Good Questions to Trip up Christians?

[BS Investigator]

If you could sit down with a top religious leader like Reverend Robert Schuller or Billy Graham, what questions could you pose to them about their religion that would really throw them for a loop and make them question their own faith?

Assuming they would keep an open mind (I know, this is a BIG assumption!!) I need really strong arguments or questions that could rattle them deeply.

Thanks!

[Anti_Hypeman]

You would never convince those people. If God was paying me as much as he did them I would be a true believer for life. You might as well try to convince Bill Gates to get out of the software business.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Anyone of that stature with that much experience has probably already heard it all, and has all his or her answers lined up and ready for you. They will likely all boil down to "God moves in mysterious ways" or something similar, but they'll have them.

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
You would never convince those people.

I agree but for different reasons. Theists' beliefs are based on faith, not reason. By asking questions, you are appealing to their reason, which is inconsequential to their faith.

They may not be able to answer their question, but it isn't likely that they will suddenly start doubting their faith.

[gnome]

Literalists will refuse to discuss it, non-literalists will place anything irrefutable into the part that isn't meant to be taken literally. There's really no point.

I don't believe you can confront and argue someone into questioning themselves, unless they're the kind to respond to logic in the first place, and probably don't need the help.

Your best bet is simply to explain your own point of view when someone is asking you. Get them asking the questions, and you might just get somewhere.

[Mariah]

The most cogent way to deal with these people is to appeal to what the Bible says. They take the Bible literally, as you know. You must choose carefully to avoid the accusation that you are taking the Bible out of context, so using Old Testament laws and such will just waste your energy.

It is best to use the words of Jesus. Think of what we are told are characteristics of Jesus. Kind, compassionate, patient? Think of how the religious right defines family values? Were Jesus' words and actions the source of their understanding of family values?

Ask them to consider (and to try and explain away) the following passages:

A man wanted to follow Jesus, wanted to be his disciple, but first wanted to go bury his dead father, and Jesus dissed him for this, telling him to come now or forget it. (Luke 9:59) What would this be like in today's time? Let your relatives pick out the casket and plan the funeral which you won't even attend because you've gone off to follow your guru?

How about his saying, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" at a gathering when his mother ran to him and told him they were out of wine. (John 2:3) Would James Dobson approve of this kind of smart mouthing of one's mother?

And how about his telling potential followers that anyone who would follow him must hate his father, mother, brethren, and children? (Luke 14:26--however they may try to explain away the term "hate" it is the way the original Greek is translated in every translation listed in the Parallel Bible, which I take to mean the original term must have been pretty close to "hate.") Still, even if he did not literally mean you must hate your family, what did he mean? You must neglect them? Let them fend for themselves? Leave them, but be nice about it? What? What kind of family values is that?)

How about when a Caananite woman came begging Jesus to heal her demon possessed daughter and he refuses her by saying "I have come only to the lost sheep of Israel." But she falls on her knees, begging him and he says, "It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26) It is not until she flatters him by saying "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs take the crumbs from the master's table!" that he tells her "great is thy faith!" and heals her daughter.

And what about his cursing a fig tree for not having a fig on it when he wanted one? (Matthew 21:19)

I could go on.....

[tkingdoll]

Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but the question I always ask of front-door evangelists is "monkeys or incest?".

The reasoning being, God created only Adam and Eve, who had children from whom all people are descended. Yet the book of Genesis tells us that Adam's descendents "went to the land of Nod to find wives". If there weren't any other people, those wives must have been monkeys. Either that or they mated with their own sisters to expand the line. I always ask "so, which is it? Monkeys or incest?", and the doorbell ringers go away and don't leave me any leaflets.

Of course it's a very daft interpretation of things but it embarrasses the heck out of 'em.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mariah

Ask them to consider (and to try and explain away) the following passages:

A man wanted to follow Jesus, wanted to be his disciple, but first wanted to go bury his dead father, and Jesus dissed him for this, telling him to come now or forget it. (Luke 9:59) What would this be like in today's time? Let your relatives pick out the casket and plan the funeral which you won't even attend because you've gone off to follow your guru?

