1. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14901 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 26, 2006 at 3:03 pm

Comment #14875 by DerrickB

That comment should be framed. Utterly excellent.

2. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14825 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 25, 2006 at 3:35 pm

If people were not told about any religions they would not believe in any particular god! They may believe in something divine, but certainly not anything as specific (whilst vague at the same time.... Funny that) as, for example, the Christian God.

On that note, we are ALL born as atheists. Every one of us. That's what makes Atheism unique. At the age of 6 months we do NOT believe in any Gods. Hell we probably can't even perceive Santa Clause for crying out loud.

I have a lot of confidence in the notion that someone who does not believe in any particular religious belief, would/does NOT break down and kill themselves at any dark moment. They cling to something else; family, friends, sense of one's self, belief in one's self, reassurance, love for life, love for nature, philosophy etc.

I think this introduces the idea that people 'needing' religion is an illusion. It is an illusion provided by the fact that religion serves as possibly the only form of solid grounding for them to lean on. It's number 1 priority in their mind and they choose to cling to it in times of need. The reason it is an illusion, is that they most likely didn't NEED it at all. It was just the dominant 'option' at the time. Had they not believed/known in/about religion, they certainly wouldn't NEED religion. Hell I don't. Why does anybody else?

Many people claim to have needed religion in dark times, but fail to realize that it is merely ONE form of help or reassurance. It's just that they are under the illusion that without it, they would not survive; that it is the ONLY form of help or reassurance. It is all important. That's the power of religion. The power that it portrays itself as all important fact.

Well, it's not, as far as I'm concerned. God can stick his scribblings up his back passage sideways.

3. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14823 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 25, 2006 at 3:17 pm

"Hello. I am God. I am going to write you an incredibly long essay about the reasoning behind my existance. but first, I am going to read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins."

*Reads The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins*

"Oh dear. It appears I don't exist."

*puff*

Bit of a farce that 'God' needs to write an essay on the reasoning behind his existance. "Hi I'm God" is all but too much for him. He needs to spend hours of his precious disaster preventing time (pah!) writing this trail of 'evidence' (drivvel) instead.

I'm aware that that was not necessarily the entire reason for the article; he was just a little pissed at RD for trying to debunk him. On this note, I evaluate that the reasoning behind his existance is somewhat likely to be the ultimate path or purpose of the article. I doubt he would have labelled himself under his name if it wasn't. If however, I am wrong on this idea, then assume that my rants are just about religion in general. I like doing that. After all, I could not be arsed to read the entire passage. The first quarter almost sent me to sleep. The only thing keeping me awake was the ability to debunk it all. Made me feel smart. Although it's likely that his words were rehashes of things I've debunked many times before anyway.

Ahem...

If the existance of God is found through Faith, and reason and science are 'below' the understanding of God, it baffles me that someone would try reasoning his existance. You can't have it both ways. People try and produce evidence for his existance, and as soon as you challenge them with your own, rational response, then evidence goes out the window.

How convenient.

Faith: The most evasive word in the dictionary.

4. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13947 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 20, 2006 at 8:23 am

comment 13530 by logicel

hell yeah :P

5. The Grinch Delusion: An Atheist Can Believe in Christmas

Comment #13420 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 17, 2006 at 2:55 pm

Winter would be a most morbid season if it were not for wacky christmas antics.

6. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13414 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 17, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Comment 13355

I read an entire Robert Ingersol webpage titled 'Why I Am Agnostic', presumably put up as reference to some of his written work. It was a truly fascinating read. I believe that he truthfully leaned more towards atheist though, merely sticking to the title of agnostic to avoid the fact that you can't possibly KNOW there is no God.

Comment 13364

I also take positively (i guess this is due to me sharing almost every viewpoint he has had) the idea that Richard seemed to be unbaffled and 'crusing along in second gear'. His sense of reason is so solid that it enables him to have such power in these situations. He was clearly slaughtered in terms of the verbal contribution in this video, yet we all here seem to agree that Richard 'owned' for want of a better word.

As I heard someone say before, he was outnumbered, but never outgunned.

I know it may be viewed as cowardly to simply take sides; 'hide behind' Dawkins and respect everything that comes out of his mouth, but i claim it not to be my fault that everything that he says fits so eloquently into my brain as the truth.

I cant see the truth sitting directly between these people.

7. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12971 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 14, 2006 at 5:43 pm

I figured it was about time i contributed instead of simply lapping up everyone elses excellent prose. :)

8. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12960 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 14, 2006 at 4:23 pm

I think the theory of gravity is incorrect. I am now going to jump up and down repeatedly, until eventually I leave the surface of the Earth with a constant velocity. Here goes....

....

9. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12956 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 14, 2006 at 3:53 pm

Comment 12901 by Kingasaurus

Well articulated. It is one of the very founding reasons behind my initial atheism: There are so many different religions out there; they can't all be right. It made more sense to me to not believe in any of them.

