Comments by monkey2
1. Man and God
Comment #103661 by monkey2 on December 26, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Woops. Sincere apologies Al-rawandi. I think I must have over stepped the mark. I really wasn't trying to be so insensitive as to get you so angry with me. - Sorry
Monkey2
2. Man and God
Comment #103652 by monkey2 on December 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Al-rawandi - I'm sorry but you just don't get it do you. We're talking about religious believers here. Every single time they think they can proselytise their junk to some unsuspecting, uncommitted human, young or old, and think that they are doing something worthy in the interest of society they need to be pulled up short by the question " What bloody evidence have you got for that?" In order to get that message to the unsuspecting uncommitted humans we need to be loud and rude. .
You don't have to think too hard to find an example of a religious believer that fits one, or all, of the descriptions listed by the apologist who wrote the article. I have no argument with his observation. We need to grab headlines and we need to point out to the religious the source of their malevolence etc.. If along the way people stop respecting religious people for, or because of, their religious beliefs then maybe some of them will feel strong enough to ask " What bloody evidence have you got for that?"
You sound like you've just been having a PC bidet douche. Get angry, tell me to f off but let's not return to the tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views that got us nowhere.
3. Man and God
Comment #103636 by monkey2 on December 26, 2007 at 10:59 am
Believers are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed".
Hear hear!
4. Man and God
Comment #103475 by monkey2 on December 25, 2007 at 7:10 pm
the onslaught of atheism ....It has been a good year for atheists ........ Not since Victorian times has there been such an intense and sustained and suffering, the dividers and the oppressors, debate about religious belief ...... they have heaped scorn and ridicule on those stupid enough to believe the myths and the obscurantist cosmology of religion ........ the bringers of war the antithesis of civilisation and the Enlightenment............ The argument has become highly political.......... as faith issues have emerged at the centre of British and global politics, what was once a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views, has become a vicious dogfight.......... There has also, however, been a more thoughtful and useful response, which admits the force of many of the atheists' arguments and asks whether faith has been too arrogant or believers too naively narrow in their convictions. Among Christians, there is no doubt that confusion and disillusion are causing considerable anguish............. almost all churches in Britain, and indeed beyond, have been riven by uncertainty.
Apologies for such a large selection of quotes from the article but I like them a lot. I'm all for pouring scorn and ridicule. I think it's the right tactic to employ, at this point in time, to get into a vicious dogfight with the believers.
The author does seem to be saying that the new atheism has become a force to be reckoned with admitting that the arguments employed against atheists, such as Hitler and Stalin, are less than thoughtful or useful.
His or her contribution to the argument was so vague I'm having trouble understanding it. All things considered I'm glad it was printed. Especially so, at this time of year.
5. 'Christian God is not to blame'
Comment #102909 by monkey2 on December 23, 2007 at 9:43 pm
There's a political storm brewing in Sydney over the cost of the World Youth Day and the papal visit. State and Federal governments will be contributing at least A$95 million towards the jamboree.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/church-tells-how-to-answer-critics/2007/12/13/1197135657254.html
The Sydney Morning Herald News blog asks "Are we ready for the Pope?" The comments are fun reading. G. Gibson reckons the Pope is trying to create One World Church that will be the friend of the coming world antichrist .... the beast.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/016800.html
6. 'Christian God is not to blame'
Comment #102901 by monkey2 on December 23, 2007 at 8:45 pm
God has visited us, not just through prophets, saints and humanitarian heroes, but through...
Humanitarian heroes? This was inserted to make the Christian residents of Sydney feel that they too can be 'humanitarian heroes' by putting up, in their own homes, the 500,000 visiting Christians in July.
"But all believers have to acknowledge the downside of their long story, while asking that their positive contributions are also recorded."
For 'positive contribution' read 'putting up the visitors in your own homes'.
You're quite right robotholic, it was about pulling the heart strings of mothers. Especially those with a spare room. They have a papal visit coming up and they have only six months to stable the 'rent a crowd'. What would the pope think of his Archbishop if no one was there to cheer him as he parades about.
7. 'Christian God is not to blame'
Comment #102869 by monkey2 on December 23, 2007 at 7:44 pm
"In July, more than 500,000 Christians will descend upon Sydney. I ask you all to welcome them into your hearts and perhaps, as at the Olympics, into your homes.... We should remember the sick and the sad, the lonely and the angry and reach out to help them."
