1. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133480 by quork on February 26, 2008 at 8:23 am

"5. Goldy: So, if I get this right, there is no evidence as such..."

No, there's no evidence, but suppose there were! Then Dawkins would be guilty of ignoring that supposed evidence. Doesn't this ironclad argument convince you to change your godless ways?

BTW, want to buy a bridge?

2. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #99682 by quork on December 17, 2007 at 10:03 am

Fr. Morris repeats the lie about Hitler being an atheist evens as he challenges Dawkins' honesty. Surely that violates a commandment, the good father had better buy some indulgences.

And perhaps Fr. Morris could elaborate on this "true religion" he mentions. Does it involve wearing kilts?

Fr. Morris is on record as asking, "Have you ever met a really happy kid who is an atheist? I mean, give me a break."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300737,00.html

3. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77147 by quork on October 8, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I think Harris is on the wrong track here.

If your point is that phrasing your communications carefully will get them better accepted, then accusing those who do not understand or agree with you of being a "cult" undermines your message and your point. Obviously you are not someone who is an expert in effective communication.

Does Harris really think that someone could criticise "religious metaphysics and superstition" and "faith-based thinking" and not be instantly categorised as an atheist?

4. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68130 by quork on September 6, 2007 at 8:09 am

If the audio material contains farting noises, we can suspect that William Dembski is involved.

5. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68129 by quork on September 6, 2007 at 8:08 am

Does anyone know if this Barry Kurch guy actually IS the entire "intelligence community"?

I don't know, and was unable to glean any insight into that from either Amazon.com or the website. The text at the website makes me think that perhaps it is some sort of anonymizer service: you contribute the content and "The Intelligent Community" publishes it under their brand. Perhaps when Beachbum provides his review, the material itself will provide some direct or indirect information on this point.

6. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67464 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 2:06 pm

But the product description says one needs an iPod. I might void the warranty. I'd hate to leave them a loophole like that.

7. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67439 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Someone's got to step up and "take one for the team," i.e. buy the product and listen to it so we can find out just how good the argument is. I don't own an iPod, so someone else will have to suffer.

8. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67423 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 11:44 am

www.whois.net says:

WHOIS information for: theintelligentcommunity.com:

registrant-firstname: Barry
registrant-lastname: Krusch
...
registrant-state: NC
registrant-city: Asheville
registrant-ccode: US
...
admin-c-firstname: Barry
admin-c-lastname: Krusch
...
admin-c-state: NC
admin-c-city: Asheville
admin-c-ccode: US
...

Here's his resume:
http://www.krusch.com/resume.html

I guess he figured the product wouldn't sell well under his real name.

9. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67415 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 11:14 am

Authored by "The Intelligent Community" - a bit presumptious there.

10. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67414 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 11:12 am

"Note — to use this learning program, you must have all of the following:

• A copy of The God Delusion, and
• An iPod (or other MP3 player), and
• A broadband connection (to download the MP3 files)."

----------

Excellent, they are encouraging sales of Dawkins' book.

11. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60311 by quork on August 1, 2007 at 2:49 pm

"An edited bible, with all the nasty stuff edited out, might not be such a bad idea."


Several people have done that already. Thomas Jefferson had his own version; a copy of the gospels with all the ludicrous miracle stories removed, leaving only the philosophy and moral teachings.

Civil rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton worked on something called "The Woman's Bible" with her own revisions and commentary.

I'm amazed at how many Christians claim they get their morality straight form the Bible, but if you ask them questions such as "do you believe slavery is immoral", it becomes clear that they don't.

12. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60305 by quork on August 1, 2007 at 2:26 pm

But wait, there's more:

http://www.pr.com/press-release/47260
(Sorry, couldn't figure out how to put in a link properly)

Letter to an Atheist Nation
by Micheal Allen Robinson

An Atheist Nation? How flattering.

13. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60278 by quork on August 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Does the David Robertson book make a case for the existence of pink unicorns?

Or is it wrong to judge a book by its cover?

14. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59257 by quork on July 28, 2007 at 2:46 pm

I see the T-shirt models don't have their faces in the frame. Perhaps you should look for people who are willing to wear the T-shirt and not afraid to show their faces.

15. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46978 by quork on June 2, 2007 at 1:54 pm

It is impossible to show god doesn't exit. It could be anywhere inside or outside the universe(s).
Hmmmmm. Interesting.

Well no, it's rather tedious. Could you define the term "god" first, so we can evaluate this statement? Saying "I believe in X, but I'll wait to define X until I find something that can't be disproven" is really really boring. Hobbes would slap you upside the head for that sort of wishy washy discourse.

16. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46105 by quork on May 30, 2007 at 8:30 am

Prager asks "If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

Not if they were wearing white robes and hoods.

17. Fighting the Fundamentalists

Comment #44790 by quork on May 25, 2007 at 9:43 am

Americans in the middle—meaning, generally, religious Americans in the middle—get the message that science, and Darwinism particularly, threatens their faith. Dembski once wrote to Dawkins: "I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent design movement. So please, keep at it!"

If I had an argument that required the taking of William Dembski at face value, I would rethink my argument.

18. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38859 by quork on May 9, 2007 at 10:41 am

It is a tenet of evangelical Christianity that the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ created a new covenant with the church, so they no longer believe that a man should stone his wife to death if she is not a virgin.

Matthew 5:17-18 -
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I guess Stephanie Merritt disagrees with J.C about that point.

19. The Damned

Comment #36872 by quork on May 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm

"Nations marked by high levels of organic atheism - are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated societies on earth."

What is "organic atheism"? Is it high in bran?

20. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36509 by quork on May 1, 2007 at 11:26 am

Christianity begins with Jesus Christ and his summons to discipleship. Everything else in the Christian religion flows from that.

Really? So the original book is fiction, but the sequel is true? If there is no Fall of Man in the garden, why would there be any need for salvation?

21. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35468 by quork on April 27, 2007 at 8:52 am

Out of politeness, perhaps, or a hope for future Templeton grants, neurotheologists tend to play down the most direct implication of their research: that religious ecstasy is an illusion.

That is more interesting when the description of the journalist at the end of the article is included:


George Johnson, a 2005 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellow, is the author of Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order.

22. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31632 by quork on April 13, 2007 at 2:43 pm

the ghastly apparition of atheism

Oh yeah, the cardinal makes it sound so enticing.

23. The God Debate

Comment #29284 by quork on April 2, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I think Sam was very gentle. I've seen him otherwise. Perhaps the strategy is to ease up on the stridency so the convicted will be less afraid to debate. A counterpoint to RD perhaps.

Another gentle voice is Carl Sagan. His new book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience is a pretty good read, and Sagan displays admirable patience and gentleness throughout. Sagan and Dawkins could team up as "good cop/bad cop", although it will be difficult for Sagan to make the talk show circuit, what with being dead and all.

24. The God Debate

Comment #29123 by quork on April 1, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Juxtaposition:

WARREN: Sam makes all kinds of assertions based on his presuppositions. I'm willing to admit my presuppositions: there are clues to God. I talk to God every day. He talks to me.

...

HARRIS: It is quite possible for most people to be wrong—as are most Americans who think that evolution didn't occur.

WARREN: That's an arrogant statement.

25. The God Debate

Comment #29120 by quork on April 1, 2007 at 6:09 pm

WARREN: We both stand in a relationship of faith. You have faith that there is no God. In 1974, I spent the better part of a year living in Japan, and I studied all the world religions. All of the religions basically point toward truth. Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: "I'm still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Veda says, "Truth is elusive, it's like a butterfly, you've got to search for it." Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth." All of a sudden, that forces a decision.

Later on:

WARREN: The truth is, religion is mutually exclusive. The person who says, "Oh, I just believe them all," is an idiot because the religions flat-out contradict each other. You cannot believe in reincarnation and heaven at the same time.

