Gosh, you are comedian, but don't give up your day job. :)
“I think that it (the existence of a supernatural creator, a God) is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
One more time: the question was: "Knowing science can one establish God as a delisuon?" (or words to that effect) Dawkins acknowledges the difficulty of the question of God's (non)existence, then acknowledges that the specific questions posed to him was scientific and that the answer is no, i.e. that one cannot establish that God is a delusion based on science.
Why do you ask? You’ve encouraged me to continue.
I did and I still do You are the one who insists that it is futile, that there is nothing to discuss, yet you persist. Why?
Demeaning a poster. That would be sufficient to send you whining to the RM. I will simply shrug, and consider the source.
Don't get your hopes up. There was no ad hominem. I was not demeaning anyone personally, but rather stating a general idea that persisting in futile endeavors, especially when they are recognized as having no basis, and where no further discussion is possible, as stupid. I stand by my statement.
The teaching that matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and power of ecclesiastical censure for divorce. The government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind, but not of the persons of men.
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
Dawkins and his ilk ignore the greater premise and scientific fact that mammals can only evolve heterosexually.
And whether either of the philosophical combatants like it or not, this idea is supported by the book of Genesis.