Comments by Ben Jennings

1. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #147496 by Ben Jennings on March 20, 2008 at 5:27 pm

What, no Michael Behe?

2. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121037 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:56 pm

And LorienRyan, I haven't spoken to a single person in this forum that I think that Jesus would cast into some fiery pit. I believe that we will meet again in the afterlife.

What's the basis of this belief?

3. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121032 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:52 pm

I would accept that I have no scientific evidence

QED.

but what we established is that you don't know what evidence means and that you only play as the home team

So you don't have evidence, but you do?

Make up your mind.

4. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121022 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:39 pm

What more do you need to get off your chest now that you have decided that I am lying?

I've decided no such thing. It's just the most likely scenario.

I've got nothing to get off my chest. We've already established that your claims about your own experiences don't constitute evidence for god's existence. So what else you got?

5. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121016 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:33 pm

I'll tell you what. It sound like you should ignore what I write, and I should ignore you.

Run away! Run away!

6. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121011 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:26 pm

If you are going to ask me to describe the defining moment that changed me to a theist, I think I get to decide the context...

Neither of us gets to decide the context, the context is what it is: a scientific one.

Are you really making the claim that the question of God's existence is a matter of law?

Calling me a liar just reveals your cowardice and prejudice.

I didn't call you a liar, I said it was most likely that you were lying.

When someone claims to have spoken with God, there are four possibilities I can think of:

a) They really did
b) They suffered a psychotic episode
c) They are lying to themselves
d) They are lying to me

"d" seems to me the most probable of the four.

7. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120998 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:04 pm

It wasn't a hallucination

That's probably true; it's far more likely to be a garden variety lie.

And by the way, I do hate it when I have to refer someone to a dictionary, but testimony is most certainly evidence, Mr. Jennings.

Not in a scientific context it isn't. And that's the context we mean it when we ask about your reasons for believing in the great bearded skybully.

8. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120983 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I beg your pardon. Testimony is not evidence?

Er, no. It's testimony.

I was asked what persuaded me. I responded. It is my report of an experience that I had, and my understanding of it. It's not hearsay, and it is far from unprecedented.

Which means that you're happy to believe things without evidence, not that a hallucination represents evidence.

Now, while it may not be evidence sufficient to satisfy your own needs, it worked out great for me. What is interesting is that this evidence was dismissed out of hand by everyone here, just like you would laugh off the latest report of a miracle in Reader's Digest. Thanks folks!

Why should we respond to your experience any differently?

9. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120976 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm

MPhil,

I'm reading it too, albeit a little bit at a time. THIS is what all this fuss has been about? Amazing.

10. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120975 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm

I produce evidence, in the form of reporting an experience that happened to me.

That is not evidence. Please point us to an audio recording, or better yet a video recording, of your conversation with God.

11. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120957 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I think it is impossible that you have read enough already to see the meat of this book.

Of course I haven't, but I can tell that it's either the work of an unequivocal idiot, or someone diabolically lulling me into a false sense of security.

Are you suggesting that the book is deliberately written to appear to be a piece of shit at the beginning? If so, I'm impressed!

12. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120952 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:36 pm

"The fundies would be worse without the restraining arguments of the moderates."

Wrong, the fundies are enabled by the moderates.

What's sadder is that the fundies at least have better internal logic than the moderates.

13. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120947 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Anyone who was disheartened by the positive review from "atheist" Brett Rasmussen on his blog might be interested to know that Vox cites him in the book. Flattery, it seems, gets you everywhere.

14. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120943 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm

This book is pathetic.

It is sub-D'Souza. Seriously, everyone should read this and laugh. Anyone who wants a copy just PM me.

15. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120939 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Vox Day:

Atheism is not new. It predates Christianity by at least 400 years according to the account of the trial of Socrates recorded by Plato in his Apology back in 399 b.c.

Um, no, atheism predates Christianity by considerably longer than that. Given that atheism is nothing more than the absence of God belief, it has existed quite literally forever, if it can be said to "exist" at all.

16. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120937 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Blacknad,

Bearing in mind that I've read very little of the book thus far, please justify this statement of Vox's with reference to Harris's work: "Sam Harris declares that I should not be tolerated and suggests that it might be ethical to kill me in preemptive self-defense."

17. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120936 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Ye gods, this guy is one egotistical motherfucker. His photo on wikipedia says it all really.

18. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120929 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 7:07 pm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_as_child_abuse.html

Hmm, interesting article. I see that it relies largely on a 2002 study called the "National Study of Youth and Religion" for its data.

