1. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201411 by jaytee_555 on June 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm

This guy has lost the plot.

Or maybe he is just an attention seeker who would prefer to be famous for being stupid rather than not being famous at all.

If someone ever hears me talking like that, will they shoot me, please?

Anyway, If ALL aliens all over the universe need redemption, it makes it pretty obvious that all beings created by God must have a serious design fault, and they cannot therefore be culpable for their failings - and so don't need to be redeemed in the first place!

2. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197246 by jaytee_555 on June 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Should this gene not be called the 'unselfish gene', since it apparently prevents the sterile worker females from 'selfishly' reproducing competing offspring? It seems to me that this would make more sense, because it appears this gene is an 'exception', and the other genes are the 'selfish' ones. I'm probably missing something here, but the article is rather short on detail.

Like others, I do hope Richard posts a better explanatory comment on this article.

3. Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment

Comment #196408 by jaytee_555 on June 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm

I had only read a half dozen lines of this article when I thought, hey!....what's all this 'thinking ahead', 'learning' and 'smart' stuff? This is all very interesting, for sure, but it is STILL basic natural selection.

I see "Riemann" came to the same conclusion, and hit the nail on the head by pointing out that it's not the individual bacterium that acquires the new trick, but its descendants.

Once again, it seems that the science is good, but the reporting is misleading.

4. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #195901 by jaytee_555 on June 19, 2008 at 2:39 am

I don't want to appear too cynical here, but I can't help thinking this is to do with Dowd having spotted a lucrative gap in the 'moderate' market. It doesn't smell like a 'genuine conviction' to me. And I can see how it would appeal to the many fence-sitters who find their position uncomfortable. It allows them to have their cake and eat it.

5. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180328 by jaytee_555 on May 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm

If Richard and scientists like him lose their appetite for truth and 'telling it the way it is' and begin to employ political cunning as a means to an end, I for one would feel betrayed. I could never be certain that what was being said was factual, or just clever 'framing'.

6. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177488 by jaytee_555 on May 9, 2008 at 7:13 am

Affluence and superior education are usually claimed as being the reasons for the decline in Christian religious practice. I wonder if this report factored into its conclusions the likelihood that the current and future generation of Muslims will also fall away from their religion as they become better educated and more affluent?

7. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177397 by jaytee_555 on May 9, 2008 at 2:49 am

Our side gets little enough opportunity to counter the BBC's bias in favour of religion, so please Richard, accept the opportunity to respond to this guy. There must be a few pungent comments you can make that will draw listener's attention to the fact that the Archbishop's article is devoid of anything but self-congratulation and baseless fantasy.

He singles you out for a mention, and this offers you a good opportunity to point out that many, many people in America and Britain DO, in fact, believe in the God you "don't believe in".

There's also the issue of the Vatican's attempt to increase its political influence in Europe, and you could put in a good word for the NSS who would jump at the opportunity to expose the Catholic Church's political aspirations in that arena.

Unless you're really, really, busy, of course!

8. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166255 by jaytee_555 on April 23, 2008 at 3:52 am

"In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty".

This is absolutely true. One of the two does its best to enlighten man's uncertainty, and has been spectacularly successful. The other one actively perpetuates ignorance by dreaming up absurd explanations which are accepted only by fools.

Is there any 'uncertainty' about which is which?

9. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164807 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm

This is the kind of human story that newspapers are interested in. If it gets picked up by them, I believe that Ben Stein's cunning plan may well become unraveled. He may not be a Holocaust Denier, but it is easily demonstrated that he is a 'Holocaust Dissembler'.

The story has genuine human interest (I really felt sad for this man) and Richard's sincere and concerned humanity shown in the letter he wrote to this deceived person surely give the lie to Expelled's stated 'moral' motives. Getting this story and Richard's lucid explanation out beyond the blogosphere would do a lot to expose in a very concrete way, exactly what sinister mischief Ben Stein is up to.

10. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164580 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Monosilabbiq (50) says;

"For lots of people it is a revelation that their spiritual leaders are fallible".

I doubt it. Unless of course, they've never read a newspaper. It demeans this site when posters crow over this sort of thing. Christianity, (whatever it many faults and idiocies may be) is just as opposed to what this man did as we are, and it will appall Christians just as much as atheists.

This article would only be of any real interest to this of site if the guy claimed that his religion permitted giving out school diplomas for sex.

11. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164299 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 3:04 am

I'm another person who agrees with comment 4 by "The Hard Problem" and I also fail to see why this news item was posted here.

