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 toaldingham


2. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91684 by toaldingham on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 am

Is there any way to support the girl and her family? This is horrible.

3. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52443 by toaldingham on June 27, 2007 at 3:33 am

Great article, well written and Jonathan is intellectually honest which is refreshing.

6. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20028 by toaldingham on January 31, 2007 at 5:39 am

Biblebeltheretic, I wasn't trying to be elitist in using the phrase 'intellectual argument.' Perhaps I should have used the phrase 'evidence base?' I understand your frustration at apparent intellectual bias, trust me, I'm a planning student and much of the academic literature can cause you to go cross eyed.

7. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20027 by toaldingham on January 31, 2007 at 5:34 am

'You take denial of the Christian God as ridicule? You take denial of the Christian God as an argument? Interesting. How is it you construe the Blasphemy Challenge as a debate in the first place?'


Is it not enough to say that I deny the existence of God in all his forms rather than entering into antagonising discourse which plays upon tiny nuances within the Christian religion? Why enter into micro disputes over theological details, of which is bound to draw out a defensive adversary as opposed to an open minded one, when you discount the structure, i.e. God, in the first place? It makes no sense to me. I think we should all rise above it and debate the important issues and not ostracise the 'other side.' Saying that, I do recognise the publicity and debate that the blasphemy challenge has raised thus far.

8. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20003 by toaldingham on January 31, 2007 at 3:41 am

This is such a petty project, it does little but undermine the intellectual argument for atheism. It drops the discourse to a petty tit-for-tat game. "Oh, look, we can ridicule your God, aren't we great? Isn't our argument brilliant!?" Surely the debate should rise above all the superstition instead of engaging in it?