1. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114084 by ryanbooker on January 21, 2008 at 10:46 am

Why is it that we continue with Monarchies? They contribute nothing except to the depletion of our coffers. Pointless. 'Nobility' is such a misnomer. Some inbred twit's ancestors happened to be the most cunning or thuggish people of the era, so he gets to prance about doing nothing? Please.

2. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83620 by ryanbooker on October 30, 2007 at 5:10 pm

The only satisfactory 'objection' a health care worker should ever make about such things is to resign. They have no business being health care workers.

3. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #81276 by ryanbooker on October 24, 2007 at 2:22 pm

'Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.'

We'd like to remind you that popes are infallible, because a previous pope said so.

4. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68853 by ryanbooker on September 9, 2007 at 12:01 am

No question about it. America was founded by Christians. Its very purpose for being was the furtherance of biblical Christianity, according to the Pilgrims and succeeding generations. The nation's school system was created for the express purpose of propagating the Christian faith. Almost all of the Founding Fathers who drafted and signed the Constitution were Christian believers. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer, in the high court's 1892 "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States" decision, proclaimed what was then considered obvious to just about everyone: "This is a Christian nation."

5. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63690 by ryanbooker on August 15, 2007 at 11:53 am

darwin2, read The Blind Watchmaker.

6. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55638 by ryanbooker on July 11, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Let's pretend, for a moment, that we can't answer 'Why?'

Wilson's reason that 'a fixed standard, grounded in the character of God, allows us to define evil, but this brings with it the possibility of forgiveness', is no reason at all. He only thinks it is. He's asserting that his own brand of cherry picked Christianity is the correct interpretation, and that all others are wrong. This is clearly absurd, but is the cornerstone of all versions of this ridiculous non argument.

He also ridicules a changing moral compass with his acronym 'POOMCOT', as if that is an argument. You only need look at recorded human history to see that yes indeed, our moral standard does and has evolved, and will in all likelihood continue to do so. Claiming that a book is required to mandate an absolute moral code is both stupid and ignorant of both human history in general, and religious history.

7. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46682 by ryanbooker on June 1, 2007 at 4:33 am

I really enjoyed that conversation. I found McGrath's faith in God very illuminating of the religious mind. He gave a lot of long winded, yet meaningless or purposely abstract answers, and seemed very content to flip between an interventionist God and deistic God whenever it suited him.

I loved that he spent so much time abstracting out his belief and essentially arguing for a deistic God and then spoke about why he's a Christian as if the Bible's account is undoubtedly factual. Very odd.

I have to say I did find his continual use of the phrase 'What I'd want to say', infuriating. It seemed like the intellectual equivalent of using the word 'like' in every sentence. Not that that has any baring on his arguments, of course.

I also found it hilarious when he basically spat the dummy by claiming 'I've already covered this', when pressed on the contradictions in what he was saying. He seemed to genuinely not see the conflicts in his points, and to not understand why he was being pressed.

8. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45442 by ryanbooker on May 27, 2007 at 7:19 pm

I hope it lasts. One of the things I'd most like to do in this world, is visit the Galapagos Islands.

9. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44415 by ryanbooker on May 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I stopped after the opening paragraph.

"I don't care what 99% of the world think religion is, I think it's some amorphous, nonsensical something or other, and I choose to change that definition whenever it suits my purpose."

10. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43896 by ryanbooker on May 23, 2007 at 3:41 am

On the one hand, that interview left a bad taste in my mouth (no pun in tended ;)) because I think too many viewers would be focussed on how 'mean' Hitchens is, rather than the truth of what he was saying.

On the other hand, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time.

Falwell and his like are a blight on civilisation, and the more of them that drop off, the better.

11. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39157 by ryanbooker on May 10, 2007 at 5:25 am

Does this Wilson guy actually think what he writes makes sense or has any meaning?

12. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34249 by ryanbooker on April 23, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I think "lol" is the only worthy response.

13. Against God

Comment #32087 by ryanbooker on April 15, 2007 at 2:21 pm

For those puzzling over the last line: It's a comment on the effects of religious indoctrination. Logic and reason can't, at least often don't, instantly banish the psychological results of religious upbringings. That is the meaning of "real" vs the meaning of "true".

As for Australia and Religion. Despite the poll results, Australia is highly secular. At least in practice. Religion is just not important in our daily lives. Politicians are more or less embarrassed to raise it in public discourse. It's liability for them to identify as religious in political discussion. Even someone like Kevin Rudd, who is openly religious outside of politics, does not discuss it and, at least so far, doesn't appear to have let any fundamentalism infect his policy. Unlike our current Health Minister Tony Abbott. A devout and irrational Catholic.

