1. Calling World Conference on Dialogue a Symbol of Unity Among Different Traditions

Comment #214941 by Carl S. Richardson on July 21, 2008 at 5:05 am

Abdullah also recently stated that all religions must unite and "vanquish" atheism.

What a loving and inclusive message...

2. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121549 by Carl S. Richardson on February 3, 2008 at 4:13 pm

If their foolish beliefs are going to interfere with their ability to practice competently then they should be dismissed. Citing fairytales as an excuse for non compliance shouldn't cut it.

3. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120645 by Carl S. Richardson on February 2, 2008 at 7:56 am

Pity the Popes parents didn't use a condom.

On serious note, it seems the biggest issues for the religious hierarchy are not famine, disease, poverty or the relief of suffering �" they instead posture over issues such as sex, gambling, condoms, pornography, euthanasia, homosexuality, stem cell research, abortions and over such issues. They cry over films which depict them in their true light, over cartoons, knighthoods, teddy bears and anyone who dares to criticise them.

They are not worthy of any respect and should be opposed at every opportunity.

Whereas science has granted humanity its own ‘afterlife’, without it we would all live much shorter uncomfortable lives each day filled with a struggle to survive until the next and some of us would not even of survived birth or known our mothers without the aid of modern medicine. It is through our natural gift to reason that we are able to survive so well and avoid the deadly grasp that nature would otherwise have over us. It’s something to cherish not decimate, the religious hierarchy unfortunately do the latter.

4. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #118263 by Carl S. Richardson on January 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm

It seems to be we fund schools which can legally discriminate on the basis of faith to merely teach the same material that is taught in every other school. I mean faith schools must stick by the national curriculum, the same curriculum all other nondenominational schools abide by. The only exception is with religious education.

Faith schools have the option of teaching their own faith exclusively or sticking to the national curriculum which prescribes a multi-ethnic approach. 57% of faith schools teach their own faith exclusively with only 47% teaching the nationally prescribed syllabus (most of them been Church of England schools). In reality then most faith schools are lacking when compared to other schools, that is the children attending loose the opportunity learn about other faiths and non-faiths (such as humanism which is included though apparently not very well at the moment).

So we fund faith schools to teach the same material as secular schools, but allow them to deprive their students of knowledge of other faiths and non-faiths. There is no such thing as Christian English, Hindu Maths or Muslim Geography. These are broad subjects that are the same whoever is learning them. English does not suddenly become a total different subject when a Christian leaves the classroom and Jew walks in. Faith schools bring nothing of worth to the table.

5. A debate on people who profess no religion

Comment #33409 by Carl S. Richardson on April 20, 2007 at 3:31 am

So we got to hear the views of an 'I shouldn't be there' Bishop who can't seem to say "I don't know". Carey who seems to think atheists are out to close all charities down and some women hyped up on emotion. What a great job they did...

6. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28292 by Carl S. Richardson on March 28, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Why does McGrath think Dawkins strongest argument is the link between violence and religion? The thrust of Dawkins book is the 747 argument which incidentally McGrath doesn't really deal with in his book.

7. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28288 by Carl S. Richardson on March 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

"I used to be an atheist" – Is that McGrath's catchphrase as he seems to state it in every lecture and debate he participates in.

8. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27063 by Carl S. Richardson on March 23, 2007 at 4:11 am

I've never understood creationist engineers. I heard someone claim they should know best whether something was designed or not however shouldn't it technically be computer programmers who know best – you know since DNA codes for things, it doesn't take a head off the table and attach it to a neck like an engineer would take parts and assemble them.

As to the hypothesis, the discovery institute seems to be filled with engineers. I remember debating someone about intelligent design and he kept pleading to authorities from the Discovery Institute and when I looked into them, not a single one of his authorities was a biologist, most though were engineers.

As to engineering been a science, I would say it is an applied science.

9. Christian soldier takes up arms as hustings near

Comment #26528 by Carl S. Richardson on March 20, 2007 at 6:04 am

L.MinnikPlease Wrote:
instead use anti-gay, anti-contraception and anti-abortion, thank you.

Yeah, the Catholics are pro-catholic life but anti any other, anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-every other family except nuclear, anti-pagan, anti-contraception, anti-sex outside of marriage, anti-fundraising ( see comic relief story ), anti-stem cell research, anti-IVF, anti-thought, anti-screening, anti-science and anti-child abuse -- Oh wait scrap the last one.

10. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26418 by Carl S. Richardson on March 19, 2007 at 7:21 am

Ok I've just seen part 2 and made a few more notes:

"nor are our Christian schools [funded by the tax payer]" – Yes they are 85-95% is covered by the tax payer including all the teachers wages. Plus the new academies are been set up by churches and they get an even sweeter deal, they pay a mere 10% of building costs and don't pay anything else after but they get to dictate policy.

"[Responding to think tank man who pointed out schools are paid for by the tax payer] I don't know what you're talking about so you better apologize" – Have any of you heard anything so stupid before?

The thank tank guy just slaughtered her with his army example.

"There saying I have to have my children adopted by homosexuals" – Her children, what a nerve. They are not hers to do what she likes.

"Private adoption agency funded entirely by the Catholic Church" – Again another lie, the government provides funds.