Gee whiz, that sounds nice and unbiased. I wonder who the sole funder of this study was? Let's see... "The Lilly Endowment". Let's take a look at their website.

http://www.lillyendowment.org/religion.html

In summary, the Endowment supports efforts:

* to deepen and enrich the religious lives of American Christians, primarily by helping strengthen their churches;
* to support the recruitment and education of a new generation of talented ministers and other religious leaders;
* to encourage theological reflection and religious practices that recover the wisdom of the Christian tradition for our contemporary situation;
* to support scholars and educators who seek to help the American people better understand contemporary religion and the role it plays in our public and personal lives; and
* to strengthen the contributions that religious ideas, practices, values and institutions make to the common good of our society.

19. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120920 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 6:50 pm

5. Do you have some scientific articles to prove god exists?

Of course he does! Obviously you've never heard of the bacterial flagellum!

20. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120911 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 6:41 pm

And it may seem surreal, but you make another appeal to authority and adhom.

That it was, but it was intended as an amusing observation, not an argument.

Incidentally, when's Chuck Norris's flea book hitting the shelves?

21. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120908 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Studies overwhelmingly show healthier psychological indicators in children from religious backgrounds.

Cite. (From a proper source, please)

I've learned to be wary of sentences that begin with "studies show", so the addition of "overwhelmingly" sends my needle into the red.

22. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120906 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Blacknad,

Not actually sure what I'm supposed to do with that link. I don't see an attachment there. I've already PM'd you an email address anyway.

23. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120903 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I'd just like to stop and reflect at this stage just how surreal it is that we have generated a 1400 post thread out of a video game designer and WorldNetDaily columnist (he counts Chuck Norris among his colleagues at that particular esteemed publication) who's written a book attacking an Oxford biologist, a political journalist, a distinguished philosopher and a neuroscientist.

I actually can't wait to see this thing.

24. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120888 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Shame that BAEOZ didn't get through the preamble. Shame he did not argue some of the specific claims instead of crudely summarizing them in order to dismiss them.

Well surely someone else misrepresenting his arguments would mark the perfect opportunity for you to, you know, actually represent his arguments in response.

25. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120878 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 5:53 pm

You're not missing anything. I have explained many times why I have not provided any arguments from Day's book - I have even explained it again on this page.

I think is is a very reasonable reason.

What, you mean "They just cannot be presented in a few posts on a comments board"???

That's not reasonable at all. Just cite one or two points he makes, that's all! (And I already know Hitchens drinks and Harris takes psychedelic drugs.)

26. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120877 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm

There is a reason I am keen to get you reading this one.

Why are you playing these reasons so close to the chest?

27. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120874 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Blacknad,

If I PM you my email address will you send me the PDF?

28. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120868 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Blacknad,

Am I missing something, or have you done nothing more than wax lyrical about how good this book as without actually providing any examples of its devastating arguments?

29. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120856 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 5:34 pm

This battle is cyclic - the atheists have been answered before, and Day has answered you again in a way that stands up to the sophisticated modern audience.

Unless he's come up with a new argument for the existence of God, he has answered nothing.

By the way, I read in a blog post that he accuses Sam Harris of ignoring the Tamil suicide bombers in the opening of The End of Faith. I guess Vox is far too "sophisticated" to actually read end notes in the books he's criticising.

30. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120850 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 5:24 pm

It is not about proving the existence of God

Then what's the point?

31. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120849 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 5:21 pm

I'm not going to download it for the reasons righton mentions, but if someone wants to seed it on bittorrent I'll take a look.

32. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118758 by Ben Jennings on January 31, 2008 at 12:14 am

Happy birthday Josh! And nice work on the traffic there.

On the card Prof., it's the thought that counts. ;-)

33. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118504 by Ben Jennings on January 30, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Hi Guys, somebody issue a challenge to atheist for debate over here: http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2008/01/god-is-necessary-precondition-for.html

Hmm let's see, from the second paragraph of this guy's "Argument":

A physical person named Socrates may be at the center of it, but the actual argument is clearly not a physical thing. Neither is the mind in which the argument is apprehended; but rather it is a real, but immaterial, non-physical entity. We might say that it is made of mental substance, as opposed to the brain which is made of physical substance. If you're unconvinced about this, consider that a mental state can be about something, or that it can be true—and now try to say the same thing of physical brain states. We know that it doesn't make sense to say that one state of the brain is about another, any more than that an electron is about a photon. Truth and intentionality are not physical properties. They are mental ones.

He's using a trick of language to misrepresent different ways of looking at things as different things in order to set up a feeble dualist trampoline on which to bounce up and down.

I would not have gotten away with that in a first year philosophy essay.

34. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118492 by Ben Jennings on January 30, 2008 at 5:41 pm

I really have to shut down this laptop and get some sleep :)

What are the chances you'll dream up an argument?

35. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118474 by Ben Jennings on January 30, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Or any arguments at all would be fine.

36. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118457 by Ben Jennings on January 30, 2008 at 5:12 pm

You are accusing me of judging a book without having read it - when many of you here have already done the same

I doubt anyone's denying that. But surely you can see that there's a difference between saying "I have no intention of reading Tom Clancy's latest book because it doesn't appeal to me" and "Tom Clancy's latest book is a work of genius that will change the face of international diplomacy. By the way I haven't read it"

37. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118440 by Ben Jennings on January 30, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Haha get a load of this Blacknad clown:

Vox Day has made mincemeat out of your illustrious leader.

Read TIA and weep. Read it and weep.

And then:

Never said I'd read it.

Genius.

38. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111889 by Ben Jennings on January 16, 2008 at 12:56 am

Hmm no wonder Hitch referred to him as a "smirking hick".

39. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102870 by Ben Jennings on December 23, 2007 at 7:46 pm

the story has no similarities. what i'm trying to do is prove that the qur'an is so perfect that it must've come from divine origins

OK, let's hear it.

40. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102763 by Ben Jennings on December 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm

The word "man" (rajol) is in the Quran 24 times, and so is the worm "woman" (imra'a)
The command "say" (qul) is in the Quran 332 times, and so is the word "they said" (qalu)
The word "worldy life" (dunya) is in the Quran 115 times, and the word "hereafter" (akhera) is in the Quran 115 times
The word "devil" (shaitan) is in the Quran the same number of times as the word "angels" (mala'eka)
And plenty more. ...
Coincidence?

Congratulations, I think you've just discovered the single worst argument of all time.

So it's possible for a mere human to write a 5000 word palindrome (http://www.palindromelist.com/longest.htm) that makes some degree of narrative sense (more than the Quran at any rate), but it takes a God to make sure certain words in a piece of writing appear a certain number of times?

Wow.

41. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101071 by Ben Jennings on December 19, 2007 at 7:19 pm

what created gravity? what created time?

What created circular arguments?

42. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101065 by Ben Jennings on December 19, 2007 at 7:16 pm

i can easily make short work of you all in your atheist beliefs.

Still waiting!

43. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100876 by Ben Jennings on December 19, 2007 at 1:57 pm

We need a handy word for "I'm an atheist but" types... "naytheist"?

44. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99948 by Ben Jennings on December 17, 2007 at 11:57 pm

I just talked to Christopher. He's actually smoking herbal! Can't you tell from the smoke, by the way?

Ha!

Actually, given his recent health kick, as hilariously documented in Vanity Fair, we should've guessed that was the case.

45. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99872 by Ben Jennings on December 17, 2007 at 6:03 pm

1080p, please. ;)

46. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99869 by Ben Jennings on December 17, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Forget audio only, I wanna see more of Hitch's awesome house! ;)

47. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99559 by Ben Jennings on December 17, 2007 at 3:47 am

Does it really help to label them as the personification of characters in one of the books whose influence they are trying to weaken?

I think you're taking it a little too seriously, but in any case remember it's the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and in this case the apocalypse is meant to be religion's...

48. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99516 by Ben Jennings on December 17, 2007 at 12:35 am

I'm sure this has been said in one way or another but who can check through 243 posts?

More than anything this video is a much needed demonstration of the outright inadequacy of the debate format.

Whenever we see one of our guys debate a theist for an audience, it's always the same old questions and the same old answers. It can be entertaining, sure, but it's also depressing in its outright lack of progress.

And yet here we have a discussion with four men who are broadly like-minded but differ greatly in the details and in backgrounds, and we actually start to see some new and interesting discourse emerge.

49. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99481 by Ben Jennings on December 16, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I could be way off here, but it seemed to me that Dawkins jokingly accused Hitch of wanting to keep faith around just to give him someone to debate, and Hitch jokingly went along, wink, wink.

I agree.

50. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99192 by Ben Jennings on December 15, 2007 at 9:14 pm

I'm having trouble with the fact that the proceeds of this DVD will benefit Hirshi Ali. I'm an avid reader of Richard Dawkins work but this association with one of the most opportunistic hatemongers in Dutch political history does not add credit to his work. One of the factors is the destabilising influence that ultra right wingers have on Dutch politics and Ayaan has always been on the forefront of right wing politics, not because of her convictions but because it is the popular way to think at the moment and the easiest way to make yourself popular. Politics have as much place in science as religion. Please don't mix the two.

So let me get this straight... because you disagree with her politics, you are against helping to prevent her from being murdered? This is what you're saying?

More Pages: 1 2 | Next