Australian's in general just don't really care. If you don't piss us off we'll more or less leave you alone. Well, unless the monkey in charge of the US wants to invade someone, then our sycophantic little PM will saddle his pony.

14. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28408 by ryanbooker on March 29, 2007 at 5:10 am

I love that the final "comment" was Professor Dawkins having a quiet chuckle in the background, at the obvious absurdity of McGrath's final statement.

15. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28020 by ryanbooker on March 27, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Did I read that right? Pope John Paul II said it's a fuzzy wuzzy feeling about your connection with God, and Pope Benedict XVI said it's a literal place of fire and pain...

Don't both these clowns have a direct line to God?

This comment came direct from JPII's hell. It's wonderful to be someone who freely and definitively separates himself from god(s).

16. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22212 by ryanbooker on February 13, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I found that Aslan said a lot of things that to my mind support atheism. His entire stance of "Well we don't take it as literal truth, we take it as a history of belief", seemed to beg the question "If it's not literal, and there is no other evidence, why believe?"... But he just persistently tacked "BUT, god is out there I just know it!" type rhetoric on the end.

Particular his last point, I found hilarious. If the "debate" had gone any longer I think he'd have hung himself with his own verbosity. He certainly seemed to be rounding out on the opposite point to the one he intended to make, with his last comment.

17. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22139 by ryanbooker on February 13, 2007 at 3:04 am

I found it interesting that Aslan continually, but somewhat subtly, attacked Harris in almost every comment he made. He always mixed it in with his main points, most of which seemed airy fairy nonsense.

18. The God Delusion

Comment #21743 by ryanbooker on February 10, 2007 at 9:55 pm

The 747 argument isn't even new. Dawkins has been using that for ten years or more, and it's an explanation of evolution (or why evolution isn't chance.), unless it has been revised for The God Deulsion (which I haven't read yet).

19. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18407 by ryanbooker on January 20, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Great article... New subtitle for the site:

"Be a Richard. Save the world."


Why is it ok to call the stereotypical bush constituency knuckle-draggers but not rednecks? I'm generally interested. I was under the impression that the term redneck originated as a slur on the uneducated southern working classes, as they would have a red, sun burnt neck. I'm not sure why that's a more bigoted description than calling them knuckle-draggers, with similar intent.

Cheers

20. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #17951 by ryanbooker on January 17, 2007 at 5:03 pm

This was a pretty frustrating segment. I watched it the other day.

Greer said some ok things, though I think she hasn't read much of Dawkins on the subject. She seemed to make points that she beleived Dawkins wouldn't get, or would disagree with, that seemed to be exactly what I've heard Dawkins say himself.

The guy next to her showed his hand a few times. There was one point where I just yelled at the TV "Ahah! Busted! You haven't even read the book!"

I thought it was encouraging that the priest, at least, said he did take on board the point re providing cover for extremists.

The litle girl was pointless.

21. False piety when Christianity claims the high moral ground

Comment #17921 by ryanbooker on January 17, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Australian politics is very secular, and it is seen as an embarrassment when religiosity comes out. People like Abbott get a flogging from all angles when they start on like this.

However, it is becoming more common. Howard has gradually revealed his religious leanings (although quite subtly and they don't seem particularly overt). Abbott makes no secret of his dogmatic Catholicism, and unfortunately Rudd (who I was warming too, before I found out) is a born again, or close enough to. As a note of fairness, though, Rudd generally seems to have a level head, and doesn't tend to mention his religious leanings in politics. At least in what I've seen of him. Now that he's the leader of the opposition, rather than just a shadow minister, he may have more to say on areas like health etc.

I really hope it remains embarrassing and politically suicidal for these people to preach their nonsense in this country.

22. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16519 by ryanbooker on January 7, 2007 at 5:09 am

The primary aim is NOT to inflict harm on the individual being tortured. The primary aim is the stop some catastrophe.

The only difference is proximity. You directly hurt the torture victim, whereas you indirectly (but just as knowingly) hurt the faceless innocent collateral damage.

It's just easier to justify killing someone you haven't met.

23. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16481 by ryanbooker on January 6, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Jack Rawlinson,

I disagree with the assessment to a degree. Collateral damage is no less intentional than torture, from the point of view that we know with certainty that there will be collateral damage. We deem it acceptable. Most likely because it's impersonal.

24. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16480 by ryanbooker on January 6, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Jbannon,

The situations are not different. Sam Harris never argues that torture should be part of our standard bag of tricks or even common. He simply suggests, quite rightly, that if there are situations under which we deem the death of completely innocent people acceptable, there must be situations under which we deem the torture of most likely NOT innocent people acceptable.

This is perfectly reasonable.

If there is a plane about to crash into a high rise, we may deem it acceptable to definitely kill the 200 people on board to avoid the probable killing of thousands.

Likewise, if there is a bomb in a high rise and we have a captive likely to know something about it. If they aren't responding to interrogation, then perhaps torture is acceptable if it could save thousands of people.

25. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16450 by ryanbooker on January 6, 2007 at 4:01 pm

RE: Torture

Jbannon wrote:
"There are of course times when innocents are killed and this can sometimes be justified. E.g. if I had to order the shooting down of a passenger aircraft to prevent it from being crashed into a densely populated area then I would do so. However, this does not mean I have not committed an evil, I have and I would have to properly justify it and live with the consequences.

As for torture, that surely is never justifiable. Not only that, it isn't even very effective in its aim. Does Sam think that the US regimes' suspension of the rights of "illegal combatants" is justifiable?"

It seems to me that the justification you use for shooting down a plane could easily be used to justify the torture of someone in similar "ticking timb-bomb" circumstances.

Of course the validity of the information you may glean is another story, and one I don't know enough about to make comment.

26. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16447 by ryanbooker on January 6, 2007 at 3:55 pm

When I first read End of Faith the mysticism chapter more or less lost me. I didn't get what he meant. But further reading about Sam Harris and by Sam Harris has led me to the conclusion that most people don't get what he meant.

He meant what his clarification above, suggests. That the contemplative and wholly physical practices of some religions can be studied and practised without recourse to supernatural or metaphysical beliefs.

The example he gives is that both Christians and Buddhists have had life changing experiences through their equivalents of prayer. The two practices, prayer and meditation, are functionally similar and can lead to natural changes in mental state and perhaps even physical changes in well being.

These experiences aren't the result of the religion. They are the result of the technique of introspection being used, and can be studied as a natural phenomenon.

i.e. Meditation can be good for you, without the supernatural claims of Buddhism having any truth.

27. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15511 by ryanbooker on December 31, 2006 at 10:58 pm

"As long as those who are believers will acknowledge that their allegiance gives them no privilege, no direct line to the absolute truth, no advantage in moral insight, we should be able to get along just fine."

Isn't this the heart of the issue... This is exactly what supers believe. It sure doesn't bode well for rational discourse.


RE: Bright != Atheist

It seems to me to be a wholly pointless definition of a god, to include naturalistic "gods". If it's natural it's not a god. It's either inside the scope of the natural world and thus subject to it's laws and not a god, or it's a supernatural entity.

Brights do not believe in the supernatural and therefore can not believe in any usefully defined god.

28. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15220 by ryanbooker on December 29, 2006 at 5:43 pm

Really? Finding out about Santa damaged your relationship with your parents? I remember bawling my eyes out when I demanded the truth from my parents, but I got over it pretty quickly.

I'm not sure what I'll tell my kids (If I ever have any), I'm inclined to not have Santa et el., but not because I think it will damage them. Mostly because Christmas gives me the @#$%s.

:)

29. How the Great Atheist got polite society standing

Comment #14730 by ryanbooker on December 24, 2006 at 7:48 pm

What a strange article. Almost a personal attack on the man rather than the ideas.

30. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12189 by ryanbooker on December 11, 2006 at 5:52 am

That was surreal. Unfortunately, I can see fundie heads nodding in agreement and approval to the "points" made by McIntosh.

I'm glad you got to make a proper point regarding the 2nd law, though I thought the knowing smirk I envisaged and am sure you had during your first rebuttal, was quite adequate.

No matter how often I hear these ideas, they still terrify me. There was an entire section where I kept thinking: "You should read The Blind Watchmaker."

I also found their insistence on teaching "both sides" and "all ideas" to let the children make up their own minds, particularly odd. Make up their mind? It's not a point of view, though the class would be amusing... I can imagine several semesters of geology, biology, physics, etc., followed by a short after lunch period one dreary afternoon, where genesis is read. "Now you make up your own mind".

31. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12165 by ryanbooker on December 11, 2006 at 3:51 am

Well that was infuriating.