1. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177136 by Inferno on May 8, 2008 at 4:18 pm

'that religion is about truth and not social cohesion.'

Everybody remember that quote!

2. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175197 by Inferno on May 4, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Up to part 2. Agree the interviewer isn't very good. Words and sentences come out of her mouth, but I sometimes struggle to see where her question is!

Though at least she does give Dawkins sufficent time to respond. (Unlike alot of American interewiers who seem to think questions should be longer than the answers)

3. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175152 by Inferno on May 4, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Why is evolution (ie biology) always on the creationists school hit list?

If they want to question theories that go against creationism, then we must also question:

- Geography (plate techtonics is wrong)
- History (contrary to "science", the world did not exist prior to some 6000 years ago)
- Physics (well, it's all pretty much wrong taking a creationist view)
- Mathematics (same as above)
- Language studies (Bible gives a different account of development of different languages)
- Woodwork (apparently you can fit at least 2 of every species into a wooden boat - and it won't sink!)
- Computer Studies (computers rely on physics and mathematics, which we know are wrong from above)

4. Pope's Views on Science Invoke Spirited Debate

Comment #165533 by Inferno on April 21, 2008 at 3:34 pm

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine," Ratzinger quoted Feyerabend as saying.

Ah, this must be some new use of the word "reason" that I was previously unaware.

the pope suggested that techniques used in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and embryonic stem cell research have violated "the barrier that served to protect human dignity."

Silly me. I thought protecting human dignity would involve providing basic health care, education and equal rights to women and homosexuals.

5. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162907 by Inferno on April 17, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Is there just one stork or many storks? I heard that the ancient greeks believed in many storks all delivering different types of babies. But surely one stork is more logical.

Can someone also explain how this fits in with FSM?

6. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161742 by Inferno on April 15, 2008 at 3:21 pm

At my high school (public) the students organised the formal. (My FSM, this was over 10 years ago now!) Most people didn't even take a date, they just went in a group of friends. There wasn't that insane pressure to find "a date" like there seems to be in American schools (or at least so I gather from American teen movies).

The alcohol was flowing fast. I wonder if they'd still do that considering half of us were under 18.

7. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157876 by Inferno on April 9, 2008 at 4:46 pm

What? The church aided that atheist dictator? There's a please explain here.

8. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154852 by Inferno on April 3, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Mr Robertson said he could have written a better case for atheism and described most of the arguments as "sixth form schoolboy variety".

That's probably because even a sixth form schoolboy can see religion for the silliness it is.

9. Thy will be done

Comment #154216 by Inferno on April 2, 2008 at 10:25 pm

A rather British compromise has now been agreed. Prayers take place in the council chamber 10 minutes before the start of official proceedings.

I suppose this is a good compromise. As long as its not used as a chance for a gossip session: "Oh, look Mr Smith didn't turn up for prayer! Well, I'll have second thoughts about voting for that resolution he wants..."

10. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153713 by Inferno on April 1, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Eventhorizon-
I have thought about this question for a few years. I haven't found a good reason why, say, an abortion one day before birth is perfectly legal and accepted by the pro-choice crowd (myself included), but an "abortion" one day after birth (i.e., infanticide) is a capital offense which nearly all modern-day people find abhorrent.

That is where you are wrong. An abortion one day before birth is due is most certainly not legal and is not supported by the pro-choice members.

11. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #152875 by Inferno on March 31, 2008 at 4:58 pm

"It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said

Which probably makes a mockery of the whole "no condoms" thing the catholic elite keep pushing.

12. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146322 by Inferno on March 19, 2008 at 12:37 am

Rendevous with Rama is one of my all time favourite novels. That and Foundation re-ignited my love of science fiction which had flounded during my high school years.

13. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146005 by Inferno on March 18, 2008 at 1:17 pm

All I have to say about this is that "Rossvyazokhrankulutra" is a damn cool name for a screen name.

14. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144638 by Inferno on March 16, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I'll start taking creationism more seriously when it does two things:

1. Some respected atheist scientists agree with it.
2. It proposes that the "creator" is likely to be a highly advance alien, or a time traveller from the far future. Both of these being more likely than a superpowerful mystical spirit being called god.