Oh my goodness - 500,000 sick, sad, lonely and angry Christians about to descend on Sydney. The Inns are going to be full.
Comment #102566 by monkey2 on December 23, 2007 at 8:38 am
Christianity turns out to be a Roman invention designed to unite the unruly masses.
Mathew 22:21 "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"
Unite the unruly masses and make damn sure they pay their taxes.
9. Clegg 'does not believe in God'
Comment #100879 by monkey2 on December 19, 2007 at 2:00 pm
The Archbishop of Canterbury said
"This is a country with a nominally Christian majority and that's good. Whoever becomes prime minister has to understand that and work with it rather than against the grain of it."
A nominally Christian Majority. Only 40 months to go before the 2011 Census.
I hope that we can do enough before then to make it a nominally Atheist majority!
The Prime Minister will then have to understand that and work with it rather than against the grain of it.
When you get to question 14 - 'What is your Religion?' Stand up and be counted as a 'None'.
10. God rest you merry atheist
Comment #99922 by monkey2 on December 17, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I suspect [but I'm not sure] that many [perhaps a thousand?] approach carols in a spirit of cautious [I may well be wrong] unexpressed [wouldn't admit to it out loud] hope [it might be kind of nice if maybe it could be true] - willing to leave the door just a crack open [only a crack please - that' all it's worth and it's cold outside] to the possibility [the ghost of a chance] that there might [on the off chance] be something or Someone out there [can't think what it might be], beyond it all [can't think where it might be], incapable of being pinned down [unimaginable?] by science or reason [more difficult to understand than quantum physics ] but nonetheless [despite my own mind boggling uncertainty] wonderful and benign [as opposed to the vindictive and malignant Judeo/ Christian God].
Comment #99203 by monkey2 on December 15, 2007 at 11:02 pm
As I understand it, the scholars use the same evidence that Rook Hawkins is analysing, i.e. any historical document that mentions key words or names (all alternative spellings and translations are allowed). If someone wrote the name Jebus then that is evidence. Despite the amount of evidence being virtually non-existent and highly disputable, in their eyes it is, nevertheless, evidence.
I would doubt that it is the acceptance of such evidence as compelling proof of jesus' existence that entitles them to the description of expert or scholar. More likely it is their years of searching and familiarity with historical records that entitles them to those credentials.
You are quite right to demand to know their reasoning if they subsequently use their 'finds' to justify the 'truth of the Gospels' but don't hold your breath. They have probably spent their whole lives on a quest to prove what they believed before they started
12. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers
Comment #99196 by monkey2 on December 15, 2007 at 9:45 pm
But it also offers a class called "Advanced studies in creationism
This class can last up to one hour. Students will be asked to colour in the picture of 'Noah and The Velocorapter' that they were given in their "Basic studies in creationism". Marks will be awarded for neatness.
Comment #99188 by monkey2 on December 15, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Sara
If you're interested in the historical 'evidence' for jesus you might like Rook Hawkins' analysis http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275
14. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash
Comment #97964 by monkey2 on December 12, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I liked AHA's reasons for the rejection of Islamic faith schools. TGA's total agreement was music to my ears. Their pragmatic approach to Christian and Jewish schools lent their views a chance of political acceptance. Rome wasn't built in a day.
I hope TGA wasn't just agreeing because he could hear Barry White singing sweet music in his ears.
15. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash
Comment #97958 by monkey2 on December 12, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I quite like the idea of being an enlightenment fundamentalist but before I sign up, I would need to know exactly what the fundamentals are.
16. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins
Comment #96788 by monkey2 on December 10, 2007 at 10:50 pm
My hope.....is that this..[will]....be the catalyst for forming together a coalition of rational-minded people...
I hope he wasn't thinking of including himself in any coalition of rational-minded people until after he has 'got down on his knees, recognised his error of judgement, and gone on to write a book about the moment of his conversion.'
Given the brown tinge of his nose, it would take nothing less than his excommunication to persuade me of his mind's conversion to rational thought.
Comment #93967 by monkey2 on December 4, 2007 at 1:57 pm
That devil music says
Travel my way, the highway that's the best
Get your kicks on Route 66
Comment #92606 by monkey2 on November 30, 2007 at 10:35 pm
And here's his justification
Besides I don't think that I'm insulting anyone who doesn't deserve it a thousand times over. I also think that if we did a bit more insulting and a bit less pointless debating then religion might not have such a falsely inflated idea of it's own importance and there might not be so many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist.
19. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons
Comment #92076 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 8:48 pm
What do you do in a situation like this?
Give all the information to a Judge and let him or her decide how the law relates to that particular case.
You can't say for certain that you would have come to a different decision if you were the Judge.
Did the Judge think that he was hamstrung by the law and that it should be changed?
20. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson
Comment #92066 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Bonzai I agree that 'to say that DSW is vying for a Templeton is uncalled for.' The same, however, cannot be said for Paul Davies.
Comment #92063 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 8:00 pm
HoyaSaxa87 said
simply saying "you're all full of crap," (which I agree with) and "therefore you're not worth having a discussion with," is going to get us nowhere.
When having a discussion with a theist, to say "You're not worth having a discussion with" is, as you quite rightly point out, going to get you nowhere.
Much better to simply say "You're full of crap". Honesty is the best policy.
22. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson
Comment #92047 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 6:40 pm
David Sloan Wilson said
If you have any knowledge of religious belief, you know that religious believers are always comparing their communities to single organisms and beehives.
I can't get that picture of religious communities as beehives out of my head. It really works well on so many levels.
Tomcat I agree. The scientific study of religion is in its infancy and David Sloan Wilson who is an atheist seems to be making an effort to understand it.
Audience Member: I'm teaching a course here at SUNY Albany on the ethnology of religion. I also have a Master's degree in religious studies from a Methodist seminary. I can see both scientific and theoretical approaches to religion.
Duff I'm sure this person was a theist, with his Master's degree in religious studies. If so, unlike David Sloan Wilson, he might be eligible for the Templeton prize,. He might even be able to make a contribution on the ethnology of religion but I would be wary of his opinions on the mind 'disorder' side of religion.
Bonzai The beehive analogy can explain how a member can be irrational and deranged yet still function. It doesn't matter what tosh the members believe as long as they all think they believe the same as each other and give up their individuality to the hive. If the hive thrives then the members are successful. If they are successful it must be because their beliefs are correct.
23. Discover plagiarism at the Discovery Institute
Comment #91270 by monkey2 on November 27, 2007 at 9:40 pm
'The Inner life of the cell' is simply mind blowing. Any of Dembskis' students who see it will surely be impressed by the depth of scientific understanding behind it. If they end up studying cell biology then I have no doubt that 99.9% of them will reject ID.
24. Golden Compass author hits back
Comment #91265 by monkey2 on November 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Frankus1122
There's a bunch of reviews at http://www.hisdarkmaterials.org/news/the-golden-compass/the-golden-compass-our-reviews .
Those who have seen the film appear to be impressed by the cinematography rather than the tabloid subplot. There are loads of quotes, that you can use, to make the film unmissable
25. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?
Comment #89117 by monkey2 on November 19, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Jeepjay
I enjoyed reading your rebuttal and I'll be visiting the Leicester Secular Society blog again.
I agree entirely with your decision to stay in the BHA and "argue our case from within".
The National Secular Society has benefited greatly from the 'new atheism' in membership and exposure. Their President, Terry Sanderson, appears to have taken advantage of the new climate to redouble their efforts.
The BHA must have benefited in a similar fashion. It's frustrating to feel that they can't be bothered to put their efforts into something more worthwhile than internecine bickering.
26. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?
Comment #87963 by monkey2 on November 13, 2007 at 9:41 pm
New Humanist ran a poll asking "Are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens a good thing for humanism?"
The result was 5129 Yes, 221 No.
The article by Professor Richard Norman, who is a Vice President of the British Humanist Association, suggests that he was one of the 221 Noes.
So what is going on at the BHA? Does anyone have any inside information?
The following is a list of Vice Presidents
Professor Richard Dawkins
Professor Simon Blackburn
Professor Lewis Wolpert
Baroness Blackstone
Baroness Turner of Campden
Baroness Whitaker
Jane Wynne Willson
Clare Raynor
Lord Hughes of woodside
Dr. James Hemming
Professor Sir Bernard Crick
Professor Richard Norman
Sir Bernard Crick (no relation) had already spoken out to say that he thinks that everyone should nice to the religious folk. So what do the others think? With the exception of RD, are they all in the No camp too?
