This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← How dare you call me a fundamentalist

How dare you call me a fundamentalist - Comments

gcdavis's Avatar Comment 1 by gcdavis

Dawkins is self evidently such a nice man that to see the religious establishment piling in with their pointless insults, snide remarks and bogus claims is reminiscent of bullies in the playground. His dignified and always polite response shames them all.

Mon, 14 May 2007 06:10:00 UTC | #37677

Pi Guy's Avatar Comment 2 by Pi Guy

The greatest shame of this whole matter is that RD needs to write this letter in the first place.

You are doing a great service to the entire world and, after 20+ years of sheepishly acknowledging that I am not a believer, I have been inspired to spread the word! Thanks!

Mon, 14 May 2007 06:16:00 UTC | #37679

Rationalist's Avatar Comment 3 by Rationalist

I agree. It is so wonderful to have an intelligent, articulate and pleasant spokesperson for atheism. He is firm in his opinions and that drives believers mad as it questions the fundamental foundation of their beliefs.

And the ultimate aggravation is that he is willing to admit he is wrong if presented with evidence, something religious people are loathe to even contemplate.

Mon, 14 May 2007 06:32:00 UTC | #37691

USA_Limey's Avatar Comment 4 by USA_Limey

An excellent point by point refutation of most of the simpering critics of Richard. Not the criticisms of the arguments inside his book mind you; but his right to say it all in the first place.

If I have taken one thing away from the last 6 months or so it is my own personal 'conversion' to the view that we MUST stop being cowed into silence. Where before I would have politely kept quiet when encountering a religious view in my life I now, (politely), offer an alternative view. I have found overwhelmingly that my responses are met with disbelief and mild shock that I am saying what I am saying. Most of the people I respond to have simply NEVER had their beliefs questioned before. I am convinced that for most of them it can only be a good thing.

Thanks Richard for all you do; I am doing my best in my own small way in my own obscure life to follow your shining example.


__________________________________________________

Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Mon, 14 May 2007 06:35:00 UTC | #37694

CJ22's Avatar Comment 5 by CJ22

Righteous!

(In a secular sense).

Mon, 14 May 2007 06:39:00 UTC | #37695

firemancarl's Avatar Comment 6 by firemancarl

Prof Dawkins,

Thank you for writting such a well thought out reply to the those that would call any of us militant or fundamentalist.

I agree with Pi Guy, you never should have had to write a rebuttal to the origninal article.

Mon, 14 May 2007 07:25:00 UTC | #37712

anotherclinton's Avatar Comment 7 by anotherclinton

God Delusion's already going into paperback--this thing's still selling like crazy and the publishers are willing to cut the price to sell more of it less than a year after release. This book is a real phenomenon.

Mon, 14 May 2007 07:29:00 UTC | #37719

The Wee Flea's Avatar Comment 8 by The Wee Flea

" gcdavis on May 14, 2007 at 7:10 am"

Dawkins is self evidently such a nice man that to see the religious establishment piling in with their pointless insults, snide remarks and bogus claims is reminiscent of bullies in the playground."

I think you will need to read the article again. RD is not talking about the religious estanblsihemtn but those who have reviewed his book and especially fellow atheists or agnostics who do not like his style.

"Pi Guy on May 14, 2007 at 7:16 am

The greatest shame of this whole matter is that RD needs to write this letter in the first place."

He did not need to. It is not a letter but an article in The Times. Just a happy coincidence that it comes out the week before TGD comes out in paperback.

" Rationalist on May 14, 2007 at 7:32 am"

"I agree. It is so wonderful to have an intelligent, articulate and pleasant spokesperson for atheism. He is firm in his opinions and that drives believers mad as it questions the fundamental foundation of their beliefs."

Nope. It's not the intelligence or the articulateness that drives us mad. Nor is it that he gets to the foundations. It is the constant name calling, innuenedo, prejudice and stirring up of hatred which kind of sticks in the throat...

"And the ultimate aggravation is that he is willing to admit he is wrong if presented with evidence, something religious people are loathe to even contemplate."

