1. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114749 by blods on January 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm

2000 years of persecution based on faith!
4 billion years of evolution based on evidence!
Happy Darwin Day

or

Thank God for Darwin

2. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48114 by blods on June 6, 2007 at 4:53 pm

In an article full of crazy logic and diatribe I'll pick another two examples.

Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system.

And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.

3. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41701 by blods on May 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Given that so many people said they couldn't read it beyond the first two or three sentences - I decided to opt for reading it backwards from the end. It helped a bit but I still gave up after the second paragraph :)

4. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #34615 by blods on April 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm

I was happily voting on the Times site - happy because the first 30 or so I clicked on had Dawkins in the lead by a good margin. But once I came across Angelina Jolie who was 85 to Dawkins 75 I lost all interest in this as a serious survey.

5. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34258 by blods on April 23, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Those who consider Dawkins and Harris or atheists in general to be pushing too hard (militant) should be reminded that it's not us that is trying to get atheism taught in schools, it's not us with atheist leaders gaining automatic entry into the house of commons, it's not us going door to door to convert people to atheism, it's not us with dedicated TV channels preaching atheism and raising millions of dollars, it's not us with 164,000 books coming up in Amazon under the subject of Atheism, it's not us that have embroiled ourselves into all of the key points of life such births, deaths, marriages. Don't ever let a Christian tell you that Dawkins is too abrupt or controversial. Compared to how religion is rammed into every corner of our existence we are are not even close to being forthright enough about our non-belief.

6. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #34254 by blods on April 23, 2007 at 4:34 pm

It was an excellent discussion and full praise must go to Andrew and Sam for remaining courteous and respectful throughout. I found while Andrew didn't recant (and I don't suppose many of us thought he would, he's an intelligent guy and if he can't talk himself out of it how could Sam) but his tone did change to one I've heard from many thoughtful believers. That is to move away from arguing logic, scripture or rationality and falling on the sword of 'blind faith'. If someone says they've felt god, then how can anyone disagree with them.

7. A hundred residents of a Russian village have refused to switch to new passports because they believe the documents' bar codes contain satanic symbols

Comment #27600 by blods on March 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm

I don't think this is a hoax or April fools. For those that don't know this the story about 666 in barcodes has been around for years.
It was explained to me by a cold caller at my house who said it was a sign that the book of revelations was coming true.

It goes like this - somewhere in the bible it says we'll be marked with the number of the beast and that number is 666.
So pick up anything with a barcode on it - and have a look.
There's the barcode and underneath are the numbers that the barcode represents. If you find a barcode with a 6 in the lower number you'll find that that within the barcode the coresponding lines that mean 6 are two thin black lines.
Now all barcodes also have 3 markers in them - at the start the middle and the end, these are the lines which are longer than the others.
You'll notice that this start, middle and end marker are also two thin lines.
So all barcodes no matter what number is actually being represented by shorter bars actually have 666 in them.
Spooky

8. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #26337 by blods on March 18, 2007 at 6:18 pm

He says "I've never seen a dog not behave like a dog, never seen a pig not behave like a pig, but we do see humans that don't behave like humans".

That's not possible. Humans whether they're nuns, disctaors or despots are behaving exactly like humans. He should think a bit further about the evolutionary source for some of the behaviour that he's actually defining as non-human. I'm sure if he put his mind to it he could come up for an evolutionary survival of the fittest reason for each of the deadly sins. These negative or selfish behaviours are some of the easiest to explain in terms of natural selection. I would find it much easier to explain to someone where greed, lust, selfishness, envy and so on come from than to explain human characteristics such as love of music, laughter and pity.

9. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26096 by blods on March 16, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Like many here I feel that Sullivans position has switched from defending the belief of religion to why it is necessary and how it comforts him. That may be because he's in agreement with many of Sams points or as he said at the start he doesn't necessarily go over old ground. Either way you have to have a great deal of respect for the both of them for their courteous, intelligent and well written posts.

I would be more than happy to see the thread move onto a discussion of why religion may be a necessary or helpful construct in human lives - because even though many of us don't necessarily believe it, it doesn't necessarily follow that it doesn't provide any benefit. Are we mature enough and wise enough for 100% of the population to exist in an entirely godless way.

