Evidence for God

[Gorgeous]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dear religious people who want to argue,

You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.

Game, set and match.

[close]

fuck off
Not so fast, I don't believe God is a complex being. He is simple (in the sense of not consisting as parts). This is an important aspect of the debate. A lot of atheists assume that theists hold that God is an eternal bundle of parts. I myself would argue against a complex God.

[close]

[close]

Hahahaha so how is he an intelligent designer then???  How does he do anything you religious nutjobs think he does? Your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Look, if you believe that things must have been created, it doesn't matter what the creator is, if the creator exists then he must have been created as well. It is simpler to believe that the universe just happened (or just is) than God AND the universe.

[close]

I think it (i.e., my argument) makes sense. God fashions/designs things as the uncaused, efficient cause of all else. He providentially guides all things along as well.

Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

'The who designed the designer' question does arise. But, the solution is as I stated: God is not a bundle or sequence of complex parts. He is infinite and immaterial. An infinite immaterial being not only doesn't need a cause, but cannot be caused. God always existed.

I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'

[Gorgeous]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Dear religious people who want to argue,

You believe that a creator exists because the universe is too complex to have just happened by itself. Your creator must then be more complex than the universe, or at the very least no less complex, but you believe this creator just happened/always existed. So, by your own reasoning it makes more sense to believe the universe came into existence by itself or always existed.
The whole creationism idea is actually circular and false logic.

Game, set and match.

[close]

fuck off
Not so fast, I don't believe God is a complex being. He is simple (in the sense of not consisting as parts). This is an important aspect of the debate. A lot of atheists assume that theists hold that God is an eternal bundle of parts. I myself would argue against a complex God.

[close]

[close]

Hahahaha so how is he an intelligent designer then???  How does he do anything you religious nutjobs think he does? Your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Look, if you believe that things must have been created, it doesn't matter what the creator is, if the creator exists then he must have been created as well. It is simpler to believe that the universe just happened (or just is) than God AND the universe.

[close]

I think it (i.e., my argument) makes sense. God fashions/designs things as the uncaused, efficient cause of all else. He providentially guides all things along as well.

Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

'The who designed the designer' question does arise. But, the solution is as I stated: God is not a bundle or sequence of complex parts. He is infinite and immaterial. An infinite immaterial being not only doesn't need a cause, but cannot be caused. God always existed.

I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'

The universe is infinite and could have always existed. Alternatively, if you believe in the big bang, you could believe the big bang just happened.......why not. In quantum atomic theory, electrons, the smallest building blocks of life appear to vanish and reappear out of nothing. I think this is the 'answer' so many of us seek and I hope science one day confirms it.
You have no concept at all of what an infinite immaterial being is, so how do you know whether it needs a cause or not. This being, by your beliefs, also has direct influence over the physical world, so it EXISTS as opposed to nothing. I'm repeating myself because you struggle with logic here, but if you believe ANYTHING just exists as opposed to nothing, you might as well believe the universe just exists. You are pulling shit out of your ass..........again and again and again, so I'll rest my case here because that's what religious people do and logical sensible people cannot make you see sense because you only see what you want to see, which is ok but you really should shut the fuck up about it.

[Gorgeous]

Expand Quote

I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'

[close]

Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.

And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.



Here are my reasons to doubt God:

At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.
Most things that are possible are not the case
So God, as merely possible, is not the case.

Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.

If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)
So, God does not exist.

If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable. But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.


Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.

I actually didn't read your post until after I wrote my response.......

[Pigeon]

Fuck God. Just be a good person for the sake of being a good person.

[ChuckRamone]

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

[JB]

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

[CRAILFISH TO REVERT]

Expand Quote

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

[close]

hi five!

[artless]

I'm firmly believe that people who live their lives through faith in God are doing something good for themselves.

Proselytizing, however, is just the worst.

Aaaaaaamen brother GAY!

[ChuckRamone]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

[close]

[close]

hi five!

is that a view of someone from behind lying naked on their stomach with their feet in the air? kinda looks like a butthole in the middle.

[SodaJerk]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

[close]

[close]

hi five!

[close]

is that a view of someone from behind lying naked on their stomach with their feet in the air? kinda looks like a butthole in the middle.

