1. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181002 by Incredulous on May 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

I think I may have seen this before. Nonetheless, it was an extremely competent performance from Richard.

The conversation between the theists afterwards was simply the usual nauseous fallacies of verbosity, straw men, ad hominem. You all should know the drill by now.

2. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180514 by Incredulous on May 15, 2008 at 6:31 am

Quetz

I know what you mean, I think everyone else knows what you mean, but Artful Dodger sees only the opportunity to mystify what to us is a plain as the neurons in our heads.

You and he are acknowledging the existence of a sphere which is "above" nature

What's the point?

3. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180504 by Incredulous on May 15, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #180462 by Peacebeuponme
Comment #180500 by al-rawandi

It's reassuring to hear that I'm not alone in seeing Mr Morgan's appearance here as nauseous and egocentric.

He must be aware that most of the contributors and readers here are aware of all of the logical errors and emotional and psychological tricks played on us and we're not immune. Even I feel armed intellectually and experientially to deal with much of the false reasoning perpetrated by our theist friends.

I would be very surprised if engaging with Mr Morgan will add anything to any debate between rational evidence-based reasoning and superstitious, overbearing faith based-unreasoning.

[Edit]I have to confess I have editted some of my comments without stating so in the past. Is this something I have to do? The edits tend to be to alter spelling mistakes or obvious grammatical errors I spot.[/Edit]

[Edit] I spelt edited wrong [/Edit]

4. 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Comment #180161 by Incredulous on May 14, 2008 at 9:57 am

If this is the kind of thing expelled is purported to be deeming unfair then let's have more of it. If this dentist feels he is being made to choose between his spirituality and his profession then it should simply be a question at what angle he falls on his sword

How a trained health worker can sincerely believe that a disease as sad as schizophrenia can be caused by evil spirits is beyond comprehension.

He's been given another chance and should take it or go.

5. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #179937 by Incredulous on May 14, 2008 at 2:40 am

Lies, damn lies and statistics! However, I think it would be a welcome change for an American debate to focus on Science and its place in delivering quality of life than to listen to them continually rant on about the imaginary effects of imaginary conversations with imaginary gods. Maybe this kind of thing does signal a ray of light appearing over the horizon.

6. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179934 by Incredulous on May 14, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #179794 by Styrer

Richard's answers here quite nicely reflect this, though I am not sure that we can forgive Richard for presenting himself for such an interview without intimating even once that religion is a stinking load of fuck-eyed piss juice drained from the scrotums of faithoholics, spunked over by elderly perverted and grinning virgins, and served in kids' lunches the world over.

Styrer, you really need to come out of your shell and state more clearly what you mean. :)

7. Fleabytes

Comment #179431 by Incredulous on May 13, 2008 at 8:40 am

Steve,

Read the rebuttal. I am impressed. Wonderfully written - I understood every word, clearly, and found the content relevant not only to the discussion but to my computer science and neural network background.

My hat off to you sir.

8. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179285 by Incredulous on May 13, 2008 at 3:34 am

I don't know if anyone has read the comment associated with this article in the guardian. If you want an example of murky and strange thinking read this.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2008/05/faithless_einstein.html

9. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178817 by Incredulous on May 12, 2008 at 5:25 am

Poor Artful Dodger. Still confused between the subjective and objective. At least Epeeist has helped me name another logical fallacy - the fallacy of bifurcation.

I like the TS Eliot quote - Burnt Norton?. The problem is that Eliot's defensive of his theistic beliefs were ripped up in his face by my latest hero, Bertrand Russell. And boy Bertie left Ts's arguments in a mess!

I love Eliot's poetry, but as a statement of truth, get with the evidence based game. Learn more science and math and philosophy, etc and leave all this belief and metaphorical reality(?) stuff behind.

Maturity is ok you know, Artful. Understanding reality is good as well and the imagination is all good when you see it for what it is.

10. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177528 by Incredulous on May 9, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #177503 by irate_atheist

I'm having problems helping myself. Staying sane and healthy is difficult when your eyes and mind are insulted by this stuff. I think I need a break from the site for a few months.

Anyway, there's a couple of books MPhil has suggested reading and my take on moral philosophy is a little homespun and needs beefing up a bit, so maybe it's a good time to leave off arguing with nutters, I prefer fucktards - says it all really.

11. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177470 by Incredulous on May 9, 2008 at 6:34 am

I couldn't resist any longer. I can't see the point of talking to these people - at all.

Listen to this:

Christ is the Lord of human time, active in all of human history. With great humility, I feel that I stand in an unbroken line of teaching and holiness that goes back to the first apostles who knew Christ

So human history started 2000 years ago? He can feel whatever he likes but it's all in his head and has absolutely no merit at all. Truth and this nonsense in the same sentence is simply bad grammar!

De Lubac says that this bitter reflection was true because 'he has left the home, outside which there will never be anything but exile and solitude'.

Psychobabble!! I bet this guy interprets dreams and believes in astrology. If he feels that there will never anything but exile and solitude without the catholic faith well stuff him.

