1. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153673 by wyattroberts on April 1, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I'm a Christian, and I do absolutely believe these parents are guilty of a crime -- not sure whether it would be murder or manslaughter or what.

Also, I see the whole infanticide angle was mentioned upthread -- it may not be as rare as one might think. Peter Singer (appears on one of Sam Harris' book jackets) isn't opposed to it. In "Taking Life: Humans," he writes:

"[T]he total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him....the issue of ending life for disabled newborn infants is not without complications, which we do not have the space to discuss adequately. Nevertheless the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

Scary stuff.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149137 by wyattroberts on March 25, 2008 at 6:58 am

Philip/Dr. Benway:

I don't know. I'm not sure it's a "fantastically stupid" question, since it seems to be related to the discussion of the movie. But you might be right.

All I'm saying is that Prof. Dawkins isn't known for giving his opponents the benefit of the doubt on any question, and the scenario he presents to explain his answer is inconsistent with the way he generally conducts himself -- certainly, he doesn't come across that way in any videos on this site. Not any I've seen, anyway.

Just an observation. I could be wrong.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149122 by wyattroberts on March 25, 2008 at 6:33 am

I will allow that the majority of Mr. Dawkins's may be entirely true. One detail, however, strikes me as particularly implausible. It is his accounting for his motives for offering Directed Panspermia, the idea that aliens planted life here, as a theory of how life began on Earth.

Professor Dawkins states:

"Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred....I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day...So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots...and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario."

Excuse me? "I wanted to give ID its best shot?"

Frankly, it matters not to me whether Prof. Dawkins believes in Directed Panspermia. However, he is NOT known for being the least bit deferential to creationists or intelligent design.

Sorry, but his explanation simply doesn't pass the smell test. It's right up there with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

4. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135398 by wyattroberts on February 28, 2008 at 11:00 pm

I understand. I feel the same thing when people say Hitler was a "Christian." So, he claimed to be a Christian. I say: "So what?" (And Hitler's not the only one I have doubts about ;-)

Whatever you think of Jesus, these are the words I live by: "They will know you are my disciples by your love." That's my life, Quill. That is my hope, anyway. That people would recognize me because of my love for others. And to that end, let me say again, I'm sorry for being rude.

5. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135390 by wyattroberts on February 28, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Quill:

Let me apologize. I'm not conceding anything, mind you. Maybe they're genuine, maybe not. My point is the very beginning is that folks on both sides of these issues -- Christians and Athiests, alike -- can trot out examples of bad people who claimed to hold views like our own. It's argument by anecdote, nothing more. And it doesn't necessarily prove anything.

But let me just say I'm sorry for being terse and cocky. Please forgive me.

6. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135355 by wyattroberts on February 28, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Quinn:

Until I read your post, I had never given much thought to what Adolf Hitler's views might have been. I suppose I was vaguely aware that he had at some point or another been a nominal Catholic, but until tonight, had not been aware of the hostile views he had expressed toward Christianity:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

"Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained-that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the Party's programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions."

"A slow death has something comforting about The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

"It's not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified-and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little."

Surely, these themes must sound familiar to you, no?

BTW, there's lots more of this stuff at: http://davnet.org/kevin/articles/table.html

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135340 by wyattroberts on February 28, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Quinn:

I usually prefer just to quote Hitler on God

8. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135325 by wyattroberts on February 28, 2008 at 8:44 pm

The meme about Stalin, Hitler, Polpot is not going away.

9. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133110 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Steve:

If you're referring to me leaving now, I just have to go home -- It's almost 6:00 pm here. If not, please forgive me.

10. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133106 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Brian:

I'll try to go back and digest the relative posts.

I've got to head home, now. I've enjoyed this discussion, though. Thanks for your input. I'll be back.

11. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133096 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm

I'm not quite following your logic there, Steve. You are saying that Matthew and Luke were "people writing words in a book," ergo, they were lying. Huh?

I strongly suspect the Gospel writers were aware of how the reproductive process works. Of course, I could be wrong.

12. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133087 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm

My question is, do you think the gospel writers, Matthew and Luke, were lying -- intentionally trying to deceive people?

BTW, propaganda and truth are not mutually exclusive.

13. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133079 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Steve:

Uh...yes, I'm aware that use of the word "virgin" used in the LXX could apply to either a young woman or a virgin. I'm also keenly aware of how Matthew and Luke use the word "virgin" (parthenos, which ALSO can have either meaning), and they leave no doubt as to the meaning they wish to convey.

So, am I to understand that you believe they were lying? Or what?

14. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133072 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Steve Zara:

I'm sorry, are you asking me where do I think "natural law" comes from? Did you want me to elaborate on some point I made (or didn't make)?

15. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133068 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Duffman:

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I suppose there may be *some* things that are right because God commands them (or, perhaps, were right at the time). In general, I don't think it's "right" to torture people. Then again, if that person knows the location of a bomb that is about to go off and torture was the only means by which we could find it, well...I dunno. Maybe. (This is an example that Sam Harris has used).

16. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133061 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Geoff:

I listened to that debate (and almost every other one on this site -- I think that was with the religion editor of the Guardian, but don't quote me on that).

In any case, the question of the virgin birth is quite a different one. I do believe in the virgin birth. It strains credulity in my opinion for someone to read Matthew and Luke and conclude the story was supposed to be metaphoric. Yea, I believe in the virgin birth.

This, of course, doesn't go directly to the question of whether it would be helpful to have the input of others who perhaps have a better understanding of the Bible and what it means.

With respect to Dawkins's statements about the virgin birth, resurrection, etc., I honestly haven't heard him say much about those things. He may address them in TGD, but aside from that aforementioned debate, I haven't really heard him bring it up in any of his debates.

17. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133035 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Goldy:

Please don't jump to conclusions. I did not say or imply, as you put it, that "many of the stories in [the Bible] are myths."

My point was a very narrow one, having to do with the question of how and where we get our ideas of what is and isn't moral. *Generally* speaking, there seems to be a shared sense of morality that transcends cultures and civilizations. I believe this comes to us through a concept commonly referred to as "natural law." And for the record, I think it comes from God.

18. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133022 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Diacanu:

First, no, I haven't read "The God Delusion," but I am next in line to check out "god is not great," by Hitchens. Does that count for anything? :-)

And you are quite right about the blue-haired old ladies. I know a few myself. However, I sure wouldn't base my ideas of what the Bible actually means on the consensus of blue-haired ladies.

With all due respect, your comment about Bible obscurantism and theologians is a non sequitur.... "if [evolution] is so obscurantist that armies of [scientists] need to decipher the tangled mess, then it's not [true].

19. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133007 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Geoff:

I understand your point. And I have heard Dawkins read Meyers' "The Courtier's Reply." It is funny, but I don't think it really addresses the issue, which I think is a very valid one.

Here's what I mean. Dawkins dismisses the notion that he, great man of science that he is, should be needful of any input from theologians. He, like Christopher Hitchens (both of whom I really enjoy listening to), says, basically: "Look, I read the Bible. It says what it says, and it's up to you to defend it."

For example, he makes much of the fact that a man named Japheth "sacrificed" his only daughter in the Old Testament (Dawkin's claimed Japheth "cooked her.") First of all, there is no consensus by theologians on what actually happened. More to the point, though, the Bible doesn't say whether God approved or disapproved of Japheth's actions, whatever they were. Yet Dawkins uses this as one of his arguments against taking our idea of morality from the Bible (a point on which I agree with him, by the way. There are many, many Christians who do NOT believe we get our idea of "morality" from the Bible. As such, I think his argument is a straw man.)

Listen, I've listened to hours and hours of Dawkins and Hitchens (whom I particularly enjoy). I do think they (and other atheists) often have good points to make. But reading all the knee-jerk reactions here, I just wonder if maybe everyone doesn't share my intellectual curiosity.

20. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132986 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

AnnaBanana:

Are you saying, then, that you don't believe any of those books make a single point against Dawkins? I must tell you, I have *not* read any of those books (I'm a Christian), but I think Professor Dawkins is vulnerable in some of the arguments he makes.

As far as any irrefutable evidence for theism being "all over the news," I will just say this: whatever truth I've learned in this life about anything worth knowing did NOT come from watching television.

21. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132973 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Verylee:

Why do you think people who believe in God (as I do) have a "need for a supernatural crutch?"

22. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132968 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Dr. Benway:

I appreciate your comment and observation.

You are quite right, of course. There's nothing "wrong" with reacting to the cover and description of a book. I was simply pointing out that dismissing a book based soley on the fact that it presents an opposing point of view seems pretty close-minded. You may be correct in assuming that none these "flea books" make any new arguments, but you're really just guessing, aren't you? I mean, if you haven't read them, how do you *really* know?

By the way, I might as well throw myself to the wolves here and tell you I'm a Christian (as if you couldn't figure that out:). And I'm very interested in what atheists have to say.

23. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132924 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Many of the posters here sound like they are judging these books *without* examining whatever evidence (if any) they claim to present.

Isn't that exactly the opposite of what atheists are supposed to be about -- examining the evidence?