1. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181715 by rnewson on May 18, 2008 at 3:28 am

I suppose, begrudgingly, one has to admire the commitment to the now redundant belief in the supernatural.

The kind of god people believed in even a few hundred years ago was much more in line with the so-called sacred writings. As science demolishes every large and small claim therein, the apologists back off further to the point, as above, where they consider simply renaming the natural world, "God".

Aren't they tired yet? Surely it's easier, and more parsimonious, to just drop the idea. It was wrong, it didn't work, we know better now. It's almost a parody of domestic violence, they keep going back for more, hoping, this time, that it'll all be all right.

It's always amused me that the field of Christian explanation is called "apologetics", says it all really.

The worst tactic displayed in the this text, and indeed in the two page ad for it in the Economist, is to constantly flit between quite different definitions of God. As soon as they can raise even a glimmer of possibility in one definition, it's transformed into confirmation of their preferred one. Feeble.

2. Gay scientists isolate Christian gene

Comment #149752 by rnewson on March 26, 2008 at 7:52 am

Good science at work. :)

3. 10 cc of atheism

Comment #124693 by rnewson on February 10, 2008 at 5:06 am

heh. I'm british, and quite the Hugh Laurie fan, I know very well what he normally sounds like. I've lived in the US for three years, so I know what americans sound like too. I just can't stand the accent he uses for his character.

4. 10 cc of atheism

Comment #124535 by rnewson on February 9, 2008 at 6:19 pm

I can't watch Hugh Laurie doing that terrible american accent, really painful.

5. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #103943 by rnewson on December 27, 2007 at 11:27 am

So, the parents lie and the government covers up for them because lying to children is bad... It's so upside-down, it almost makes sense.

6. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103938 by rnewson on December 27, 2007 at 11:17 am

robotaholic,

I think you misread my post. The two paragraphs were quotes from Ron Paul. I am not a troll, though your comments do apply to Ron Paul.

I edited my post to put those two paragraphs in a blockquote element.

al-rawandi: Ron Paul does not support the separation of church and state. It doesn't take a troglodyte to realize that's a bad thing.

7. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103875 by rnewson on December 27, 2007 at 7:13 am

"At least he isn't a religious nut bent on changing the Constitution to suit his needs"

Yes, he is;

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

8. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101252 by rnewson on December 20, 2007 at 6:37 am

"Dr Williams said there was little evidence that the three wise men had existed at all"

follow it through, follow it through. If there's little evidence then, maybe, .... no? Not going to go there?

An archbishop that considers lack of evidence as a reason to dismiss biblical statements. That's exactly what I wanted for Christmas!

9. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100791 by rnewson on December 19, 2007 at 10:38 am

"It's a country with a nominally Christian majority"

One assumes that by "nominally", he means "assumed". Surely the evidence (there's that word again) does not support this statement?

10. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100789 by rnewson on December 19, 2007 at 10:36 am

For me, this is a net loss of respect for the LibDems. How can someone who doesn't believe in the Catholic doctrine (in all its insanity) allow his children to be taught it as fact?

At best, it's not true and he said it to sound concilliatory (but dishonest). At worst, it's true and Nick Clegg is deeply conflicted.

11. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98398 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 2:47 pm

USA_Limey, I agree, I wish they were in some other section. They also play merry hell with the RSS feed. There was me thinking that 20 new articles had been posted... :)

12. Atheists only promote divisiveness, as any other separatist movement.

Comment #98371 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 2:28 pm

The US House of Representatives recently acknowledged how great Christianity is, this is divisive. A presidential candidate recently insisted that freedom requires religion, this is also divisive. A former president didn't think atheists could be citizens, divisive.

Any difference of opinion, in any field, is divisive. The implication is that division is always a bad thing. If one half of the division is right and the other half is wrong, surely the division is an advance?

13. How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #98367 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Aren't *all* fossils transitional?

14. All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative.

Comment #98366 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Postmodernist nonsense, indeed.

There are views and there are views supported by evidence. The ones with evidence are inherently more valuable than those without.

15. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #98348 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm

There is confusion as to the definition of atheist (and agnostic).

A person that claims to *know* that there are no gods is just as dogmatic as a theist. Both are claiming knowledge that they do not possess.

In his book, Professor Dawkins proposes a multi-point scale from theist to atheist. Only the right-most point corresponds to this dogmatic atheist. Any other notch, on the atheist side, accepts the possibility of gods but rejects the current hypothetical gods of all current and past religions due to lack of evidence or flat contradiction with reality.

So, there is a tiny category of atheist that this question is addressed to. Professor Dawkins, myself and, I venture to suggest, most readers of this forum, are not in it.

16. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #98344 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Quetzalcoatl captures the essence of the counterargument.

To extend it, people *know* that astrology works, that homeopathy works, that acupuncture works, that ear candling works, etc.

Basically, people claim to know things quite freely and without any evidence. They are misusing the word.

17. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #98342 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:45 pm

"That which can be proposed without evidence can be rejected without evidence"?

Once evidence comes into play then any rational person can jump in and examine the evidence.

Religion has no credible evidence to date, everything put up (Noah's Ark, creationism, etc, blah, blah, blah) has been demolished by rational enquiry.

18. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #98336 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Physicists call phenomenon that is believed, through empirical study, to hold in all parts of the universe as "laws". They are not laws in the normal, human sense.

It is not settled that the "laws" of physics can vary so it is premature to conclude that they are fine-tuned in order to be be "rational" or fine-tuned for life. A much stronger case can be made that the universe is fine-tuned to make vast expanses of almost nothing at all.

So, this proposal fails at its first hurdle. It is not at all clear that the "laws" of physics are laws in the sense meant. This is a poor play on words.

19. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98327 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Is free will important to an atheist? Yes, in the sense that an atheist is also a person. No, in the strict sense, that the existence or non-existence of free will would not invalidate their non-belief in gods.

The absence of free will is, however, devastating to all theists since without it you cannot choose to be evil or good, and therefore deserve neither punishment nor salvation.

20. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #98321 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Atheism says nothing about the purpose or the meaning of life, it's merely the absence of a belief in gods.

Hairdressing says nothing about the purpose or the meaning of life either.

The theist assumes that there must *be* a purpose or meaning to life. It is not obvious that it must have one and no evidence has been presented to make the case.

21. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #98318 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:19 pm

The universe is over 99% empty space. It contains millions, perhaps billions of potential Earths, none known to be anything but dead rock.

The universe is not fine-tuned for life. The existence of one life-bearing planet in the entire universe is fortunate and, by definition, if there's only one, we're standing on it.

22. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66948 by rnewson on September 1, 2007 at 4:48 am

I'm so stunned by the arrogance of writing from an angel's point of view that I can't read the rest of this article...

23. A force for evil?

Comment #55115 by rnewson on July 10, 2007 at 3:49 am

"kindness needs no ideology". Nicely put.

24. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #52896 by rnewson on June 28, 2007 at 12:41 pm

That's a lot of words without mentioning the anthropic principle...

25. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50000 by rnewson on June 14, 2007 at 1:40 pm

The language is quite revealing. The protests about abortion now say "child" where once they would say "baby" or "foetus".

Ignoring the distinction between a zygote and a child is, of course, deliberate. I guess part of its purpose is to distract from the truly offensive opinion that rape victims should be forced to carry to term.

Once again the Vatican proves that we don't get our morality or our compassion from Scripture.

26. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49896 by rnewson on June 14, 2007 at 3:29 am

For those using Linux, you can save the whole stream to a file using mplayer:

mplayer http://128.83.78.9/media/futureforum/Hitchins-Olasky.wmv -cache 16384 -dumpstream -dumpfile Hitchins-Olasky.asf

27. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19556 by rnewson on January 28, 2007 at 9:03 am

"A number of books have present scientific documentation that her hit rate is around 80%"

Which books? Do you really think all books that are published are true?

If her hit rate is really 80%, this would be a millenium-defining event. It's far, far more likely that she's a complete fraud.