Did anyone catch the bigots response to the email which said "Christians should consult pagans, Jews and Muslims about discrimination; they've had 2000 years of it". She utters "no they haven't" under her breathe, so yet again she lies.

11. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26414 by Carl S. Richardson on March 19, 2007 at 6:51 am

Just watched the programme and I must say I'm glad I never tune into it regularly. It's the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. They seem to skew everything in favour of Christianity and fail to investigate the claims made – they just assume their true. But anyway I made some notes as I was watching:

The idea of the magistrate resigning is not an issue of discrimination; it's an issue of applying the law. Judges who are biased towards a case and have some involvement in it are not allowed to sit on the bench. If they feel their conscience is going to interfere with their ability to decide fairly and based on the law they must note so and move over. This is merely to make sure justice is been done fairly.

It would not be discrimination if a Neo Nazis magistrate resigned because he or she was unable to square decisions over race with his/her "conscience". This though is the same case with the magistrate – the fact you can't make fair decisions based on the law instead of your own views, is not a reason to start crying discrimination.

The cross issue at British Airways was ridiculous in my view. An employer should not be forced to let his employees wear X, Y and Z. You couldn't go work for a company that required uniform and then claim "uniforms are against my sacred beliefs" and get away with it. Also it is not as if the cross is some necessity in Christianity, you don't have to wear it to be a Christian like the women involved tried making out.

On the issue of been looked over for promotions, how many employers actually asked for religious preference? I honestly haven't heard of a single company asking such things except of course religious bodies such as faith schools that discriminate against, you guess it, everyone else but their own.

"A Christian project been discriminated against when it comes to funding" – You can't blame people and nor the government for not funding your operation which in all likely hood would discriminate against everyone but your own. You already get tax free status and not to mention your leaders who get free council tax.

I bloody hate Ann Widdecombe but I digress.

So there going to fight, well I suggest they bring it on because we're not the sort to be silenced.

"The roots of Christianity are grounded in a struggle against the authorities. It's a religion whose primary symbol is all about pain and persecution" – It's also a religion that has had a long history of doing such things to other groups in the cruellest ways. The number of torture devices invented and used just for heretics and Witches is endless.

Then the women made out things have moved on in Britain as if Christians were once persecuted here. She failed to recognize Christianity was brought here and forced on people through violence. I can't actually think of a time when Christians were persecuted in this country.

Oh now here we have an indoctrination centre for older people, sorry I mean drug rehabilitation centre -- Nice of the Christians to pray on the weak and vulnerable and push religion down their neck instead of helping them. From the statistics I've seen Christian rehabilitation centres normally fail most of the time so any funding cuts aren't for bad reasons.

"Give us equal rights.. Allow us to be who we are" – This is a country with an official church, how can anyone claim Christians don't have equal rights. He goes on "we can not apologize for our faith", and we can't apologize for questioning your faith and its impact of the world at large. We merely ask for evidence and wish to prevent the likes of you discriminating against gays, pagans and even us atheists.

Finally a voice of reason in the Bishop, any bets that he's one of those "atheist Christians" who see it all as a metaphor?

Bloody Ann Widdecombe again -- She's going on about Christians leaving areas of public life as if it's a threat to us, she does realize we'd welcome it, right?

"Ban catholic schools from teaching catholic teachings… It's scary" – No it's a great thing for public education. If you wish to teach such things then open up your own privately funded school and do so. But don't expect us to stay quiet and not war parents about what goes on in your school so they can make an informed decision.

"Bit Cheesed off about that Bishop" – Was the idea of questioning your views too much for you?

"[Children]… could be given books promoting something that conflicts with their faith" – Oh boy we wouldn't want the children getting a broader picture of the world now would we? Also who said it was the child's faith? Plus who is banning them from teaching kids homosexuality is wrong. I don't see any laws preventing such a thing.

"The privileges they've had for hundreds of years are been lost" -- The church no longer has a monopoly on things, why is that so wrong?

"[in terms of faith schools] Christians are doing a lot of the discrimination themselves" – Another Christian speaking sense.

"[In response] we're been penalised for running schools" – What a bigot that women is. She moans about been discriminated against and when her religion is doing the discrimination its ok.

"Christians were running schools long before the state" – Yep and Christians were discriminating in them too as well as universities which required people to be of the Church of England to attend while other required people to be Catholic. There was very few that didn't discriminate. We have no reason to be thankful of such crap.

"Children who are not Christian want to come to our Christian schools" – Correction, parents who are not Christian want their Children to go to some of your schools that are performing well in their area whereas others wish to send their children to secular schools that are performing well in their area.

Christian schools provide less choice as they discriminate against non Christians secular schools don't. So an argument that parents want to send their children to your school is an argument for all inclusive schools.

"Try been a Catholic a couple of hundred years ago" – Try been a fucking atheist or a pagan a few thousand years ago and see where that gets you. I don't usually swear but this woman was making my blood boil.

If these are religious moderates then no wonder Dawkins and Harris say what they do about them. These people are crazy. The guy from the think tank and the Bishop seemed to look more reasonably at it and proved that some sanity exists though.

12. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26397 by Carl S. Richardson on March 19, 2007 at 5:41 am

They seem to want free speech and "freedom of conscience" (their favourite term these days) to only go one way. It's ok to be homophobic but when someone speaks out against the Churches bigotry over the issue – now that's discrimination!

13. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26385 by Carl S. Richardson on March 19, 2007 at 3:56 am

epeeist wrote:
What nobody has mentioned is that they have their own programme on television to complain about discrimination. They also get another slot later on in the day to sing about it.

If I got up early this morning I could listen to a prayer, followed by a homily usually by one of their number.

Compare that with the time given to secularism on TV and radio.

Yeah, in the last few years we've had 'Who Wrote the Bile' (which was presented by a Christian), 'Root of all Evil', 'A Rough History of Disbelief', 'Atheism Tapes' and that episode of 'The Moral Maze' where the Christians also got represented.

The Christians on the other hand have there very own weekly TV show and that damn 'Thought of the Day' rubbish on the radio. Then there's all the prayer rubbish.

I'd say they get much more air time then we do.

14. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26346 by Carl S. Richardson on March 18, 2007 at 7:52 pm

More than one in five Christians in the UK faces discrimination in their local communities because of their faith, a survey for a BBC programme suggests.

It's nice to see they added the word "suggests" at the end there. It just tells you how valid the rest of the story is -- it's not based on substantiated cases just the whims of a few moaning Christians.

The poll of 604 people describing themselves as Christian, for the Heaven and Earth show, also found 25% felt discriminated against at work.

Can't wear your crucifix?

One in three said the media portrayal of their religion was discriminatory.

The media portrayal of religion is not all that bad especially on the BBC where some Catholic or Church of England bishop or representative is interviewed time and time again on a range of issues. I'll tell you when I see a Bishop discussing how best to improve a child's education, I can't help but scream at the TV.

The findings come as churches complain the Christian values which underpin law-making in Britain are being eroded.

Christian values underpin our laws? Well I must say that's news to me. I actually thought we'd stopped discriminating against gays, atheists, pagans and other such groups.

Church leaders say this process of aggressive secularisation is to the detriment of family life.

Funny that the Church would make an assertion and fail to back it up

I see other people have mentioned it but I am getting the distinct feeling that this all thing is around homosexuals.

Rev Malcolm Duncan, of campaign group Faithworks, said: "The Christian church is suffering more than all other faiths in the UK.

Really where would that be?

"There is an aggressive secularist agenda that says it's OK to support any group ending in 'ism', but it's not OK to support anything connected to Christianity."

Catholicism? (Damn someone beat me to it)

"My own belief is that we should stand together and fight this discrimination."

What discrimination would that be? The fact we've taken away your right to discriminate against gays

I think they are a little upset that they can no longer torture non believers and steal the property of rich old women after accusing them of been witches – the poor old church

Maybe the Neo Nazis should join them in there campaign to fight discrimination – I hear lots of people disagree with them too. Then again maybe they are just been discriminated against in a "symbolic" sense…

15. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26297 by Carl S. Richardson on March 18, 2007 at 2:14 pm

A quick glance over and it just seemed like the same old nonsense.

16. Atheism hasn't hurt Fremont Rep. Stark

Comment #26259 by Carl S. Richardson on March 18, 2007 at 5:18 am

That did it.

17. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26047 by Carl S. Richardson on March 16, 2007 at 8:34 am

He just seems to be appealing to emotional comfort and that's the point you know a theist really has nothing more to say.

My own faith came alive most fully when I believed I was going to die young. It came alive as I watched one of my closest friends die in front of me at the age of 31.

Why is it that these people always turn to faith for emotional reasons? Francis Collins was just as bad with his falling before waterfall rubbish. None of them seem to convert because they think religion gives a valid explanation of universe; it's always for personal reasons that have no connection to the truth.

But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?

Not poorly written stories about crucified carpenters, that's for sure.

18. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25626 by Carl S. Richardson on March 14, 2007 at 11:03 am

The writer is apparently an atheist or so he says in his review of the god delusion:

"Whatever our views on God - and I am as obdurate an atheist as Dawkins - blaming it all on religion does little to illuminate the nature of contemporary sectarian conflict."

(http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/dawkins_god.html)

That would indeed then prove his point that non-believers can be bigoted too -- nothing like a self fulfilling prophecy is there?

"The trouble with philosophers… is that they tend to listen for just one thing: logical consistency."

What else should they listen to, pleas of emotionalism? An argument is an argument and as an argument it's either valid or flawed, no amount of pleading to ones own experience will save it from the scrap heap.

"Such 'tone deafness' is a particular problem, Baggini added, when atheist philosophers tackle the question of religion. Too often they are interested solely in the question of the truth and falsity of a religion's creed, and tend to ignore the other dimensions of faith."

They deal with what is true, not with what is helpful or spiritually inspiring, to do so would be ridiculous.

"It is a warning that Sam Harris would have done well to heed. A philosopher and neuroscientist, Harris believes that religion is the root of all evil."

What are the credentials to become a writer, it seems to be a candied ability to lie and misquote is a deemed necessity these days.

Harris did not state religion was the root of all evil; however he did state dogma and irrationality (including religion) was the source of most evil in this world today.

"This is all good knockabout stuff, though believers will have heard such arguments before."

Yes believers do have the tendency to ignore an argument and think falling back on that ever so wonderful, "god is mysterious" stance is a valid form of reasoning but I digress.

"The trouble is that Harris appears to take as literal a view of religion as the fundamentalists themselves."

