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 agg


1. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164214 by agg on April 19, 2008 at 5:59 pm

TheHardProblem and black wolf: My sentiment, exactly!

2. Beware the Believers

Comment #153423 by agg on April 1, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Not nearly as pleasing as agg's rendition.

Thanks, sent2null and steve. I am glad someone has finally appreciated them --- I was beginning to think that they'd go unnoticed.

Unfortunately, all the actual jewelry that I could find with a google search returned items that were amazingly obnoxious, with a huge "darwin" spelled out in the core.


Heh, tell me about it. A lot of googling went into this throughout the night. I was surprised to find as many as I did. I was prepared to work with the Jesus fish (shudder)! Good thing I got The Gimp. (EDIT: You could say that Darwin got EXPELLED!)

On the flip side, I still got a progress report to finish...

3. Beware the Believers

Comment #153407 by agg on April 1, 2008 at 1:00 pm

That is actually rather beautiful. I want one!

Sorry, Steve, too late. Latest word is they've sold out. You gotta wait for the backorder.

SurfDude: Exactly what I've been saying. I am glad I'm not alone in this. I am simply enthralled. These guys are playing it perfectly...

4. Beware the Believers

Comment #153123 by agg on April 1, 2008 at 5:03 am

The hottest selling bling item in the store --- sterling silver, 100 5-carat diamond studs! A must-have for any self-respecting atheist rapper! Hurry while supplies last!

5. Beware the Believers

Comment #153115 by agg on April 1, 2008 at 4:15 am

I think we need to bring the inventory of the RichardDawkins.net store up to date:

6. Beware the Believers

Comment #153066 by agg on April 1, 2008 at 1:57 am

Richard, is the author of this poem called Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings by any chance? (and is she from Sussex?)

EDIT: Or is she from Redbridge? I just noticed that the historical record seems a bit confusing on this point.

7. Beware the Believers

Comment #153053 by agg on April 1, 2008 at 1:25 am

Do they make Pound Sign rap jewelry?

Heh, excellent question --- right on the money :) Kinda hard to find.

EDIT: Yay, found it!

A bit too small and cheap for my taste though...

8. Beware the Believers

Comment #152771 by agg on March 31, 2008 at 2:19 pm

upsidedawn: thanks. I wonder why they took it off. Any admin here?

9. Beware the Believers

Comment #152718 by agg on March 31, 2008 at 12:01 pm

BTW, this story has already generated 8 pages of comments and I still don't see it on the front page. I can see it neither under "Latest News", nor under "Featured Articles". In fact, I first found it accidentally from google. Does anyone know why it has not been posted?

10. Beware the Believers

Comment #152710 by agg on March 31, 2008 at 11:48 am

sent2null:

It would be nice for the author to come out and state their intent once and for all just to put this discussion to rest,

I think we are well past that. No matter what the author says now about their intentions, people will not let go of their views.

Did you see that article on Slashdot, which reported research claiming that men have difficulties understanding women's intentions? Most of the responders hammered on the point: "Well, it's women who are unable to give proper clues!" The same will happen here. As I said above, once a piece of art leaves the hands of its creator, the artist's intentions cease to matter.

Russell Blackford: I am 100% with you on this. My point earlier that the author's intention did not matter was in the context of whether people should like or hate the video. I am also curious about who the author is but for now I am enjoying the commotion it has stirred.

11. Beware the Believers

Comment #152362 by agg on March 30, 2008 at 8:06 pm

After a moment of reflection, I think I should admit to the obvious bias in my previous post too. Had this not been a forum whose general message I subscribe to, I would have argued more forcefully.

A piece of art, after it leaves the creative hands of the artist, becomes what you make of it. The artist's intention at this point ceases to matter.

This is why I don't understand the people who ask who the author of the video is --- as if this is somehow relevant to whether they should like it. This is also why I enjoy the fact that in this case the author is as of yet anonymous.

