shuggy's blog
You'd also think she'd be aware of Aquinas and Anselm, who "claimed it was possible to prove God's existence" a good few centuries before Newton.
I had a go at fisking her but to be perfectly honest I'd quite like that hour of my life back now.
What Armstrong claims is perfectly true. Just not true in a rational way. Obviously, if you take 300 years as literally 300 years you are being simplistic. Do some yoga, it will all become truthy.
Bloody hell. Bloody, bloody hell. That's the first time I've seen "logos" since I had to write an essay about it 45 years ago in a scholarship exam. Talk about bullshitting. Me, I mean, not you.
I got through about sixteen bottles of Mythos during an afternoon watching a football double-header in Greece recently, and I didn't feel religious at all. I was sick and fell over, though.
Is it just me, or is that article essentially suggesting that the problem with modern religion is that it doesn't rely heavily enough on bullshit? I'd certainly never thought of it that way.
I think her problem is that the bullshit modern religion relies upon is too obviously implausible, and that it needs to use more bullshit of the sort that's impossible to understand, let alone refute.
Didn't want to abuse your comments section but I have an alternative take here...
Commenting by HaloScan