Perhaps the BHA needs a bit of a shake up. Is Polly Toynbee the new President up for it?
Comment #86005 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Russell
Locke's assertion, however laudable, that ..... 'if the states actions, based on good secular reasons, have an adverse effect on someone who has particular belief, so be it' .....does not seem, in the case of education, to apply. The effect of a secular education should be favourable on the child and through them, possibly favourable, on the welfare of the parent and ultimately, therefore, on the welfare of society.
Such a state action, based on good secular reasons, does not cut across the religionist's moral view. Education is not a moral view or issue in the sense that abortion might be seen to be, with a canon that requires obedience at the ballot box. Education is not a religious doctrine to be argued with and agree to differ. It is a social welfare issue of the highest importance.
It seems to me that secular education fits squarely into your point No.2 'The independence of secular goals'. Religious education belongs in Sunday schools and alpha courses and it fits squarely into your point No.3 'Individualism in personal salvation' within which you envisage the freedom, of say evangelical Christians, to spread their doctrine of spiritual salvation.
If there are to be grey areas let them be hijabs and turbans, silver crosses and chocolate christs. Now is not the time to allow religious education a free pass.
28. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!
Comment #85976 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Steve99
And we have our dear old Bishop of Glasgow claiming that God was directly interfering with our land in the UK, flooding us because of pro-gay legislation.
Bishop of Carlisle I believe. Please correct me if you have evidence that they agree with each other.
29. Same Flea, Different Name?
Comment #85970 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Don't you feel sorry for the atheist lying in his casket all dressed up and no place to go?
Taken one stage further can you imagine the theist in his Sunday best. His finger wriggling his collar for eternity.
Comment #85964 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 3:48 pm
There are many widely-agreed goals that the state can pursue independent of its attitude, one way or the other, to religious claims. These secular goals include peace and security, economic productivity and efficiency, social co-ordination, the alleviation of suffering and poverty, and so on.
Education deserves to be mentioned as more important than just "and so on". It has relevance to peace and security, economic productivity and efficiency, social co-ordination and the eleviation of suffering and poverty. Do you not have religious schools in Australia? I would have thought that their removal is yet another basic tenet of UK secularism.
31. Same Flea, Different Name?
Comment #85827 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 9:29 am
Free Rorschach inkblot test with every book cover. Mmm.. Rusty dagger?
32. Same Flea, Different Name?
Comment #85823 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 9:22 am
God is no delusion in the mind of the deluded.
Comment #85816 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 9:12 am
Indeed, countries such as the UK, with its formally-established church, might be considered sufficiently tolerant, or accommodating, to meet the most urgent political imperatives that can be deduced from my four points.
The Church of England don't do Saints so you are safe from beatification.
Thus, those of us who favour a stricter, and sharper, separation of church and state may have to find other arguments.
The presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords is an unacceptable anachronism and I would have thought that their removal is a basic tenet of UK secularism. I had hoped that your four points would be a sufficient argument and I'm not yet sure that they aren't. It's a shame that they will have to be used out of context to avoid your conciliatory musing.
Comment #85693 by monkey2 on November 6, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Well done Russell. It's good to see the politics of atheism aired.
35. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!
Comment #85433 by monkey2 on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 pm
M_Roche
Calm down it's only a commercial. The book isn't launched until tomorrow is it. All publicity is good publicity. The more she sells the bigger your present will be at Christmas. If sales are bad you might find a copy wrapped up for you under the tree.
Once you've read it and informed your mother-not-yet-in-law of what is wrong with it over boxing day turkey leftovers, perhaps you could let us know.
I had to laugh at your "twilight reason" piece - 158 comments on a book no-one can possibly have read. If you had read all the thread you would know that Dr. Benway's back and the Wea Flea has been banned, again! We now know who the famous atheists are on the front cover. We've read an e-mail from your mother-not-yet-in-law on the subject of feminism and Catholicism and... oh read it yourself
Now what were you saying about the 158 commenters
Not reviewing the evidence. No critical analysis. No informed argument. The worst kind of specious judgement. Textbook example of prejudicial opinion. The 158 don't have an evidence-based opinion and finally......
No one likes a hypocrite.
Actually I like you because you tell your mother-not-yet-in-law what is wrong with her books.
