Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Stephen Maxwell


1. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176078 by Stephen Maxwell on May 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Don_Quix that avatar is brilliant!!!

2. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175967 by Stephen Maxwell on May 6, 2008 at 9:45 am

I almost spat out my Irn Bru when I read this line:

Demon possession 'definitely' happens, demonologist says

3. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175456 by Stephen Maxwell on May 5, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Watching now. There's something really annoying about someone talking about themselves in the third person don't you think?

4. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174437 by Stephen Maxwell on May 2, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Well if you injured your nailbed, say trapped in a door, you'd need three to four nail growth cycles for it to regain its concave contour like the picture shown. We're talking two years. This nail recovered its natural structure in weeks?


Hmmm. I don't know about two years. On December 11th 2007 I had an accident on a train where I completely - I repeat...completely - lost a fingernail by jamming it in a window. Nasty business, but I would say by mid-April it had regained it's natural structure so much so that it's no longer noticeable.

At the hospital I was told it would take around 3 months...it took 4 months, but 2 years is a bit of an excessive estimate, imo.

5. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172947 by Stephen Maxwell on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

I'm a fan of Condell. I can't help but laugh when I hear him say:

...and this is why there's daily Bible study in The White House, and in The Pentagon, because they're all experts on their Bible in those two places. They know all about who begat whom, and who smote whom, and who spake unto whom...but they're not quite sure where Italy is!


So many people in the world's most advanced country don't want evolution taught in schools because they believe that the Earth was formed six thousand years ago...shortly after the invention of the wheel!


I find his videos amusing and refreshing.

6. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165176 by Stephen Maxwell on April 21, 2008 at 7:14 am

This was awesome!

"Atheism is a religion. It's a set of beliefs."

Ludicrous.

7. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164235 by Stephen Maxwell on April 19, 2008 at 7:23 pm

The interview with Shermer was EXCELLENT!!

Since I'm engaged in argument on discussion forums with ID proponents lately, they seem to be giving the typical responses of "Everyone who hates this movie loves Michael Moore" and vice versa, but Shermer's comments are useful as he is a scientist who doesn't seem to be particularly engaged in the politics of it, but merely the science.

8. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162944 by Stephen Maxwell on April 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Is Richard the new singer in U2 or something? :D

9. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161119 by Stephen Maxwell on April 14, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Watching. Sounds promising from what I've seen so far.

10. A New Flea

Comment #160494 by Stephen Maxwell on April 14, 2008 at 6:51 am

To Comment #160466 by ThoughtsonCommonToad,

My favourite part about that section on his wikipedia page is that the book is apparently a scathing attack on fundamentalists:

He believes that fundamentalists interpret the Bible in implausible manners and pick and choose which of its passages to emphasize in order to fit preexisting beliefs. Ward argues that the Bible must be taken seriously, but not always literally and he does not agree with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, saying that it is not found in the Bible.

If that's not completely picking and choosing, I don't know what is. Blatant hypocrisy.

11. A New Flea

Comment #160165 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Haha, Thurston.

Since you mentioned Hitchens, I can't help but remember the painstaking whistling 's' of Peter Hitchens in the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate.

Let's add Dinesh D'Souza, John Lennox to the list. Also, although not a theologian, why not add Madeleine Bunting to the list too. :P

I can't help but appreciate the soothing voices of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. :D

12. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160154 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 6:24 pm

If there truly is a car that runs on something other than oil (or consumes a lot less of it), then there has to be some other force besides oil companies keeping the technology suppressed.

I wish there was, but what kind of company, where the government would fail to claim a substantial tariff? What I believe is that, without oil companies having a large field of control on the economy, the economy itself may collapse. I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject so I'd love to be corrected.

There is simply too much money to be made in that industry for the car companies to refuse to make it. Greed ultimately wins out over any form of market collusion.

There's probably even more money to be lost from the oil companies, though. :(

I fear it may be too late to dig ourselves out of this hole. I hope I'm wrong, though.