15. The atheist delusion

Comment #144127 by Inferno on March 15, 2008 at 6:39 am

If you're gonna write against Dawkins' et al's view of religion, fine. But get your argument straight.

Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this

Having children is hard wired into the brain, but education seems to work pretty well at getting people to use contraception.

He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes.

Science reveals, or attempts to reveal, facts about the world. It does not tell you how to act in knowledge of those facts (or supposed facts). Religion on the other hand DOES tell you how to act. The very religious texts themselves promote violence, the supression of women and hatred of homosexuals.

It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions.

Far from it. Dawkins is in favour of religious education. He just doesn't think it should stop at the religion of the childs parents. Kids should learn about all the major religions in order to make an educated decision which one to join - if any.

With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs.

Sorry, who says this? Many atheists have an opptomistic view of humanity - that we are in charge of our own destiny and can make a better world if we chose too. But that is a far different thing from a predetermined goal!

it has been forgotten that most of the faith-based violence of the past century was secular in nature.

Bit unfair. What is secular? Everything other than religion. So he's arguing religion v every other cause out there. Bit like asking the question which movie has made more money, Ghostbusters or every other movie ever made.

Dawkins and Harris has never said religion is the only cause of war. In fact, they even admit it is probably not the major cause of war. But it one cause. And one cause that we can overcome!

He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism

Where did hitler get his hatred of jews and other non-christians? Hmmm? If his actions are a type of atheism (what the heck is a type of atheism? are there types of not collecting stamps?) then it is also a type of religion.

Ridden with conflicts and lacking the industrial base of communism and nazism, Islamism is nowhere near a danger of the magnitude of those that were faced down in the 20th century.

Maybe so, but does that mean we should wait until it is of that magnitude?

the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share.

What? Who? Please supply the name of this organisation and the number of members.

16. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143108 by Inferno on March 13, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Obviously there's some wiggle room as to what exactly qualifies as a mortal sin

Ah, my job as a lawyer is secure even after death!

17. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143107 by Inferno on March 13, 2008 at 1:06 pm

That does it! I'm reliquishing my faith....



....no wait. Damn.

18. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142561 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

I'd take the money, but during my acceptance speech launch into a blistering attack on religion and christiainity in particular a la Chritopher Hitchens. =)

19. Two More Fleas

Comment #142447 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Maybe not a "proof", but damn if the evidence isn't against him!

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Ummm, yes? There's still alot of work to do, but we're working on it.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
The universe is not fine-tuned for life. If life cannot exist in 99% of the universe, how is this fine-tuned?

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
If there is sufficient and compelling evidence, then yes. When the evidence shows something is true I tend to agree with the evidence. What do you do?

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
But doing a better job than religion!

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
If you count secularism as conduct not motivated by religion - then yes! Raised education standards for ALL, ending enslavement of women (at least in the West), massive improvements in health care (eg elimination of small pox).....

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Sorry about that. We do get a bit picky about the demanding evidence thing.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Don't need a scientific experiment to tell me that an invisible man sitting in the sky controlling everything going on is a nutty idea.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
With of course applies to anyone who should dare stand up and say: "What a minute. This religion is all a bit silly, isn't it?"

20. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142430 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Maybe from now on when people ask "What religion are you?", I'll respond with "I'm a teapotist." And maybe add "And a fundamentalist one at that!"

21. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141492 by Inferno on March 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I like these questions:

[b]aquilacane[/b] wrote:

Must the child answer in their parents religion, or are they permitted to chose their own religion with which to answer the question?

Is a child permitted to change their religious views to suit the question?

Must the child's opinion be of an organized religion or is the child free to use any religious opinion including their own invented religion?

If I were a kid I'd be seaching the internet for obscure religions that would give me a "get out of exams free" card.

22. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141052 by Inferno on March 9, 2008 at 9:59 pm

You cannot make this stuff up. Can you? Please tell me you can!

23. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #137970 by Inferno on March 3, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Anyone else a little frightened of books promising "The End of Reason"? When did being reasonable become a horrible thing?

24. Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Comment #137750 by Inferno on March 3, 2008 at 12:38 pm

SeaLife said:

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I think bad, since a lot of us have always assumed that indoctrination from childhood caused nearly all religiosity. Dawkins said that "...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."

We may have to consider that ending childhood indoctrination is not enough to create a rational society

Remember facts are neither good nor bad. We must adjust our understanding in the light of new evidence.

