they were to read any of his books, it ought to be The Extended Phenotype. To date it remains one of his least known books, and ironically, the only of his pop science paperbacks worth reading (everything substantial in The Selfish Gene came from previous journal contributions).

    It's rather typical that you're more familiar with the advocacy books of Dawkins than this.


  • #560
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    philologos wrote: »
    God's judgement is righteous, but it is tragic for the individual because they could have accepted Christ and lived for the gospel, and they could have been saved. I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, not even my worst enemy. More importantly God doesn't want people to go there either. God is just and merciful. Those who reject His mercy through Jesus taking away the sins of the world, will have to accept His justice instead.
    I missed this part. Sweet zombie *I won't say it*... Your "god" created hell in the first bloody place. Where else did it come from? Snuck up on him on the day he rested? This bronze age parochial prick marked the cards and then expects worship? Only works for bronze age uneducated dribblers. Or should only work for bronze age uneducated dribblers. It's so full of holes theologically and philosophically you could drive a fully laden two by two ark through them.

    To recap, this version of god created the universe, he created heaven and hell and he created the evil to tempt humans. Genesis is all one needs to read to see the utter daftness and "evil" melded into the very core of this deity. He makes Odin look like Socrates.

    Apparently we're in his image. That I could believe, but frankly it's a bloody insult to us. Your average university aged person with a smattering of logic and morality would have made far better decisions than the vast majority of the decisions of the old testament god and quite a few better than the new testament version.

    Straight question for you philologos(and any others out there) and one you've avoided like every Christian thinker for the last 2000 years; where did evil come from? God creates everything in the universe, so therefore he created evil. When the early peoples we'd now recognise as Jews nicked so much of Zoroastrianism, they should have also nicked the more philosophically and internally more cogent duality of the godhead while they were at it. It would have saved a lot of flim flam.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #561
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    philologos wrote: »
    Apologies I didn't see your post:

    1. A decision to follow Jesus.
    2. begins in a person.

    In the vast majority of cases this happened as a result of ones own thinking trying to find out about Christianity for themselves as far as I can tell anecdotally.

    Okay let's replace 'it' and 'arises' with your clarification which means you're saying
    philologos wrote: »
    From my personal experience and the experience of a lot of others I know a decision to follow Jesus begins in a person after a lot of personal thought.

    No it doesn't.

    Do you think you would have 'found Jesus' if you'd be born into an Amazonian tribe?

    Of course not.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    If there was a God he wouldn't have placed men's testicles in a little hanging bag between legs - legs that effectively act as a guide for a swinging foot.

    Just no.


  • #563
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Sisko wrote: »
    I find this post sickening and highly disturbing.


    I feel your pain, but try to look on the bright side.:) Every time Philologos ventures outside his comfort zone, the Christianity forum where no dissent is tolerated, and posts such drivel, he is actually doing the work of Dawkins, Hitchens and the other voices of reason and sanity by demonstrating what whack-jobs the more passionate god-botherers are and thereby, hopefully, opening more and more eyes to the absurdity of all religious belief.:rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #564
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    If there was a God he wouldn't have placed men's testicles in a little hanging bag between legs - legs that effectively act as a guide for a swinging foot.

    Just no.

    Indeed, and if the sky fairy had meant men to be monogamous, our dicks would look like Yale keys. :):):)


  • #565
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    later10 wrote: »
    This illustrates the point perfectly.

    The defenders of Dawkins are rarely those most familiar with his academic work.

    Dawkins himself implored his audience that if they were to read any of his books, it ought to be The Extended Phenotype. To date it remains one of his least known books, and ironically, the only of his pop science paperbacks worth reading (everything substantial in The Selfish Gene came from previous journal contributions).

    It's rather typical that you're more familiar with the advocacy books of Dawkins than this.
    You are off your nut, I mention my favourite book by Dawkins was one which had nothing to do with religion and you come up this.
    As for The Extended Phenotype, only those with an interest in that particular subject would read it, and there is no connection between his "god bashing" or his examinations of the arguments against evolution and the concepts he examines in either TSG or TEP.
    Your finding fault with people who have read his recent books regarding evolution and religion because they might not have an avid interest in genetics or biology is quite baseless.

    Just for the record I never read TEP because I read TSG, it was interesting but not one of my main interests (neither is the evolution/religion debate), I won't have time to read all the books I want to, so no point in wasting reading time.


  • #566
    Technocentral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,117 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    Two comment pieces in The Observer today (Sunday) plus his last interview which was by Richard Dawkins.


  • #567
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    No it doesn't.

    Do you think you would have 'found Jesus' if you'd be born into an Amazonian tribe?

    Of course not.

    It depends. This is actually a logical fallacy that you are presenting.

    What you are saying is that people can't consider what is not available to them. Hands down I'd say that's true. That's why if the Gospel isn't available people won't be able to consider it.

    This argument is becoming obsolete as most of the Christian population are outside of the Western world. Most converts are coming to Christ in countries other than those which were traditionally Christian.

    So, the point still stands. How to adults become Christians? Indeed, in church situations that I've been in and on chatting with people about how they became Christians, and overwhelming majority came to Christ on the basis of their own thought and consideration.

