1. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169912 by Skepticus on April 27, 2008 at 4:38 am

Could you please explain how the inverse square law could be created?

2. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160835 by Skepticus on April 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm

"Now with science, we could have an age of architecture and paintings and music inspired by Science and its history."

Nice idea HourglassMemory.

As 'nature' is the subject matter of science, we might also consider the beauty manifest by nature as the 'natural alternative' to inspire beauty in art and music. I think there is lots of this around already.

3. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160788 by Skepticus on April 14, 2008 at 11:46 am

Well, such a load of palpable drivel, needs to be addressed. The Guardian could use a slap on the wrist, but mostly I am looking at you Mr. Raving-dill.

Many of you have said it already and I can only concur, This blistering idiot, has made a straw man out of Professor Dawkins and can not possibly, have read a word of what he has said, on the subject of the Bible as historical literature or religiously inspired art.

I can only guess that his primary influence was the inane rantings of the Wee Flea and co, and has taken their contorted picture of the Dawkinsian world view at face value. When, might I ask, will we athiests be allowed to speak for ourselves?

What exactly was it that justifies the assumption that we atheists in the Dawkinsian "army", wish to tare down cathedrals, smash statues and torch libraries? It appears that we are not even entrusted to speak for our own political and aesthetic, allegiances which would seem to overwhelmingly endorse moderation in at least these aspects.

I don't particularly hold religious art (except for the music perhaps) or literature in high esteem. I am not a 'culture vulture' by any fancy of the imagination. I do however behold aesthetic liberty, with as much respect as freedom of speech or democracy. The Bible will always be a part of literary history Some art will always be attributable to a modicum of aesthetic inspiration that has been shaped by it. Notwithstanding the earnest caveat, that most of that inspiration might have just as easily been inspired by secular subject matter and procured by sheer natural talent after all.

Trust apologists of the religious right, to assume the misgivings of their own dogmatic depravity, are universal. Religious zealots through out recorded history have sought to destroy the remnants of rival systems of belief. Anyhow, just where does this fool get off, suggesting that I must be willing to change my political allegiance or life partner, because I hold to a naturalistic worldview?

Because I realize that Darwin was smack on, with his inspiration of a natural explanation of how the Galapagos Islands finches, diverged in to different species, or how Mendel's system of heredity explains non-blending inheritance of character traits, with elegant brilliance, I must be saddled with the implications of political and social proclivities also? Oh, *DO* fuck off please.

Is it not interesting my friends, to note the arrogant air of smug superiority in this baseless piece of ad hominem rhetoric? Full as it is, with colourful language, decrying the throwaway plastic worldview of naturalistic science based atheism? To lay scorn at the feet of a vigilant militia group such as ourselves, for not nailing our flag to the mast, is almost hilarious in it's hypocrisy, considering the author makes no attempt at declaring where his own religious / political / philosophical allegiances lay.

Did he say he was a Christian? I thought he said that he "never really connected with the spiritual aspect of God". I thought he said that "Christianity is a myth". If not a Christian, or an agnostic then what? An atheist perhaps? "OK then" he seems to say. "It's fine for *me* to be an atheist who doesn't believe all the supernatural nonsense, as long as I am a patronizing hypocrite, who can write opinion pieces, dropping the name of an accomplished scientist and writer to sponge up some of the publicity of such a well celebrated luminary."

This writer is nothing less than a pitiful, obscurantist hack. Do you notice how (even though the name is given at the top), these 'opinion pieces' are written with a certain anonymous air of presupposed agreement? As if to suggest that the opinion itself sprung ex nihilo, out of thin air and the writers were already speaking from a populist point of view (knowing all will agree).

There is a certain lamentable style, that invokes automatic comradere or 'in-group' mentality in it's readers and however much of a balls out shit, Mr Raving-Dill is, he seems to know how to push buttons and seek publicity, while pandering to (and patronising) the lowest common denominator.

For starters, the article begins with this kind of protracted preamble. No hint of any point being made by the writer, is elucidated until after the fifth paragraph. Such articles begin with much cajoling and trivia to 'get you on side' as if to say, "and since you agree with all that irrelevant rhetoric, how about I slip in this point [insert inane ramblings here]". They then pretend (assume) you already agree. The essence of smugness is to not only present a point of view, but to pretend you are just agreeing with what the audience already knew.