The last line of Sullivans post:

"But what that really means is: we have learned how to be human through religion. And how can we not be human? And who would want not to be human? What you are asking for, as I have argued before, is salvation by reason. But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?"

Implies that religion makes us what we are and determines how we're treated after we're dead. I think however we all know that evolution made us what we are, humans made religion what it is, and religion takes the sting out of ceasing to exist.

10. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25699 by blods on March 14, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I take your point Russell and I've not got any experience of Maliks other writing to disagree with you. But why should Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins be seen by anyone as political movers and shakers. To cast them as such or to criticise them for not extending the argument beyond simply exposing the wrongness of religious belief is like criticising Shakespeare for not writing operas. I can understand and fully support a move to discuss any possible negative impact of atheism in society but that charge should be levelled at all of us.

I would of preferred as you say to have seen some positive observations and a wider spread of his shot over all atheists. I hope more books will come out that do go beyond the 'it isn't true' line and start to discuss firstly what caused religion in society, and what can be done to limit the effect of pulling that rug from so many peoples lives. Along those same lines I'm concerned that there are not enough bright lights of rational thinking like Sam and Richard - perhaps someone will scour these healthy forums and gather enough material for more books.

11. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25688 by blods on March 14, 2007 at 6:03 pm

The criticism that I see more and more of the work of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins seems to be less that they're not factually correct but as in this article, that they don't offer an alternative to what the religious (let's call them atheist non believers) think they're getting out of religion.

They miss the point that a book such as the God Delusion or the End of Faith can explain why the bible can be shown to be untrue, why the held beliefs of Christians can be held to be just plain wrong - but haven't necessarily then got to go on and produce an antidote for the emptiness that may undoubtedly come from the cold turkey of someone giving up their faith in a deity.

Why should Sam have to produce a political context in his writings as he needs to according to Kenan Malik in order to hold faith and religion up to the bright light of rational thinking. Like many Kenan is treating atheism as a creed when it's in fact the absence of a creed - it doesn't offer an alternative comfort blanket and the job of doing that shouldn't fall to Sam and Richard, but to all of us who've managed to survive as atheists without feeling the need to become "religious radicals".

Kenan turns on Sams writing with the same horror of a man who's just found out he's descended from monkeys. Well Kenan Darwin didn't have to explain in the Origin of Species why it was OK to be descended from monkeys, he didn't provide a moral comfort blanket and he didn't feel the need to discuss the ramifications of what he was saying and it's impact on the world. It was the truth, the implications to the world at large and how we deal with the truth is surely for others to discuss.

12. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #25015 by blods on March 9, 2007 at 5:33 pm

What Dawkins book and Sam Harris have done for me is turn me from a closet atheist who feels like they're possibly being a bit sinful into a person who's proud to be an atheist and have shaken off any guilty feelings (guilt which comes from a fairly normal church at xmas and weddings upbringing in a protestant country). Reading this website and the huge number of thoughtful posts have amplified that feeling of guilt free and confident atheism tenfold.
However I don't think that people of faith have really adjusted to the new kind of bold atheist that this site and Richard & Sam have seeded. The Eagleton comments show that they're not prepared to discuss or analyse the comments and arguments atheists are making in the same way that we are prepared to discuss and analyse say lines from the Bible.
The quote "It is hard to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into" is the reason why Dawkins will fall on deaf ears with the devout and cause unusual lines of defence (such as the above "You're not qualified to argue against it because you don't believe in it")

13. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #22994 by blods on February 25, 2007 at 2:39 pm

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen — not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else," wrote C. S. Lewis.

Whenever a religious person quotes this line to me - I love to remind them of the fact that the sun doesn't rise despite the fact the pope persecuted people for saying this and then grudgingly apologised a few hundred years later. The sun stays still and the earth rotates so in actual fact the quote should be "I believe in a spooky invisible bloke in a beard as I believe that the earth has rotated towards the thermonuclear reaction we call the sun - Not only because the photons of light hit the back of my retina sending a signal to my brain which I interpret as the sun, but also because the photons of light bounce off of other things around me at slightly different wave lengths, and via binocular vision I am able to interpret these as colour and judge their distance using a mechanism which has evolved over millions of years and benefits me and other like me in finding food, being aware of danger at a distance and locating a mate."