12. Beware the Believers

Comment #152351 by agg on March 30, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Heh, I absolutely loved this video. I don't think it has anything to do with age (I am in my late 30s). Musical preference might be a factor here; I like (almost) all styles of music and thus rap was not so off-putting to me as it may have been to some of you. Most importantly, I don't think this video would have worked if it weren't for the in-you-face attitude of rap.

What I'd like to say now, however, is that the initial laugh I got from the video pales in comparison with the complete and utter delight and amusement I get now by watching the (supposedly) rational people's reaction to it. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to dismiss anyone here, but I simply love it when something like this comes up stirring the pot, there being no apparent answer to the riddle as far as the eyes can see, and people start scrambling to form an "informed" opinion about whether it is "pro" or "against" and then rationalize about it.

Besides the pure fun, what I like in these situations is that people start to really exercise their brains; even to the point of over-analyzing. This is why we see so many different ways to argue whether the video is "pro" science or "against" science and the matter does not look like it is going to be resolved any time soon.

Which brings me to my point: I've been waiting for this for so long --- the moment when somebody comes up with something so close to that sweet singular spot predicted by Poe's law! And I must give it to the authors, not only for the masterpiece they've created, but also for the ingenuous way they've distributed it. I only hope that they let this go for as long as it can without ruining the fun by "explaining it".

As for my take on the video, in case you think I am dodging putting out an opinion here --- I think that the question of whether it's "pro" science or "anti" science may be an ill-posed one. It looks to me like the authors ridicule both ID and what they might perceive as some dogmatic, close-minded and shrill scientists. I can't see the authors being in the ID camp but I don't see them very sympathetic to the "new atheist" movement either.

Of course, I might be wrong, but I don't really care. My enjoyment of this clip is not going to take the slightest hit, even if it were conclusively shown that Ben Stein did it himself. I think art is art --- regardless of who created it or what his/her motives were --- and I am appreciating it as such.

Please, don't stop the fun. Keep this discussion alive!

13. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151879 by agg on March 29, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I am of two minds about this. I like the way PZ confronts the IDiots and exposes their lies at every opportunity he gets. He seems to be singlehandedly destroying the movie. I am simply in awe because of this.

On the other hand, I think this particular episode may backfire. The "Expelled from Expelled" situation was a complete own goal by the creationists: it was hard to not be sympathetic to the scientist who was interviewed for the movie and then refused entry (in addition to the multiple levels of irony). In this case, though, PZ looks more like the mad scientist type --- someone who's obsessed with these people and just can't let go.

In an ideal world, we should be able to let other people say what they have to say (i.e. have their press conference) and if there's something they say we don't quite agree with, we can always issue a rebuttal (perhaps even have a formal discussion or a debate about it) and let those on the side make their minds up. Of course, this world is far from ideal and we all see that the creationists don't play by the rules and avoid any honest attempt at level-playing field, as clearly demonstrated here by the tightly controlled press conference. So, I don't really know what the best approach against this is. It looks like PZ's at least has a good chance of producing results.

As for the video: absolutely hilarious. I don't think the authors are in any of the "pro" or "against" camps though. I think they are against both creationists and what they must perceive as dogmatic scientists/atheists.

14. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148320 by agg on March 22, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Damn, I lost my comment. I don't have the time to write it again, so I'll try a short one:

RC Metcalf

At least for me, an apology and video/online correction would suffice. No sense turning this against Richard and PZ.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. My objection was not about Richard and PZ speculating about the animated video clip. In fact, I think they were perfectly justified and they gave good reasons for doing so in this video.

My problem is that they put this in the open without having anything more concrete in terms of evidence. They weren't even sure if they were talking about the same video clip. At least they should have made it absolutely clear they were speculating that the clip in Expelled was related to Xvivo's clip. Instead they moved on to wondering if the producers have got the necessary rights from the Harvard group.

As I said, they were right to speculate. And I am sure it was just a speculation, but in this video, it came out as if they jumped to conclusions.

In fact, the free exchange of knowledge is pretty much what Expelled! is all about

Sorry but I can't see how you could have come to this conclusion. I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've seen and read from people who have, I am under the impression that this movie has nothing to do with discussing knowledge and everything to do with pushing someone's religious and political agenda.

15. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148267 by agg on March 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Hmm, I think Richard and PZ should have waited to get some confirmation first that the clip they were talking about was really the one from Harvard. As it is right now, they seem to have engaged in speculation that may turn out to be incorrect --- especially if what RC Metcalf says is true. This may be turned against them by the creationists who I am sure would be quite happy to switch the topic from the embarrassing own goal they scored yesterday.

16. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148002 by agg on March 21, 2008 at 6:54 pm

The story even got to the New York Times (registration required):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html

I did not know Richard's first name was Clinton. May be this is how they missed him.

17. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135200 by agg on February 28, 2008 at 5:25 pm

ianmkz, I loved it. Do you know if they actually go through with orders placed on their site?

I started to purchase a "remedy" for "intolerance of pseudo-scientific rubbish" and their system suggested Chloralum Remedy (Single Dose) after which it sent me to the paypal site. I stopped after that but I am still tempted to actually place an order, just to see if they would go through with it. If so, I somehow expect them to send a big pamphlet attempting to pour some reason in the poor customer's brain.

I also love their slogan: Nothing acts as well as FairDeal Homeopathy.

18. The New Theology

Comment #113163 by agg on January 18, 2008 at 5:54 pm

I think this is a good trend. The more "traditional" theists go under this new flock, the better for us: Fewer people would remain to worry about the "decline of family values", stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. --- the things that actually affect us as a society and hold up the progress. We can't expect everyone to just come to their senses and give up religion altogether.

19. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102660 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 11:27 am

Sorry, just saw this one:

If God is omniscient, he can see his own future, so would have no free will, so wouldn't be omnipotent.

Diacanu: You are right. I realized this as soon as I posted and edited my statement to qualify it. Perhaps you've seen the original post before the edit. Sorry.

Paula: Thanks for the info. Actually, I was hoping that more theologians would be subscribing to a "natural" god. About the people on the streets: I live in the USA; what else can I say?

20. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102654 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 11:21 am

Steve, it looks like we've reached the point of 100% agreement on this --- quite a fortunate event for me, because I really need to go to bed (I am in the US Eastern timezone and just did an overnighter).

It was a pleasure talking to you, Radesq, Paula and everyone else. Later...

21. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102650 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 11:14 am

What are some irrational defenses of atheism? Perhaps I am unwittingly guilty of presenting them.

I think no one can honestly say that they've never made a sloppy or irrational argument. What I like about this site is that people for the most part are willing to think for themselves and point these out when they happen.

I myself am not here to argue with anyone for the sake of convincing them but to learn. I am more of RD's mentality: I am interested deeply in what is true and on rigorous argumentation (though I can be very sloppy if time is of consideration).

For the same reason, I tend to often take a contrarian position --- "me too" posts are only good to a certain extend. So I very much appreciate it when somebody points out flaws in my reasoning.

22. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102645 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 10:57 am

About omnipotence: I don't see a problem with the concept.
I do, as how do you prove it?

I think a concept may be sound even if a particular proposition involving it may not be provable/testable. For example, you can't prove or disprove a brain in a vat scenario, but the concept seems perfectly fine to me.

But I guess this is nitpicking...

I believe so, as a God is supposed to be 'Magic', not just very clever with technology and nature.

I think historically there have been gods who do nothing else than fool around with bolts of light or cause rain. You seem to exclude these from your definition (just pointing out; I don't care either way).

Also, as Arthur Clark said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...

23. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102634 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 10:40 am

Paula, so God is naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) omnipotent? Does this not imply he's a product of Nature? (Yeah, I can be a sophist too).

What I am more interested in is: Is this guy's view prevalent (or even common) in Christianity or is this a fringe phenomenon? And I guess I have to also ask about Christian theologians, because as we've seen what they think is not the same as what the masses think...

24. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102627 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 10:13 am

My wife might have something to say about that however

Oh, I was going to say something about the Holy Trinity, but I guess I'd better stop here.

25. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102625 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 10:07 am

My brother pissed in the priest's hands during his baptism. I couldn't beat that.

But you did!

26. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102624 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 10:05 am

I think I would define God as an all-powerful supernatural being (the Christian definition, for example)

Well, you stopped quite short of the holy trinity: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

About omnipotence: I don't see a problem with the concept. (EDIT: Hmm, may be I do; it needs to be qualified to within the world this god created, but I think this is implied.) Existence of this entity is another matter, however.

I also have a problem with the concept of supernatural but is being supernatural essential for a god?

BTW, do all Christians claim that their God is supernatural?

27. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102620 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:58 am

Radesq, you're a blasphemer! :)

The question is: Will God in that case be committing a sin?

28. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102612 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:47 am

I got confirmed by some local bishop at 12. He died later the same day of a heart attack.


What a great way to enter a religion!

29. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102611 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:43 am

I don't think I would accept the idea of a God who was subject to the restrictions of natural laws, even if it was only in his/her/its universe, not ours.

You don't accept that this god exists or that this kind of a hypothetical being is a god?

I think I even have a problem with the concept of Gods.

But in this case, how do you define god, so you can rigorously say that you have a problem with this concept?

30. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102606 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:38 am

Bonzai: exactly my point! Well put.

31. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102602 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:34 am

No God Fearer you then.


Heh! Actually, speaking of dogmatic atheism, here is how I think events will unfold: If I suspect that this god is no good, I will still hold on to some hope that he is just a knowledgeable prankster and will probably try to find a way to rebel against him who, being omniscient and omnipotent, would find out and promptly smite me out of existence and that would be the end of it (if I am lucky!) :)

32. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102597 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:23 am

But you left out my other question. What's in it for me?

Radesq, sorry. I don't think it is relevant. There may or may not be something for you or me. I presume that this god will have the power to discern whether I am sincere in my worship and will find out I am not. I was more interested in whether I am capable of worshiping anyone at all under any circumstances.

33. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102590 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:17 am

Good question, and I am not sure of the answer, although I have a feeling it might be due to matter of the supernatural. Gods are supposed to be able to bypass the laws of physics, I think.

Well some are and some aren't. Again, we're stuck with an ill-posed question. Unless, god is well defined, I don't think we can make much progress on this topic.

Second, worship has to be earned.

Very interesting. What would it take for you to start worshiping someone?

Now you really are making things difficult to sort out!

No, not really (unless you are a philosopher). I think it is a consequence of the vague meaning of the word god. From our perspective, we only need be concerned with our outer universe only.

34. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102583 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

OK agg: If there were a god so obvious and incontrovertible that I would acknowledge him/her/it. A couple of questions come to mind. What purpose would my worshiping it serve, or why would it care what I think or do?

Radesq, Thanks for the reply. Same sentiment here. Though, I'd ask these questions only out of curiosity. Even if the answers make a compelling case for my worshiping him, I still can't image myself doing so. No matter what this god does (as long as I have any say in the matter), the best I can do is have an enormous respect for him, nothing more.

I guess what I am driving at is that the demand from someone to worship him to me is one of the surest sign that they don't deserve that.

EDIT: Well, I guess the above position is quite irrational if there was an acknowledged good rational case for worshiping that god. Then, this would make me a dogmatic atheist (and perhaps I am). But here's another question: Can you will yourself into worshiping someone?

35. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102578 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 8:57 am

I know I am being pedantic here, but we are being told there is a God of infinite power, of perfect goodness, that has existed eternally, and so on. It is pretty hard to think of any evidence that could back those claims. In fact, I believe it is impossible.

But as any intellectually honest person, you should acknowledge the possibility that some day this particular god shows up and says: "Hi folks, I am back and I am going to explain everything such that it makes sense!". So, if he does so to your satisfaction, would you worship him?

36. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102573 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 8:49 am

I have actually heard this discussed as a way that a creator could leave a message. However, that creator need not be a God.

Well, who says that alien civilization has to be in our universe? :)

Steve, I realize the difficulties of defining a general god but from the two statements above: what would be the difference between the creator, the aliens and a god?