I'm sure there are many people who have drawn a conclusion about the non-existence of god and have found human warmth, friendship and compassion instead. For every one of this De Lubac knob there are many others who would report feeling the exact opposite.

That home, of course, is the Church which, according to de Lubac, 'is the only completely "open" society'

So open it has a catholics only sign on the door and ensures your one of its ingroup before it allows you access. Do these people think before they write/speak?

religion comes to be treated as a matter of personal need rather than as a truth that makes an unavoidable claim on us.

I'll spell this out. What the fuck! When this person finally gets round to showing me ANY truth value associated with religion then I will treat what he says with more respect.

but the tradition of Catholicism is that Christianity is profoundly social.

So social that it excludes everyone that doesn't believe its own particular brand of mythical madness.

Those two arch catholics, Bliar and Bust, have done so much to heal the world's wounds, that everyone views everyone else with complete mistrust everywhere you go. The only thing that is profound here is the confusion in this guy's mind.

That's as much as I can read without throwing up.

Ok, this belief gives him comfort or community or whatever, but it has no evidence whatsoever to support him.

Arrogantly hanging on to a belief for which you have no support does not show humility. The fact that it may all be bollocks has not even entered his silly head.

Underlying this article are easily identifiable and satisfiable human needs: needs which all humans know all too well. They're human not god given.

What do we need a man in fancy dress speaking about death cults for? We can take responsibility and we can do all of the compassion and empathy things without this!

12. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #176933 by Incredulous on May 8, 2008 at 11:04 am

Mr. Bush's faith is well known; he credits his acceptance of Jesus with turning his life around by helping him to quit drinking at age 40.

Well, I guess he feels it is good to replace one unhealthy addiction with another.

There are numerous alcoholics in various hostels who say stuff like this. Luckily, they don't get to lead the most powerful entity that has ever existed into battle.

How do you convince someone who is so sure that god is using him as some kind of truth conductor, that his effect is not a productive one and his actions need to be based on more than the catastrophic idea that his god is always right.

The problem is I don't see any future leader of USA being any less credulous and therefore any less arrpgant or dogmatic.

Why?

13. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176905 by Incredulous on May 8, 2008 at 10:17 am

Comment #176894 by clearmind

Clearmind, you don't have to copy stuff when you can simply reference the comment. That is what most of us do on this site.

Lastgeekstanding's comments have a ring of political and historical truth in them. One or two of the comments he made I might take issue with, but that isn't the point.

The point is that there is never any justification for taking the lives of innocent people, full stop.

Religion is the obvious catalyst in ensuring that perceived miscreants are arbitrarily murdered with a holy sanction and divine inspired gusto.

When a jihad is called because someone writes a book; a woman is jailed because she named a teddy bear Mohammed; if a cartoon can make a host of European based religious people bay for blood, we cannot call this a political or act of retribution. This is not about respecting tradition this is about giving vent to religious fervour.

There are more reasonable ways of conducting rebellion and seeking justified reparation.

These acts are not carried out as retribution for real life misdemeanours and if they are it is the false promises of religion which has certified the murder of equally innocent people.

There is no doubt that Africa has been raped and its people are still suffering from the personal, economic and political effects.

No rational or sane person would deny this. But it is not the African that is blowing himself or others up in righteous indignation.

The people blowing up everything in sight are young men and women convinced by religious zealots that they are paying the ultimate price in order to reap the ultimate reward. It is religion that has removed the normal constraints on natural human behaviour.

Whether we like it or not, it is religion that has removed the fear of death and fueled the hatred of those who do not agree with you.

The fact that many of the people religious zealots takes with them would ordinarily never sanction what has happened to black people over the years and would never knowingly take part in anything which would jeopardise the lives and dreams of the so-called other does not matter to the religiously drunk.

No, clearmind, this is neither about reparation or revenge. This is about the effects of religion on a susceptible few and condoned by a complacent many.

Religion is the problem in the end, no matter how you look at it.

14. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176812 by Incredulous on May 8, 2008 at 5:25 am

MPhil

Thanks for the reply. You'll have to bear with me as I don't have as much time as I would like to get involved in discussions as I would like.

Thanks for correcting my understanding of your post. I'm not disagreeing with what you say, simply wondering about the method of liberating people from unreason.

I am assuming that we have a calling or even a right to do this, but I think most of us on this site would agree that we do need to promote evidence based reason over superstitious faith.

A doctor should deal with his patient as honestly as possible unless the patient states otherwise and even then I'm not so sure.

So all that is needed is some responsiveness to reason, which is there in almost all cases.

Of course there are the pathological cases, the seriously fucked up minds, and it will be necessary to just keep them from doing harm to others, but these are by far a small minority.

This is wise and fits with my experience. Of all the people I have met who have religious experience very few really, really believe.

Very few are fundamentalists - for me these people really do believe the theist crap. Whether this is a symptom of a psychopathology I am not qualified, intelligent or experienced enough to say.