The inability for this gentleman to actually read Harris' work is now beginning to annoy me. Harris does indeed spend countless pages discussing moderates and even claims they aren't the ones who are directly dangerous. They are, he claims dangerous in the way that they stop people questioning the more absurd believers among them.

"Rather than burrow beneath the surface of faith and ask why it is that people increasingly take on religious identities, "

"People increasingly take on religious identities"? Another lie, I'm still amazed. The statistics I've seen show irreligion to be growing faster then anything else and especially in Europe and even more so in the UK.

As to why people take on religious identifies, well that little thing called indoctrination may just have something to do with it.

"It is not theology that makes people irrational, as Harris believes, it is rather the seeming failure of rational humanism that leads many to embrace religion."

This guy just gets better, at lying that is. Secular humanism is growing faster in the west then any religious ideology. It seems people are turning to truth over empty notions of Jesus embodied bread and wine.

"Fundamentalism, whether Islamic, Christian or Hindu, has found a hold in recent years, not because people have suddenly decided to read scriptures more literally, but because the failure of secular political movements, the rise of identity politics and the collapse of traditional moral codes have all made radical faith-based identities seem attractive."

Oh now I must applaud, he seems to be saying it's the secularists fault.

Also the "collapse of traditional moral" - Some traditions are best left to die. We live in a more moral world thanks to giving religion the boat. Indeed if "traditional morality" is anything like the nonsense the pope spouts, then it truly is best left to die.

"In the end what Letter to a Christian Nation reveals is not simply the bigotry and irrationalism of religion but also that such bigotry and irrationalism can take more than one form."

Let us sum up. Harris is a bigot because… Oh wait the writer didn't actually present a single argument that didn't take Harris out of context or just make something up.

19. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25336 by Carl S. Richardson on March 12, 2007 at 8:25 am

1986, the year before I was born and it seems the creationist arguments haven't progressed much, if at all. The same web of lies was still been swung 20 years ago and from listening to you can really see that intelligent design shares the same worn out empty notions. You'd think the creationists would at least be able to come up with something remotely new or that at least it would have sunk in by now that evolution is not a theory of chance.

I think you can really tell how weak the creationist groups are with their inability to accept that natural selection is not random -- Their willingness to go on spreading lies despite been taught time and time again that that's not how it works, is just despicable. It really makes you wonder if the advocates even believe in creation or are just following it as some sort of big money maker.

It's funny, I wonder if the debaters for the motion, went home still holding the view that evolution was the straw man they made it out to be. You'd think after the good arguments but forward by Dawkins and the rest would have sunk in but alas people like the creationist are either immune from reason or, as I've said, out to make money from a gullible public.

If you can put forward arguments that sound scientific you could make a good living on the creationist lecture circuit, it'd a sure fire way to make money and you don't even have to believe it!

The amusing thing was in Edgar Andrews's speech where he claimed science can't answer 4 questions and then claimed theology could. He then failed to give any reason why the theological answers were correct. It seems the difference goes something like this:

Science: We're working on it
Theology: We can't know so here's a made up explanation

After centuries of been wrong you'd really think theist would learn their lesson by now that the limits of science can not be determined by our inabilities of the current day.

The most annoying part wasn't surprisingly the creationist argument themselves but namely one of the creationists, Theodore Wilson. I don't know how Dawkins must have felt but Wilson's "Doctrine [bang!] of [bang!] Creation [bang!]" actually had me shouting at the computer for him to shut up.

But anyway you can understand why Dawkins is now unwilling to engage in debates with creationists and honestly I don't blame him.

20. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #25231 by Carl S. Richardson on March 11, 2007 at 6:25 am

Just glancing over the prospectus from the school linked to above (http://www.emmanuel.walsall.sch.uk/) and look at this:

"As from 1st September 1999 the law in this country changed, forbidding Independent Schools to use any form of corporal punishment. Although we believe that this is denying parental rights to fulfil the biblical pattern of discipline, we submit to those in authority over us and therefore have a new structure at this point in our discipline scale."

The prospectus also seems to suggest the school is teaching the kids about eternal punishment for sinners. With it having both a nursery and reception class the shock is clearly heightened.

This school also seems to say "we ignore the national curriculum" but not as candidly as that, have a look:

"We use set schemes for Maths and English and develop our own curriculum in the other
subjects based on what we want the children to learn from God's Word."

"The Key Stage 3 curriculum continues to build on the foundations established in the
Junior Departments. Though more closely based on the National Curriculum, and often
using standard text-books, the subjects taught are still Bible-based and taught from an
entirely Christian perspective."

21. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25002 by Carl S. Richardson on March 9, 2007 at 3:49 pm

One has to wonder if this pompous fool has read either 'The God Delusion' or 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. It seems to me that either he's read a view reviews by those ever so "intelligent" theologians and holds himself knowledgeable enough to comment or he actually read the books but was suffering from spontaneous temporary blindness (STB) at the time and hence failed to read half of them..

Firstly both Dawkins and Harris do mention the beneficial effects religion has had on certain individuals. If my memory serves me right Harris mentions Martin Luther King and the profound (although most likely exaggerated in my view*) effect religion had up on his campaign however Harris clearly identifies the hypocrisy in this area when he makes the distinction between how willing theists are to accept Martin Luther Kings claims that faith drove him but are so unwilling to accept the same reasons from Osama Bin Laden.