13. A New Flea

Comment #160150 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Thurston,

Any idea why British theologians like Alister McGrath and this Keith Ward chap have really annoying voices? Is it just me?

Gore Vidal dealt with the topic rather well in that clip, although I disagreed with him complementing the deluded bereavement counsellor in the audience. I can see his point as to why he did it. As an atheist, even I would prefer to think that, for example, my mother had not simply disappeared, though I would feel a compulsion to argue against a third-person in the equation's reasoning for believing in such an idea.

14. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160134 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 5:25 pm

FightingFalcon, you do realise how much money the government makes from oil etc right?

In Britain, the government takes around 65% of the cost of a litre of petrol - so a little over 65p - and the oil companies take the other 35%. Cars that run entirely on electricity wouldn't be of great use to the government. Added to that, they also charge a shitload in London for cars that run on petrol to drive around the city.

15. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160130 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Julius, I apologise if you've answered already but since you attend Catholic mass...

Do you kneel?

16. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159379 by Stephen Maxwell on April 12, 2008 at 3:56 am

In that sense I'm glad they recorded it Richard.

There's a few times when doing a live feed that they've completely lost the connection and they have to move on with the show. I can only imagine the uproar that would've caused. :P

I enjoyed the interview anyway.

17. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159357 by Stephen Maxwell on April 12, 2008 at 2:41 am

Why do you think it was not the audience?

Like I said, Bill mentioned speaking to Richard 'today' so they clearly switched to a recording of the interview from earlier on.

I watch Real Time with Bill Maher and the audience doesn't sound like this - hard to explain but it's true. Also, they don't just laugh hysterically at every off the cuff comment.

I guess I understand why they did it, it would've been too empty sounding without any audience presence but it was a little distracting and fake sounding for me.

18. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159352 by Stephen Maxwell on April 12, 2008 at 2:20 am

Steve Zara, I doubt he could because there probably wasn't one there. As Maher said at the start "today I spoke with the Oxford professor...", probably due to the time difference since Real Time broadcasts live at 11pm in LA.

I'm surprised noone has mentioned it yet but that was clearly a laugh track that they had added and it was pretty distracting.

Apart from that though, the interview was great. I'd love to see Dawkins on the panel some time.

19. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157215 by Stephen Maxwell on April 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Peter's weak example of countering Christopher's morality challenging made me cringe.

Christopher was highly amusing in getting his point across, even when it was a horrible thought that he was describing, for example the story about the terrorist who murdered Leon Klinghoffer.

"He avoided arrest and had to be released because he had a diplomatic passport..."

"A what passport???...A WHAT passport?????!!!!!"

"A diplomatic passport..."

"What diplomatic passport??"

"An Iraqi diplomatic passport!!"

Better to laugh than to cry I guess.

I also particularly enjoyed his dealing with the guy who posed the Stalin, Mao etc question. "You lose boychick!"

Also, he dealt amicably with the religious experience question, in that you have to accept it for the evil religious experiences as well as the good religious experiences

20. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156878 by Stephen Maxwell on April 8, 2008 at 10:59 am

During the programme, Richard used the best adjective to describe our feelings about some of the nonsense that the audience were spewing. Astonished.

I'm really in disbelief regarding a lot of the comments, particularly the African American Evangelical lady, and the Christian Choice Mayor of London Candidate. I can't believe he accused Richard Dawkins of arrogance, then said "of course the Devil exists."

What better example of delusion.

21. Sean Carroll on the Today Program

Comment #154103 by Stephen Maxwell on April 2, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Who needs creationism to find something "beautiful" when this guy is talking about the "fossil genes" ???

Truly Mesmerizing! I love hearing someone who is so passionate about the subject of evolution.

22. Expelled Overview

Comment #149463 by Stephen Maxwell on March 25, 2008 at 4:17 pm

For example, when he came back into the office from resting in his car, I said something like "gentlemen, I've got work to do so I'd like to wrap this thing up now," he looked at me like "hey, don't you realize who I am and that you should be grateful to be talking to me?"

