1. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75406 by aitchkay on October 2, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Simon Packer wrote: "Christianity, defined as rigorously following Christ's teachings, will not result in harming others."

Really?

Luke 19
27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
28After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

2. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74685 by aitchkay on September 30, 2007 at 1:17 am

"I have never personally had either the benefits nor misfortunes of adhering to any religion, but..."

Ah - more 'I'm a atheist buttery'

"Bhuddism...can be used to justify violent acts as much as any other belief."

Putting Bhuddism on an equal footing with Islam and fundamental Christianity is simply dishonest - not all religions are equally harmful.

"It is, on the whole, not beneficial to be ruled by such heroes [visionaries, romantics and true believers], but it is good to have them around when we need them."

Yes, how blessed we are to share our planet with these true believers. Just think how much we'd miss all the jihadis, condom-banning priests, queer-bashing bishops and young earth creationists. Religious values do indeed 'offer an alternative moral universe'.

3. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #73428 by aitchkay on September 25, 2007 at 2:02 am

Devolved -

Yes, I accept the possibilty that God exists.

Do you accept the possibility that God does not exist?

4. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72945 by aitchkay on September 23, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Devolved - your last post seems to suggest that you are willing to consider the possibility that God does not exist. I think this is a step in the right direction: perhaps your visits here have not afterall been a waste of time.

5. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72621 by aitchkay on September 22, 2007 at 1:02 am

Roughly translated, devolved (again) wrote

Blah blah blah nonsense and bollocks, not to mention the hotly debated question of blather gibberish twaddle

Isn't it about time you found a dictionary and looked up the word 'evidence'? Once you understand what it is and why it is important, feel free to search for some to support your supernatural beliefs. If you find any, please share it with us. Until then, kindly fuck off.

6. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72174 by aitchkay on September 20, 2007 at 1:36 pm

I can't be bothered to respond to this nebulous nonsense. However, here are a few anagrams for your amusement:

Jesus Christ:
Such Jest Sir

Christianity:
- Cash I Trinity
- Satyric Hint I
- Ha Sic Trinity
- Anti Chis I Try
and for the really childish among us...
Airy Inch Tits

7. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68956 by aitchkay on September 9, 2007 at 9:10 am

Ants manage to co-operate perfectly well without supernatural beliefs. Good evidence, I think, for the early evolution of cooperation. Although I can't *prove* that ants don't believe in god, it's reasonable to assume so (I call this the 'antological argument')

8. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68917 by aitchkay on September 9, 2007 at 5:21 am

I've been an atheist for years and years, but this morning, when I opened the freezer, the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. I saw a beautiful ice cube - tens of millimetres across. The search was over: I knelt on the dusty lino and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

Here's a link to the only surviving footage of the C.S. Lewis talks (beyond personality), later published in the 'Mere Cristianity' book mentioned by Francis Collins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/people/cslewis_16.shtml

9. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68795 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 3:37 pm

captain underpants wrote:
"The mainstream Christian churches have - albeit reluctantly - accepted evolution and the big bang."

Nevertheless, I think they would claim that god created the universe (by means of the big bang) and that god created original life, and would therefore qualify as creationists using the dictionary definition I quoted. Perhaps Kenneth Miller believes that god created man by means of evolution?

I think our disagreement comes down to the semantics of the word 'creationism'.

10. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68764 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 1:27 pm

All three are in the grip of an ideology that is pretentious and muddled.

Atheism is not an ideology. It is nothing more than disbelief in god/s. The Concise Oxford Dictionary confirms this.

Some will quibble with the above definition [of atheism]

To my mind, changing the definition of a word to support an argument is dishonest, and objecting to it is not quibbling.

Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists;

*All* Christians are creationists. "Creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from acts of divine creation" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). Creationists come in both 'young earth' and 'old earth' varieties.

11. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68700 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

fides_et_ratio wrote:

Has anyone on here read 'The Dawkins Delusion'? It makes a lot of sense and was written by someone who must be taken seriously by anyone wanting to truly engage with this subject.

Why must we take him seriously? Because you say so? Whether or not something 'makes a lot of sense' is a poor guide to whether or not it is true (quantum theory is a prime example). How about, instead, you provide a single piece of *evidence*? Is there any evidence at all?

Actually, yes. Prayer studies. And they consistently fail to show any correlation between prayers and the prayed for event. So although god's non-existence cannot be proved, this is compelling evidence that there is no prayer-anwsering deity.

12. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68656 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 2:46 am

From a theist's viewpoint:

Athiest books currently on sale: 6
Theist books currently on sale: 9

We're winning!

13. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68654 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 2:39 am

Eric Blair wrote

You tell them, and other religions, where their faith-based practices cross the line

The religious *are* told - frequently - but they don't seem to get the message. Afterall, they believe they have a mandate from god.

I don't think the problem is about our (alleged) failure to fully embrace diversity: being tolerant should not extend to tolerating bigotry, hatred and dogma.

14. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68472 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 8:24 am

"Behold the jowly prophet"
"pretentious and muddled"
"jaw-droppingly naive"
"disingenuous"
"intellectual cowardice"

Notice how kind-hearted and charitable these Christians are. What happened to turning the other cheek?

15. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68441 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 7:39 am

Summary: "Please lower your voice Mr Dawkins. What you're saying may well be true, but it's dangerous."

Richard Dawkins' normal arrogance...

that's plain nasty

trying to justify his comments that bringing a child up with a religious faith is akin to a "milder form of sexual abuse".

No, he said *labelling* children with the religion of their parents can be akin to a milder form of sexual abuse.

Narrow certainties - wherever they come from - have unprecedented capacity to generate destruction.

which is precisely why we are right to challenge them.

16. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68408 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 5:07 am

wendelin - good point, and well-spotted. Rather than applaud the upholding of the secular constitution, the title implies that Christians are being discriminated against and victimised. My FSM, how the faithful seem to cherish their victimhood.

17. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #68399 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 4:26 am

Devolved wrote:

I asked for one piece of evidence... So no evidence provided.

I'm finding it difficult to see what your objection is. Are you saying that your original question asked for evidence to show evolution occuring in a single organism? Evolution occurs over many generations - surely you understand at least that much.

devolved wrote:

Scientists who do not subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm are systematically denied access to the papers you want to read them in. Catch 22.

What other paradigm, well-supported with evidence, is there to account for the diversity of life?

devolved wrote:

you seem equally unwilling to read anything unless it accords with your own presuppositions. I call that regrettable.

I presuppose that god/s do not exist - I call that reasonable. You presuppose the existence of Abraham's god - I call that laughable.

devolved wrote:

And I suspect that if push came to shove and the antibiotics didn't work you'd end up praying.

Perhaps. And would you construe that as evidence for god's existence?

devolved wrote:

If the evolution by gene duplication theory is correct then the DNA content and gene number should increase proportionately with organism complexity, but it doesn't. Why not?

Because the initial proposition is specious. This 'knock-down' question gets trotted out by creationists regularly. Dawkins calls it 'The Information Challenge' and has thoroughly dealt with it (see A Devil's Chaplain, p107-122). Needless to say, evolutionary theory remains intact.

The question is not asked to seek information or understanding, but is another example of the following kind of 'reasoning':
I can ask a question that an evolutionist can't answer, therefore evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed, therefore the bible gives a true account of the origins of life.

I'll leave it at that, devolved. Time is precious and I'm sure you have rituals to perform, magic words to recite, divine favouritism to beg for.

18. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #68014 by aitchkay on September 5, 2007 at 4:12 pm

devolved wrote:

there are serious biologists who profoundly disagree with you

Let me see if I can follow your 'logic' here: a few 'biologists' doubt that the processes of gene duplication and exon shuffling are real and generate new genetic information, therefore evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed, therefore Genesis gives a true account of the origins of life. Am I close?

devolved wrote:

if you want evidence I'm happy to provide it.

If your evidence consists of research published in a peer-reviewed science journal, then by all means. If your 'evidence' is anything like the origins website you linked to, please don't bother. I have better things to spend my time on than ill-concieved, semi-literate, unsubstantiated, intellectually dishonest fantasies about a psychopathic sky fairy.

devolved wrote:

But perhaps you only want to hear arguments you agree with?

What argument? Without evidence, you don't have one.

devolved wrote:

So much for science being about the pursuit of true knowledge!

So much for true knowledge. I suspect, if push came to shove, you would choose the power of antibiotics over the power of prayer.

19. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67999 by aitchkay on September 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Captain underpants -
WWFSMD = what would flying spaghetti monster do?
It's a parody of the xtian WWJD.

20. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67894 by aitchkay on September 5, 2007 at 4:44 am

Magnus Thinklater is, by his own admission, only half decent. This might help explain why his journalism (if this is a typical example) is likewise.

