1. New Website on Secular Philosophy

Comment #116056 by bliktor on January 25, 2008 at 12:23 pm

There's a slight error in their message; Denys Turner is a Christian theologian.

2. The devilish church practice of exorcism

Comment #114248 by bliktor on January 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Although it's years since he's seen the movie The Exorcist, he thinks it's broadly accurate, explaining, "As a Catholic, I would use those methods, yes.

Putting aside for one second how horrendous and inhuman this is, at least we found out that the exorcism performed in the in the Exorcist was on the mark...I can't even try to joke anymore about this. Fucking disgusting! Not only should that priest and girls parents be given the same treatment, but everyone in the religion that goes along with this insanity. I think a fitting end to the Nazi popes reign would be him tied up and tortured until he "confesses."

3. Vatican slams California firm's cloning experiments

Comment #114234 by bliktor on January 21, 2008 at 3:42 pm

"worst exploitation of the human being which thus becomes an object of research,"

Really? Cloning is more of an exploitation than the forced labor camps of Nazi Germany? Oh wait, I forgot the pope was a Hitler youth. My bad.

4. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114229 by bliktor on January 21, 2008 at 3:30 pm

"It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short."

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is.

5. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110041 by bliktor on January 10, 2008 at 11:20 am

I may be in the minority here but I rather enjoy seeing Wooter post on here. The nonsense that he writes down has had me laughing out loud a few times now. Keep up the good work wooter, Jesus would be proud.

6. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109772 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Diacanu -If I had enough anti-matter handy, I could set that up for you. ;)

Really? Awesome, I'll just go carjack the Enterprise and we'll be gold. Hmm... maybe carjack isn't the right word, spacejack perhaps?

7. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109771 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm

BAEOZ -Unlikely from the little I know of him. He was first a theologian, who used philosophy to support his arguments and convince non-believers. He wasn't a philosopher, who following the truth, came to believe.

Perhaps, maybe I'm just to optimistic at heart.

8. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109760 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Steve Zara -Due to relativity, from the point of view of a light ray that started travelling from the time of the origin of the universe, nothing has happened yet.

Ahh to be a ray of light, having the whole universe in front of you :)

9. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109755 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Hey BAEOZ, you think if Aquinas were alive today, with our benefits of scientific knowledge, would he be an atheist?

10. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109748 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

BAEOZ -P1. Everything has a cause
P2. To avoid an infinite regress there must
be a first cause.
C That first cause we call god.

This is just another form of the Kalam cosmological argument that goes back to the eight century.

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. The universe exists
c. Therefore the universe has a cause

Theists such as William Lane Craig have tried to use this argument to prove God's existence stating that since the universe has a cause, it must be a creator since there's no other possible cause for a universe to come into existence. The problem here is granting that the universe had a cause, it does not logically follow that the cause was a creator. I can think of other possibilities such as quantum seas or multi-verse generators that cause Big Bangs. Just because you cannot show what causes something does not mean that it's alright to just start invoking deities to explain it.

11. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109689 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm

When I saw mathematician I immediately thought of the movie 1984. Except insert the pope in place of the interrogator. 2 + 2 = 5

12. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109669 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Peacebeuponme -That's the key isn't it? We all interact and vote in the government we think will govern under the rules we all want to live by (well, democracy is not perfect, but its the best we can have).

The absolute worst would be to have the rules dictated by a small set of religious zealots. You only have to look at Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Europe before the enlightenment.

You sing the gospel my friend :) This is one of the biggest problems I have with people who are religious; that it seems to me that at some level they NEED to have this all powerful god dictating to them what's right and what's wrong. It's almost as if they are unable or afraid to take responsibility for themselves and their own morality.

13. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109649 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 11:58 am

wooter -we are getting populated here ha? You just get in the line to be funny for being evasive. Don't eat eggs. Just in case, wrong mutation, encoding,- etc you can be chicken too as well according to evolution. be careful. this is evolution. anything can happen. EVOLUTION FORBID.

Umm so I can be a human and a chicken at the same time? Well if that's the case can I be something else besides a chicken? Chickens are foul little creatures (pun definitely intended). How about a part eagle, part lion, part fish, part human? I would be an unstoppable force with all that going for me.

14. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109647 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 11:44 am

AndreG- Could you please propose the secular establishment that would be fit enough to undertake such a task?

Well ok, off the top of my head how about France. They have have a secular government and seem to be doing just fine. You could add the UK and US to that list as well (although we have a bit to much intermingling of church and state in America). The point here is that people can govern themselves through a known and proven secular organization, that being their countries governments. Also one other nice thing about the secular is nobody has to get down and pray to a president or prime minister, or have to ask the governments forgiveness. The government answers to us, not the other way around.

15. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109380 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 12:20 am

Briancoughlanworldcitize -Guys, we Dawkins raiders have been "called out" by the atheists sucks brigade:-)

Give 'em erm .... hell ?

I like the arrogant attitude on that website with the explanation of what a valid argument looks like and how to put one forth. This from the most illogical people around.

16. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109378 by bliktor on January 9, 2008 at 12:01 am

Hungarianelephant -I am now going to be haunted for the rest of the day by the image of chickens serving me their eggs and meat. "Would you like me to scramble them, sir? Bok!"

Freaking hilarious!

Seriously though, it seems as if people like wooter must be purposely coming on here and acting the way they do not out of ignorance, but just to screw with everyone. I mean no one can really be THAT ignorant to the kind of science an 8 year old knows.

17. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109362 by bliktor on January 8, 2008 at 10:55 pm

AndreG- As to the morals, should we have a universal moral base or should we work out the moral systems, that suit us individually? The danger of atheism, in my view, is that everyone would be entitled to their own morals. It is the same danger as if every motorist would design their own road rules, don't you think?

I don't mean to interject in this discussion, but I feel compelled by this statement. First I don't agree with you that we are unable to live by an individual moral code. I give more credence to our ability to use reason and rational thought to decide what's right and wrong. But to suppose for a second that you are right, why does this "universal moral base" as you put it have to come from religion or God? Couldn't these rules come just as easily from a secular establishment?

18. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109361 by bliktor on January 8, 2008 at 10:54 pm

AndreG- As to the morals, should we have a universal moral base or should we work out the moral systems, that suit us individually? The danger of atheism, in my view, is that everyone would be entitled to their own morals. It is the same danger as if every motorist would design their own road rules, don't you think?

I don't mean to interject in this discussion, but I feel compelled by this statement. First I don't agree with you that we are unable to live by an individual moral code. I give more credence to our ability to use reason and rational thought to decide what's right and wrong. But to suppose for a second that you are right, why does this "universal moral base" as you put it have to come from religion or God? Couldn't these rules come just as easily from a secular establishment?

19. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #109350 by bliktor on January 8, 2008 at 10:25 pm

So we all have the innate ability to be good, but morally good atheists and nonbelievers have been influenced by those that were believers and thus couldn't have been good otherwise. Nice contradiction.

20. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109337 by bliktor on January 8, 2008 at 9:43 pm

AndreG -who are these responsible? Are they not just mere humans, products of a so-called evolutionary process (according to your belief system)?

Yes they are. They are also thinking agents with the ability to do right or wrong and should be either praised or punished accordingly.

AndreG -My point is that you blame God (or religion) for all the atrocities of this world. Instead, you should blame the humanity, because it is essentially the humans, who carry out all these atrocities. They do it in spite of their religion or lack of it.

It would be nice if we could explicitly blame only those individuals responsible for immoral acts. However the problem with that is the people committing immoral acts in the name of the groups they are affiliated with. This isn't just limited to religious groups either. I'm sure not every person in the KKK killed black people but that doesn't stop us from hating the group as a whole because of their belief structure. Same thing goes for religion; not every Muslim wants a jihad, not every Christian was involved in a crusade, rational people are, however, able to see that the problem lies in the belief structure.

21. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109263 by bliktor on January 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm

AndreG, as an atheist I "shake my fists" at things I find to be morally wrong. Rather we're talking about oppressive regimes, racism, foolish ideas about worshiping made up God figures, etc. An important point to note here is that I am shaking my fists at those who are responsible, not conjured beings.

22. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109203 by bliktor on January 8, 2008 at 3:05 pm

True it was a bad year for God, but seeing that about 80% of the planet still takes God's existence as a serious notion, I'd have to say it wasn't nearly bad enough.