Oh man, that is awesome!

23. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #146077 by Stephen Maxwell on March 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm

It's been a while since I've heard Richard describe the intelligent persons religiosity as a compartmentalisation of the brain.

I think it's a pretty good way to put it, and don't see why he's not using it so much any more.

24. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145111 by Stephen Maxwell on March 17, 2008 at 9:12 am

"They're like the man who perishes in a fire because he refuses to believe the net below will hold."

One of the more ludicrous statements I've heard in recent memory.

25. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143145 by Stephen Maxwell on March 13, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Steve Zara, It was inside another high school. We went to a religious conference as part of our Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies course in 2004-2005.

There was a "debate" with no real opposition on the panel. The only opposition seemed to come from us students. It was moderated by the head teacher of the high school.

26. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143139 by Stephen Maxwell on March 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm

DISGUSTING!

When I was an altar boy back in my Catholic days - until I reached the age of reason - I served a mass in front of thousands with this guy!

It's also the same guy who Confirmed me about 10 years ago. Not only that, but I've attended a conference while at school where he was spouting off similar anti-homosexual rhetoric much to the disillusionment of the hundred or so students in attendance.

I'm ashamed to have even met the man!

I forgot to add, there was a scandal about this guy some years ago using the Church funds to have cosmetic surgery done on his nose in a private hospital! It was on front pages of newspapers

27. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126952 by Stephen Maxwell on February 14, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Richard was fantastic here. When he presses Catholics on the question of belief in the Virgin Birth, much like Muslim clerics on the penalty for apostasy...I can't help but have a big smile on my face while hearing all the stuttering in the response.

28. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125784 by Stephen Maxwell on February 12, 2008 at 4:00 am

It's interesting to note that the statistics he used for the deaths at Dresden and Hamburg, were not the real statistics, but the one's issued by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Party's Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Boatech claimed 250,000 in Dresden, whereas historians now estimate it at 25,000-30,000. In Hamburg, Boatech claimed 330,000, whereas historians estimate approximately 50,000. (Please correct me if I'm wrong though)

Seems to me that Boteach deals with distortion of the truth, explicitly!

29. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122052 by Stephen Maxwell on February 4, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Simmons probably wants to use the problems of Darwin's theory pointed out at the beginning of "Developmental Plasticity and Evolution" by Mary Jane West-Eberhard as more proof for design in future.

30. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112114 by Stephen Maxwell on January 16, 2008 at 10:53 am

"It's a copyright matter, nothing to do with it making them look ridiculous."

I beg to differ.

31. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #109984 by Stephen Maxwell on January 10, 2008 at 8:45 am

Fireface, I'm interested to find out whether or not your 3 children are members of the JW cult.

Best of luck to you anyway.

32. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109156 by Stephen Maxwell on January 8, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Pat Condell is brilliant.

33. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107759 by Stephen Maxwell on January 5, 2008 at 8:33 am

Rabbi Wolpe: Religion is not belief in a proposition. It's an orientation towards life. I live in the presence of God.

Sam Harris: Your claim that religion is not a matter of believing in propositions is just manifestly false.

Rabbi Wolpe: I didn't say religion. I said belief in God.

:-\

Very good debate. However, this particularly annoyed me from Wolpe.

34. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98981 by Stephen Maxwell on December 15, 2007 at 5:08 am

David Blackwell

Of course, atheism per se refers to non-belief in a "God" (or "gods).

Just as theism in and of itself means belief in a "God" (or "gods")!!

Not really. Check out the difference between Theism and Deism.

Anyway, I don't think anyone's arguing that millions have been killed in the name of a 'belief in God'.

The atrocities are being caused in the name of God (under the presupposition that he exists) or in the name of religion.

35. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98106 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 4:42 am

This common argument is fallacious, a variant of argumentum ad hominum. Set of propositions A and set B may or may not be logically linked. The fact that a human being accepts both sets in no way establishes that the two sets of propositions are logically linked.