Just another dull example of category-5 I'm-an-atheist-buttery (http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,n,n)

21. Real Out-of-Body Experiences

Comment #67880 by aitchkay on September 5, 2007 at 4:09 am

GBile asked:

Do we know why we, normally, have an 'in-body' experience?

I think it's because our sense organs (our eyes in particular) are in our body.

It seems to me that the normal in-body-experience helps explain why virtually all human cultures have the notion of a soul, or spirit, which inhabits the body. It is likely that some ancient humans had out-of-body experiences (induced by near-death experiences or drugs), and I think this helps explain the belief that the soul or spirit can leave, and survive, the body. It also helps explain the belief that some other spirit can enter someone's body and influence them*. Given these beliefs, questions such as "where does the soul come from?" and "where does the soul go when the body dies?" seem inevitable, as does the construction of a supernatural belief system to explain these things.

*I am reminded of Vivian Stanshall's Sir Henry:

Henry, now refuelled with several great gulps of Southampton Red Rum (a brain-storming cocktail involving a large port, vodka, rum and horseradish sauce) continued.
HENRY : These are the only spirits I want tormenting my body.

22. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67739 by aitchkay on September 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm

devolved wrote:

Dr Benway makes my point admirably, "...if some of our ancestors were single-celled organisms..."

Do you seriously doubt it? It never ceases to amaze me how an (ostensibly) intelligent person can disbelieve a plausible theory supported by mountains of very detailed evidence, and yet - at the same time - believe in something extremely implausible for which there is no evidence at all.

devolved wrote:

Evolution? What tosh! The whole theory is full of holes! There's not enough evidence, so I simply don't believe it. Mind you, the creator of the universe IS real. He loves me. He can hear my thoughts. He gets upset when I masturbate, eat ham or worship graven images (and doing all three at the same time is a definite no-no).

Ok, devolved didn't write that.

But he did write this:

Gene duplication and exon shuffling are hotly debated.

Although it is true that gene duplication and exon shuffling are processes that are not *fully* understood in *all* of their finer details (is anything?), no serious biologist doubts that they are real processes which generate new genetic information.

Did you read the material that Goldy linked for you? What did you make of it? Instead of making any genuine effort to get to grips with something that is difficult to understand, you simply assert 'that is hotly debated' and point to a creationist website which claims to be 'exposing the myth of evolution'. You appear to be saying something along the lines of - 'Science too difficult for you? Nevermind - try religion instead!'

devolved wrote:

No-one has the slightest idea how matter was organised into information systems or how life originated.

Don't you mean, 'No-one, apart from the authors of Genesis....' ?

23. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67500 by aitchkay on September 3, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Devolved -

Gene duplication and exon shuffling are both very specific concepts. Or are you asking me to explain to you how to look things up on the internet? You really ought to make the effort to understand the theory you claim to be debunking.

24. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67421 by aitchkay on September 3, 2007 at 11:38 am

devolved wrote:

can you please give me one piece of evidence to support your belief in evolution as a process that increases the genetic information content of a living organism?

Yes. Try looking up gene duplication and exon shuffling.

25. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64423 by aitchkay on August 20, 2007 at 3:24 am

I think RD said (or wrote) that people are not naturally very good at rational, critical thinking - that it's a skill that can be learned and developed through education and training. Perhaps it should be added to the national curriculum.

Also, isn't it about time someone prosecuted a homeopath under the trades description act?

26. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60879 by aitchkay on August 3, 2007 at 4:03 am

Epeeist: I'm sorry but I don't get all that ~(Exists G) G(g) business. It looks like it could be fairly straightforward though, with the aid of a little explanation. Would you mind?

27. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60877 by aitchkay on August 3, 2007 at 3:57 am

The Wee Flea, you say:

- Nice try but that is not what Harris says. We would all agree that people can be judged for their actions but Harris talks about beliefs which can lead to bad actions.

Since you are so confident about what Harris actually said (and meant), perhaps would you be so kind as post the original sentence (not just Buntings quote); better still post the whole paragraph in which that partial sentence is contained. Having made this accusion, you should be prepared to substantiate it.