I've watched many members of my parents extended family slowly loose the chains of unreason as they became integrated into English/European society from the West Indies.

This, I am sure, is linked to a growing sense of personal, political(with a small p) and economic security and freedom. The fear is gone and the hate dealt with: what need for god or faith now.

The interesting thing for me is overcoming the emotional barriers - the fear and sometimes the latent hate - which prevent people from letting go of their erroneous beliefs and accepting reason and rationality as the true and more fulfilling driver for action in our lives.

I noticed Steve Zara has a very happy knack of rubbing people(whether we like it or not theists are people) up the right way.

He can create the right emotional background to engage with people who perhaps should feel their cognitive supports are under threat. Even when he is destroying their arguments they still respond to him. This is encouraging.

For me, it is important to understand people's concerns before asking them to take anything alternative or different on board.

It is well known a change imposed is a change opposed.

Don't get me wrong the wooter's and DR's of this world should get short shrift, and they do. The important thing is that it becomes evident that evidence is what should drive beliefs and hence actions.

Many cases are very hard to crack... but the responsiveness is there. The psychological barriers are just extremely strong... and they can be torn down over time.

And not just over time. With support, understanding and patience. But mostly by being prepared to accept that all habits are hard to break and that relapses are common.

Encouraging independence and intelligent thought is not the easiest thing to do in those who complacently allow wrong beliefs to take refuge and hence do harm.

Better education - especially science and maths, better economic circumstances and leaders who show moral fortitude as a human drive and not as an illusion from an illusion.

Every day of every week of every year of every decade science and reason shows its value to our daily lives whilst faith stands by trying to thumb a lift and then hijack the vehicle.

This will continue to be the case; but as long as we get better at recognising the road kills and alleviating the fear motivating the followers then rationality will continue to produce and the species will continue to survive on earth or in space.

There are people who do believe that bad weather is all to do with god and nothing to do with systems and fronts. There are people that god is waving a torchlight through the stars.

The more rational and better educated among us believe no such thing but then we're not the problem.

15. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176793 by Incredulous on May 8, 2008 at 3:22 am

Mphil,

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that people are either duped, seduced or browbeaten whilst vulnerable into believing?

If so does this mean that evidence and rationality will win over as long as a reasoning process is shown to be false?

Either way, I think you are mistaken.

Most people have a strong emotional tie with religion. Indeed this indoctrination appears to work by adopting emotionally effective techniques.

As Spinoza himself suggests it could be that the only way to break a strong emotional tie is to create a stronger one.

Are you seriously suggesting that reason can overcome emotion. Try telling a young girl in love that the object of her affections is not right for her.

Reason can only win over if a mind has been sensitised enough to accept that rationality should be considered. This I believe needs perceptual tools.

I could be mistaken though.

16. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176774 by Incredulous on May 8, 2008 at 2:17 am

Comment #176754 by Philip1978

I know this feeling.

I bumped into an old schoolfriend whilst visiting my parents. This person had found god and we chatted because I wanted to know where he had been hiding all these years as he had a few things to explain.

I gave her the usual arguments against her new found belief and almost pleaded with her not to forget that evidence really matters.

Whilst she was obviously upset that I was not only refuting and rebutting her favourite habit, she remained civil and appeared to accept much of what I was saying.

As a favour for old time's sake I went along to a play she was acting in. Naively I went along - I had said to her I have no interest in religion except to debunk it and I may come across as rude if someone thinks I will sit there quietly and let them spout nonsense.

The long and short of it was that the play was one of those plays with a quasi-spiritual message which made no sense, though you could see it had created an emotional event in some.

Surprisingly a pastor then appeared and started to speak some of the most abusive nonsense I have ever heard.

Naturally, there was the obligatory denigrating of the people who attended - sinners, worthless, guilty, etc - followed by this tirade against homosexuality, adultery.

To these people anything to do with sex or the 'conceit' of scientific knowledge was the cause of all human issues. Somewhere I've heard people say or read that inferiority complexes are somehow linked to a strange belief that sex is dirty.

At this point, an involuntary 'bollocks' was whispered to myself and I got up and walked out. Needless to say, relations between me and my old school friend have cooled.

I found myself having nothing but contempt for the people who perpetrate this evil - and evil is the right word.

But more worryingly, I felt even less esteem for those who wanted to believe and encouraged the process to start in the first place.

Yes, I was being harsh but that was the way I felt.

17. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176460 by Incredulous on May 7, 2008 at 11:42 am

Bonzai

You say some very interesting things about multiculturalism in the UK, something I feel very strongly about and something I believe contributes to the perceived threat of Islam.

What you say fits with my social experience here in the UK. There are many moderate muslims who could easily be pushed into supporting a fundamentalism they abhor and fear as much as we do.

Allegedly, there are muslim no-go areas which have raised a few eyebrows and seem to bear out what you say about this subtle scourge of multiculturalism.

It is this sense of otherness which causes me most concern when questions about where there priorities would lie in terms of conflict.

I have to go so can't comment further.

18. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176371 by Incredulous on May 7, 2008 at 8:02 am

That's no way to live life if you ask me. What I fear is intolerance, not someone's fantasy life.

On the face of it this is a reasonable thing to say. Dig a little deeper and it becomes difficult for me, and others I have read, to equate religion and tolerance.

Most people I know here in Birmingham accept plurality. Seems reasonable, until that is you speak to someone, anyone, with a religious belief, moderate or fanatic.

A Catholic could be sitting next to a muslim on the 79 bus going to Wolverhampton and they appear to be getting on great except that the Catholic knows he is going to heaven while he is simply convinced the Muslim will need a fireproof vest for eternity. The reverse is also assumed.

Now, if this belief in mutually assured damnation, belies a feeling of respect and tolerance, I'm missing the point.

Religion does not encourage tolerance.

I happen to believe most so-called moderates don't actually believe anything at all and are simply cultural believers: people who simply can't be bothered to go the extra yard and admit they don't believe the basic tenets of their faith, but that's for another day.

There are enough 'true' believers out there to make religious tolerance a fantasy.

19. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #175948 by Incredulous on May 6, 2008 at 9:13 am

Your heathy comes first. I still pray for you.

If I've interpreted wooterese correctly I assume he means health here. This is a very nice gesture but I think wooter is the one who needs a health check.

Only the irrecoverably conceited could possibly believe that they are so in with god that he will listen to their puny prayers. Why would a superdeity bother with the empty gestures of a mere bloke? How can something so perfect actually be influenced by something so obviously imperfect to act on his head wank?

You're incredible, wooter. No I mean it, I don't believe a word of your crap. Give it up, son.

20. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174321 by Incredulous on May 2, 2008 at 6:10 am

A big, dramatic exit along with a conversion seemed to do the trick as we are all still sitting here pondering the situation.

It's this that I find unpleasant about Mr Morgan. I just think all the angst and all the drama and overblown emotion is simply not necessary. Also, it is obvious to me people get attached to other people, animals and things.

People show interest in people they have grown to like and I don't think he really appreciated this pretty obvious fact.

I have nothing to say about the sexual abuse thing but only hope the people concerned were direct, straightforward and honest in their disapproval of his behaviour.

Unwanted attention is usually best dealt with by simply stating that you're not interested in that behaviour from that person.

If that person values you and your opinion, problem solved. If not well it becomes obvious this person doesn't particularly like you, so bye.

I only hope that people would let me know if ever I acted 'inappropriately'. Honesty can be painful but how else can you deal with any reality if you are not being dealt in an honest and tactful manner.

Unlike MPhil I sensed a genuine feeling of warmth towards Mr Morgan and a frustration towards him because he is kind of being offensive by proselytising when he knows his old friends don't like it.

We all like attention; I'm just not impressed with the way he seeks it. But that's the believer for you.

21. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173782 by Incredulous on May 1, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #173723 by annabanana
Comment #173730 by annabanana
Comment #173746 by annabanana

Your posts make a lot of sense to me. Do I really care about this man? No, but I do feel sorry for him because:

The brain damage inflicted by his Mormon uprbinging appears to be irreversible.

The problems of people from strictly religious backgrounds relating in an ordinary way with other humans is well documented so I won't insult anyone's intelligence by talking about it now.

The guy's an idiot because it is obvious to me there are lot of people here who like him for who and what he is, including his inappropriately expressed sex drive.

Real relationships, even with people over the internet, are much better than guilt enthused raptures with the memory of a long dead spiritual icon.

I think he's an arse and I'd rather he simply posted normally or got lost.

22. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173726 by Incredulous on May 1, 2008 at 7:18 am

He was referring to the inappropriate comments RM used to make to several of the female posters here. Of course, all of those have been deleted.

I've heard it said patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel; I think it should be religion and Mr Morgan seems to fit the bill nicely if this is the kind of thing he gets up to.

23. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173720 by Incredulous on May 1, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #173706 by al-rawandi

Your totally unacceptable behavior towards women is something religion seems to have cornered the market on. I wonder how Christ would view your lewd comments to women?

Have I missed something? Has Richard M been doing his Caliban act?

Actually Al, you've captured the whole believer fraud pretty well here. Next time some deluded born again person starts his crap I'll use some of this.

If anything, they'll have to invest in a dictionary to understand the clarity of your thought.

24. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173668 by Incredulous on May 1, 2008 at 4:56 am

Richard, this site works because people contribute in their own inimitable style.

We don't post so you can get off on some hyper emotional and completely unattractive intrusion into our psyches.

As an ex atheist yourself you will appreciate how irritating this is for us.

Please show us some respect and either post in a manner worthy of someone of your intellect or show some self-restraint and self respect.

There is nothing more irritating than someone forcing their own ideals on other people. This you already know.

I for one am happy that you have found whatever it is that fills whatever gaps in yourself and your life, but I don't feel the way you do and have no wish to.

I'll let you know as soon as I do ... but don't wait up.