The thing he misses about science is one of its core features. Unlike faith science has a built in feature, which I dare say is its best feature, which of course is its correcting ability. As new evidence comes forward science somewhat evolved and improves for the better. Theories don't stay static and unquestioned like those in faith.

Another way to look at science is through the example of CFCs, which of course were originally developed by science but due to scientists realising the impact such gases were having on the ozone layer they were phased out. It is scientists who noticed this implication and not theologians.

Ozone depletion wasn't revealed from a higher power. The pope did not receive a telephone call from god warning him of the implications, it was science who noticed those implications and it is science now which is on the look out for bird flu. It is also science which will provide a vaccine, not a prayer to god.

He then claims the atrocities of the twentieth century "Weren't wars about religion… they were fought about ideologies". A somewhat true statement however his STB must have kicked in as he passed through both Dawkins and Harris' books at the point both authors clearly state religion is another form of irrational ideology and the biggest one around today.

Harris also makes it very clear that dogmatism is the problem, faith of course been the biggest form of dogmatism in the world at the moment. As Harris mentioned at the 'Beyond Belief' conference he could have easily named his first book 'The End of Dogma' and said all the exact same things.

He then manages the impossible and goes on about animals; demons and how cats aren't humans for almost 2 minutes but as intriguing as his ability to name animals was he really didn't bring anything new to the table.

* I don't say this to discredit the effect of faith on King however I think some theists go over the top when they make out how influential faith really was on certain people, mainly progressive figures. It seems to be, especially with Wilberforce, that it was more the individuals take on faith that drove them rather then what the church was teaching at the time. That is to say their own outlook influenced them more then anything the religions were teaching at the time.

22. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #24963 by Carl S. Richardson on March 9, 2007 at 2:24 pm

A spokeswoman for the department of education and skills said: "The Vardy Academies do what is required by law.

"The National Curriculum syllabus for science requires that the theory of evolution is taught and this requirement is fully met.

"The National Curriculum specifically states scientific data can be interpreted in different ways and produce different theories (eg the theory of evolution).

"The Vardy Academies' curriculum fully meets these requirements and Ofsted is content with science teaching at them."

What this fails to mention however is that schools of this nature are permitted to teach whatever they wish as long as they teach the curriculum first. That is to say, they must teach the curriculum but once done they can teach whatever else they wish including creationist nonsense. So they can teach evolution one day and the next teach creationism.

23. How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

Comment #24765 by Carl S. Richardson on March 8, 2007 at 11:39 am

Well looking at the comments (on the times website) you have to wonder if Islam is this great bastion of peace (as they make out) then why is the Middle East such a harsh inhumane society whose barbarity knows no ends? If Islam isn't the problem it certainly isn't helping matters.

24. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24591 by Carl S. Richardson on March 7, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Well they don't seem to enforce their "rules":

"1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments

25. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24541 by Carl S. Richardson on March 7, 2007 at 7:06 am

I've never understood the argument that we need god for our morals. It seems to me it's just another of those infinite regression or avoid a step arguments (but what theist argument isn't?). That is, if we need an objective basis for morality then what's gods' basis and if god doesn't need a basis then why do humans?

26. Long live satire

Comment #24419 by Carl S. Richardson on March 6, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I'm offended each time someone proclaims we can't be moral without religion or that we atheists are somehow depressed suicidal fools devoid of any joy or meaning. But I would never try to silence anyone advocating such nonsense.

27. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24155 by Carl S. Richardson on March 5, 2007 at 4:16 am

A chunk of that 14% is probably deist but most likely secularists as well.

28. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #24008 by Carl S. Richardson on March 4, 2007 at 6:37 am

It seems to me that if these theologians wish to keep making this argument about having knowledge of theology then they too should require qualifications in cosmology before they make any claim about the universe and qualifications in neurobiology before the make claims about human experience as well as qualifications in other sciences.

Dawkins could easily say to any theologian who tries to refute his evolutionary arguments that "they don't have a clear understanding of zoology and therefore have no room criticizing me" but he is not an arrogant bigot like those fools.

29. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23868 by Carl S. Richardson on March 3, 2007 at 8:45 am

Where exactly are these "great" theological arguments?

These bigots make claims of how Dawkins and Harris lack an understanding of theology but not one of them ever puts forward reasons why.

It seems to me most of them are just hostile towards anyone who won't take "faith" seriously but yet they provide no reasons as to why anyone should.

30. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23738 by Carl S. Richardson on March 2, 2007 at 10:39 am

His arguments didn't particularly go anywhere but it was much better then the tripe McGrath comes out with. That guy can't seem to go a few weeks without putting on some not so eloquent lecture with Dawkins in the title only to tell us how little Dawkins knows about theology but anyway on with the article.

"Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)"

A "sworn enemy", amazing how man who goes on to claim Dawkins "arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class" comes to the conclusion that Dawkins is somehow trying to make an enemy of a fictional character -- It doesn't particularly heighten the hope that the rest of this drivel will provide an 'intellectual' rebuke of any of Dawkins arguments.

The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly philosophy and theology

Now, now Mr Plantinga, there is no need to accuse Dawkins of using theology, that is a tool for yourself -- A tool by which you can jump to what ever conclusion you so wish without applying the slightest ounce of critical thinking.