Nope. We are quite happy to do so as well.
__________________________________________________


"I agree with Pi Guy, you never should have had to write a rebuttal to the origninal article."

What original article? There was none. Boy you guys are so easily misled.

Mon, 14 May 2007 08:10:00 UTC | #37732

The Wee Flea's Avatar Comment 9 by The Wee Flea

The following is an article I sent to the Times in response. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet but I can guarantee it will not be published. It's strange - The Times will publish articles about Christians and about the 'faithheads' that Dawkins is attacking but it will be a cold day in Hell before it ever lets anyone reply! Anyway this is what they have missed. By the way of his six points I agree with points 4 and 6. The rest are dealt with below.



Why Richard Dawkins is a Fundamentalist



Richard Dawkins writes in The Times (Saturday May 12th) attempting to rebut his critics and especially objecting to those atheist appeasers who show too much respect to religion. Unfortunately he only adds fuel to the fire and demonstrates yet again the fundamentalist nature of both his methodology and his belief system.



Firstly he cites his personal fans and fellow (un) believers who write warm personal reviews on Amazon, whilst deflecting criticism from professional reviewers by suggesting that they are just the product of 'faithheads' and editors seeking controversy. Dawkins of course knows that the publishing success of The God Delusion was not really a surprise at all – it was part of a carefully orchestrated campaign which included getting as many people to review it as possible in order to create controversy, a drip drip of suitable articles and interviews to the media (would it be too cynical to suggest that the current round of articles, interviews etc has anything to do with the paperback edition coming out next week?) and 'guerrilla' marketing which includes getting ones own supporters to write favourable reviews or vote in competitions claiming that one's champion is 'one of the 100 most influential people in the world' or 'The God Delusion' is the best book ever.



Secondly like all fundamentalists, Dawkins exaggerates the point he is trying to make and allows no discussion of any alternative. For example he defends his intemperate language by suggesting that it is not really intemperate, it only sounds that way because of the 'unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack". By any stretch of the imagination this is an absurd statement and one that is immediately empirically falsifiable. One would have to be living in a very strange parallel universe to think that the media, the academic establishment or the philosophers in the West thought that faith was off limit to attack! Indeed it is almost the other way around – many newspapers do not 'do God' and would be terrified to let someone who actually believes make any contribution ('we can't have religious evangelists in our respectable paper!) but are more than happy to allow column inches to the latest 'Jesus' bones discovered in Woking' theory or yet another column from Dawkins, Hitchins et al complaining that they don't get enough columns to tell us how much they hate a God they don't think exists.



Again like all fundamentalists, Dawkins defends ignorance by claiming that it is not necessary to know something in order to criticise it. His neat dismissal of theology is similar to the atheist myth that it is the equivalent of discussing angels dancing on pinheads; it is a cheap shot, one that is on an intellectual par with his claim that belief in God is the same as belief in the Tooth Fairy. The answer to that is clearly that Dawkins has not written a book on The Tooth Fairy Delusion. Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot. It is the classic circular argument of the fundamentalist believer who will not allow the possibility that he may be wrong.



And this is where Dawkins performs yet another fundamentalist trick – caricaturing ones opponents. Apart from the ridiculous tactic of citing Fred Phelps (of GodHates fags/America/anyone who is not part of my family fame) as an example of religion he even implies that Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians. The fact that this claim is demonstrably false does not seem to prevent him making it – why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?



He claims that the difference between himself and an evangelical Christian is that whilst both are passionate he is the one who would be prepared to change his mind, whilst the evangelical Christian would not. But he is wrong in this – in at least two respects. Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence. If that were proved to be false (if for example Jesus' bones were found in Woking) then that would be the end of my faith. On the other hand Dawkins is not as open as he suggests. The trouble is that his definition of 'evidence' is so limited that it will allow no possibility of anything outwith the world of the physical. If it cannot be proved by a chemical equation then it cannot exist. 'Scientific materialism' is the new religion.