As a previous poster said, I suspect the "change" is merely from one type of christianity to another. Probably for martial reasons - and then probably because the parents wanted it, rather than those getting married. I doubt most people in the west even know (or care) about the differences.

It's like how our McGrath keeps claiming he use to be atheist, but then realised that religion was right, but which religion? Just so happened to be the dominant religion in the country in which he lived.

Your last paragraph is a good point though. It does appear people can happily situation godly allegiances, but yet can't give up the whole thing altogether. Maybe its like smokers swapping for low tar cigarettes?

25. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132517 by Inferno on February 24, 2008 at 10:45 pm

These theists make the mistake of thinking that there could be one piece of evidence that would prove the case one way or the other.

Science rarely works like that. Science uncovers truth through evidence from many sources giving consistent data.

An appearance of angel might be waved away as mass hysteria (does that even exist?), but if that were combined with only christian prayers being answered, new discovers explaining all the contradictions in the bible; satisfying explainations for the bible failing to accord with other historical evidence; stigmata evidenced and tested under lab conditions.....etc etc

If just one of those happened I would take notice. If two happened I would have definitely wonder if the christ mob had got something right.

As it is.... I'm still waiting.

26. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126899 by Inferno on February 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Damn dinosaurs are cool!

27. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125088 by Inferno on February 11, 2008 at 12:06 am

Has Dr Williams publicly apologised yet? I don't think there's been such a big misjudgement of public opinion since the introduction of new Coke.

28. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117741 by Inferno on January 29, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them.

I look forward to seeing these latest scientific developments giving evidence for the gods. No doubt they will be published in a scientific peer reviewed journal.

Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything.

Are you serious? I've re-written my resposne to this drivel 3 or 4 times. It's almost impossible to respond to this complete lack of understanding of Darwinian evolution. Dawkin's uses the theory of evolution as evidence against a designer god. That is all. Dawkins really says nothing about how we should lead our lives. That's for society to determine. Geez, why are these christian nut jobs so afraid of admitting humans can make their own future?

My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter.

Excellent! I look forward to reading this evidence. This is exactly what we've been asking for. Interesting though he doesn't given even a hint of what this evidence is....

29. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115077 by Inferno on January 23, 2008 at 1:58 pm

"Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

This is a joke right? ...checks calendar....hmmm, not April 1... But it is a joke, yes?

30. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #112621 by Inferno on January 17, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I am so buying this book.

31. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109800 by Inferno on January 9, 2008 at 6:23 pm

The ontological argument, at most, shows that a god that exists is greater than a god that doesn't exist. But this doesn't mean the god in fact exists.

A car that goes 100km/hr is faster than an imaginary car that goes 100km/hr.

Besides, why is god the greatest thing ever? What's so great about god?

I can imagine the most perfect wife in the world. A part of being the most perfect wife would be that she in fact exists and is married to me. Therefore, I am married to the most perfect wife in the world.

32. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109306 by Inferno on January 8, 2008 at 8:04 pm

If i was god i'd be telling pat robertson lies too!

33. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101696 by Inferno on December 20, 2007 at 7:09 pm

"If you sin, you better have the courage to bash Jesus' face in!"

Hmmm, coming soon to Fox?

34. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101615 by Inferno on December 20, 2007 at 3:09 pm

If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?

Ummm, heaven, eternal life, being nice to everyone. I thought that was meant to be the point? Doesn't the bible say the only unforgivable sin is to doubt the holy ghost?

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

Oh, I agree. Same thing for all those people who claim to have been abducted by aliens - it's so unbelievable it must be true. In fact, scientology is even more unbelievable than christianity, so it must be even MORE true!

35. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101549 by Inferno on December 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Good work, Rowan! Now, on what basis have you decided that there were no wise men and no virgin birth. Come on, Rowan you can do it!

The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.

I assume they left out a "not" there.

36. This Week's Flea

Comment #101132 by Inferno on December 20, 2007 at 1:08 am

Words, words, words. I'm so sick of words!

All these theists go on about "life without meaning" or "universe without understanding". All very nice indeed, but where is the evidence??!

Do any of these flea books even try and come up with some experiment or possible testable procedure or even just mathematical theory? No. It's just word play. Meaningless word play.

