1. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81913 by valleyshrew on October 25, 2007 at 11:36 am

I can't answer any of your questions or counter the evidence you have shown me, it's just subjective secular propaganda and I'm still right regardless of any proof you have shown me.

(Encountered this recently and was very frustrated, my only response was that it wasn't fair to presuppose everything I say is propaganda and that he can check the points made with christian sources and find they're legitimate, but of course he didn't bother.)

2. The planet hunters

Comment #47270 by valleyshrew on June 3, 2007 at 9:11 pm

I don't think believing in UFO's is irrational, depends how you define UFO and what your reasons are.

"I've never really understood why they wouldn't just say "God created the universe to look like it arose from natural processes" and then not worry about it any more, it seems far easier for them to do than adopting this stupid stance of trying to come up with hairbrained explanations for why all ages and dates measured by scientists are wrong."

That would make it seem like god was trying to trick us, and with that they've got no argument against atheism, they need to believe the universe couldn't have existed naturally to be able to justify their belief.

3. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37211 by valleyshrew on May 3, 2007 at 5:33 pm

k1mgy, have you read the old testament? Have a look at The Dark Bible webpage. You ask what it says about blowing up other nations, well, how about - "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." That they violate parts of the bible only shows that the bible contradicts itself and you can't do everything it says.

You can't expect it to say something about all those things, they're too specific, spying was hardly a big issue back then. People have justification from the bible for anything, there are so many different moral views presented in the different gospels that you choose which to follow by using your own morals. Bush isn't very smart, but I'm sure he knows a lot about the bible and what it says and feels it justifies his actions.

4. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32676 by valleyshrew on April 18, 2007 at 1:58 am

"I think it a pity that this thread seems to have become distracted by a discussion of the merits or demerits of circumcision in general."

Usually discussions slowly veer away from the original topic. We haven't forgotten the topic, but it's important to discuss things like this in general so as to establish the motives the father may have and whether there's any justification for it. If it is considered a standard medical procedure, doesn't the father have legal protection? If a mother didn't want her child to receive a cochlear implant to cure their deafness, I believe the father could have the procedure forced, does the child's own preference matter at all considering young children are the property of their parents?

Also, once you're done talking about how horrific this specific case is, what exactly is there left to discuss and what can we do to help?

5. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32527 by valleyshrew on April 17, 2007 at 9:30 am

"I just don't know about infant circumcision though... It's not clear that it's unethical..."

Of course it is, to needlessly remove any body part without the consent of the person is unethical. The problem with infant circumcision, and I know this from personal experience, is that the penis does not perform effectively without the foreskin. Some females may prefer circumcised penises, but it's probably just that they find them more attractive visually, the uncircumcised penis definitely outperforms the circumcised one in it's intended use. The circumcised penis causes the vagina to dry out. Also, I have read that a large amount of sensation is lost to a circumcised penis.

"So given this, is it ethical for doctors to circumcise babies in Africa for example."

People are debating whether they can give cervical cancer injections to females since it seems to encourage them to have sex, for the same reasons I can't comprehend how they could support circumcision for this reason, especially since circumcision involves a huge amount of harm and risk that an injection doesn't. As someone said, removing any body part lowers your chances of having it infected. You can't get tooth decay if you have no teeth.

People are extremely irrational about circumcision, they feel outraged at forced female circumcision but would circumcise their own male children just so as they would look the same as them. I would support strict criminal penalties for unnecessary infant circumcision.

6. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31972 by valleyshrew on April 15, 2007 at 4:48 am

"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion"

Isn't this inaccurate? It should be 6 billion, since everyone is agnostic (if you have "faith", then you're agnostic). There should be seperate figures for each one of those, and you can't add them together since they all overlap so the number is probably smaller than this, or perhaps it's just beeen badly labelled. Too many people don't realise what agnosticism actually is.

7. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11281 by valleyshrew on December 4, 2006 at 4:04 am

Is dawkins really ignorant enough to agree with the statement that "all christ ever taught was peace and love"? Assuming christ existed (and that's a big assumption to make), all we can say about him must be from the gospels, here are some passages:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37)

"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49)

"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:16-17)

"If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. " (John 18:36)

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31) - You may wonder why this is bad. Would you treat your child as you'd want it to treat you? What about a pupil? A suicidal murderer would love this commandment. Treat people as they want to be treated is much more agreeable.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:33)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

Atheists for Jesus is an atrocious idea, he was an awful role model. If you were to follow Jesus you would have to hate your family and give up all your money. What about "love thy neighbour", isn't it good? Jesus may have meant neighbour to refer just to Jews, after all, why should neighbour refer to everyone on earth? He often quoted the old testament, and this from leviticus:

"Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."

Oh, but what about the parable of the good samaritan? Wasn't Jesus showing you that neighbours mean everyone? Samaritans could be considered Jews, as they consider themselves the true religion of the ancient israelites. So love thy neighbour is never extended beyond the Jews, in accordance with the old testament. It was Paul who wanted to spread Christianity to everyone, Jesus was a Jew and said:

"I assure you, while heaven and earth endure not one iota or one projection of a letter will be dropped from the Law until all is accomplished."

It's easy to imagine then that he would have been horrified that Christianity spread to the gentiles.

8. Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists: poll

Comment #3949 by valleyshrew on November 1, 2006 at 4:46 pm

Doesn't this mean that 58% of US adults don't have faith?

9. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #349 by Valleyshrew on September 26, 2006 at 1:58 pm

Christiaan, agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. Agnosticism means without knowledge, while atheism means without belief in god(s).

"I neither believe nor disbelieve. I just "don't know" (isn't this the status quo?) but there doesn't appear to be any room for this point of view in the above statement."

Whether you "know" or not, doesn't change whether you "believe". Christians have "faith" in god, but they don't know whether or not it exists. Most atheists don't know whether or not it exists, but they don't believe it does. This isn't the same as saying it definitely doesn't exist. Dawkins uses the tea pot argument to show what he means here: Do you know there isn't a teapot orbiting saturn? Do you believe there isn't a teapot orbiting Saturn?

You don't have to say yes to the first question to be able to say yes to the second one.