Dawkins fits every characteristic of the fundamentalist believer. He knows he is right. He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness. He knows with absolute certainty that if only people follow his way (which is THE scientific, rational way) they will be able to lead 'intellectually fulfilled and emotionally liberated lives'. He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion with those whom he is railing against and yet still manages to demonise his opponents. The most dangerous thing about the New Atheism is that it does not realise just how intolerant, oppressive and fundamentalist it is. And sadly neither does the Church.



David Robertson is the author of The Dawkins Letters; Challenging Atheist Myths. Published by Christian Focus Publications. March 2007.

Mon, 14 May 2007 08:15:00 UTC | #37736

CDG's Avatar Comment 10 by CDG

A couple of weeks ago a friend made a comment to me that I have become quite vocal about my Atheism as of late.

I had to point out to him that he was saying this to me in a city named ST. PAUL, a block from the most domineering Cathedral in the midwest, as a horde of catholic school children were descending upon us in their perfect little uniforms, by a world renowned research facility not allowed to do pertinent stem cell research, a few blocks from some faith heads protesting at a planned parenthood clinic.

And he was telling me that I was being a little too aggressive of late. They just don't get how they permeate every facet of society.

RD: keep up the good consciousness raising. I am trying to do my part too.

Mon, 14 May 2007 08:27:00 UTC | #37744

USA_Limey's Avatar Comment 11 by USA_Limey

"Dawkins fits every characteristic of the fundamentalist believer. He knows he is right."

...No... I think he believes he is right based on the available EVIDENCE, (or lack of)

"He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness."

... A single human being cannot evolve in its own lifetime. I think. I am not an evolutionist. I know I don't think I have transcended into some higher plane anyway.

He knows with absolute certainty that if only people follow his way (which is THE scientific, rational way) they will be able to lead 'intellectually fulfilled and emotionally liberated lives'."

...I don't think he knows any such thing. And I know that there are plenty of atheists who are pretty miserable and not very happy - but at least they are brave enough to refuse the mental crutch of religion.


"He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion with those whom he is railing against and yet still manages to demonize his opponents"

... What would a "meaningful" discussion be? Presumably from your perspective one that gives due respect and deference to your beliefs without evidence. No, sorry - those days are over for so many of us.


"The most dangerous thing about the New Atheism is that it does not realize just how intolerant, oppressive and fundamentalist it is."

Richard has said consistently he would change his mind TODAY if new data presented itself that in any way even BEGAN to verify the claims of religion. And just who are we atheists oppressing? When a person disagrees with someone else over a matter of economics or even the relative merits of competing football teams are they 'oppressing' that person? Sounds to me you are just feeling oppressed because it's getting uncomfortable in that duality of mind and self deception you maintain.
__________________________________________________

Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Mon, 14 May 2007 08:43:00 UTC | #37751

bitbutter's Avatar Comment 12 by bitbutter

and 'guerrilla' marketing which includes getting ones own supporters to write favourable reviews or vote in competitions claiming that one's champion is 'one of the 100 most influential people in the world' or 'The God Delusion' is the best book ever.


.. and the way to get your supporters to do that (without asking them to), or indeed the way to get supporters in the first place is to write a powerful, clear, even life-changing book.

The trouble is that his definition of 'evidence' is so limited that it will allow no possibility of anything outwith the world of the physical.

lol well no, of course it won't. Science is doing pretty so far well despite this limitation, oh no.. wait _because_ of this limitation.

Mon, 14 May 2007 08:50:00 UTC | #37758

stackoturtles's Avatar Comment 13 by stackoturtles

David Robertson seems desperate to pin the fundamentalist label on Dawkins and atheists in general. That must be all he has.

Let's be clear. A fundamentalist believes in something for which there is NO positive evidence and will believe so even in the presence of negative evidence. An atheist does NOT believe in something for which there is NO positive evidence, but is able to say what would change his mind.

If Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist then his NOT carrying a rabbit's foot makes him a superstitionist.

Mon, 14 May 2007 08:54:00 UTC | #37762

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 14 by phasmagigas

fundamentalist or not?