    The atheistic indoctrination argument has little basis in reality.

    As for the idea that Jesus came to save us being sickening, I suspect that arises out of a human desire not to want to accept wrongdoing. At first it's difficult, but the idea that we are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing is absurd.

    Wibbs: As for why hell exists, I'm aware that God created it for righteous judgement, but we send ourselves there when we don't have to. God has given us a second chance through Jesus, and all we need to do is take it.

    I've also very clearly answered where evil comes from. The answer is it comes as a result of free will. Other Christians have answered this as well - varying theories from the idea that it is simply the lack of good (Augustine) to the idea that it is the abuse of what is good for harmful purposes (for example using good intelligence to do evil deeds). It's fundamentally tied up with free will. Simply put, that does answer the question where does evil come from.

    Ellis Dee: Dissent is tolerated on the Christianity forum, atheists post in there on a regular basis. (Not to say this about you, but in general) Being obnoxious and disrespectful to others as a result of your dissent isn't tolerated.

    If at any point I cross that line, please tell me, or please report it to a moderator.


  • #568
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    As for The Extended Phenotype, only those with an interest in that particular subject would read it
    Of course, no argument there, but...
    Your finding fault with people who have read his recent books regarding evolution and religion because they might not have an avid interest in genetics or biology is quite baseless.
    This is where you're wrong.

    The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are partially made up of Dawkins putting into common language that aspect of his research and academic work which has made him a distinguished biologist.

    I am criticising the admiration of Dawkins as a man of scientific eminence by those who have read the likes of The God Delusion alone and yet - bizarrely - have not bothered to read even the paperback translations of Dawkins's most serious popular work The Extended Phenotype, and have no interest in evolutionary biology in itself.

    If I told you Richard Feynman was a genius, but that I didn't know anything about quantum physics, you'd think I were an idiot, and quite right too.

    If I told you that Morgan Kelly was the most eminent economist in Irish academia, but that I was only basing that on his Irish Times articles and not his academic work, equally you would be right to consider me nothing less than a fool.

    I don't see why a different rule ought to apply to Richard Dawkins. He's not a genius simply because people vehemently agree with atheism, which after all is a mere epistemological stance and not something brilliant in itself.


  • #569
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    later10 wrote: »
    Of course, no argument there, but...

    This is where you're wrong.

    The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are partially made up of Dawkins putting into common language that aspect of his research and academic work which has made him a distinguished biologist.

    I am criticising the admiration of Dawkins as a man of scientific eminence by those who have read the likes of The God Delusion alone and yet - bizarrely - have not bothered to read even the paperback translations of Dawkins's most serious popular work The Extended Phenotype, and have no interest in evolutionary biology in itself.

    If I told you Richard Feynman was a genius, but that I didn't know anything about quantum physics, you'd think I were an idiot, and quite right too.

    If I told you that Morgan Kelly was the most eminent economist in Irish academia, but that I was only basing that on his Irish Times articles and not his academic work, equally you would be right to consider me nothing less than a fool.

    I don't see why a different rule ought to apply to Richard Dawkins. He's not a genius simply because people vehemently agree with atheism, which after all is a mere epistemological stance and not something brilliant in itself.
    Quite an amusing stance there.
    In fact the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers. Unless you are quite qualified in the subject yourself, just reading one of his/her books won't give you that information.
    You yourself are citing Dawkins as "a distinguished biologist" have you read TEP (I know you havn't read TSG) or any of his scientific papers? Or are you basing that comment on how that book was received by the man's peers and his actual qualifications in the subject?
    I could name numerous experts in various subjects just by a bit of research and examining the comments and opinions of others qualified in those respective fields.


  • #570
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    later10 wrote: »
    I am criticising the admiration of Dawkins as a man of scientific eminence by those who have read the likes of The God Delusion alone and yet - bizarrely - have not bothered to read even the paperback translations of Dawkins's most serious popular work The Extended Phenotype, and have no interest in evolutionary biology in itself.

    Well, can you point those people out to me? Because I don't think any of them are in here so it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
    later10 wrote: »
    If I told you Richard Feynman was a genius, but that I didn't know anything about quantum physics, you'd think I were an idiot, and quite right too.

    Do people need to be an expert in something to comment on the intellect of someone in that field?

    If I told you that Morgan Kelly was the most eminent economist in Irish academia, but that I was only basing that on his Irish Times articles and not his academic work, equally you would be right to consider me nothing less than a fool.

    Do I need to be a scientist with expert knowledge in General Relativity to say that Einstein was a genius?
    later10 wrote: »
    I don't see why a different rule ought to apply to Richard Dawkins. He's not a genius simply because people vehemently agree with atheism, which after all is a mere epistemological stance and not something brilliant in itself.

    Who's calling him a genius? :confused:

    Your whole arguments boils down to your opinion that Dawkins' gets more credit than he deserves, which, is just your opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    In fact the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers.
    I pity anybody who takes this view.

    You allow others to dictate to you the extent of another man's genius?

    I presume you're the sort of person who concludes that Richard Feynman was a genius precisely because everyone else says so.

    That's precisely how the Messiah went viral. Clearly skimming through richard Dawkins hasn't taught you anything.


Advertisement
Advertisement