If you are to be a true Christian, you must follow Christ first in all things. Had the man consented, he may very well have then been instructed by Christ to go and tend to his father's funeral, but he must first submit to the will of the Lord. Remember Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac? You must come to salvation on God's terms, not your own.

Quote:

How about his saying, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" at a gathering when his mother ran to him and told him they were out of wine. (John 2:3) Would James Dobson approve of this kind of smart mouthing of one's mother?

It is not Dobson's place to approve of Jesus, but to be approved of by Jesus. Mary made the presumption that as Jesus' mother her desires were necessarily a priority to Him. But Mary was no more important to Jesus, as God, than any of us. She had no right to butt to the front of the line, so to speak. God will attend to all of us, each in His own time.

Quote:

And how about his telling potential followers that anyone who would follow him must hate his father, mother, brethren, and children? (Luke 14:26--however they may try to explain away the term "hate" it is the way the original Greek is translated in every translation listed in the Parallel Bible, which I take to mean the original term must have been pretty close to "hate.") Still, even if he did not literally mean you must hate your family, what did he mean? You must neglect them? Let them fend for themselves? Leave them, but be nice about it? What? What kind of family values is that?)

God is not interested in your concepts of family values. The answer to this is pretty much the same as the answer to your first question. If you are not ready to forsake all for the Lord, why should he give you the gift of salvation, which Jesus sacrificed all for?

Quote:

How about when a Caananite woman came begging Jesus to heal her demon possessed daughter and he refuses her by saying "I have come only to the lost sheep of Israel." But she falls on her knees, begging him and he says, "It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26) It is not until she flatters him by saying "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs take the crumbs from the master's table!" that he tells her "great is thy faith!" and heals her daughter.

God is not allowed to test the faith of humanity? What presumptuousness is this? It is not flattery she gives, but willing acknowledgement that Jesus isn't just some faith healer. He is the Master. Without such acknowledgement, a man or a woman--even a child--is not deserving of the gifts of God.

Quote:

And what about his cursing a fig tree for not having a fig on it when he wanted one? (Matthew 21:19)

All things must be in service to God's will, from the lowliest ant, up through the fig tree, to each and everyone of us. The story is intended as a metaphor to show us God is angry, and righteously so, whenever we ignore His perfect will.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but the question I always ask of front-door evangelists is "monkeys or incest?".

Why can't it be both?

That would be hot!

It's why they took the Book of Naughty Monkeys out of the Bible in the first place. Monkeys I, i: "And the LORD did make note, that monkeys have great family trees, from which they swing. ii. Rock on, little monkeys! saith the LORD."

[Zep]

Monkeys 1.iii: And the Lord spake unto the Monkeys and saith; Wherefore, stop thou the flinging of poo, before thy Lord forsaketh thee for a zoo.

iv: But the monkeys heard Him not.

v: And the Lord put the monkeys in a zoo.

[Mariah]

You've got the rhyme going pretty well, buddy, but you need to pray for some help with your meter.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
I agree but for different reasons. Theists' beliefs are based on faith, not reason. By asking questions, you are appealing to their reason, which is inconsequential to their faith.

Holy sweeping generalization, Batman!

Seriously, if what you said were true, Christians would never have written any apologetics.

To Mariah and tkingdoll:

The trouble with quoting Bible verses that you think are embarassing, or with the half-joking question "monkeys or incest?" is that you will confirm to many theists most of the negative stereotypes that they have about atheists. Many theists think of atheists as flippant and arrogant. Do you really want to reinforce that?

BTW, there's another thread on a similar subject here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=1

[Robin]

Quote:

Originally posted by BS Investigator
If you could sit down with a top religious leader like Reverend Robert Schuller or Billy Graham, what questions could you pose to them about their religion that would really throw them for a loop and make them question their own faith?

Assuming they would keep an open mind (I know, this is a BIG assumption!!) I need really strong arguments or questions that could rattle them deeply.

Thanks!

Billy Graham is a mightily intelligent man who pretty much understands the anti-God case. At one point in his life he made a decision that he would just believe and not question.