37. This Week's Flea

Comment #101086 by Inferno on December 19, 2007 at 7:35 pm

It's interesting that these authors don't just believe in god, but in the very specific beliefs of christianity. They use all the standard arguments for gods existence, but never say why their religion and not some other one.

In addition, why is it always one god? Surely if you can have one, there could be more. This is never addressed. And why a loving god? Considering 99% of the universe is deadly to humans this seems like a bold claim.

38. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99897 by Inferno on December 17, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Think of all the pop songs you sing along with, do you necessarily agree with all the words? If I sing the words... "I shot a man in Rio just to watch him die", does this mean I really did or want to?

If I watch The Terminator and cheer each time Arnie kills some innocent civilians, does this mean I want a nuclear armageddon and to declare war on humans?

39. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99379 by Inferno on December 16, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I wish they'd put this much effort into ridding the world of poverty.

40. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98585 by Inferno on December 13, 2007 at 10:47 pm

I hope this finally settles the "Who kills more people" debate. =)

41. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98453 by Inferno on December 13, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Ah, your american tax dollars hard at work.

Please, please, PLEASE vote in a democrat at the next election.

42. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97159 by Inferno on December 11, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Once the world is rid of religion, immemorial evils such as war and tyranny can be overcome, and humanity will be able to fashion a new life for itself better than any known in history.

Oh come on! Well has Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris ever said that the golden age will come after the destruction of religion? From the first paragraph this guy shows his complete lack of understanding of what the atheist cause is all about.

At least this article can't get any worse....

From where does Dawkins derive this faith in human freedom? Not from science. It comes from Christianity, which has always held that humans are different from all other animals in possessing free will.

Oh. My. Space fairy.

It's not even worth finishing my response to this tripe.

43. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96775 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 10:20 pm

I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.

Since it took the Pope 350 years to apologise to Galileo, I think it is only fair if you give atheists a similar amount of time to contemplate this request.

44. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96716 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 9:14 pm

The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems. They sought to create religion-free utopias and in order to do so they arbitrarily eliminated at least 100,000,000 innocent lives.

Of course, we all know the greatest mass murderer of all time is none other than God. Yes, he chucked a hissy fit when his creations weren't working according to the instructions on the box and promptly wiped out 99.99% of the population in a giant flood.

45. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96712 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 9:07 pm

The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems.

With thanks to theists everyone.... This doesn't sound like MY atheism!

46. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96611 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Maybe it flopped simply because it's a bad film? Oh, no that can't be it!

Oh, and the reason Invasion and The Brave One flopped is because they had women in the leads.

Please!!!!

47. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96607 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 6:42 pm

A) Religious people have killed less people than non-religious people.
B) Therefore, god exists.

Don't you just love this argument!

And let's not forget that atheism says nothing about how to treat other people or how to run a society. Religion, however, in its sacred textx does support the stoning of adulterers and the killing of homosexuals.

48. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #96040 by Inferno on December 9, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Pathetic. Is this what constitutes an interview or even a discussion on fox news? O'Reilly refuses to let any point go to the stage where the discussion just turns into a tit for tat contradiction.

O'Reilly needs to watch that Monty Python sketch "The Argument Sketch"

49. The art of the soluble

Comment #95966 by Inferno on December 9, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Religion, by contrast, accepts the limitations of our senses and brains and posits at least the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye - a meta-dimension that might be called transcendental.

There are plenty of times scientists posit the existence of something yet to be proved. String theory for example, says there are many more curled up dimensions than we see, yet this has yet to be proved.

The difference between science and religion asking these questions is that science wants to test these ideas. Do they reflect reality or not. Science wants to progress, religion does not.

Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived. Ironically, these arguments break the rule of parsimony - always opt for the simplest explanation - which lies at the heart of science itself.

And a conscious infite being called God for which there is no evidence whatsoever is not contrived? Really, which is simplier - a singularity was the starting point to the universe, or a extremely powerful self aware entity with desires and thoughts that itself had no creation?

50. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93274 by Inferno on December 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm

The first half of the article is ok. But the second half really fails to make its point clear.

speaking, liberalism takes no position on theological questions.

Fine, then we're illiberal. Does it really matter? Left, right, centre, communist, capitalist..... who cares.