Prof. Dawkins, any chance of a small list of things that would persuade you to belive there is a god? ie a list of things you would consider evidence for god.

I suppose the problem with such a list is that it will consist of things that are just plain never going to happen, perhaps believers will see that such a list is therefore futile but as they are the ones who believe in miracles they have to see this list as fully reasonable.

I can think of many such things, but one would be (as an example from the top of my head) if i melted down one of my old toys into a pool of charred plastic and it suddenly reformed back into its original form right before my eyes, that might not prove god but it would show me as a lesson that something that i thought was an absolute impossibility could come to pass, it could of course be the 'trick' of some advanced (hidden)alien technology and thats probably how i'd explain it as that is the most likey explanation but I would also have to say it COULD be 'god'.

Thats before i dismissed the idea that i'd imagined it, i fully understand how easy it is to fool ourselves. The other day i was tricked into visualising for a split second a Pholcus sp.(daddy long leg spider) walking up a wall, it was actually a bit of web and dust but it was wobbling in the air current just as a Pholcus wobbles as it walks, but for that incredible split second I got this mental glimpse of the Pholcus, luckily my 'delusion' lasted just a split second. Yup, that brain can be fooled.

I would be interested to read a list of happenings that would persuade believers against a belief in God.

Mon, 14 May 2007 09:03:00 UTC | #37770

Coel's Avatar Comment 15 by Coel

To wee flea (David Robertson)

"The following is an article I sent to the Times in response. [. . .] I can guarantee it will not be published."

You're right, it is not nearly up to the quality they desire. However, at least you didn't resort to manufacturing any Dawkins quotes this times. Well done!

> It's strange - The Times will publish articles about Christians and about the
> 'faithheads' that Dawkins is attacking but it will be a cold day in Hell
> before it ever lets anyone reply!

Umm, didn't William Rees-Mogg reply this very day? Times, May 14th
"William Rees-Mogg replies to Professor Richard Dawkins".

"Secondly like all fundamentalists, Dawkins exaggerates the point he is trying to make and allows no discussion of any alternative."

You mean Dawkins goes around censoring the world's media, preventing people discussing alternatives? You really are a hoot!

"would it be too cynical to suggest that the current round of articles, interviews etc has anything to do with the paperback edition coming out next week?"

Duh, of course it has! That Times article is indeed the new preface to the paperback. Of course it is related!

"Again like all fundamentalists, Dawkins defends ignorance by claiming that it is not necessary to know something in order to criticise it. [. . .] Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot."

Well, he is right! Arguments predicated on the existence of God ARE largely irrelevant to the issue of whether God exists.

You see, believers' fanciful theological constructs about God are not usually based on evidence, and thus don't contribute to the issue of whether God exists; Dawkins is right to treat them as such.

"Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence."

Yeah, sure. Bet you're unwilling to actually discuss this evidence in a reason-based debate.

"If it cannot be proved by a chemical equation then it cannot exist."

Strawman!

"He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness."

Where on earth do you get that from??

"He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion with those whom he is railing against and yet still manages to demonise his opponents."

Err, so discussions and debates with McGrath, Francis Collins, the Bishop of Oxford, etc are not "meaningful"?

"The most dangerous thing about the New Atheism is that it does not realise just how intolerant, oppressive and fundamentalist it is."

But then it isn't, is it?, except in your rather fanciful and deluded view.

Mon, 14 May 2007 09:15:00 UTC | #37777

CDG's Avatar Comment 16 by CDG

Phasmagigas: Even writing a list given the evidence would be a search in futility

My list would ask God directly to show up or shut up: "god, why are you hiding in the wings? Why can't I see you? Is it fun for you to be allusive? Why do I have to even write down this list? cant you just show yourself? This game of hide and seek is getting tiresome...In fact, I am starting to think its really just Seek and there is no Hide?

There is no need for a list because as RD says, a world made by a God would be a far different one then the one we see now- and making that list would not be necessary as it would be self evident that the creator is at hand...