Absolute belief is a powerful tool in getting converts - people that are absolutely sure of themself will always sound more convincing than people who say 'I could be wrong'.

Those people ought to sound honest about the limits of their knowledge. But beside someone who is confidently asserting absolutes they just sound unsure.

I enjoy debating those Christians who are interested in debate, but am not out to get converts. Debating with somebody who has already decided (and this does not just apply to theists) is pointless.

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mariah
You've got the rhyme going pretty well, buddy, but you need to pray for some help with your meter.

I didn't even know it
I was trying to be a poet.



There was a young man from Laggan
Whose poetry never would scan.
"And the reason," said he
"Is I try to see
If I can fit as many words into the last line as I possibly can."

[Mariah]

Zep, Zep, Zep. You are a P.O.W., mate!

Your picture makes me want to find you, filet and debone you, roll your filets in cornmeal, and fry you in hot Crisco oil. Serve you up to everybody at the Amazing Meeting. With a side of hush puppies. Maybe some coleslaw.

To Robin, I knew Billy Graham personally and went to college with Franklin G. Billy is a genuine sweetheart of a man, but I'm afraid I can't agree he's intelligent. Reading his columns in the newspaper (now written by others based on answers he's given in the past) show that pretty well.

[tkingdoll]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey


To Mariah and tkingdoll:

The trouble with quoting Bible verses that you think are embarassing, or with the half-joking question "monkeys or incest?" is that you will confirm to many theists most of the negative stereotypes that they have about atheists. Many theists think of atheists as flippant and arrogant.

I know, I used to be one (a Christian, that is)

If an individual wants to assign me a stereotype before they know me as a person, then I wouldn't be interested in talking to them anyway.

If a friend who is a theist wants to debate religion with me, they know they're in for a bit of leg-pulling cause that's me. My religious friends leg-pull in return because I am going to hell or whatever.

If a total stranger presses my buzzer at 9am on a Saturday morning trying to invite themselves into my home under the pretext of being able to solve personal or world issues, but really to recruit me to their church, then they deserve everything I can throw at them. And in that situation, I couldn't give a monkey's ear what they think about me afterwards.

But I do take your point. Please understand that my flippancy is a defensive stance. If I ever approached a theist unsolicited my tactics would be very different. I'm unlikely to do that, however, as I don't see atheism as a cause to recruit to.

I might be tempted to ask Billy Graham if he masturbates.

[Mariah]

Tkingdoll, et al,

I agree totally with you about those who come to the door or who in any way assault your senses: let them have it.

As for others, for those with whom we care to have an honest discussion, I have found that the tone's everything. There is nothing so vexing as a genuinely nice, even-toned person who believes totally opposite from you, whichever side of the fence you are on. I think of trying to tell my truth with clarity and kindness as almost a spiritual practice. It is hard these days, especially if your work entails constantly confronting fundamentalist paranormalists as mine does.

I always try to remember that the other person may be able to put one foot in front of the other each day only because of their belief in a personal God, or that everything happens for a reason, or that the person awaits them on the other side etc. That person may need to believe this because they're an arrogant S.O.B who makes their money from deceiving people, sure, but I've also met those who need to believe it because their child was murdered. America Most Wanted's John Walsh, whose son Adam was murdered and be-headed several years ago, says he has his child waiting for him on the other side. I don't want to tell him otherwise, at least not directly.

However, we also have people taking advantage of people's gullibility and heartache and that is why we are skeptics and why we butt heads here in this forum, isn't it? That's why we can't stand back and say nothing. That's why we have to speak up even when we may puncture people's very hearts.

But I think it can be done with equal emphasis on clarity and kindness--when, I emphasize again, the other person isn't coming on like gangbusters.

My model in this thing of conveying my truth with the right tone is Carl Sagan's last wife, Ann Druyan. I have a long way to go, though.

[Beerina]

Quote:

"monkeys or incest?".

Actually, there's an answer for this. Being early creations, no genetic defects had appeared, so incest couldn't bear deformed babies.

Presumably, genetic defects were placed later by the devil. :rollseyes.

[tkingdoll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beerina
Actually, there's an answer for this. Being early creations, no genetic defects had appeared, so incest couldn't bear deformed babies.