Now you pointed it out that's all I can see and since we've got that out of the way, Dear God can this thread please leave the front page of whatever? Amen.

[Simon Woodstock]

one thing I can't get past with religion is how anthropocentric it is. it has humanity's fingerprints all over it. as if the universe and god care that much about our species. once we go extinct the world will not end. the universe will still be here. it's pretty immaterial what happens to us, except to us. it's kind of like how you think all the drama in your life is important but it's not. and the drama in your town hall is not either. neither is what's happening on the national level. you keep going out in concentric circles to human activity on the global level and it's still not important - we just think it is. the world existed long before us and will continue to do so when we're gone. humans are such self-centered pieces of garbage.

I see what you are saying, but I would follow up that the exact opposite is the case with belief in God. Without God (or, more precisely, when man does not acknowledge God), then the entire focus is on humans (and/or the created world). As I see things, belief in God helps get the focus off of self and onto the bigger picture.

[Simon Woodstock]

how about addressing the free will/predestination paradox?

I think this is an area where the Christian Worldview has a lot to offer philosophically. God is good. He created humans with a good feature; namely the free will ability to chose good over evil, etc. God is uncaused and infinite, therefore He knows all the free choices humans will make. But, he does not directly determine those choices. It all boils down to God's foreknowledge here. From human's finite perspective all events of the will are free. But, from God's perspective, they are determined, as He knows the end from the beginning. To put it philosophically, God is the first efficient cause; men are secondary causes that are still under God's providential domain.

Also, everything pans out (has panned out, is panning out, will pan out) according to His plan and purpose.

I like this verse from the Bible as far as practical application goes in that regard, even though It applies directly to followers of Christ:

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Moreover, for one to deny God, then they are the ones that have a hard time with the free will/determinism tension. An atheist has no real explanation for free will (as they typically deny the existence of immaterial souls in humans, where the will of man presides) so then they get locked in the determinism box, which leads to fatalism. i.e., what then would even be the point of anything at all if everything was just determined?

There is obviously a lot more to this discussion philosophically, but that is the gist of it. The God hypothesis rightly solves the riddle.

[Simon Woodstock]

I thought the whole game with this shit was that you had to have faith in God? Isn't that the fundamental criteria for getting into heaven? And isn't faith belief without justification? Belief even though there is overwhelming evidence against a wise old space wizard and complete lack of evidence for one. That was why you are so ultra extra super duper special for being a Christian, because of your everlasting faith in the face of reason, logic, or basic common sense. So wouldn't evidence for God eliminate the need for faith, and make belief in God just another boring sensory based belief, like belief in trees?

Respectfully, God is not a 'wise wizard' as you state (that is, the preexistent God doesn't have a body, etc.). On the contrary, then, if you properly start with the notion that God is immaterial, and completely outside the the time space continuum as far as His being is concerned, then what i am presenting might (hopefully) make more sense.

Another important route to consider is this: people from all walks of life exercise faith every day. They have faith the food they will eat at a restaurant won't kill them; faith that cross traffic at an intersection will stop on a red light, etc. So, acts of faith are not out of the question for people.

Faith in God is somewhat likened to the faith exercised when getting into an elevator. That is, people wouldn't typically get into the elevator if they could not first see the floor of the compartment. Once you see the floor, then you get in. If its dark, and you can't see the floor, you hesitate.

In the same stride, there is enough 'floor-like' evidence for God to make 'getting in the elevator' of the Christian worldview a reasonable thing to do, but it still takes faith (and a decision making process) to get yourself in.

To summarize, there is enough evidence in the world to make faith in God a most reasonable proposition, but there is just enough evidence left out of the picture to make it impossible to come to belief in God based on just reason alone. It still takes a step of belief. I believe God made the world this way just to keep the proper balance of faith reason in tact. 

 

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

yes, but are you vegan?

[Simon Woodstock]

Expand Quote

I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'

[close]

Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.

And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.



Here are my reasons to doubt God:

At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.
Most things that are possible are not the case
So God, as merely possible, is not the case.

Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.

If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)
So, God does not exist.

If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable. But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.


Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.

Thanks for the respectful, thought out dialogue here. I am re-pasting and going point by point, simply for my own organization/expression of response.

Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.

And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.



Here are my reasons to doubt God:

At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).

I disagree, God is the necessary, fundamental principle by which the natural world came to exist. Plus, you cannot use naturalism to prove naturalism. In other words the totality of "science" (as understood by naturalists) cannot be proved by science. It is already "in the box" as one philosopher explained.


As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.

I would say God is most probable, and the culmination of the evidence for God goes beyond any practical statistical reason to deny His existence.
 
Most things that are possible are not the case

Conversely, I would state it another way, everything in the created order that is "the case" (that is, exists) was at one time possible, and thus subsequently exists 9as now being actualized).

So God, as merely possible, is not the case.

God, as infinite self-existent, and uncaused, has no potentiality at all. He always is. He cannot not be the case.

Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.

Again, I disagree and go with Aristotle: Humans are a soul/body unity. Matter goes with mind and vice versa (we see this evidenced regularly with psychosomatic traumas, etc.). As far as God's mind goes, His mind is axiomatically immaterial as an infinite being is "too big" to have a material body. God is Mind, and, is the efficient immaterial cause of all other immaterial minds. This is actually the best explanation for the existence of human minds.

If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.

The Bible commands use of reason and understanding of the natural world (along with spiritual disciplines) for understanding, so i would say you have made a mis-caricature (or have a misunderstanding) there.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)

I would like to see an example, from the Bible where Jesus got something wrong about history (I am not trying to overstate my case here,  I will be sure to take an objective look at your examples)

So, God does not exist.

I don't think this conclusion follows at all.

If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable.

I would say 'agreed' at this point and follow that this is where the evidence leads.

But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.

A person (you) who is more than matter (also using intelligence, mind, logic etc. that is immaterial) used immaterial means (i.e. soft computer technology) to communicate this, thus self-refuting.

Also, do you think your views of God here have 'explanatory' value and ought to be considered 'relevant'? You must assume what you are trying to deny with such a statement about God.


Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.

In 7 literal days, God could easily have created all of that in the exact sequential order that is accounted for in Genesis.

[Simon Woodstock]

yes, but are you vegan?

Before I answer, can I ask if you are Vegan, and, if so, why you are? (I am genuinely curious).

[Simon Woodstock]

Sorry, I left a couple out:

Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.

And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.

An efficient cause is, by nature, entirely metaphysically distinct from the crated order. As far as concept goes, Anselm held that God is the highest conceivable being and therefore must necessarily exist (I believe his ontological argument needs more support, but it certainly contributes an important factor to supporting the theistic worldview). So in his sense I would agree with your interpretation of Kant. Nevertheless, I think Kant is entirely off on the study of being. Things are as they are, they aren't merely as they appear. (also, I will point out that Kant essentially denied a true metaphysic and bases his worldview on epistemology, which is a view in contradiction to the empiricism that you have been claiming; at least if I am understanding these things correctly at this point).

Perhaps I should ask a question at this point: Do you think the material world can be known, and, if so, how so?

Also, the quantum level is based in the laws of physics. Where did those laws come from?

Moreover, while there is fluctuation (and, uncertainty at the quantum level) to take things from that level and directly apply them to the cosmological level is an enormous extrapolation. One that is unwarranted (in my opinion).

[Gray Imp Sausage Metal]

Before I answer, can I ask if you are Vegan, and, if so, why you are? (I am genuinely curious).

yes, because I don't think animals should be raised solely for the purpose of being intentionally killed and tortured. (your) god said, "thou shall not kill" so I'm genuinely curious as to whether you are obeying his teachings.

[ChuckRamone]

Expand Quote

how about addressing the free will/predestination paradox?

[close]

I think this is an area where the Christian Worldview has a lot to offer philosophically. God is good. He created humans with a good feature; namely the free will ability to chose good over evil, etc. God is uncaused and infinite, therefore He knows all the free choices humans will make. But, he does not directly determine those choices. It all boils down to God's foreknowledge here. From human's finite perspective all events of the will are free. But, from God's perspective, they are determined, as He knows the end from the beginning. To put it philosophically, God is the first efficient cause; men are secondary causes that are still under God's providential domain.

Also, everything pans out (has panned out, is panning out, will pan out) according to His plan and purpose.