Could it be that his mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman on the rampage?)

An attempt at humour, well I wouldn't hold much hope for Plantinga passing a sophomore humour class but enough with the personal attacks, on to his "arguments".

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist).

It's amazing how many people use such an argument to try and discredit Dawkins. If it isn't Plantinga, its McGrath proclaiming Dawkins lacks a deep understanding of theology. The only thing to understand from this is their dislike for anyone who won't accept their arguments on a matter of faith at least in McGrath's case anyway. It should also be noted that if this snide comment is somehow an attempt to declare Dawkins position philosophically unsound, then Plantinga only need be reminded that both Dennett (who he mentions) and Sam Harris are philosophers (via Plantinga definition anyway) who share Dawkins position.

The attempt of trying to discredit someone's arguments based on their academic creditability is in no way a sound act of reasoning. Philosophy is at the heart about thinking through certain positions, thinking of course been something both McGrath and Plantinga fail to do each time they state this argument.

Anyone can make a philosophical argument; you do not need a degree in said subject to do so. Likewise anyone can make a scientific hypothesis and go about proving that hypothesis. Take Philo Farnsworth for example; who at just 14 years old had started developing his own electronic television system, to apply Plantinga chauvinistic approach to the world, Farnsworth would not have had any credibility whatsoever.

"he says, the existence of God is monumentally improbable… Dawkins doesn't appeal to the usual anti-theistic arguments—the argument from evil, for example, or the claim that it's impossible that there be a being with the attributes believers ascribe to God"

The problem of characteristics that Plantinga refers to does in it's self declare god improbable if not impossible. Well a god with the characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence anyway. The fact he refers to this shows that theistic tendency to ignore arguments. As we shall see he goes on to declare that god is probable, if not necessary but fails to counteract the problem of conflicting characteristics that Dawkins does in fact mention as Plantinga notes but I digress.

Now on to the meat of the essay and firstly design:

"But why does Dawkins think God is complex?"

Why should we consider an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all benevolent god claimed to have human like emotions complex? I think the dense professor has answered his own question. Not to consider such a being complex would be ridiculous but I shall extend on that point shortly.

"And why does he think that the more complex something is, the less probable it is?"

Firstly the author misses the point about the entire improbability argument. It is not the fact god is complex; it is the fact a complex being could just be. That is to say a complex being could just come out of nowhere. Throughout the history of science we've been presented with the idea that complex things are the end product of less complex things. Chemical elements for example are the result of nuclear fusion within the heart of stars and those stars are the result of simple hydrogen – from the simple we got the complex. Simple materials form more complex materials and this trend seems to be suggested time and time again by science.

The problem with the Plantinga's argument is by positing god he is merely stating nothing created god, it just is. Why from everything we've learnt over the last few hundred years should we take it that suddenly a complex being can just be, that such a being didn't come from the end process of simple steps building upon one and another? It is improbable that such a god exists because all known human knowledge about the 'creation' of things suggests so.

"After all, couldn't it be that God has directed and overseen the process of evolution?"

That is not the proper question; the true question is why you assume a seemingly unguided process is guided. What reason is there to assume it's guided when everything we know about it says it's perfectly natural? There is no reason to assume it's guided which is why Dawkins does not do so. If any theologian wishes to make such a claim then it is he who has the explaining to do, not Dawkins.

Of course Dawkins argument doesn't disprove the idea that god had a hand in evolution however it certainly doesn't suggest such a thing. The story that 15 bullion years ago god created the universe in such a way that very slowly energy condensed into matter in the form of mainly hydrogen which then accumulated into dense clouds which separated forming galaxies. Then within those galaxies over an even longer period of time, stars formed and via the process of nuclear fusion started producing heavier elements, which were then trapped for billions of years within the stars until upon the stars death bed explosions released these heavier elements into the cosmos. Then new stars formed and so on. Eventually enough heavier elements formed around new stars forming planets and moons. These elements also reacted among themselves produced other chemicals and of course organic molecules. Within the Milky Way the earth formed and cooled over even more time. Self replicating molecules eventually came about up on the earth these evolved over millions of years to form simple cells, over another few hundred million years simple plants evolved releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. A billion years later cells that could easily 'breathe' oxygen evolved and then a few billion years later and then some humans came about. Over a period of 4 billion years via a process that can only be described as cruel, vicious and vindictive, the cycle of death, the selfish gene – yes nature is cruel but a god who would create such a thing is even cruller – we get to the current day.

Now I don't know about you or anyone else but that is one heck of a way to create life or rather humans. That kind of takes away from the old genesis and not to mention other creation tales which had their specific deities bringing about the earth in a few days. We can say then so much for that personal loving god, anyone god who would use a system such as evolution via natural selection to bring humans about is a cruel god. Imagine a few mistakes along the line and no humans would have emerged, look at the dinosaurs, they'd most likely still be the dominant species on the planet if it wasn't for whatever killed them. We also don't know we're the only intelligent life in the universe or indeed the first – his precious god may have other favourites besides him.

Yes those 15 billion years certainly must strengthen a person's faith. It takes away from the caring, loving god who listens to and answers prayers.

"Not much. First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane.3 (It isn't only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is "a single and simple spiritual being.") So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.4 More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.5 A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex."