Presumably, genetic defects were placed later by the devil. :rollseyes.

Yeah, but it's still doin' IT with yer sister. Surely that's bad in any religion? (except certain cults that we won't mention).

I would have thought the argument for the genetic defects would be that they are a punishment from God for making it with your mom.

[jimmygun]

1..."What is the purpose of heaven?"

2..."Will it really be you that goes to heaven or a non-feeling, non-thinking ringer?"

3..."How will you, if it is you, cope with your loved ones burning forever in a molten pit of lava?"

4..."What is paradise anyway? Please explain your concept."

5..."What guarantees do you have that 'forever' will last? Was 'forever' not forever before now? It didn't last did it?

6..."Does God have a foreskin?"

7..."Why does God hate poor people?"

8..."Why are there almost always logical and natural explanations for everything that happens?"

9..."Why did God say it is wrong to touch your genitals, but put them right where your hands hang?"

10...Why does such a loving God hate so many people?"

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but the question I always ask of front-door evangelists is "monkeys or incest?".

The reasoning being, God created only Adam and Eve, who had children from whom all people are descended. Yet the book of Genesis tells us that Adam's descendents "went to the land of Nod to find wives". If there weren't any other people, those wives must have been monkeys. Either that or they mated with their own sisters to expand the line. I always ask "so, which is it? Monkeys or incest?", and the doorbell ringers go away and don't leave me any leaflets.

Of course it's a very daft interpretation of things but it embarrasses the heck out of 'em.

I agree and I've used this to baffle door-knockers before, but just as Upchurch, gnome and the Marquis de Carabas all said, you'll likely not put a dent in their faith simply because reason isn't a part of how they think. Another question that confuses them is, "did Eve have a bellybutton?"

[Deetee]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Monkeys I, i: "And the LORD did make note, that monkeys have great family trees, from which they swing. ii. Rock on, little monkeys! saith the LORD."

There used to be a theory that if enough monkeys tapped away at computers for long enough they would come up with a profound text like the Bible or the complete works of Shakespeare.

Thanks to TM and his ilk, and the wonders of the internet, we know this is a fallacy.....



*ducks and runs*

[BS Investigator]

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmygun

7..."Why does God hate poor people?"

9..."Why did God say it is wrong to touch your genitals, but put them right where your hands hang?"

Now these are good ones!

I understand those people saying, "It's no use." But what if you could pose just one or two questions to religious people, when they were in a state of questioning their beliefs...?

What statements or questions work best on rocking those beliefs?

[Rikkety]

I'm new, so go easy on me.

-If God wanted us to rely on faith (believing without seeing and all), why did He give us the ability to think?

-Why should we forgive people who have sinned against us, turn the other cheek, while He can throw people straight into eternal damnation if he doesn't like em.

-Why in His name did He put that tree there anyway!? And then be angry when His own creation ate from it? Isn't it His responsibility, since it's His creation?

Of course, believers aren't going to be convinced by some wisecracking heathen and his lame questions, but it's still funny to think them up

[Marquis de Carabas]

Quote:

Originally posted by BS Investigator
Now these are good ones!

I understand those people saying, "It's no use." But what if you could pose just one or two questions to religious people, when they were in a state of questioning their beliefs...?

What statements or questions work best on rocking those beliefs?

Well, if you're just talking about run-of-the-mill Joe Christian...

Back when I used to actually talk to Christians who came up and tried to convert me, rather than just belching and scuttling away, this was the line of questioning I usually took...

MdC: Who's the person you love most in the world?
Christian Proselytiser: [names wife/husband/kids/parent/friend (kids are the best...I loved it when they'd say kids)]
MdC: And you believe that your God loves me more than you love your [answer from previous]?
CP: Yes. (the smart ones hesitate here because they can see where it's going)
MdC: So is there anything your [answer] could do that would make you send them to hell for all eternity?

I rarely had one try to carry the conversation further than that. A few muttered no, and I'd tell them to think about it and walk away. Mostly, they'd just stare at me, hand me a tract, and walk off themselves.