Now, without getting personal provide evidence for your newly found beliefs and for the existence of god and we'll take it from there.

Sounding as though you're just taken an ecstasy tablet isn't going to cut ice with me, though.

25. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173102 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #173092 by clearmind

Am I the only person fed up of clearmind putrifying this side with his inane, inarticulate shit?

His comments became a homework assignment for my students:

He's joking right? Clearmind teaching? Surely not!

26. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173032 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #173013 by al-rawandi

That's the way I saw it. All he had to do was deal with the evidence, evidence which everyone with senses accepts.

If I can follow the arguments on this site - only educated to degree level - then anyone can. This guy is simply wasting time, bogging everyone down in horrible thinking mud.

Thank goodness for Dr Benway's three strikes and out. I guess we're getting better at focussed argument kills.

What I don't understand is how anyone would want to waste so much effort trying to defend patently untenable positions because they have a problem with facts?

Strange or what.

27. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173005 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:24 am

I'm afraid when it comes to my willingness to respond... I do make the rules. This is my last response to you until you provide a reason to reconcile. Feel free to look desperate and talk around me though.

And we should engage with these wankers? They have no idea how to be objective and simply want to be rude and personal for no apparent reason.

wtf.

28. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172981 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

Apparently, my comments are invisible to Seeker.

Maybe your comments are too factual, too honest. Theists seem to have a poor relationship with facts, even about their own behaviour.

Congrats on you and Al-Rawandi, very nice.

29. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172970 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 8:06 am

If you are of the opinion the Earth is at least 4,500 years old, please provide peer-reviewed papers and sources for this assertion.

Since I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one, I believe the impetus would be on you to provide papers to the contrary.

Where is the evidence to support your 99% belief?

Surely, the onus is on the claimant to support his claim, i.e. you believe the earth is 4500 years old so please support this claim.

30. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172780 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 5:07 am

Comment #172767 by Steve Zara

Believe it or not I am quite a nice person and I am even more sorry than you are that you and others have to agree with such a depressing statement.

I've read my Kirkegaard, Camus, Hume, Wittgenstein et al., much like everyone here. I've read my bible(new and old testament), read the koran and the hadith. I've studied English Literature and European History to A level - I'll always be more scientific at heart but I think a knowledge of history helps even though there are people on this site with a far better insight into these subjects than I.

I've done as much as I reasonably can do in order to understand, but with clearmind I throw my hands up in horror and despair.

How many times have you, epeeist, MPhil, Dr Benway and just about everyone else patiently and impatiently engaged respectfully with this guy?

I'm a tad more cynical about reasoning with theists.

I fully appreciate religion's attempts to deal with human fear, conceit and hatred(Russell, Why I am not a Christian and other essays, 1957).

I've even tried to set to one side my fear and loathing of much of the hadith in order to get along with muslims, in spite of the warnings from Hitchens, Harris, etc.

I've even started to immerse myself into the new and undeveloped neuroscience discipline, simply to understand how anyone obviously in their right minds can simply ignore the facts of the matter; how anyone can simply pretend that scientific methods which have been shown to deliver are wrong; how anyone can simply fail to ignore the moral insufficiency of ancient texts to uphold nothing but ignorance and superstition.

But Steve, I have to admit failure as I really am at a loss to explain clearmind's thought processes.

I have to admit inadequacy as I don't understand him or his ilk. I don't think I reasonably can.

I'll never be able to look at prints of the Mona Lisa again without feeling anguish that anyone can mix up this wonderful example of intelligence, design, creativity by the human being with the delusion of intelligent design by an imaginary superhuman abrahamic god.

Gobsmacked is an understatement.

Clearmind, you're an arse.

31. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172754 by Incredulous on April 30, 2008 at 3:39 am

Comment #172537 by Calilasseia

Thanks for delivering this excellent response. I fear it is wasted on Wooter, though reading it is a very profitable use of my time.

32. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #171967 by Incredulous on April 29, 2008 at 3:40 am

Dear reverend,

Can I get your mother's phone number?

Is this a joke?

33. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #171081 by Incredulous on April 28, 2008 at 9:53 am

Sorry about the length of the post I just had to get it off my chest.

The more I listen to clearmind's garbled clarion calls; the more I come into intellectual contact with the theists who contribute to this site; the more I learn more from the various threads published by Josh and Co., the more it becomes apparent to me that the major difference between us atheists - for want of a better word - and the theists is the logic of perception.

Clearmind makes so many errors of logic and most of them fundamental that it has become so painfully obvious that the tools we need to make people like clearmind understand anything are not just logical.

Mainly the problems I see in attempting to engage with people who are so deeply entrenched in their views are perceptual.

In fact, clearmind apart, I would imagine that if someone analysed the errors in both atheist arguments and theist arguments the vast majority of issues and errors in false statements would be perceptual errors.

There is no theist I have come across who has checked basic assumptions like not whether god is good, but whether he actually exists. A fundamental question in my opinion, but one that is simply glossed over or mumbled incoherently about.