I mentioned this in a post some time ago but nobody picked it up --- the idea that "god" may be a relationship between two beings, where one of them creates the world inhabited by the other and has the property of omniscience and omnipotence with respect to that world, while simultaneously does not have these properties in its own world. In other words, nested universes.

37. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102569 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 8:40 am

Radesq: I agree with your sentiment but I was seriously interested in what folks think about this. By unmistakably, I meant exactly that --- no reason for doubt. Or at least every intelligent being around you (including your psychiatrist) agrees that it is only logical and reasonable to accept that the personality in question is indeed a god.

38. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102565 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 8:35 am

I always suspected we English folk were the pinnacle of creation!

Oh, I am so envious! Why, oh, why did this god choose English? :)

whenever somebody comes up with a thought experiment like this you can find difficulties.

Yeah, difficulties, unlike God, have a strange habit of being ubiquitous.

In this case, the god in question needs to know ahead of time a language that is going to evolve, how to spell, etc etc.

But this is the whole point of this being evidence for an omniscient and omnipotent god. He should have foreseen it!

39. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102558 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 8:16 am

...if the trick is that good, those aliens might as well be god, as far as this monkey is concerned.


Hmm, for all practical purposes --- yes. However, they won't really be gods, would they? Part of the problem here is that "god" is so elusive --- even the word is so difficult to define. In this context, I was more thinking of a creator...

If my cats began speaking to me in English, commanding me to praise Jesus, I'd be praising Jesus.


Would you? Seriously, I am curious. What would be your attitude toward an unmistakably identified god who wants you to worship him/her?

40. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102555 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 8:05 am

Atheists make no claims. They can't be fundamentalists.

Dr. Benway, sorry but I beg to differ. Would you not call a person who claims there is no god an atheist? Granted, not all atheists will claim that, or if they do, many will qualify this claim as contingent on a lack of evidence for a god. But the so-called strong atheists are still atheists.

I think it is quite possible for somebody to be dogmatically bent on claiming that there is no god and, even further, that people who are religious should be persecuted. I agree that this mentality will not be a logical result of their atheism but who's to say that there aren't any irrational and deranged atheists?

41. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102520 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 4:54 am

Russell: I agree with this, but it presumes that this god wanted us to know that he existed from the very beginning. It is possible that he would want to remain incognito initially and reveal himself only later on.

Why would he do that? I don't know, but it is possible.

42. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102519 by agg on December 23, 2007 at 4:47 am

Steve, you seem to be enjoying good honest arguments (as do I) and I am sorry that I am not going to take you up on this because I happen to agree. I just want to add my own thoughts:

About an evidence for a god: It is awfully difficult but I think it is possible. Of course, there can be no such thing as a proof, but the idea is that the evidence must be so overwhelming that any other explanation just has to be discarded because of the principle of parsimony.

As you say, the biggest competitor to a god would be an enormously technologically advanced alien civilization. So the evidence should be something that would be hardly feasible, no matter how technologically advanced you get --- some property of the universe that can not be changed from within. Thus, in the spirit of Douglas Adams, an unmistakable signature in the "fabric" of the universe, say a discovery that the shapes of all fundamental particles spell the word "god" in different languages might actually do it. Or, as Paula mentioned, Stenger's idea of a nice sign in plain English on the cosmic microwave background...

I think this would beat the explanation that an alien civilization changed the shapes of all fundamental particles to play a joke on us, poor Terrans (especially, if the sum total of all the energy in the universe would be insufficient to perform such a feat).

One thing that always annoys me is the assumption that in the unlikely event a god has been irrefutably demonstrated, everybody will immediately start worshiping him. I somehow can not imagine doing this.

My take on it would be: "Fine, he exists, I will take this into consideration from now on". If, using my own moral compass, I come to the conclusion that he's evil, I would want to have nothing to do with him and would try to live my life as best as I could under the circumstances. If he happens to give a good explanation for the problem of evil and turns out to be a nice guy (or a girl, or whatever), then I might want to be around him. And if he's willing to teach me stuff, then he'll earn my respect. But that's as far as I can go. Worshiping is out of question. Somehow, I can't imagine a good intelligent being which is hell-bent (sorry for the pun) on having people worshiping him. This to me is a contradiction.