Comment #85095 by monkey2 on November 5, 2007 at 12:57 am
If the article that Windweaver has found is too 'steamy' for you mother, you could print out a copy of 'The turning of an Atheist'. The New York Times version linked above. She probably knows someone suffering from dementia and you can discuss the ethics of Anthony Flew's co-authors.
37. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists
Comment #85055 by monkey2 on November 4, 2007 at 5:57 pm
This thread is an interesting test for the Debate Points adopted methodology.
By using the 'Other Comments by...' Link we can see how ADH began his comments history by pretending on October 21,22 & 23 to be a fellow atheist. It is not as easy to detect sarcasm when it is written as it is when spoken. Having gained his confidence he finally outs himself as a Christian. He picks fights on various threads, which is fine with me. I've learnt a lot from the rebuttals. The question that needs to be addressed is do we want his muddy footprints left all over the Debate Points?
It could be argued that it is useful to have a gods advocate on each and every debate point to highlight the weakness of certain arguments. I think, however, that we have enough clearthinkers who are more than capable of this task. The trouble with using Christian Lurkers is that they have a habit of derailing the thread. This is not always deliberate. They are often way too angry to think straight and they are also inclined to revert to basic BS that is just too tempting to ignore.
It should be possible to move irrelevant comments to the end of the thread by using the 'Rank this comment' link. For this to work it depends on readers using it. I used it on a comment I thought irrelevant by giving it a 'poor' rank only to find that it shoved the comment up the board above all the comments that had 'no rank'! I've learnt my lesson now. Leave well alone or spend all day ranking all comments from excellent to poor. It might improve with time, eventually evolving into the perfect order but I doubt it.
I like the idea of Steve99's "thread moderation, with posts not relevant to the subject being removed." Or as ADH put it "excising this 'religious nonsense' as soon as it appears if not before?" There is a place for 'religious nonsense', just not here at Debate Points.
I hope that any chosen thread moderator would remove this comment from this thread which, I am well aware, has nothing to do with the Debate Point "Atheism is a religion and your as bad as the fundamentalists"
Comment #84704 by monkey2 on November 3, 2007 at 9:22 am
The genius of the Christian gospel...is that it releases the individual from the prison of "self" and makes him or her an integral part of an organic whole - a "body".
Humans have been organising themselves into 'bodies' since hunter gatherer days without the genius of the christian gospel.
Each individual is more fully him or herself the more they see themselves as capable of making a unique contribution on behalf of the community.
Reminds me of TV documentary I gormlessly absorbed. A man was living with a pack of wolves. There was a bit of a war going on over who was the alpha male. He pointed out a nervous scrawny individual who was obviously not in the race for pack leader. His nervousness, however, made him ideal as a look out. He was able to make a unique contribution on behalf of his community without the genius of the christian gospel.
Comment #84350 by monkey2 on November 1, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Both Dawkins and Humphrys engage with the challenge to theism that is represented by the existence of a world...... which... contains so much evil and suffering. This is.... holding people back from religious belief, and .....[it] troubles religious believers.
One could not claim that there is a complete and straightforward answer available to remove the perplexity.
What a clear definition of atheism - A complete and straightforward answer to perplexity!
40. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza
Comment #80443 by monkey2 on October 21, 2007 at 9:24 pm
It was only last month that Michael Shermer wrote a strange article in Scientific American entitled 'An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens' It was a gentle reminder to religious skeptics to be cautious about irrational exuberance. He suggested that they should raise their consciousness one tier higher. What he meant by this was not entirely clear.
If this debate was intended to display his control of exuberance and his higher tier of consciousness then the result is not a good one. There really is no excuse to lose a debate with a Christian any more. Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have cut the ground from under them.
They say you can't teach old dogs new tricks. After such a long and distinguished career as a skeptic Michael Shermer is a bit of a puppy when it comes to debating. If only he could display some of the exuberance of my favourite Rottweiler.
Comment #80326 by monkey2 on October 21, 2007 at 10:56 am
Australia's best known atheist, Phillip Adams
"Atheism is being represented by that unholy trinity aggressively and probably a bit unhelpfully," Adams says. "I think we should turn the thermostat down a bit......... I have long since given up trying to convince people: you cannot reason people out of an irrational belief."
Perhaps Australia needs a new spokesperson for the 21st century. Someone who is prepared to turn up the heat.