Mon, 14 May 2007 09:17:00 UTC | #37780

Coel's Avatar Comment 17 by Coel

To wee flea (David Robertson)

"he even implies that Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians. The fact that this claim is demonstrably false does not seem to prevent him making it – why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?"

Well, what he actually said was "The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini".

In other words, most believers in God "echo" the simplistic, severe, dogmatic faith exemplified by those gentlemen, rather than "decent, understated religion".

If you think this "demonstrably false", please demonstrate its falsity.

By the way, you do see the difference between Dawkins's claim, and your distortion of it, that "Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians" don't you? -- but then "why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?".

Here's some advice David, if you really want the Times to print more than the odd letter of yours you need to get your facts a bit more accurate, avoid the distortions, and say something worthwhile rather than just pouting about the fact that you're upset that someone doesn't respect your faith.

Mon, 14 May 2007 09:31:00 UTC | #37789

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 18 by phasmagigas

CDG:

As you know my post wasnt quite serious, in fact i was being overly accomodating in even asking for a list. Theoretically the list would be infinite, it would be a list of impossible things like ressurection and weeping statues or spontaneously regrowing a leg (although invertebrates are quite good at this!) And a world created would be more akin to those nausea inducing paintings you see on jehovas witness handouts with the lion and the cow lying together. Now if cows had a zipper design on the neck about the main vessels and lay down so i could unzip it to bleed and thus feed i'd start to wonder....but of course they dont.

Mon, 14 May 2007 09:43:00 UTC | #37796

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 19 by Bonzai

Just because Dawkins has an uncompromising position doesn't make him a "fundamentalist". If it is so then anyone with intellectual integrity and takes principle seriously would be a fundamentalist. Being wishy washy should not be mistaken as intellectual openness and it is not a virtue.

Dawkins argues his point with facts and logic,--and also with passion, there is nothing wrong with passion in and of itself. The fundamentalist has passion but none of the intellual honesty, respect for facts and logic that Dawkins demonstrates. Fundamentalists believe simply based on authority,--the authority of 'holy' texts or the interpretive authority of religious "scholars", they don't think and are immune to evidence. Dawkins would be a fundamentalist if he just chants the name of Darwin ritualistically and declares end of story instead of constructing sophisticated arguments to make his case like he does.

Finally I don't understand the constant accuasion of Dawkins as graceless and overbearing. I find him very witty, charming and humourous in interviews both in print and on tape.

Mon, 14 May 2007 10:06:00 UTC | #37807

Bookman's Avatar Comment 20 by Bookman

That was a brilliant and funny response by RD. I particularly enjoyed the reply to Terry Eagleton's pompous critique of the God Delusion.

It's amusing how the Believers love to call Dawkins a fundamentalist: "Nyah, nyah, you're just as stupid as we are."

Mon, 14 May 2007 11:14:00 UTC | #37841

Martin S's Avatar Comment 21 by Martin S

blasphemy is a victimless crime


Love it. Is that an original Richard Dawkins quote? That's got to be worth some T-shirt space.

Mon, 14 May 2007 11:41:00 UTC | #37852

Johan's Avatar Comment 23 by Johan

Can one be an atheist without having read sufficient amount of theology?

I don't know how much has been written about Wagner's Ring Cycle?
But I know it's a hell of a lot; books, treatises, thoughts on stage direction etc. I also know people who claim there life changed in some way by hearing Wagner. Yet, no one would suggest for a second that it would somehow be unfair to dismiss all the old Germanic and Scandinavian gods of Wagner's Ring cycle as mere fantasy without having read everything that has ever been written about them.

Same goes for any god!

Mon, 14 May 2007 12:01:00 UTC | #37860

Johan's Avatar Comment 22 by Johan

Can one be an atheist without having read sufficient amount of theology?

I don't know how much has been written about Wagner's Ring Cycle?
But I know it's a hell of a lot; books, treatises, thoughts on stage direction etc. I also know people who claim there life changed in some way by hearing Wagner. Yet, no one would suggest for a second that it would somehow be unfair to dismiss all the old Germanic and Scandinavian gods of Wagner's Ring cycle as mere fantasy without having read everything that has ever been written about them.