About "fundamentalist atheism": While I think the term is an oxymoron (as zenmite suggested "dogmatic" is better), I do really think it is possible for people to be really dogmatic about it. I agree with smithyboy when he said that this could be people who have grown up in a completely atheistic environment and have never thought about this matter.

I sometimes wonder if I have been dogmatic myself. I grew up in a former communist country and have never believed in gods. The first time my parents (who are only cultural Christians) participated in a religious ritual (drinking wine, nothing outrageous), I blurted out something like "Horribly deluded!" (this was way before Dawkins wrote his book). I was a kid then and was properly scolded --- quite correctly I think, because this was at a remembrance ceremony for somebody who had died.

But my point is, seeing how my blood boils when something religious approaches, I can understand how someone like me but with less self-control can grow up to be overly intolerant and aggressive towards religious people --- indiscriminately and without provocation, just because of their religion.

Finally (off topic): what do you play quicktime movies with under Linux? I am myself a Fedora user and use vlc but am having troubles with many of them.

43. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #102229 by agg on December 22, 2007 at 5:04 am

My friend is working for a Japanese robot company. He wants to build a robot exactly like us, human beings. But he couldn't figure out the first thing? How will he move the robot? We have all flesh and body parts but we can move them with our soul?


wooter: Your friend is very late to the party. Robots have already been made which can move and do a whole lot more without the help of a soul (unless you think these have souls):

Four QRIOs dancing,

A QRIO rollerskating,

An Asimo running,

An Asimo, comunicating with people and serving coffee.

44. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102104 by agg on December 21, 2007 at 3:05 pm

On the historical accuracy of the bible:

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/10735/Penn_Teller_s_Bullshit_The_Bible.html

P.S. Elvis never did no drugs!

45. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100626 by agg on December 19, 2007 at 2:34 am

PJG (comment #18): Yeah, that's what I meant when I mentioned the fleas. Although, thinking about it now, this really isn't a dog-flea relationship (even if they explicitly refered to Richard, Sam, Dan or Hitch). It could be quite symbiotic because we also get to benefit when they bring forth the idiocy of the easily offended.

I vote for more of these...

46. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100590 by agg on December 19, 2007 at 12:34 am

Dr. Benway, sorry to hear that. He looks younger on the pic and more intensely focused than sad. Very likable too, though I can't tell if he's Siamese.

47. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100580 by agg on December 19, 2007 at 12:01 am

Huh, Dr. Benway, what happened with that nice smiley avatar of yours? This one looks a lot more menacing... :)

48. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100566 by agg on December 18, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Hmm, interesting. Following the creed that no publicity is bad publicity, is it possible that marketing gurus are taking note from the recent trend of best-selling atheist books? If the "four horsemen" can attract so many fleas (actually 2 and 1/3 to be precise), how much impact can similarly-themed commercials have?

49. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99233 by agg on December 16, 2007 at 2:22 am

Smith: you are welcome. That video kept crashing my browser and the site was horribly slow. You may want to try this one instead:

http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766&u=7037&t=0

Having finished watching it, I must now revise my previous statement about Sam: He could've handled it better but it wasn't as bad as my initial impressions suggested. The rabbi is a good debater and, although he came up with a lot of familiar arguments, he was able to substantiate them quite a bit better than any of his Christian analogs.

P.S. Your heads up on the party at Edge is also much appreciated.

50. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99088 by agg on December 15, 2007 at 1:29 pm

mintcheerios: Thanks for mentioning the debate between Harris and Wolpe. I looked it up and started watching.

My first impressions (after ~15mins when my browser crashed) are that Sam is not doing very well. This debate is nothing like the ones with Christian fundies. In retrospect, it would only make sense, since Jewish theists seem to be better educated and capable of following the rules of logic.

Sorry, everybody, for the off-topic post. Just wanted to add a link here to that debate. Perhaps, someone could post it on a separate thread...

http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=1329234778

More Pages: 1 2 | Next