In this piece of totally crap 'journalism', gagging as it is, with rhetoric in an unabashed, pandering style, some how Mr Raving-dill manages to be maximally patronising to both atheists and creationists alike. He also somehow manages, at the same time, to be:

Hypocritical, by criticising agnosticism, for not nailing its' flag to the mast, while blatantly failing to nail his own religious flag to the mast.

While also being ignorant by not understanding the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

And mostly for being factually ignorant and bigoted, for assuming Dawkins' 'atheist army' are hate mongering, vandals who are out to destroy the very vestiges of religion. This is especially culpable in light of all Richard has said about preserving the historical importance of the bible as literature, churches as architecture and religion itself as artistic inspiration.

Richard himself, has almost labored the point about how moved he can be, by religiously inspired art, music and architecture. I will add to that, as I was taught in childhood to play theater organ music, and learned quite a bit of hymnal. I am sometimes moved to tears by charismatic gospel music and devotional blues.

How dare this no count, two bit hack, taint Prof. Dawkins and the rest of us, with the petty parochialisms implicit in such cultural vandalism. In the face of explicit personal testimony to the contrary, what's more, as well as the historical record of such cultural vandalism that is actually inspired by religious zealotry.

If religious zeal produced nothing but beautiful sonnets and stained glass windows, I'm sure we would be happy to applaud it heartily, while putting the delusional beliefs to one side. The trouble is, the export of intangible aesthetic products, are overshadowed by its habit of importing guns and body bags, in exchange for the dead corpses of other peoples children along with the twisted, psychological blackmail services it provides, to sustain it own market dominance.

I don't usually expect atheists to be so devious and prone to obscurantism and two faced rhetoric, as espoused by this Raving-dill. Does anybody else smell a creationist rat, pretending to be a moderate atheist, yet espousing the hackneyed, sophist tactics, of fundamentalist creationism?

4. God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy: 'No' Says God

Comment #105875 by Skepticus on January 2, 2008 at 3:23 am

First of all, to 'dhweaver':

"Poor child. His parents were probably intelligent atheists. Adopted into a home of insanity after their death he's forced to attend the Lord in Heaven I'm High church in San Francisco."

LMAO. No seriously, your avatar helped me to depict a drunk Barney, orating this, wobbly voice and all.

"Lord in heavan I'm high", indeed.

Now to the other comments re: the detectability of absurdity etc...

Steven Mading makes a good point about how hard it is to be absurd enough to satarise religion, but we must try and have faith.. er wait, skip the faith bit but do keep trying.

The interview with God did give it away for me. Sure plenty of people try to claim they communicate with god one on one, but not with obviously journalistic prose. They cold have said "God was unavailable for comment today, but a spokesperson from heaven is alleged to... blah blah"

Even before that though, the obvious deficiency in plausibility is upstaged by the deficiency in motive from a Christian point of view. What Christian would choose to portray their god as being so malevolent or indifferent, despite his willingness to intervene.

Religion is hard to satarise, but first we need to get a sense of humor. Satire is a two way street.

5. Misplacing science, displacing God: the fallacies of Dawkinism

Comment #1995 by Skepticus on October 18, 2006 at 7:25 am

"As everyone knows, viruses are bad things"

Not if you're a virus. Try relative morality.

6. 'God's Rottweiler' Barks

Comment #392 by Skepticus on September 27, 2006 at 9:20 pm

Unreal:
"Why is it that it's all good and fine for every Islamic Extremist to spout disgusting commentary with no basis on fact..."


I didn't see where in this article, Harris said anything condoning Islamist rhetoric.


Unreal:
"...yet when the leader of the Catholic faith quotes something that was ACTUALLY SAID concerning Islam he's a bad human."


Why do you think he made the quotation, if not to echo it's sentiments? The fact that it was ACTUALLY SAID, is irrelevant. Where has Harris claimed that the quote was not said?


Who do you think your strawman subterfuge is fooling Unreal? Dare we credit you with the inteligence to understand the point that is actualy being made? there's No evidence of that here.


If you think Sam Harris' position on Islam is lenient then you haven't read 'The End Of Faith'.