I'm confused by what you're saying Dr. Benway. Whom are you addressing?

36. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98094 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 4:27 am

I happen to be a fan of prog rock band Yes

Listening to Starship Trooper as I post this. :P

37. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98087 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 4:05 am

So you'll take back the question in post 297 about us condemning evil actions of atheists who poorly represent 'our views'?

Let me show you a response from the 'Richard Dawkins on Have Your Say' post.

I grew up under the holy trinity of Lenin, Marx and Engels, having missed uncle Joe by quite some years. Nonetheless, whatever dogma or ritual christianity has, the 'communism' of my youth had an equally dogmatic/ritualistic answer for. Just because christianity was suppressed (and this in itself is false, orthodox clergy learned to 'get along' with new masters fast enough and lived happily ever after) doesn't mean the system wasn't deeply religious.

In fact, this lead to my own atheism. After the fall of USSR going to church became quite popular. But many, like myself, quickly noticed the obvious similarities. Didn't help that I was the only one in the congregation (quite probably including the pastor) who had actually read the bible from end to end.


I think Dawkins acknowledges that you can't disprove God, so your assertion is fallacious. However, the onus is on the believer to provide evidence for their God.

38. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98080 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:47 am

"I am giving up because I do not want to exchange insults, not because I have been cowwed by youre arguments."

Then ignore the insults. I've asked a question and been plain ignored. I can only deduct from this that you are consciously refusing to answer.

Do you accept that you have either misunderstood atheism, or do you accept that you are trying to redefine it?

39. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98073 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:39 am

Okay, I'll accept that. It's not necessary relevant to the discussion anyway.

Do you accept that you have either misunderstood atheism, or do you accept that you are trying to redefine it? If you don't, then I can't see how a rational debate is possible.

40. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98067 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:25 am

No I responded to his insult, with reason. I could say prove there is no god by using impirical evidence or admit that you are a liar. You cannot do it. Prof Dawkins is trying to do that, and found that is not so easy.

Have you read The God Delusion?

Also, I'm beginning to think you're not really an Anglican priest at all. Just another troll.

Call it a hunch.

Mass belief in a God is not decent evidence, not when which God you believe in is mostly a matter of culture. And so on....

...and considering there is more non-Christians, than there are Christians, it doesn't do FatherMike any favours. They can't all be right.

41. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98063 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:20 am


That is not true either. You are confusing a belief in rational and scientific investigation with atheism. The two need not be linked at all.

Exactly. Ken Miller would be a good example.

Father Mike, steve99 is indeed correct. You cannot redefine atheism to suit yourself. You cannot assert anyone else's strength of belief. You cannot claim that atheists have a foundation of beliefs.

You may experience us defending Professor Dawkins. Why? This is an atheist website? No.

This is Richard Dawkins official website. That's why. Defenders of him are inevitable.

If you want to enter a rational debate, you seriously need to think about a new question, because your question posed at 297 is just silly.

42. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97434 by Stephen Maxwell on December 12, 2007 at 4:52 am

"I know most of you disagree with Fr Morris about religion, but do you condemn the evil actions of atheists who poorly reresent your views? "

Stalin's actions do not poorly represent our belief system because there is no belief system to represent, poorly or otherwise.

I think there's no doubt that humanity condemn the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot since I haven't met anyone who thinks otherwise. But since they're dogma is nothing to do with atheism, why should atheists be held accountable?

Someone made a good point earlier by asking how long Dawkins, Dennet, Harris etc would have lasted in the Soviet Union before being killed/imprisoned. My guess is, not so long.

43. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97189 by Stephen Maxwell on December 11, 2007 at 5:07 pm

zapawarrior.

"Various sources state that the Ratzingers' views towards the National Socialist German Workers Party caused the family some hardship, including the family having to move several times in the 1930s."