This entire paragraph seems to be making out that the caring, somewhat conscious loving god is none existent, calling the god described here a loving being is like labelling an atom of Tungsten hateful. A term applied like that has no meaning. Such a god would not be able to make decisions, decisions of course been the result of complexity. Atoms can not make conscious decisions they merely act within there nature and hence the god here is merely been described as a big lump of slime if you will who has no choice in 'his' action and no will either. He is merely nothing more then a cause, not conscious, not loving, not a giver of hope and will and nor anything like Jesus. He is neither a miracle worker nor anything else. It is a mere cause and that is it, if such an argument wishes to be continued then I'd ask the author to throw his notion of a Christian god out of the window, the god he has described here can not be it. We may as well describe this god as the universe it's self and have done with it, it has no more meaning then that.

Why also should we assume even if god is real that he created this universe, if everything needs a cause then why in the world should we assume god merely created this universe – why not a super god created that god whom created another god who created this universe? Why assume the person who created this universe was the end god and not some other inferior entity? Sure claim a first cause necessary all you want but that in no way means the universe is the result of that first cause, it could be the result of the 600^th, Plantinga provides no reason to assume a god created this universe even if a god is necessary.

Also why should we not assume this universe is eternal, a simulation on a computer, the result of 2 gods fighting a cosmic war with each other, the creation of a unie, one of many multi verses, the result of a super advance race in a universe of their own gaining enough knowledge to form their own universes (this been one of them), the result of eternal slime with non conscience, no intelligence and certainly no desire to want to build a universe (sounds like the god classical theology describes). Why should we not assume any of those things over the god concept been posited here? I mean we may as well ask while we're at it why shouldn't just assume the flying spaghetti monster did it. The guy clearly provides no reason why not. He merely just assumes this universe is the result of his god.

"According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds."

What then are we suppose to assume the author means by "necessary", he provides no examples. Could he most likely mean the Aquinas arguments put forward by Thomas Aquinas? What wonders do these include what great thinking do they involve -- well in all honesty none at all. All the arguments from Aquinas share the same end result, they all merely say 'everything needs x' but then go on to say 'god does not need x'. As complicated as Aquinas tries to make his arguments sound that is all they boil down to, contradictions.

Science consistently shows that everything we once attributed to a god such as the sun god of Egypt is in fact the cause of natural phenomenon. We can go back throughout history and see the claims of thunder gods or fertility gods all of which were wrong explanations of the world. The god of gaps is getting ever smaller and all that seems to remain is the god as the creator or rather starter of the universe. Science is working on the question and one day we will know the true answer to it and I'd rather wait a million years for the correct answer then take one based on myth and that ever so noxious faith.

He goes from this:

"But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0.

To this:

"Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable."

That is to say he does not justify his move from "but" to "maximally probable". He provides no argument as to why we should judge god as a necessary being.

Then look at the arrogance of this guy:

"So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true."

Dawkins owes him an "argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God", I suppose we owe the scientologists an argument of why Xenu doesn't exist.

I'm quite astonished by Plantinga's assertion that it is somehow Dawkins duty to disprove this "necessary" god. He as a philosopher should know it is the person making the claim who owes an explanation; it is Plantinga himself and the likes of other theologians who propose the necessary god and therefore it is their job to prove it exists.

"Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort."

And Plantinga doesn't seem aware that it falls on his head to prove this necessary being, Aquinas certainly didn't manage to do so. His arguments are void of any sound reasoning and they certainly don't have any connection with the truth. Yes Plantinga it is you who needs the argument not Dawkins. Stop trying to hide behind the stupid defence that somehow it is the atheist's duty to disprove god.

Sure Dawkins does say god is improbable but the god he states is improbable is the traditional supernatural creator, he doesn't mention the god which is been proposed here. It seems he is merely criticizing Dawkins for not using his concept of a god.

It's weird that a god is invoked like this; no thinker actually seems to be able to see the difference between a loving god with choices and just a cause. People like Plantinga are deceitful in this area. They declare a necessary cause, give no reason for that cause and then begin to add attributes such as loving to that cause and then when asked what it all means they state it's "unknown". These people don't seem to realise how empty their arguments really are.

Anyway on to the fine tuning argument:

"One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument.8 It's as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a person as God."

Now talking about the fine tuning argument, the professor once again goes right over Dawkins first point as a lot of theists have. That point being that we don't yet know that those values could have been different, it is nonsense to argue that a god is necessary when we have no clear indication there was a choice in the matter, again all we see from this argument is that theistic tendency to ignore half an argument.

A second point the professor misses is the fact a multiverse no matter how improbable is more probable then an omnipotent being, why? Well the multiverse would be far less complex then such a being. Also based on the professor's definition of god above the multiverse fits the bill perfectly. It is in some sense simple more so then the traditional notion of god anyway but I'm sure the professor would not wish to conclude as god as been the multiverse.

Thirdly the fine tuning argument fails to take note of slight change, sure 1 change in a million-million would mean life as we know it would not exist however a simple change within a billion-billion could actually increase the chances of life by promoting the formation of more organic molecules. There could in fact be a better version of those values, no matter how slightly changed that actually promoted more life not less or even better life. We can not conclude that such a thing is impossible.