Having said that, this will shut up a lot of people, but I wouldn't expect it to faze your well-studied Christian types. It also assumes you're talking to the particular type of Christian that I most often encountered in SE Texas growing up (the fundie kind). If you get one that doesn't believe in hell, the point is obviously lost...

[tkingdoll]

Quote:

Originally posted by BS Investigator
Now these are good ones!

I understand those people saying, "It's no use." But what if you could pose just one or two questions to religious people, when they were in a state of questioning their beliefs...?

The difficulty can be that if a religious person is in a state of questioning their beliefs, they can often be in a precarious mental or emotional state too. If you're searching for an answer to the big questions, having an atheist confirm that there is no higher purpose to life can often tip the balance towards depression.

[BS Investigator]

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Well, if you're just talking about run-of-the-mill Joe Christian...

Back when I used to actually talk to Christians who came up and tried to convert me, rather than just belching and scuttling away, this was the line of questioning I usually took...

MdC: Who's the person you love most in the world?
Christian Proselytiser: [names wife/husband/kids/parent/friend (kids are the best...I loved it when they'd say kids)]
MdC: And you believe that your God loves me more than you love your [answer from previous]?
CP: Yes. (the smart ones hesitate here because they can see where it's going)
MdC: So is there anything your [answer] could do that would make you send them to hell for all eternity?

I rarely had one try to carry the conversation further than that. A few muttered no, and I'd tell them to think about it and walk away. Mostly, they'd just stare at me, hand me a tract, and walk off themselves.

Having said that, this will shut up a lot of people, but I wouldn't expect it to faze your well-studied Christian types. It also assumes you're talking to the particular type of Christian that I most often encountered in SE Texas growing up (the fundie kind). If you get one that doesn't believe in hell, the point is obviously lost...

Not bad, Marquis. I like that one.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
MdC: Who's the person you love most in the world?
Christian Proselytiser: [names wife/husband/kids/parent/friend (kids are the best...I loved it when they'd say kids)]
MdC: And you believe that your God loves me more than you love your [answer from previous]?
CP: Yes. (the smart ones hesitate here because they can see where it's going)
MdC: So is there anything your [answer] could do that would make you send them to hell for all eternity?

I was going to offer a rebutal but then I realized my objection was wrong so I'm going to let you off of the hook. I guess I had to "think about it". Damn I hate it when that happens. Not the thinking thing the being wrong thing after the thinking thing.

Bottom line, I like it. Kid tested mother approved (tag line for Kix Cereal).

No, I haven't started drinking yet. I'm going to start real soon though.

[Mariah]

Rikkety said:
-If God wanted us to rely on faith (believing without seeing and all), why did He give us the ability to think?

-Why should we forgive people who have sinned against us, turn the other cheek, while He can throw people straight into eternal damnation if he doesn't like em.

-Why in His name did He put that tree there anyway!? And then be angry when His own creation ate from it? Isn't it His responsibility, since it's His creation?

Of course, believers aren't going to be convinced by some wisecracking heathen and his lame questions, but it's still funny to think them up


Mariah says:

Good going, Rikkety. Those are so good they bear repeating. Welcome to the forum.

[gtgauvin]

I've always thought the most prickly issue for conventional religion arises from neuroscience. I'd ask that, if humans are animated by some immaterial, God-breathed soul, how does one account for people like Phineas Gage, Clive Wearing, and the thousands of case studies documenting personality change as a result of physical changes in the brain. What does this mean for the soul and free will? If someone with severe anterograde amnesia accepts Jesus then forgets about it ten minutes later, is he still going to heaven?

[Mariah]

GT says:

I've always thought the most prickly issue for conventional religion arises from neuroscience. I'd ask that, if humans are animated by some immaterial, God-breathed soul, how does one account for people like Phineas Gage, Clive Wearing, and the thousands of case studies documenting personality change as a result of physical changes in the brain. What does this mean for the soul and free will? If someone with severe anterograde amnesia accepts Jesus then forgets about it ten minutes later, is he still going to heaven?

Mariah says:

Excellent, excellent points, GT. Stick around!