26. The God Debate

Comment #29119 by quork on April 1, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Sam makes the statement in his book that religion is bad for the world, but far more people have been killed through atheists than through all the religious wars put together. Thousands died in the Inquisition; millions died under Mao, and under Stalin and Pol Pot.

Oh jeez, not again. Most of the man-made evil in the world was committed by baptised Mormons.
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL0218416820070204

27. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27687 by quork on March 26, 2007 at 6:24 am

Happy 666th birthday!

Wait, that doesn't look right...

28. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25181 by quork on March 10, 2007 at 5:28 pm

I'm sure the other side is wondering, 'Hey, how come he's not eating children and setting kittens on fire?' "

Funny line.

29. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24396 by quork on March 6, 2007 at 12:01 pm

I've got an idea for a book title: The McGrath soporific.

I see it as a way to piggyback of the tremendous worldwide name recognition McGrath has earned. What? I see. Never mind.

30. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24395 by quork on March 6, 2007 at 11:52 am

The End of Faith is, as one British review approvingly noted, a "rallying cry for a more ruthless secularization of society," so one is thankful that Harris is favorable toward nonviolence. Atheism, when in power, has displayed a ruthless habit of suppressing religious points of view.

The author seems unable to draw a distinction between secularism and atheism.

In fact, Harris dismisses Communism as "little more than a political religion," as if this makes the murders and enslavement of tens of millions of victims under the aegis of scientific atheism more palatable.

What is he on about? What was "scientific" about Stalinism or Maoism? They were not based on evidence or experimentation. And then there was the era of Lysenkoism.

31. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24393 by quork on March 6, 2007 at 11:48 am

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/list_of_hitler_quotes_he_was_q.php
List of Hitler quotes - he was quite the vocal Catholic

Not only did Hitler frequently write or speak things that could come only from a religious mind, but the Catholic church never bothered to excommunicate him.

Here's the topper though:
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=qw1170699483136B264
Hitler, Stalin and Mao are all baptised Mormons.

32. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23866 by quork on March 3, 2007 at 8:30 am

"First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple..."

According to much classical theology, the earth is about 6000 years old, and day and night were created before the sun, the Earth is the immovable center of the universe, and man was created out of dirt, and woman from a rib. So "much classical theology" is out the window. Instead: do you, Alvin Plantinga, make such a claim, and can you back it up without ignoring all the counter-arguments that have been made against it over the centuries?

Plantinga believes in resurrection. He is willing to resurrect any old argument to contradict Dawkins (necessary existence? C'mon), no matter how poorly that argument has fared in the history of philosophical discussion. Either he is really really stupid, or he is trying to snow his readers.

33. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23855 by quork on March 3, 2007 at 8:07 am

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist).

What was the single most important contribution in the history of human thought to our understanding of the 'Argument from Design'? Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Was Darwin a philosopher or a biologist?

34. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #23274 by quork on February 27, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Wilson's journey was the inverse of Collins' – reared a pious Baptist in rural Alabama, he became a famous atheist scientist.

Recently E.O. Wilson has been referring to himself as a "provisional deist."

35. A Familiar and Prescient Voice, Brought to Life

Comment #22669 by quork on February 20, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I finished the book a few days ago. It's quite good. It gives an astronomer's viewpoint on various questions which impinge on religion. It starts with the vast scale of the universe, and the ubiquity of organic matter in the solar system. Lots of good pictures. Sagan walks the audience through it step by step, with admirable patience and only a few lapses. At the end of the book are excerpts from the Q&A sessions following the lectures; Sagan maintained composure where I'm sure I couldn't have.

36. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21882 by quork on February 11, 2007 at 11:39 am

The thread is deteriorating into FortunaAdiuvatForte vs. adversaries. You should probably take that to the forum.

37. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21879 by quork on February 11, 2007 at 11:14 am

Two other interesting books appeared in the same year as Dawkins's. Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published God's Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of God. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

38. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21011 by quork on February 7, 2007 at 9:18 am

Alister McGrath is professor of theology

Here's Pope Benedict XVI making a joke about departments of theology:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

"I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn... The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties... This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God."

39. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21009 by quork on February 7, 2007 at 9:14 am

Or maybe this is just a way to earn an easy buck leeching on the success of his colleague.

That is my impression. McGrath wishes to set himself up as the anti-Dawkins. They are both Oxford professors, right? Therefore they are equals in quality of thought and quality of writing, right?

No, the proof is in the pudding, and McGrath's readers will go hungry.

40. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19481 by quork on January 27, 2007 at 2:54 pm

I am reading Sullivan's response of 25 Janaury 2007, "Truth or Consequences." He points to history and mathematics as two methods of getting at truth which are not "reducible to empirical proof." He then tries to use this to legitimize religious faith as epistemology. He ends by reiterating his charge that Harris is intolerant. I presume Harris should have no difficulty in picking thia apart.

41. In defense of atheism

Comment #19446 by quork on January 27, 2007 at 8:47 am

A reading of Orwell's Ninety Eighty-Four would also help people, I guess.

I read that just recently. I figure that since we're living it, I should read it.

42. In defense of atheism

Comment #19301 by quork on January 26, 2007 at 6:51 am

And if the introduction is correct, this is only a sample of a longer piece to come!

43. In defense of atheism

Comment #19300 by quork on January 26, 2007 at 6:50 am

Aaarrr, that be a fine piece o writin!

44. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18862 by quork on January 23, 2007 at 9:27 am

Jesus spread some love to a "Canaanite dog":

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/canaanite_dogs/mt15_21.html

45. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18860 by quork on January 23, 2007 at 9:20 am

"You say others cherry-pick the Scriptures, but you have done some of the more egregious cherry-picking in describing the priorities of Christianity."

?? The charge of cherry-picking applies when someone tries to claim a source as perfect, or good, or positive. It does not apply to those who are claiming that a source is not perfect. How can Sullivan tell which parts are the good stuff and which aren't?

I presume in his next response Harris will quote some stuff from the latest pope. There is sufficient material available.

46. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18858 by quork on January 23, 2007 at 9:09 am

"In many ways, we religious "moderates", because we are embedded in communities, churches, mosques and synagogues that may be prey to fundamentalist rigidity, know this phenomenon much better than you, an atheist outsider, ever could."

I thought Harris was a former Fundamentalist. Is that so, and can Sullivan actually be unaware of it?

47. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18515 by quork on January 21, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Sullivan says, "Sufficiently provoked, even irritated, I'll reply tomorrow. [Harris] has raised several big questions and I need a little time to think (and pray) about them."

Pray all you want, it doesn't have any effect.

48. A deadly certitude

Comment #18136 by quork on January 18, 2007 at 2:23 pm

RE: applying the ontological argument to things besides deities: It was good to see Weinberg mention Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, whose "perfect island" argument was the first attack on the ontological argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers


Anselm's response was that the ontological argument only applies to God, which is obvious special pleading.

49. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15330 by quork on December 30, 2006 at 12:46 pm

"Perhaps his experimental electric current simply mimics the work of an equally powerful spirit."

Occam's razor makes quick work of that.

What's more, the test with an electrical probe is reproducible in a laboratory. Who's going to provide a powerful spirit for comparable testing of the alternative?

50. The Courtier's Reply

Comment #14954 by quork on December 27, 2006 at 8:25 am

3. Ed Brayton blogged about a possible quotemine of Jefferson in the God Delusion [sic].

Sort of. The possibility that Jefferson was an atheist rather than a Deist, as is usually claimed, was repeated in TGD based mostly on a single source, a recent biography of Jefferson by Christopher Hitchens. Brayton disputes the conclusion of Hitchens, and does a reasonable job of backing it up:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/hitchens_jefferson_and_atheism.php

I would suspect Dawkins has already heard from friends and critics on this point, and I would encourage him to investigate the topic deeper, using more sources. Whether Jefferson was an outright atheist or not does not detract from his commitment to the separation of church and state in the USA, a topic which has been muddied in recent years by the bogus revisionism of the "America is a Christian Nation" movement.