1. God seekers go public

Comment #179497 by JammyB on May 13, 2008 at 10:35 am

"It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is a cargo cult, no two ways about it.

I can imagine these cretins sitting in the lab with their lab coats, goggles, pipettes, perhaps with a skeleton hanging in the corner, all desperately trying to look the part. Funniest story I've read all day.

2. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179234 by JammyB on May 13, 2008 at 12:23 am

"His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject."

Opinion slipping into news here? This sounds like an attempt to "balance" the argument by claiming each side are as bad as each other, without providing any source. I'd love to know where a prominent atheist has lied for FSM about this.

"Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.""

The quote presented does not support the statement made. Not that it would matter if it were true.

3. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159197 by JammyB on April 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Let's not forget that the current Pope has PERSONALLY and by his own hand helped to cover up the rape of small children of the congregation. Even the most fundie Christian should be putting him up on this list.

4. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159028 by JammyB on April 11, 2008 at 11:02 am

That's great that she apologised but her outburst has still revealed her bigoted views, which no doubt she still holds dear.

5. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126956 by JammyB on February 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I really enjoyed that and it was great to hear from an intelligent opponent for once. It surprises me that the vast majority of religious people in these debates refuse to define exactly what they believe, and if pressed simply revert to wishy-washy vague descriptions or a dishonest attempt to dodge the question and change the subject.

I was surprised that Madeline compared her beliefs to Einstein as well. I don't know if this is just ignorance (there are a lot of religiously founded myths floating around about him) or whether she cannot understand the difference between his semantic use of "god" and her own Christian belief. She is clearly intelligent so it's hard to understand, perhaps she just hasn't thought about it much. Then again, we have to wonder whether she's actually Christian considering she seems agnostic on so many key points.

6. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124379 by JammyB on February 9, 2008 at 9:26 am

http://www.xenu.net/

http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Target_IRL/Europe

7. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116684 by JammyB on January 27, 2008 at 5:34 am

Hi Rod, I had the same problem, try watching them from the site itself. This is working for me.

http://www.labreporter.com/index.html

8. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100793 by JammyB on December 19, 2007 at 10:41 am

You can send Nick a message on the Lib Dem website: http://www.libdems.org.uk/

I've just sent one thanking him for being so honest. I hope it doesn't cost him votes - I wasn't planning to vote this time but this changed my mind. I'm not a huge fan of the Lib Dems but I think this news speaks a lot about his character.

9. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97577 by JammyB on December 12, 2007 at 11:37 am

Cheers Zzyx1170. Enjoyed this, very different from the normal fallacious questions he gets asked about Hitler et al.

10. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89679 by JammyB on November 21, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I was skeptical about this when I first read about it, and despite Sam's replies I'm still running two minds about this. I strongly feel that it is up to our governments and not us to fund her security. I've still given though - I don't know if it'll make any difference, but I think it's worth the risk.

I don't think it's fair to say that atheists are less caring because of some people's reluctance to give. It's not a black and white issue. In the end everyone must think for themselves and come to their own decisions.

11. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81209 by JammyB on October 24, 2007 at 12:12 pm

D'Souza must have either a very bad memory or be a serial liar. I've not watched all of this yet but please:
- You might have thought it was the religious blowing up skyscrapers, abortion clinics and each other who are "militant", but oh no, turns out it's us book-writing atheists. The pen is mightier than the sword I guess.
- We have all been lied to, burn your history books and unremember all those facts and photos you've seen, Hitler was in fact an atheist! Presumably the non-God didn't tell him not to kill those jews then.
- The laws of physics are not consistent, perhaps D'Souza could help to demonstate that gravity is not consistent by jumping out of the window.

D'Souza asks how particles "know" how to interact - obviously they must have souls duhhhh!

12. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79839 by JammyB on October 18, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Enjoyed watching Hitchens but I do find it hard to listen to McGrath. Hitchens considers himself having been verbose, but compare this to McGrath who says almost nothing of substance over the entire debate. I could count on one hand the amount of real points he was making, or clear and precise answers given. This is in stark contrast to Hitchens who, as he emphasises at the start, takes great pains to make his position clear and understood.

McGrath seems to take every opportunity to muddy the waters and steer the debate away from the point. When pinned down, he waves away the questions with vague answers and quickly moves on. I do find it hard to comprehend how this man holds a position at Oxford, but then I suppose people like him need not be held to an academic standard when studying the non-academic subject of theology.

13. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61019 by JammyB on August 3, 2007 at 10:47 am

What kind of academic proves to his assertions by simply inserting "Obviously..." or "Of course..." at the start of each sentence? Oh wait, it's a theologian.

Using McGrath's methods I think I've found a most eloquent proof for God, here goes:
A obviously does not equal A
therefore God obviously exists
QED. Obviously.

I very much enjoyed this one too: "Of course, if you're a Christian you'll see immediately that that same pattern is there in thinking about God."

So if you go in having ignored all evidence and already accepting the conclusion, you can see the conclusion. Thanks McGrath, another great argument to add to my repotoire!

14. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #40617 by JammyB on May 14, 2007 at 3:34 pm

I don't think it really matters in this argument whether most religious people are fanatics or moderates; what matters is whether we see the fundamentalist effect in our society. The UK (and Ireland) are certainly no exception, and Rees-Mogg must be living on another planet to not acknowledge this. Only last week have we seen the (beginning of the) end of the troubles in Ireland, and before that we have had to endure Christian homophobes, Islamic attempts to remove free speech and even Sikh's shutting down theatre.

15. God . . . in other words

Comment #40127 by JammyB on May 13, 2007 at 8:27 am

Like others, I was impressed with the honest way that the interview presented Dawkins. I always find that he comes across better in visual media than in print, simply because journalists cannot dishonestly portray him as an "angry, militant atheist". I'm very pleased that Ruth Gledhill presented him as the reasonable man that he is.

I thought Ruth's defence of religion was less impressive however. The semantic games ran all the way through that article, and eventually God was being defined as "love" or an 11th dimensional entity. Let's keep this honest - this isn't the God that Ruth or other religious people believe in - they believe in a meddling God who makes specific, testable claims about the world. It's intellectually dishonest to constantly redefine God as something existing outside of the bounds of current science, only to redefine him yet again once those gaps are filled.

I did appreciate her argument that moderatism creates a buffer against fundamentalism. I could well see this being true, though I hardly think it's something we should rejoice.

16. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35709 by JammyB on April 28, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I forget where I heard this but:
"If the banana is proof for that there is a god, the pineapple is proof that there isn't."