1. Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

Comment #53752 by bokonon on July 3, 2007 at 2:54 am

I think that the point she misses is not that 'God' and religion are compatible with reason and science, of course they are. What is incompatible is specific religious belief. God did not create the world 6000 years ago, the flood didn't happen, God can't be omniscience, omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time... Reason and science constrain and specify the type and character of God that can still be believed in, and it has been squeezed into almost nothingness - but not quite.

Religious people need to be forced to reflectively consider the actual content of their claimed belief because 'belief' is compatible with anything.

2. God Hates the World

Comment #53045 by bokonon on June 29, 2007 at 4:47 am

David Robertson's comments are bizarre. He better than most, given he preaches in that church, should understand how many individuals are scarred in the north of Scotland by parents who are adherents of the Wee Free variety of followers of Jesus. They follow an ideology very close to that which is sung above. I know of countless cases of children being 'cut off' and/or physically beaten and told they are going to hell for very little. I know of one young man who after doing well in his exams was led astray by his friends, arrived home drunk and that very moment physically received a 'kicking' by his father and that very night was thrown out and has been ignored by his father ever since for that one un-christian misdemeanor. He was 16 years old, but he's going to hell now, apparently. Think what might have happened had he realised he was gay? This is what David Robertson's church teaches. I'm glad he feels sick, he should be sickened at himself and what he is responsible for.

3. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41415 by bokonon on May 16, 2007 at 5:15 am

he is blind to the world in which men actually live

This De Souza is blind to the fact that women occupy this world too it would seem...

And as for Hitchens attacks being ad hominem... When religious arguments for the continued use and veracity of religion are based upon the ethical merits of religion, there is only one way to argue against this, and that is by attacking the ethical stance of religion...

"Stupid people write supid things, clever people write clever things, but for clever people to write stupid things, that takes religion." (Michael Stirrat)

4. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38398 by bokonon on May 8, 2007 at 2:04 am

People will believe all manner of nonsense, it's unlikely that will ever change and the call to tolerate the people who do this is a good one. But Sam Harris is right, although perhaps overstates the case. In this he agrees with Karl Popper in The Open Society, we can not tolerate those whose beliefs are not open to debate and we must reserve the right to force, although should be very careful in its use. Popper puts it best:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Karl Popper – The Open Society and Its Enemies.

5. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27050 by bokonon on March 23, 2007 at 3:29 am

How very annoying McGrath is!

To Summarise: "I used to be an atheist. I discovered that I wanted to believe in God. Don't we all want to believe in this nonsense? Why can't we just do this then?"

Aaargh!

And the two piles of scientists who believe or disbelieve: They are very much not equal in size.

6. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #22787 by bokonon on February 22, 2007 at 9:03 am

Whatever he may be or however he may present himself, I listened to a few of his lyrics and one stood out in "Roots". He criticises those who wear T-shirts that say "F*** the law" and he defends a police force as something good and necessary, they keep the streets safe... This is hardly standard Gangster rap...

My kids (4yo and 2yo) like to play with guns too (toys) and use agressive styles of expression, I don't worry that they really mean it. Maybe this guy really means it but can he when he's defending law and order? What's more influential? What he is saying or what he is wearing and what toys he has?

Maybe the critics above are right, people are too stupid to listen to words. I'll make sure i dress like a christian from now on...

7. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #22656 by bokonon on February 20, 2007 at 8:32 am

Yes, the above mentioned scripture i.e. Luke 19:27 is jesus telling a parable. However he must really mean it because he is about to ride into jerusalem through the traditional gate which would symbolise his coming as king; and he is about to be rejected as their king. the only interpretation that I can take from this part of the parable is that, as king, jesus is going bring those inhabitants of jerusalem that reject him before him and slaughter them, I suppose because he wanted to watch... he does hide behind the parable though, plausible deniability in modern parlance...