My best friend just went through a temporary psychosis. She described dazzling unions with God and heard messages and saw visions proving to her that she was to be central in an imminent apocalyptic drama. She was totally convinced. She knew that she knew that she knew that her experiences were real. Only a course of Risperdal--in a small, small dose--convinced her they were not real. And even if you wanted to argue that some of her experience was real, which part? The part where she was bathed in celestial light, or the part where she saw me, her friend, on the Food Channel cooking with Rachel Ray? I know that wasn't so, so how could I believe the other?

Yes, I think the neurological arguments transcend all others.

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
MdC: Who's the person you love most in the world?
Christian Proselytiser: [names wife/husband/kids/parent/friend (kids are the best...I loved it when they'd say kids)]
MdC: And you believe that your God loves me more than you love your [answer from previous]?
CP: Yes. (the smart ones hesitate here because they can see where it's going)
MdC: So is there anything your [answer] could do that would make you send them to hell for all eternity?

As so often, you put it best.

By the way --- hello new people and welcome.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by gtgauvin
I've always thought the most prickly issue for conventional religion arises from neuroscience. I'd ask that, if humans are animated by some immaterial, God-breathed soul, how does one account for people like Phineas Gage, Clive Wearing, and the thousands of case studies documenting personality change as a result of physical changes in the brain.

I have noted Gage on a number of occasions and I do have an answer though not really satisfying for atheists. The "soul" relies on the brain to function. When it is damaged the soul responds erratically as would a damaged car would even though the driver were not damaged. Not a great answer but one nonetheless.

Quote:

What does this mean for the soul and free will? If someone with severe anterograde amnesia accepts Jesus then forgets about it ten minutes later, is he still going to heaven?

Now that is a great question. I'll never forget the movie Tommy about a blind, deaf and mute boy.

And Tommy doesn't know what day it is.
He doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is.
How can he be saved from the eternal grave?

Tommy was one of gods little...oops.

[gtgauvin]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
I have noted Gage on a number of occasions and I do have an answer though not really satisfying for atheists. The "soul" relies on the brain to function. When it is damaged the soul responds erratically as would a damaged car would even though the driver were not damaged. Not a great answer but one nonetheless.

Sounds like epiphenomenalism to me (look it up). But it begs the question; if a perfect deity puts so much stock in our behavior in the physical world, why would he create an interface so susceptible to damage and degradation? I think this one falls quite readily to Occam's Razor.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by gtgauvin
I'd ask that, if humans are animated by some immaterial, God-breathed soul, how does one account for people like Phineas Gage, Clive Wearing, and the thousands of case studies documenting personality change as a result of physical changes in the brain.

Bear in mind that not all religious believers believe that the soul is a "ghost in the machine," so to speak.

[gtgauvin]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Bear in mind that not all religious believers believe that the soul is a "ghost in the machine," so to speak.

Too true, but the implications for free will remain, nevertheless. Materialistic determinism remains the only consistent explaination for the facts as we have observed them.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by gtgauvin
Sounds like epiphenomenalism to me (look it up). But it begs the question; if a perfect deity puts so much stock in our behavior in the physical world, why would he create an interface so susceptible to damage and degradation? I think this one falls quite readily to Occam's Razor.

Assumes god and god's intentions and attributes. I make no such assumptions only a possible response to the dillema. FWIW I'm agnostic. I am interested in HPC and the possibility of something other than the brain being the director of our actions but not to the point that I used to be. I happily accept that this may all very well be just an illusion.

[gtgauvin]

I'm an agnostic, as well. I'm just looking to explain human ontology in the most parsimonious way I can. God, if it exists, may well be a disembodied mind, but we as mere organisms are, most likely, not.

And BTW, yes, Janeane Garofalo is indeed a babe.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by gtgauvin
I'm an agnostic, as well. I'm just looking to explain human ontology in the most parsimonious way I can. God, if it exists, may well be a disembodied mind, but we as mere organisms are, most likely, not.

Agreed, it is demonstrable that we are not disembodied . I think anyway. Depends on one's view of gazerism (or solipsism).

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by gtgauvin
And BTW, yes, Janeane Garofalo is indeed a babe.

Cool.