The values of course had to land somewhere. It is not as if the universes had a conscience and choose where the values landed. It seems to me the proponents of this argument are merely doing that annoying theist thing of claming their special. Yes you exist but what makes you think you're special or the fact the universe landed on them values as been special? The universe doesn't care whether you exist or not, you're merely the result of natural processes in a universe where life is possible and that in no way makes it special or miraculous.

Most life on this planet is bacteria, the earth isn't a planet for humans it's a planet for bacteria. Take away every human from this planet and guess what? Life would still survive. Take away every plant from this planet and yes a lot of life would die but not all of it. But take away every bacterial organism and all life would perish. Bacteria are the sustainers of life on this planet not humans. If this planet or indeed universe was created for anyone I'd be more inclined to say it was for bacteria and not humans.

What else is it? I mean humans as far as we know are the only conscious beings on this planet, every other animal is not. It is only humans, one species out of millions that can contemplate questions of why we are here. Isn't it a little odd in a universe created to permit intelligent life that only humans should have that intelligence? Shouldn't lots of species, maybe some reptilian or some bug have gained consciousness like ours?

As I've already said it is not even as if it is that likely humans should exist. A few wrong turns in evolution and humans wouldn't be about to think about these things indeed if what ever killed the dinosaurs had failed to do so, they'd still be the dominant species on the planet and humans would have had little hope of evolving. It seems to me then that the universe is intricately set to allow mainly none conscious life. We are not a result of just values of the universe been set in a certain way, we're the result of so much more, the process of evolution via natural selection coming up with humans is not an automatic consequence of those values been set that way, it is so much more. Those values allow for life but they do not automatically lead to it especially not intelligent life such as us.

If you wish to speak chances then take this, there is a 250 million to 1 that you should exist. I mean think of all the different possibilities, the different arrangements, 1 sperm from millions made it to that 1 egg before every other. If we wish to use the notion of chance in this case is it not a miracle that you and I exist? Of course it is not, those values had to land somewhere, hit a golf ball into the air and there are millions of different possibilities of where it could land and how it could land but where ever it lands is not the result of a miracle but just the fact it had to land somewhere.

"It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a person as God."

Why is it much more likely? Again he merely makes an assertion and doesn't back it up with evidence or reason.

"the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind."

Yet he continues to claim to have one.

"Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?"

To quote Dawkins himself on this type of nonsense: "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite". If our "cognitive faculties" were not reliable Plantinga and I would not be writing and you would not understand any of this. It should all be nonsense yet it is not, the computer you view this on was a product of science – a product of reasoned thinking, is your computer working? The kind of skepticism Plantinga is using is somewhat ridiculous when every piece of technology and bit of reasoned knowledge he poses is a product of our biology – we haven't died yet and so far it can be deemed trustworthy from just that.

Why does he seem to conclude that evolution would not be able to produce reliable "cognitive faculties"? He provides no reason as to why evolution should not be able to do such a thing; he merely says we should not be able to obtain them from an unguided process. He makes an assertion but provides no evidence why such a thing should be true. It seems to me a process of adaptation could do very well at providing reliable cognitive faculties, mainly because it would aid survival. Giving us senses which lead to a false sense of reality would most likely kill us and be a detriment to survival.

"From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable."

Now he has gone from god used evolution to create us to god created us directly. Evolution is about adapting, claiming that god used evolution to bring us about and then claiming we can't trust our adapted senses only to go on to say we can, seems one heck of a weird position.

"God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge"

How can something simple create something, Plantinga himself considers complex (life) in his own image? We could only conclude from the statement that god is as complex as us and hence any earlier notion of god simply been "simple" can be thrown out of the window. Plantinga can not have it both ways.

"It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world."

And so we'd live in a dream world, that would not mean every piece of truth within that dream world would be invalid, it would in fact be true within that world hence our knowledge is reliable within the world in which we as conscious beings exist.

"The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God."

Here we go again, Dawkins says improbable not impossible and he would be the first to claim we do not know how the universe came to be. Unlike Plantinga who claims it is god, Dawkins can actually be intellectually honest unlike the so called "philosopher" and state "he doesn't know". Stop trying to put words in the mouths of atheists.

The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.

So here we have it, rather then saying "I don't know" the theist once again declares he knows the truth without even trying to justify it, instead he merely assume our version of reality is false and his is factual and assumes it's because of god. Nice going making assertions and then failing to back them up.

Before I end this just another nugget from his notes, one that seriously undermines his ability to pass that humour course:

"1. A third book along these lines, The End of Faith, has recently been written by Sam Harris, and more recently still a sequel, Letter to a Christian Nation, so perhaps we should speak of the touchdown triplets—or, given that Harris is very much the junior partner in this enterprise (he's a grad student) maybe the "Three Bears of Atheism"?".

Yes funny, Mr Plantinga, very funny….

31. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23141 by Carl S. Richardson on February 26, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Well if it is true, we can all get ready to watch those wacky theologians once again reinterpret the bible and claim it was right all along.

32. Pope speaks out against 'designer babies'

Comment #23135 by Carl S. Richardson on February 26, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I wonder if he's against vaccinations too. I mean it's merely on a par with the screening process in that it prevents a child from getting certain diseases. But hey this is the pope we're speaking of; he's hardly the most consistent person in the world is he?