1. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240622 by gregonomic on August 31, 2008 at 5:29 pm

I have nothing but respect for anyone who has the guts to agree to be interviewed by Colbert, but if you expect him to go easy on you, you're kidding yourself.

The Colbert Report is the show I miss the most since I left the USA - Colbert is more consistently 'on' than any other television comedian.

The problem with is interviews is that he is too sharp. His guests almost always end up looking dim-witted in comparison.

And just to prove he's an equal opportunist, take a look at him making a theist look stupid:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=70730

2. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108209 by gregonomic on January 6, 2008 at 8:59 am

I'm concerned about the use of "cancer" (a somewhat nebulous catch-all term) as an example of "natural evil". Sure, many "cancers" are essentially unpreventable, but a sizeable minority, if not the majority, are the result of lifestyle choices and/or environmental exposure to mutagens.

As such, they are no more "evil" than plane crashes and traffic collisions.

3. Changing my Mind

Comment #106232 by gregonomic on January 2, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Further to comment #106188 by eno - is it not possible to be both atheist (believe that there are no gods) and agnostic (believe that it is impossible to prove the existence - or lack thereof - of the gods that have been proposed)?

4. A War On Science

Comment #105585 by gregonomic on January 1, 2008 at 5:37 am

room101 (comment 20):

It may be simply my own lack of research, but I haven't heard much of Dembski's so-called model. Has anyone else in this forum heard of it?

Dembski espouses the idea of "specified complexity", which, by his definition, is anything that's too complex to have arisen by chance, and must have been created by an intelligent designer.

He also once claimed to have invented an "explanatory filter" which could distinguish between designed and non-designed structures. I haven't heard much about that lately.

Competent mathematicians, notably Elsberry and Shallitt, have debunked most of Dembski's ideas, although I'm not sure why they bothered - most of Dembski's calculations regarding biological structures are based on assumptions which are simply laughable.

Why didn't this model play more of a significant role in the Dover case (other than the obvious: A). He didn't show up and B). The model is bull****).

He was supposed to be a witness at Dover, but withdrew before he was due to testify, allegedly because the Thomas More Law Center wouldn't allow the Discovery (sic) Institute witnesses to have their own lawyers. Popular opinion leans towards the argument that it was pretty obvious from the outset, and especially so after Micheal Behe's testimony, that the defense was dead in the water, and that the Discovery (sic) Institute couldn't afford to be associated with such a disastrous loss, so it withdrew all of its fellows.

Of course, (B) is also correct.

5. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78683 by gregonomic on October 14, 2007 at 9:46 am

Dr David Starkey had a go at Rowan Williams today on the BBC, citing him as an example of why the C of E is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and why the monarchy should become more secular when Charles takes over.

6. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62373 by gregonomic on August 9, 2007 at 12:36 pm

The fruit/symphony analogy is weak, if it is intended to defend the idea that there are "other ways of knowing" about things which don't actually exist.

Fruits exist. Symphonies exist. It is possible for any living human to experience both.

Not so for god(s).

7. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40118 by gregonomic on May 13, 2007 at 7:42 am

Not so much a debate as two egotists talking past each other.

Sharpton was incredibly weak, and yet Hitchens failed to capitalise.