Comment #80075 by monkey2 on October 19, 2007 at 9:21 pm
But while atheism may have made its way into the public discourse, it remains strictly verboten in our politics. Even though a majority of people say in surveys that a person can still be a good American without Christian values, to be an atheist and run for high office is to wear the scarlet A.
Can anyone help me out? I assume Tim Egan is not referring to the scarlet A of the out campaign, so what does the phrase "to wear the scarlet A" refer to?
Comment #75840 by monkey2 on October 3, 2007 at 8:23 pm
How strange cyris8400
The streaming I listened to definitely had RD winning on the 'clapometer'.
As for the format, it may have been badly created but RD was able to modify it to his advantage. His experience in these circumstances shone through and he was able to respond quite brilliantly to almost every point that was put to him.
Comment #75830 by monkey2 on October 3, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I listened on KMBI Radio in Spokane. Listening to the presenters after the debate you could not believe they were working for a Christian radio station. They loved RD. They were so excited about having learnt new things about evolution. At one point they had to emphasise that they are practising Christians. They wanted more! More of a debate that they agreed RD had just won. Obviously they were contracted to advertise the CD. What a thought. Christians paying to be enlightened!
Comment #75088 by monkey2 on October 1, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I found the following statement on the CMI web site linked by Dr Benway
There have been many attempts by many people to reinterpret the Scriptures to incorporate eons of time into the Bible, but no method works (which is why there are so many). Every compromise position undermines the authority of Scripture and damages the biblical world view. Like a blow to the heart, millions of years destroy the Gospel by placing the fossil record, with its death and suffering, before sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. Thus, the issue is crucial for the Christian (indeed for all people, because the Bible is true and its message has consequences for everyone).
Rather than inducing an Orwellian Low I think this should cheer us all up. We are arguing about tactics and names. Look at it from their perspective. They realise that the games up and their only chance is to try and debunk the wisdom of mankind accumulated over the last centuries that is currently being taught in almost all schools in the western world!
Comment #74815 by monkey2 on September 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Ricey mentioned the BBC Radio Ulster debate
Http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/ulster_aod.shtml?ulster/tb
Run down the list on the right and click on Talkback - Wednesday - David Dunseith tackles the breaking stories of the day.
Comment #74668 by monkey2 on September 29, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I think it would be a good idea if you could flag posts with either a 'Hit' or a 'Miss'. Majority wins. As you run your mouse over the post it would respond with a loud cheer or a boo depending on the current vote.
For posters who keep repeating ad nauseam, points they admit to having posted earlier a special response could be recorded. Maybe the sound of coffee house biscuits being thrown at them.
Comment #74663 by monkey2 on September 29, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Numbers are important.
In England there were, according to the 2001 census, 7.7 million of no religion compared with 37.3 million Christians.
If we want the Government to stop giving the Church of England special status all we have to do is convert 15 million Christians to no religion by the 2011 census.
That is only 2 Christians each in under 4 years!
Comment #74458 by monkey2 on September 29, 2007 at 12:43 am
If you do not wish to applaud the RRS for what they do and you even wish they did nothing then my personal opinion is that you are plain wrong.
We all do something. I am sure that every one of us has informed at least one other person that they are an atheist. It's a start just to let others know that there is an alternative to religion.
We all want to do more than we have done already. Learning the subject is never ending. Reading anything and everything. My memory is like a sieve but every once in a while I get to quote something relevant before it gets rinsed away.
In terms of opportunity the RRS have won the lottery. It has fallen in their laps and they can no more run away from it than you or I would be able to refuse the nmillions of lottery dosh.
Maybe this site is helping the RRS by its mix of criticism and applause. An atheist peer review. If, however, you're on the critical side just don't expect to be thanked.
50. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?
Comment #72769 by monkey2 on September 22, 2007 at 9:32 pm
This poll can be seen in the context of an argument amongst leading humanists.
Sir Bernard Crick one of RD's fellow Vice Presidents of the BHA believes that the new atheists like RD & CH are making it hard for humanists to work with the moderate religious to combat the deadly, religious fundamentalists.
He may, therefore, have voted for 'No, their aggressive tone is unhelpful'.
Presumably this poll, with the vote at currently 64 noes to 1,846 yesses, was not his idea!
More Pages: 1 2 | Next
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
