h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://richarddawkins.net/article,319,Dawkinss-version-of-the-deity-does-not-exist,The-Catholic-Herald#7623

The article is an excerpt from The Catholic Herald
and is more or less what one would expect.

Some of the comments attached to the Dawkins site excerpt are rather good. I would not be surprised if a few of the authors were hootoo Researchers

I found that review embarrassing to read, like watching someone trying to talk their way out of a traffic ticket or seeing someone setting off a roman candle in their arse.

This guy, in arguing (weakly) that Dawkins is wrong has blithely stated that the god the overwhelming majority of Christians believe in simply doesn't exist and then has gone on to state that the only conceivable god is one that is wholy outside of the universe, beyond human exerience, and effectively non-existant.

And this is supposed to be an argument against Dawkins?

Afaik, the guy's arguments are completely in line with official RC dogma according to The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/g.htm) --
"God exists as distinct from and prior to his creation, that is, everything which is not God, and which depends directly on him for existence, and yet is still present intimately in his creation..." blah, blah...

I think the majority of Christians don't really believe in God. They believe they believe, and never actually 'think' about what they believe.

The minority, the 'true believers', are simply delusional, cognitively fragmented, or neurologically impaired.

Possibly some who profess religious belief are just dishonest, intellectually and otherwise.

amen to that!






So, seriously, did Adam have a navel?

>did Adam have a navel?<

Seeing is believing: http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1024_768.jpg

but . . .

'Some painters took the easy way out, and covered the belly button area with a strategically placed fig leaf, tree or forearm. But braver painters such as Raphael and Michelangelo gave Adam a navel. In fact when Michelangelo painted Adam on the roof of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican he gave him a navel - where any worshippers, including the Pope, could easily see it. One of today's radio preachers has condemned Michelangelo as "immoral and unworthy of painting outhouses and certainly not worthy of painting ceilings".

Half a millennium later, in 1944, Adam's navel was a problem to a subcommittee of the US House Military Committee (chaired by Congressman Durham of North Carolina). His subcommittee refused authorisation of a 30-page booklet, Races of Man, that was to be handed out to American soldiers fighting in World War II. The original booklet had an illustration that showed Adam and Eve each with a navel. The subcommittee ruled that showing Adam's and Eve's navels would be "misleading to gullible American soldiers". '

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/lint/facts.htm


Let me repeat that. The subcommittee ruled that showing Adam's and Eve's navels would be "misleading to gullible American soldiers"

but me not..

If man was created in God's image, does that mean God has a navel?

"God" did not make man in his/her image,. If "God" exists, then "man" was possibly made as a plaything, for company, perhaps.

According to at least one very popular bit of scripture:
"He said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."

Grammatically dodgy, yet symantically unequivocal, no?

Hence the navel question