I don't know how easy it was to leave the country if the father was a policeman. I don't know how many police officers fought for the resistance either. Do you? I'm sure they would've been made an example of anyway.

But if you want to use a process of deduction to say: "therefore Joseph Ratzinger was a Nazi." When there is absolutely no evidence for it, then okay.

I'm just saying that since we're in a clear-thinking oasis, we should be applying reason and rationality to form conclusions on such questions. I've not come across convincing evidence of The Pope or his family being Nazi's, since the Hitler Youth was mandatory. I haven't read any information alleging he actually fought with the Nazi's in battle either.

Believe me, I'm open to information, but you don't seem to be giving anything solid. As an ex-Catholic, there's not much I'd like more than to have concrete evidence that The Pope was a Nazi supporter.

44. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97166 by Stephen Maxwell on December 11, 2007 at 2:34 pm

looks in light of the fact that the great "papa" himself was a member of the hitler youth and fought on the side of the nazis in WWII? There is NO excuse for that, particularly from a man who is supposed to be the moral guardian of the planet.

Am I about to defend The Pope?

I think we're jumping to conclusions about The Pope and Naziism. From that Wikipedia article cited by zapawarrior, it seems clear that Ratzinger wasn't a Nazi. I don't see sufficient evidence for him being a Nazi.

Everything I've read says that the Ratzinger family were enemies of National Socialism, particularly his father. Since the Second World War finished as he just turned 17, I don't blame him for not wanting to die pointlessly so young, killed by a regime which was crumbling anyway.

Let's not forget, Oskar Schindler was a Nazi

45. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96268 by Stephen Maxwell on December 10, 2007 at 8:58 am

Tridhos:

"It wouldn't have done him any harm to mention that the priest's present boss went off to fight for Hitler, no becoming a martyr for Herr Ratzinger."


That's not really true though is it? :)

46. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95901 by Stephen Maxwell on December 9, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Fr. Morris made me laugh out loud at the 'secular humanist utopia of Stalin and Hitler' comment. Also when Morris called Jesus 'The Prince of Peace' all that ran through my head was "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." :P

I loved when Morris remarked how ridiculous it was of Dawkins and that caller to label Stalin as a practicing Christian. Oh Wait! They didn't even suggest he was.

Prof. Dawkins hit it on the head when he asked what would be the point in killing someone in the name of atheism.

Denying the fact that Hitler was religious is delusional. Denying the fact that the Nazi's were influenced by Christianity/Catholicism is delusional. Asserting that Hitler, Stalin and Mao committed their crimes in the name of atheism is delusional.

As for the small numbers killed in the Inquisition etc. I guess we can just be grateful that the inquisitors and the Vatican didn't have weapons of mass destruction, otherwise that number would be a lot higher.

Finally, going on what he said, I simply think Fr. Morris doesn't know anything about the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Straw-men flying everywhere.

47. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94442 by Stephen Maxwell on December 5, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Wow!

Spoilt for choice. As a Scot, I get particularly pissed off with the Keith O'Brien comment (which I never knew he made). But in the grand scheme of things Archbishop Francisco Chimoio surely takes the biscuit.

What's the chances of Chuck Norris becoming President?
Who takes the Church of England seriously these days?
Not even Christians want to associate themselves with Westboro Baptist Church.

But I have a scary feeling that people from Mozambique might actually listen to what this guy says about condoms.

48. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93550 by Stephen Maxwell on December 3, 2007 at 12:58 pm

When D'Souza basically criticized Nietzsche's writings of gender inequality, I just wanted to scream.

He must've skipped past St. Paul's letters.

49. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92551 by Stephen Maxwell on November 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Great!

I'm looking forward to seeing Dennett in the debate format, and might even be persuaded to buy his book after the debate.

Did D'Souza use his 'mosquito in the nudist colony' 'joke' in the opening of his rebuttal. I might punch a wall if I hear him say it again. :P

50. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85192 by Stephen Maxwell on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 am

Simply flabbergasting.

More Pages: 1 2 | Next