Their logic is based on axioms they have already taken as said. No wonder we shout ourselves hoarse at these people and end up repeating ideas ad nauseum.

For them there can be no alternative hypothesis as anything they believe has a spiritual cause, even when evidence suggests there are numerous alternatives to be explored.

Could you imagine an atheist taking completely different facts processing them properly and getting different results? I honestly can't.

With the theist, I can guarantee that like a funnel everything that comes in will be processed through the narrow tube of faith and come out one way - goddidit.

The theist won't even accept that the sequence of events he describes is not possible. Evidence that the order of events - Dinosaurs did not drink beer with us 6000 years ago - is different to that he has read about or been told means nothing to them because the goddidit pattern in their head is fixed like a fossil.

In fact, aside from clearmind, whom it seems we should merely tolerate and give a wide berth to, the whole theist approach is primed for logic and the clash and adversary approach.

An analogy for me would be two lawyers battling it out in court. Both of these lawyers are using everything in their power simply to win the case event though they will both get paid handsomely for their efforts.

This seems to reduce the law to a game of black and white - chess without pieces. Who cares about the proper treatment of the evidence or that morally we are bound to determine who is guilty of what crime simply because the truth matters.

I guess you could say the same about politics. Politicians simply win power and enjoy power and don't worry too much about the efficacy of their policies and their responsibility to their employers - us.

I am convinced this approach had a point in the early history of mankind: when we fell out of the trees, so to speak.

Yet the progress mankind has made over the past thousands of years - and especially over the past 100 - are due only in part to this ability to win an argument.

We have so obviously progressed as a result of understanding that facts and evidence must change our models of reality, because facts are sacred as they exist and must therefore be accounted for.

We have seen the theists do not want to answer our straightforward questions. Clearmind is even simply praying in print and shamelessly proselytising, sad and deluded person he is.

How do we sensitise minds that are so cruelly dominated by patterns simply not justified or justifiable? Is it actually possible for people to behave more creatively and to accept that the simple existence of alternatives negates the tyranny of one dominant view? Without destroying the need to be pragmatic - I have to earn a living, there are patterns I must accept as I wouldn't survive - is it possible to open up human consciousness so that it is prepared to accept the reality of information and evidence before faith hijacks it and smothers it forever? Can a mind already dominated free itself to unbiasedly create a new pattern of discovery? Or could it be that after a certain point anything that falls into a particular catchment of belief will merely create the same old same old response? A kind of spiritual dementia.

Are we doomed to make the same errors over and over again? Is faith and might always going to drown out the human need to create, know and understand? Can something be useful even when it is palpably not true?

34. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170944 by Incredulous on April 28, 2008 at 6:59 am

If anyone needed an example of the confused, arrogant and completely insane thinking of those who would lead us intellectually armed with nothing other than faith then this is it.

This Stein bloke should be ashamed of himself. Science has led only to discovery. People die in their droves as a result of some politcally power driven nutcase who deliberately leads the people in his charge to murder and pillage.

If I invent a knife to cut food and some lunatic kills someone with it does that make me guilty of murder?

It pains me to think of how the poor thinking skills of this wretched man have been confused by so many wooly headed followers as a reason to continue headlong into hate, prejudice, war and intolerance.

The cunt then has the cheek to blame everything on the very thing that has been trying to fix the problems empty headed orators like himself have created.

This man's shit stinks bad!

Typical, he won't face it so he displaces it!

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169499 by Incredulous on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 am

Remnant:

Instead of sneering at the genuine attempts of people to accommodate and hence understand your arguments, could you please answer the questions put to you in the manner you have been asked to answer them in.

You have not answered riandouglas' or epeeist's questions and these are the only people I am aware of that have asked questions so apologies to those who have asked you a question but I have not mentioned.

Thank you for your cooperation.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168606 by Incredulous on April 25, 2008 at 8:27 am

Do you want to convert us all to Christianity? Are you here to try to test your own faith? What is your purpose?

Maybe not rhetorical, but maybe pointless. These people can't answer even a simple, intelligent question like yours in a straight and honest way.

For what it's worth I think they are here to simply waste our time and win arguments. I've taken to simply scrolling over their comments and reading the first reply to see what logical or empirical error they have made and hence discover the chosen method of lying they've chosen.

Mendacious is not a word I would chose to describe these people. I have much stronger ones, but what's the point of reacting?

They will simply not play by any other rules except those they control.

Just to add. Christians are not the only people to obfuscate. Talking to some muslims who are quick to point out their faith is based on peace and tolerance I asked them to explain the hadith and its attitude to apostates. Needless to say the silence was deafening and eyebrows started to furrow.

I think it is better to take epeeist's route and simply ask them to back up what they say and simply change the subject until they do.

37. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #168332 by Incredulous on April 25, 2008 at 3:19 am

Comment #167501 by clearmind
Comment #167623 by clearmind
Comment #167629 by clearmind
Comment #168059 by clearmind

Is religion a threat to rationality and science? I rest my case.

38. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #165715 by Incredulous on April 22, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #165709 by epeeist

**** him! I wouldn't wait around for a sensible reply from clearmind if I were you, epeeist. The sad thing is this guy doesn't know whether he is having a shit, shave, shampoo, shag or shower, yet he thinks he is some fount of all wisdom. He shouts out his non-sequitar mantras and reasonable and intelligent people are supposed to fall straight into line.

wtf.

39. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165243 by Incredulous on April 21, 2008 at 8:50 am

Thanks for the link epeeist. That seems a positive way of dealing with the theist nonsense.

I'm just in one of those morose moods, probably because I spent one hour talking to some Egyptian guys I play chess with yesterday and some of the crap they spouted made me cringe and a little angry.

You know, stuff like owning women - yes they literally said and meant this. They simply stated that the female could not make any decision at all because women make foolish decisions. Unbelievable.

I mentioned stoning adulterers and they admitted that they thought it was a good idea. No plea to compassion and understanding made any impression.

They felt that western democracy was flawed as it allowed far too much freedom and discussion about all manner of subjects. Wow!

Apparently, I'm not allowed to say hello to a female in their families at pain of death - I know.

Sharia law should be introduced over here and English law didn't make any sense. They agreed it may be a good idea to show the same respect in England they would expect in the muslim world when I suggested this was a bullshit statement too many.

These are just a few highlights and I was shocked they felt comfortable enough to say these strange things in a quite public place. Even more shocked they actually believe these things.

My natural demeanour is to walk away and leave them to it, but I felt I should try to encourage them to think a little differently and expansively.

Who was I kidding? When you're treated like an eqoistic dictator, like a slave owner, simply because you have a dick, the tendency is to attribute all manner of wonderful attributes to a most pernicious and vicious set of beliefs.

I have to wonder whether it is possible to change the minds, let alone manners, of any of these strange people.

I'll never get into a conversation with people like that again. It's completely distressing.

Comment #165169 by hungarianelephant

Personally, I prefer to turn the telescope the right way round, but part of me completely understands the need for this comfort.

I understand this too, but the comfort is coming from an erroneous idea and he has chosen to slug it out with people who really do know better.

That isn't comforting that's strangely provocative, because his comforter must seem to come under the most intense of pressure from the facts.

We all need comfort and to feel comfortable. I think we all need what we all need - things like sex, security, shelter, food, power, knowledge, love, to create, to build, to gain, to belong, to cry, to laugh, etc.

So why not accept these ordinary human needs, why ascribe our humanity and origins to a lie. Fact and fancy are not the same and I think it is someone on this site who suggested that those who can separate reality and imagination will enjoy both. I heartily agree.

40. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165159 by Incredulous on April 21, 2008 at 6:32 am

Indeed. Although I find that hurling abuse - at those that deserve it - can also be satisfying.

lol. That too.

41. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165157 by Incredulous on April 21, 2008 at 6:22 am

I only have to read clearmind's posts and I get completely down. I don't know how long he's been posting here, but his argument is exactly the same today as it was all that time ago.

He still makes no sense and he hasn't even bothered to get his facts straight.

He may be typical of those faith bound people who are so strong in their faith that evidence is irrelevant. These champions of faith seem to revel in the need to be seen to be strong in their belief irrespective of any kind of rebuttal or refutation which renders their favourite neurosis completely mad.

The thing that concerns me most, though, is that we seem to be playing a pointless zero-sum game where the truth of things is simply ignored or trampled over.

This isn't about winning and losing, this is about creating models of the universe and ourselves which are accurate and realistic.

We are talking to people who wont see or trust anything which to us are trustworthy; certainly these people are convinced they already have the truth even if all evidence mitigates against it.

It seems pointless to give them thinking tools - critical or creative - as these tools are simply remoulded to convince themselves and the gullible that it was always to be found in ancient texts.

The more I read the postings on this site the more it seems probable to me that after we have given enough support and information to those people who are cultural believers and really don't believe any of the nonsense they have been fed, we will be left with a large number of those people who will fight to the death for ideas which are really not worth fighting for. Their ideas are just wrong. Their beliefs unjustifiable.

What next? I guess there comes a point where we just have to be satisfied with being sane and continue to do our little bit to forward reason by simply being reasonable and scientific.

42. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #165138 by Incredulous on April 21, 2008 at 5:45 am

Circle of Reason and logic is surrounded by the circle of faith

How do you know this, clearmind.

When the reason's border is finished, the border of faith starts and ends in heaven.

Are you prepared to show this phenomena in public?

In other words, reason and logic is the initial step to have faith in God's creation Otherwise whatever you pray will not go further an exercise or body tiredness.

So the only way to faith is through logic? You are prepared to publicly demonstrate this, yes?

Some people in any religion have the faith as a custom, and some people have the faith deeply.

I take it this is the difference between cultural religion and true faith. I guess what you are saying is that if your prayers are not answered then clearly you do not have true faith. Yes?