I like this verse from the Bible as far as practical application goes in that regard, even though It applies directly to followers of Christ:

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Moreover, for one to deny God, then they are the ones that have a hard time with the free will/determinism tension. An atheist has no real explanation for free will (as they typically deny the existence of immaterial souls in humans, where the will of man presides) so then they get locked in the determinism box, which leads to fatalism. i.e., what then would even be the point of anything at all if everything was just determined?

There is obviously a lot more to this discussion philosophically, but that is the gist of it. The God hypothesis rightly solves the riddle.

And god created us, right? Why would he create us knowing many of us will go to hell? What would be the purpose of that? That's pretty messed up. And that explanation about finite versus infinite perspectives is still not convincing. It shouldn't matter whose perspective a person's choices are being viewed from - there's either free will or there isn't. But if everything is already predetermined, then there is no real free will. Everything has been mapped out. God made, and continues to make, a whole lot of people destined from the day they're born to go to hell.

[weedpop]

Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.

Again, I disagree and go with Aristotle: Humans are a soul/body unity. Matter goes with mind and vice versa (we see this evidenced regularly with psychosomatic traumas, etc.).

Psychosomatic traumas are again manifestations of mind in matter, not the other way around. Where is the empirical evidence for minds outside of matter?

If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.

The Bible commands use of reason and understanding of the natural world (along with spiritual disciplines) for understanding, so i would say you have made a mis-caricature (or have a misunderstanding) there.

I think that asserting that a person can become reasonable by being commanded to be reasonable is a mischaracterization of what it means to be reasonable. Religiosity undermines reason by it's very existence through the appeal to faith.

Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.

In 7 literal days, God could easily have created all of that in the exact sequential order that is accounted for in Genesis.

And yet there is ample physical evidence that the exact sequential order given in Genesis could not have been correct. This is where your claims that "evidence for God goes beyond any practical statistical reason to deny His existence" ring a bit hollow.

[wheelies]

Is god feminine or masculine? Or both like a tranny? Did he jizz us into creation or birth us?

[Jollyoli]

So which god would win at street league?
Would the father, son an holy ghost get a run each?
I think Allah would do well but they couldn't show his image on the big score board.
Shiva would destroy the course.
Buddha would be OK if it was transition heavy.
Osiris would kill it despite not having a cool sponsor.
Thor is always throwing hammers.

[Pigeon]

Jesus HUNG around men all the time...probably gay, which is a sin, Simon...right?

[GAY]

I am what you call a Gated Community Christian.

We worship Mary because she was a cell-splitting He/She and impregnated herself with Jesus.

She represents the trinity+1.

We also celebrate animal sacrifice unto the Lord. Although His blood was spilled and animal sacrifice is no longer needed, we practice it to symbolize our love for Him and for the He/She.

We also offer up a virgin to our deacon, Steven Dooley, a virgin who is carried on the shoulders of six sturdy kinsmen. She is then symbolically given over to Deacon Dooley during the ritual slitting of the lamb's throat, after which we break into 30 seconds of what we call the diggery du frenzied dance. The slaughtered animal is then carted out to the woods for coyotes to feed upon. 

Amen.

[JB]

^ diggery du's are fucking sick.

[Pigeon]

I'd fuck myself if I could.

[CRAILFISH TO REVERT]

please answer my heaven questions.

[Pigeon]

please answer my heaven questions.

Fuck that. Just go to Hell.

[ungzilla]

everyone is compost

the end

[SodaJerk]

I am what you call a Gated Community Christian.

We worship Mary because she was a cell-splitting He/She and impregnated herself with Jesus.

She represents the trinity+1.

We also celebrate animal sacrifice unto the Lord. Although His blood was spilled and animal sacrifice is no longer needed, we practice it to symbolize our love for Him and for the He/She.

We also offer up a virgin to our deacon, Steven Dooley, a virgin who is carried on the shoulders of six sturdy kinsmen. She is then symbolically given over to Deacon Dooley during the ritual slitting of the lamb's throat, after which we break into 30 seconds of what we call the diggery du frenzied dance. The slaughtered animal is then carted out to the woods for coyotes to feed upon. 

Amen.

Can't tell if true story or not.