28. God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy: 'No' Says God

Comment #60859 by aitchkay on August 3, 2007 at 2:40 am

You rotten lot - you're being far too hard on the old man in the sky. Isn't it enough that He created the universe and everything in it, including you? You have to whinge and whine about every little imperfection. Indeed, it is these very imperfections which allow us to appreciate the good things. Instead of enjoying the free feast and thanking the chef, you complain about the fly in the soup. He did save the boy didn't He? Doesn't THAT demonstrate his loving kindness? Jeez, some people are never happy.

29. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60696 by aitchkay on August 2, 2007 at 5:42 pm

The Wee Flea:

I assume you have read Sam Harris's latest astonishing statement that there are some people who deserve to be killed because of their beliefs?

In the Madeleine Bunting article, she writes:

In another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".

Firstly, the statement you attribute to Harris and the partial sentence quoted by Bunting are not quite equivalent. In your version, he believes some people deserve death for holding certain beliefs. In her version, he believes that it *may* be the ethical thing to do.

Second, I suspect she is quoting Harris out of context. She says she is quoting from his latest book. I looked through 'Letters to Christian Nation' but did not find the half-sentence she quotes. Does anyone here have 'The End of Faith?', and if so, do they know the part Bunting is refering to?

30. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60641 by aitchkay on August 2, 2007 at 2:59 pm

knutsondc: well said.

31. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60599 by aitchkay on August 2, 2007 at 11:35 am

Quetzalcoatl:

You do this < blockquote> "TEXT" < / blockquote >

Thanks.

32. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60584 by aitchkay on August 2, 2007 at 10:51 am

_J_: thanks for the links. Nothing new or particularly worthy of attention in the youtube video as far as I can tell, and I didn't listen to all of the radio interview (I lost patience after the 'atheists don't fly plane into buildings' criticism of TGD).

David Robertson:
1) in the debate with _J_ you claim that Sam Harris has said that some people deserve to be killed for their beliefs. I find this difficult to believe - can you please provide a reference to back it up.

2)When RD says 'atheists don't fly planes into buildings', I think he means 'religion can, and often does, provide motivation for atrocities' and not 'theists often fly planes into buildings'. To put this another way, I think he means 'most people who fly planes into buildings are theists' and not 'most theists fly planes into buildings.' I think you get my point.

Bouwe: I'm guilty of the same quoting error. Can you (or anyone) please tell me how to block quote?

33. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60481 by aitchkay on August 2, 2007 at 3:52 am

Wee Flea

Me: "I, for one, haven't read any of these books. Nevertheless I feel quite happy to dismiss them all. Is this reasonable? Yes. Afterall, what are the chances that they contain any new arguments, let alone a single strand of evidence, for the existence of God? Feel free to correct me if you know of any such arguments or evidence."

Wee Flea: "Again typical of the closeminded fundamentalism of most of the atheists on this site. What would you say if I said I don't need to read atheist books before commenting on them? You would rightly dismiss me as being arrogant and ignorant. You don't have to read the books but don't display your ignorance by commenting on something you have not read."

Do I really have to read *every* new astrology book before I can make the comment "this latest astrology book is unlikely to contain any new argument, let alone a single strand of evidence"? Does your book, in fact, contain any such new arguement or evidence? I understand you may not want to give too much away for free, so a simple yes or no will do just fine.

34. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60304 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Klaatu barada nikto:

An edited bible, with all the nasty stuff edited out, might not be such a bad idea. But it couldn't be the work of atheists - it would have to be a collaboration between the highest ranking members of the various Christian churches. Hardly likely, I know, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Same goes for Islamic and Jewish scriptures.

35. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60250 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 11:43 am

The wee flea - what book did you write?

36. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60244 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 11:25 am

The Wee Flea:

I, for one, haven't read any of these books. Nevertheless I feel quite happy to dismiss them all. Is this reasonable? Yes. Afterall, what are the chances that they contain any new arguments, let alone a single strand of evidence, for the existence of God? Feel free to correct me if you know of any such arguments or evidence.

37. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60229 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 10:55 am

Enlightenment:

"Mcgrath thinks atheism's on the wane..."

Really? I wonder if he backs up this belief with any evidence. (Probably not, since when have faith-heads required any?) The enormous popularity of TGD etc does not support the notion that atheism is in decline. I wonder how many books the fleas are selling - anyone know?

'The end of non-faith' - ha ha.

38. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60204 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 10:05 am

A few ideas for any fleas out there in search of a host:

"Dennett's Dangerous Delusion"

"Hitchens is Not Great: how Atheism Poisons Everything"

"God is NOT a Delusion, Mr Dawkins. So There."