1. Degrees of religion

Comment #206111 by serendipity1 on July 8, 2008 at 5:38 am

Touché (sorry epeeist, couldn't resist ....)

2. Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Comment #206082 by serendipity1 on July 8, 2008 at 4:49 am

But where are the transitional pasta forms?

3. Degrees of religion

Comment #206036 by serendipity1 on July 8, 2008 at 3:33 am

I'm still not quite sure what the core point of this article is? It would appear simply to be a "why can't we all just get along and respect each others beliefs" type appeal.

The point, however, is that we evidently cannot all just get along. Nor can you expect your beliefs to be respected solely on the basis that they are YOUR beliefs. Whether you like it or not, publicly professed beliefs will be subjected to scrutiny and will be thus accepted or criticised. You are, of course, quite entitled to continue to profess your belief in the face of contrary evidence or criticism, however, you are not automatically entitled to anyone's respect for those beliefs.

I could claim to believe that I am actually a large tub of chocolate sauce, however, I could not claim an entitlement to your respect for this belief simply because I hold it. Upon due consideration of the evidence for my belief, you would quite likely think yourself justified in considering me to be mentally disturbed and you would likely adjust the nature of your interaction with me accordingly. Similarly, upon due consideration of the evidence for your Islamic beliefs (albeit apparently moderate in nature), I think I have some justification for considering you to be ................ well, maybe we should all just try to get along ...........

4. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #204079 by serendipity1 on July 4, 2008 at 5:18 am

My brother is currently setting up a website selling advance memberships for a golf club in heaven - 100% money back guarantee if unsatisfied with course conditions.

5. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198041 by serendipity1 on June 23, 2008 at 5:19 am

As a grammatical aside, and incidental to the titles of the fleas, what is the correct use of the apostrophe when spelling Richard's surname in the possessive? eg, is it Richard Dawkins's book, or Richard Dawkins' book? Or are both grammatically valid? Richard, feel free to advise your preference in the event that both are valid.......

6. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158219 by serendipity1 on April 10, 2008 at 8:22 am

The catholic church's first priority is preservation, that means it will allign itself with the "devil" (i.e. Hitler) to survive, it will spread lies about condom use to keep the catholic babies popping out, or it will back a good cause if the outcome works in its favor.

liberalartist

I think the above represents a very cynical portrayal of the church as an institution.

However, I am of course 100% in agreement with you.

In fact, on re-reading the above quote, I am tempted to ask whether someone has leaked the catholic church's mission statement to you?

7. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158150 by serendipity1 on April 10, 2008 at 6:25 am

Had the Church shown any opposition, they probably would have just been destroyed by the SS/SD like everyone else was. I'm not giving them a pass by any means but criticizing them for participating in a mandatory program of the Nazi government isn't very fair, either.

FightingFalcon

I think your general point is valid in that none of us knows for sure how we personally would respond in the circumstances of the time and I certainly wouldn't level any criticism at you for making the general point.

However, there is an important distinction to be drawn between the church and other individuals/groups.

I do not maintain the position that I am the source and upholder of absolute and divinely mandated morality - the church does.

Yet during the one of the most horrific episodes in all of history, it failed to even begin to live up to its own billing - again demonstrating that, when push comes to shove, it's like tits on a bull - USELESS!

8. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155045 by serendipity1 on April 4, 2008 at 5:28 am

"unbalanced debate"

Classic stuff - wonder what the reaction would be if I stood outside my local church service this Sunday protesting about the unbalanced debate going on inside .......

9. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150605 by serendipity1 on March 27, 2008 at 6:56 am

Happy Birthday Richard, wishing you every best wish and many many happy returns.

It must be 10 yrs ago at this point since I first read The Selfish Gene and I can remember vividly the hairs standing on the back of my neck the first time I finished Chapter 2 and understood the "meaning" of life with perfect clarity for the first time.

Given that your work has given me countless similar moments over the intervening years, I will be raising a very fine and large Irish whiskey in your name this evening - 'tis a pleasure to share my time on the planet with you sir!

10. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129434 by serendipity1 on February 19, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #129419 by Heretic

Bingo - Heretic, you win the prize!

I find it intensely frustrating when the terms agnostic and atheist are confused, and while I find that deliberate "misunderstanding" of the terms is frequently a mischievous tactic used by religious apologists to perpetuate the common misconception that atheism represents a belief that there is no god, it is disappointing that many on our side of the fence do not appear to appreciate the subtle but important differences.

I am of course open to correction on this, however, my understanding is that an agnostic maintains that the existence of a god cannot be conclusively determined. In contrast, an atheist is a person who is without belief in god (as opposed to someone who positively asserts that that there is no god). That is, atheism is the absence of belief - "a"theism â€" "without"theism.

Therefore, it should be clear that atheism is the default position rather than agnosticism. Agnosticism requires the capacity for, and application of, thought to the question of the existence of god. An infant, therefore, could not reasonably be described as an agnostic. However, an infant is, by definition, "a"theist - without belief.

Further, one can be, at the same time, both an agnostic and an atheist or both an agnostic and a theist.

In the former case, you accept or maintain that the existence question can't be conclusively determined, however, the absence of sufficient evidence to lead you to a belief in god places you in the atheist category.

In the latter case, you accept or maintain that the existence question can't be conclusively determined, however, you do nonetheless believe that god exists.

I would consider, therefore, that you cannot simply be "an agnostic" as a distinct alternative to being either a theist or an atheist.

As I see it, there are only two alternatives. You either believe or you are without belief, ie you are a theist or else, by default, an atheist.

11. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125827 by serendipity1 on February 12, 2008 at 5:51 am

Only a small fraction, they said, are completely possessed by demons -- which can cause them to display inhuman strength, speak in exotic tongues, recoil in the presence of sacred objects or overpower others with a stench.

Oops! Based on the above symptoms, it would appear that I may have been completely possessed by demons last weekend after half a bottle of particularly fine Irish whiskey and a curry......

12. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111563 by serendipity1 on January 15, 2008 at 2:38 am

George - best wishes for a full and swift recovery and heartfelt thanks for being an inspiration on so many levels.

John Stuart Mill wrote:

"On religion in particular the time appears to me to have come, when it is the duty of all who being qualified in point of knowledge, have on mature consideration satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false but hurtful, to make their dissent known; at least, if they are among those whose station or reputation, gives their opinion a chance of being attended to. Such an avowal would put an end, at once and for ever, to the vulgar prejudice, that what is called, very improperly, unbelief, is connected with any bad qualities either of mind or heart."

Though more than a century has passed since writing, your life and achievements surely resound in each and every line. My heartfelt thanks for your support for science and reason which now affords us all the opportunity to make OUR dissent known .........

13. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111558 by serendipity1 on January 15, 2008 at 2:29 am

George - wishing you a full and swift recovery and with thanks for being an inspiration on so many levels.

John Stuart mill wrote:

"On religion in particular the time appears to me to have come, when it is the duty of all who being qualified in point of knowledge, have on mature consideration satisfied themselves that the current opinions are not only false but hurtful, to make their dissent known; at least, if they are among those whose station or reputation, gives their opinion a chance of being attended to. Such an avowal would put an end, at once and for ever, to the vulgar prejudice, that what is called, very improperly, unbelief, is connected with any bad qualities either of mind or heart."

While more than a century has since passed since writing, your life and achievements surely echo through each line.

My personal thanks for your support of science and reason which now affords us all the opportunity to make our dissent known.

14. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98712 by serendipity1 on December 14, 2007 at 5:30 am

I'm not sure to what extent free will might meaningfully be said to have a "role" to an atheist or in the context of atheism - it is simply descriptive of a feature of our existence.

I would be much more interested in hearing the religious try to reconcile belief in free will with belief in an omniscient creator. If you believe in an omniscient creator, that creator must, by definition, know the outcome of you exercising your "free will". Therefore, if the outcome is already known, in what sense can you maintain that you have free will?