Same goes for any god!

Mon, 14 May 2007 12:01:00 UTC | #37859

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 24 by scottishgeologist

Tell you what David Robertson, heres a nice bit of "evidence" that might sway some people around here. Take the tragic case of that missing little girl. OK? Parents are religious. Probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Christians are praying about this right now.

Now, "God" knows everything. so HE knows where little Madeleine is. He knows if she is still alive, what address she is at and how she is being cared for. Meanwhile her parents are undergoing torture.

SO why does he not just answer one of these prayers? All it needs is a couple of words - a post code, an address, a phone number. On the basis of that, send the police in on a dawn raid. Girl recovered. Bad guys locked up. God glorified. Atheists reeling.

Doesnt work that way does it? BECAUSE HE DOESNT EXIST.

Mon, 14 May 2007 12:02:00 UTC | #37861

Aaron SF's Avatar Comment 25 by Aaron SF

Wee Flee:

Thank you for making such a ridiculous argument against Dawkins' rebuttal. I really couldn't have done a better job coming up with really poorly defensible arguments if I had tried, and you have done a great job proving Mr. Dawkins' point for him.

Oh and as far as the "evidence" that Jesus was the son of god, died and resurrected etc...

Where is that?

Fundamentalism implies the refusal to stray from a doctrine no matter the proof. Dawkins is obviously not in this catagory, come up with a better argument.

Mon, 14 May 2007 12:46:00 UTC | #37880

cheerful hamster's Avatar Comment 26 by cheerful hamster

If the definition of fundamentalism is "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles", and those principles are rationality and the scientific method, why should we feel insulted?

Transparently the theists are trying to tar us with all the popular bad connotations they themselves have given that word, but I think it would be far more useful to cut to the heart of the matter - yes, atheists have a fundamentally different way of assessing reality, one based on evidence. I personally have no problem with calling myself a fundamentalist in that regard.

Mon, 14 May 2007 12:56:00 UTC | #37883

FXR's Avatar Comment 28 by FXR

There are lots of wee fleas out there...

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift
Dublin

Mon, 14 May 2007 13:55:00 UTC | #37902

BicycleRepairMan's Avatar Comment 27 by BicycleRepairMan

"Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot."

No, he does not. He starts by looking at the evidence, The first half of the God Delusion, for instance, is dealing with the question "Is there a God?" And when you shove that question into the grinder of critical thinking, and its quickly shredded to pieces, just like the tooth fairy, and completely unlike things like evolution and other scientific theories that exists solely because they withstand criticism and investigation.

Once you have established that, Dawkins sees no reason to delve into deeply theological discussion about why and how god works, simply because there is no premise for those discussions once god is gone.. Why, for instance do you reject Lord Xenu without paying the required 100,000$ worth of self-improvement classes to the church of scientology, which is required to get to level 3 and learn the full story of how aliens were flown to earth millions of years ago in DC9's, dumped into volcanos and blown up with nuclear bombs.

Because you have established that its all bullshit.

And unlike Dawkins, who spent half a book debunking an equally silly myth, you probably havent even thought twice about it.

Mon, 14 May 2007 13:55:00 UTC | #37901

gunnarjb's Avatar Comment 29 by gunnarjb

David Robertson wrote:

Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence. If that were proved to be false (if for example Jesus' bones were found in Woking) then that would be the end of my faith.

Oh ye of little faith! I'm curious to know, what evidence would suffice to prove to you that some bones in Woking were those of Jesus? Assuming sufficient evidence had been provided, would it not still be possible that Jesus miraculously grew an extra set of bones at the moment of ascension or that Jesus left his bones behind as he had no use for them (being the divine son of God and obviously unaffected by gravity in his ascension)?
Wouldn't it be possible God was testing your faith by placing those bones there?

Mon, 14 May 2007 16:25:00 UTC | #37995

BaronOchs's Avatar Comment 30 by BaronOchs

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift


Of course and Ignatius! the world needs you!

Mon, 14 May 2007 16:41:00 UTC | #37998