So this explains why amputees cannot grow back their lost limbs, because they simply do not have enough faith. Is this what you are saying?

Why are you here?

Layla can answer this herself, but I think reading your post then if there are any more like you I certainly wouldn't be where they are.

Then question is boggling my mind; why is Dawkins overreacting?

Don't you need a mind in order for it to be boggled? Sounds to me that you are doing an absolutely wonderful job of completely boggling it yourself.

What's boggling my mind is that you actually have the capacity to operate a computer!

43. Flea of the week

Comment #163795 by Incredulous on April 19, 2008 at 3:22 am

Yet, despite our humble position in the universe, able to love and care and empathise and take joy in our existence.

This is especially lost on theists as they seem to believe they hold some kind of copyright on compassion and empathy - not that I have seen so much evidence of these qualities from our faithful counterparts.

An excellent observation as usual Paula. Real people don't need to be bullied by imaginary friends to ACTUALLY give a shit!

44. Fleabytes

Comment #163393 by Incredulous on April 18, 2008 at 9:37 am

Comment #162655 by lievemebe

Beliefs appear to be essential in keeping our lives in order and luckily much of it is done unconsciously. Beliefs of this nature are probably accumulated in the same way as knowledge.

I find this statement quite interesting. For me much of what we do and understand is a belief. Sam Harris has a take on this which I think has room for exploration.

Could it be that religious belief is really no different from any other belief?

As Sam Harris suggests it may be we act on our true beliefs - in fact it is difficult for me to see that a belief actually exists unless there is a sequence of actions supporting it.

This would explain why Sam, Richard, Daniel and Christopher are so earnest in their criticism of faith.

Simply put, if what you believe is not supported by evidence and is therefore immaturely ignorant or prejudiced then the subsequent actions must surely have danger written all over them.

As Sam Harris states, this means that belief can no longer be seen as a private matter as public action must follow as a result of your beliefs.

Needless to say I have some sympathy for this view. It fits quite nicely with my experience which is whenever what I believe or am led to believe is true things work and when they are not then things don't work.

Delusions can never work!

A belated thanks to MPhil for the reference to the fundamentals of human neurophysiology. I've found a site which acts as a good synopsis of the book and will be buying it as early as possible.

45. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163387 by Incredulous on April 18, 2008 at 9:22 am

I ignore Clearmind simply to preserve my sanity. I have never read such a constant flow of absolute drivel from anyone.

First of all the one who criticize must be fair and SANE and his critique should be based on finding out the truth and proving it rather than trying to save his PRIDE BY CLOWNING AROUND.

It might be an idea for him to take his own advice. So typical of these faith-heads; Someone needs to tell them to face it and not displace it.

46. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #162149 by Incredulous on April 16, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #162117 by scottiedawg

I've just had a look at this and at first glance it seems as though the article has very few supporters. If I was editor of the guardian I would hide this from world view as well. While it created a lot of interest, it seems to have done nothing but inspired ridicule.

I can't believe all of the comments came from contributors to RD.Net!!

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162142 by Incredulous on April 16, 2008 at 8:15 am

We are held in utter contempt by the credulous fucktards, I don't see why we owe them any kindness.
Just remember they think you are going to burn for all eternity. Calling one of them an "ass hole" is mild by comparison.

I don't think I'm quite as emphatic as al-rawandi, but I do agree with the sentiment. I made my mind up a while ago to simply do away with superstition, ignorance - I'll always suffer from it but I have to try, prejudice and arrogance. Religion or a belief in a supernatural creator drags me down this road and I don't want to go.

I'm not too sure why what is happening to Richard Morgan is particularly interesting.

My atheism is still only based on the fact that there are no gods. The only role religion can play is as a a moral guide and as far as I'm concerned god and his book are not sophisticated enough to oversee moral codes in the 21st century: a case of thanks for all you've done but your services are no longer required.

For me, Richard M's situation is personal. I have no interest in him on that level. As long as his newly found belief does not lead to actions which disturb or impose on others then fine.

The moment he tries to convince me that his subjective reality - we all have one - explains anything objective or commonly experienced there will be a problem. Until then I feel no animosity towards him at all.

Is David Robertson's impression of Faust's mephosiphilis waiting to capture fallen souls any different to any of those other proselytising empty heads? I think not.

Richard Morgan is just a bloke like any other bloke and his internal landscape is his to create any how he feels.

But he vomits that anywhere that he is not invited to vomit it then ...

48. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161288 by Incredulous on April 15, 2008 at 5:55 am

Clearmind:

Have you considered therapy? You talk complete shit!

49. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161178 by Incredulous on April 15, 2008 at 2:20 am

AllanW

No need to rise to the bait. PZ is an intelligent man and will form his views. In fact, I would imagine he already has opinions Mr Robertson's arguments and ideas which are less than complimentary.

Better to ignore Mr Robertson until he goes away.

Your time is far more valuable and shouldn't be wasted on nothing at all.

50. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161159 by Incredulous on April 15, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #161155 by AllanW

Ditto