It would be very interesting to hear what Hitchens would comment about Atwood’s take on religion. Like Hitch, she has an amazing depth of erudition. It would be nice to see her as the fifth horsewoman of the counter-apocalypse.
though their math skills are a little off, their belief is not. as far as they know, they would not be wrong. perhaps YOU know they are wrong, but they do not.
ah yes, but religion is based on this human need for an ultimate purpose, that does not prove the presence of god. i agree with what tesa0t said, no belief can be wrong.
Following the Spirit is much more demanding and difficult than pretending to toe the line of the letter. The Law was given to show how impossible it was for us to obey it. The Spirit is given to nurture us and instill compassion for others while we struggle with persistent flaws in our own souls. “Not a principle, but a Prince; not a rule, but a Ruler; not a law, but a Lord.”
I was being sarcastic about the Chinese thing. Do you think that if I were familiar enough with Chinese to be able to call her out with it, I wouldn’t have at least a hazy idea of the language’s massive population?
Her idea about the perception of time, independent from the fallacious linguistic assumption, is an idea. I’m not ready to say whether it’s valid or not. But my point is, it’s based on a fallacious assumption. It sounds fantastically stupid to anyone who knows anything about it.
They may not have tenses, but her point about perception of time remains completely valid. Chinese: a minority language? very true, 1/6 of the world speaks Chinese.
Brilliant woman, refreshingly Canadian. I too was agnostic for many years until reason won over in my case. I suggest anyone interested to check out my playlist entitled: “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.” Certainly we have a creator, and in one sense it’s a figure of which cannot and will not be fully described, so perhaps agnostic principals will remain indefinitely.
4:40 The woman is a charlatan. Classical Hebrew and Arabic don’t have tense (although, maybe they weren’t SO important in religious development.) Chinese, although a minority language, doesn’t have anything that approaches tense.
who?
It would be very interesting to hear what Hitchens would comment about Atwood’s take on religion. Like Hitch, she has an amazing depth of erudition. It would be nice to see her as the fifth horsewoman of the counter-apocalypse.
You have a point, the only argument I was making is that our own experiences bring us to the need for ultimate purpose or not
though their math skills are a little off, their belief is not. as far as they know, they would not be wrong. perhaps YOU know they are wrong, but they do not.
ah yes, but religion is based on this human need for an ultimate purpose, that does not prove the presence of god. i agree with what tesa0t said, no belief can be wrong.
Maybe she’s the only one who knows who made God.
she’s wonderful- so darn smart
you were the first. She’d be the second.
I think she would be the first one to disagree with that.
Pretty sure I meant gender, but sex is also acceptable.
Maybe she’s the third act of the Bible. Maybe she’s the second coming of Christ.
I think you mean ‘sex’ – not ‘gender’. Frankly, I don’t give two shits what you consider yourself to be. Take care now!
I’m also a man. Are there male-harlots? I thought my gender was pretty obvious from my screen name…(Senor)
Skewed syntax I have used, so I know it is real.
Your God and Jesus people, show me some evidence. Like an ID
Or it all could be made up and there is no God or Jesus. Margaret Atwood I have seen, so I know she is real.
And you are a harlot!
“Certainly we have a creator…” – I thought you were agnostic?
Following the Spirit is much more demanding and difficult than pretending to toe the line of the letter. The Law was given to show how impossible it was for us to obey it. The Spirit is given to nurture us and instill compassion for others while we struggle with persistent flaws in our own souls. “Not a principle, but a Prince; not a rule, but a Ruler; not a law, but a Lord.”
I was being sarcastic about the Chinese thing. Do you think that if I were familiar enough with Chinese to be able to call her out with it, I wouldn’t have at least a hazy idea of the language’s massive population?
Her idea about the perception of time, independent from the fallacious linguistic assumption, is an idea. I’m not ready to say whether it’s valid or not. But my point is, it’s based on a fallacious assumption. It sounds fantastically stupid to anyone who knows anything about it.
They may not have tenses, but her point about perception of time remains completely valid. Chinese: a minority language? very true, 1/6 of the world speaks Chinese.
I <3 Margaret Atwood
Brilliant woman, refreshingly Canadian. I too was agnostic for many years until reason won over in my case. I suggest anyone interested to check out my playlist entitled: “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.” Certainly we have a creator, and in one sense it’s a figure of which cannot and will not be fully described, so perhaps agnostic principals will remain indefinitely.
4:40 The woman is a charlatan. Classical Hebrew and Arabic don’t have tense (although, maybe they weren’t SO important in religious development.) Chinese, although a minority language, doesn’t have anything that approaches tense.
Thanks for posting the videos.