If involved in a conversation on the matter with a religious person (for example, a Christian), I would put it to them that they would not be a Christian had they been raised in a different environment. After all, the thought or belief that, had they been born in a strong Muslim culture in the Middle East, for example, they would have simply conjured a conceptual light bulb above their heads and realized that they were a Christian is an utterly preposterous one. 'BING! I don't believe any of this, Christianity is correct'. Indeed, at this hypothetical point in time the person in question almost certainly wouldn't have even heard of Christianity, let alone become educated as to it's ideologies and belief systems. They would be a Muslim (or possibly an atheist). End of story.

And then (let's keep up the idea of this hypothetical conversation, just to personalize the debate, as such), undoubtedly we would reach the subject of morals. Supposedly, it is utterly important, essential even, to have an omnipotent, ever present deity along with his divine scribblings to ensure the balance between right and wrong, and to determine the important morals that man (yes, man...) need in order to sustain a more positive, altruistic lifestyle so as to conform to the religion in question.

BUT. Richard Dawkins made a fantastic point that I will leech on to. How do people know what is moral coming from the bible? It is probable that a/the Christian would respond that the word of God is utterly true; that the Bible is true and therefore it is simply a true, moral act to follow when following the word of God and the Bible. It is simply, entirely truthful. I would then ask them when the last time they stoned somebody for working on the Sabbath was. Of course, I'm referring to the idea that to follow every word of the Bible strictly, would result in behaviour that is deemed as revolting by any standard. Hence even religious people cherry pick (to use Richard's words) the moral, altruistic bits (or in some cases they don't resulting in despicable behaviour we see today) from the Bible and ignore the utterly gruesome. For example they often ignore the entire Old Testament, as the New Testament is obviously a moral improvement on the abomination the scriptures once were.

But what allows them to choose between the 'good' and 'bad'? Of course, the word of God had no say in whether or not a Christian would cherry pick at certain bits of his scribblings. There is a moral ethics present allowing this to happen. The moral standards, which they use to make their prepositioned choices regarding the moralistic values of parts of God's scribblings, must come from an outside source, and not originate from religion.

Atheists are accused of too much! Simply not believing in the fairy tale fantasy of religion results in utter criticism, with the main argument almost always regarding morals. Does not the outside source I referred to earlier exist without religion? Can we not cherry pick from any scribblings as we wish, as Christians do with the Bible, without religion? We are accused of lacking in something, and indeed that is true. We lack the irrational beliefs that are unreasonably considered as the foundation of moralistic values across the globe.

I see a bright future for atheists. They are simply lacking what I can only describe as a burden. They can build a better future for the next generations by keeping them from the delusional prison of irrational thought, yet perpetuate the moralistic values used to cherry pick from religion in the first place. It will help to have a better insight into the utter beauty of the world in its actuality, whilst sustaining ever better morals than a cherry picked Bible ever could. After all, if thoroughly cherry picked, the Bible would be an extremely short scribbling indeed.

Why not add to it?

10. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12597 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 12, 2006 at 5:23 pm

Yorker, NoLongerHaveBelief, Jared and Logicel, thank you for some fantastic reading.

11. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12581 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 12, 2006 at 4:05 pm

Logicel, just to let you know that I think your commenting on recent articles provide very entertaining readings. I don't mean to sound as if I'm half way up your anal cavity; It's just good stuff.

In fact, due to the quality of the comments on this site, I often feel inclined to sit back and have a good old read, rather than get stuck in myself. This is why you probably haven't heard much from me, if anything.

Keep it up guys! My evenings (in uk) are your afternoons, so when i get in from my late shifts at work your cracking down with some shizzle. My nizzle.

12. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12412 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 11, 2006 at 8:06 pm

I think that answering deep, important, finger-pointing questions while the spotlight is on you, in front of hundreds of people and retain a well articulated, coherent argument with very little thinking time must be extroadinarily difficult. Especially when some questions or accusations from religious viewpoints can be so ambiguous.

I think RD has been fantastic in many debating situations such as this one, especially when I compare his performance to the utter shambles that mine or most others would have been in his stead. One little stutter and he undergoes criticism...

I find his relentless ability to articulate his viewpoints eloquently towards almost anything that is thrown at him so constructively in the tiny time frame allotted is a most admirable quality. He must be under so much pressure not to say one word wrong because, as these and other videos show, the debaters launch straight into these tiny little accidental holes. It's a good thing his overall argument is so damn solid.

Richard Dawkins, you are an inspiration.

13. A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

Comment #12141 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 10, 2006 at 6:35 pm

Nor would I.

14. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11709 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 6, 2006 at 5:31 pm

I believe in God.

I have an intuition that he picks his bum.