This man's behaviour was clearly wrong; but it was no more a consequence of his being a Christian than Stalin's behaviour was due to his being an atheist. Posters who gleefully jump on this sort of thing as if it were some kind of argument against Christianity are commiting exactly the same error as those Christians who make the "Stalin was an atheist" claim.

By all means, let us criticise Christianity, but let's be fair and logical about it.

12. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160477 by jaytee_555 on April 14, 2008 at 6:33 am

Yet another "shit for brains" article on religion specially chosen by the Guardian to enrage sensible people enough to get them to post comments and increase their net traffic at any price.

13. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157929 by jaytee_555 on April 9, 2008 at 6:54 pm

re Comment #157743

"... no country that has based its constitution on Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Galileo et al has ever perpetrated the kind of crimes perpetrated by Stalin and company, rooted as they were (supposedly) in Czarist, priest-ridden regimes." (Hitchins)

"...how could the constitution of a country be based on a cast of names arbitrarily plucked out of the air by Chritopher Hitchens"

The first of the two quotes, as it stands, is nontheless a statement of fact. It is also true, as you point out, that no such country has as yet existed, and so Hitchens' argument cannot be empirically demonstrated. But it CAN be logically demonstrated. Any country (past, present, or future, or even imaginary) that DID base its constitution on the writings of these men WOULD be, by definition, incapable of acting as Stalinist Russia did.

Stalin did not believe in God, but he clearly did not believe in the values of Paine and Jefferson either. In any case, since when has beliving in God prevented genocide? If the religious war-mongers of ancient times had had 20th century weapons at their disposal (and big enough populations of enemies to kill) they would have happily killed in the same numbers as Stalin and Hitler - and done it in God's name too.

14. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157018 by jaytee_555 on April 8, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I watched this program live on TV, and my heart sank by the minute as I realised the level of bigotry, stupidity and vested interest that Richard was up against. It seemed almost as if he had been invited there as a token "object of hate" that so many cheap and tatty tv program makers find necessary these days to guarantee a 'lively' show. In my opinion, his presence there was a waste of his time and abilites.

Time-serving clerics - educated men - who know better, but who refuse to condem religious ideas that are outright wicked, are worse than the holders of those ideas. At least there is an excuse for the god-fodder - most are merely ignorant and brain-washed. It is hard to decide who deserves the most censure - the objectionable deluded simpletons, the smooth-talking professional deluders, or the "audience grabbing at any cost" BBC.

That bizzare character, the would-be Mayor of London (noooo fucking chance, by the way) had all the facile confidence that only the truly lost posess. But I must confess it would be fun to hear it announced on the six o'clock news that the Mayor of London is claiming hob-goblins are responsible for the increase in Community Charges!

The whole spectacle was painful to watch. Richard cannot possibly do justice to himself in a circus atmosphere. I seriously think he would do himself a favour by avoiding low-grade programs like this where there is no intention whatsoever of actually dealing with the 'Big Questions', and where the presenter keeps interrupting any answer after three seconds, just to ensure the camera keeps cutting back to his own friggin' face.

15. Beware the Believers

Comment #151603 by jaytee_555 on March 29, 2008 at 3:41 am

Like Prof Dawkins, (and the same age as him) I couldn't understand a word of it. In any case, I hate rap, considering it a form of sound for people who have difficulties with music. However, I was pleasantly surprised when I read the 'translation' and realised that whoever wrote the words was pretty well informed. The whole thing is professional and well-produced, and seemed to me to be more of a clever, studied rap 'piss-take' than anything else - likely to go over the heads of anyone who isn't familiar with the subject matter. Not my cup of tea, though obviously popular with a lot of posters on this site...and it helps the cause.

16. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141370 by jaytee_555 on March 10, 2008 at 10:05 am

All this is saying is;

"WE will tell you what is a sin and what is not, and WE are the only people with the authority to forgive or not forgive, and if you don't use OUR product, you will be tormented in hell for ever and ever."

Was there ever a more successful protection racket than the Catholic Church?

Was there ever a more dispicable exploitation of humanity?

How do they get away with it?

17. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129565 by jaytee_555 on February 19, 2008 at 10:09 am

As someone pointed out earlier, this sort of research is along the lines that Dan Dennet has been calling for, but it is very worrying that the first to offer money is from the Templeton Foundation.

Wikepedia says;

"In addition to its central activity funding scientific studies, the Foundation awards the annual $1.5 million Templeton Prize[35] to the living individual who best exemplifies "trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity".

And also;

In 2004..... the Foundation presented the makers of the controversial movie The Passion of the Christ with a $50,000 "Epiphany Prize for the Most Inspirational Movie.

This doesn't look to me like an organisation interested in truth and reason. A bona fide funding source should not have to defend its aims and activities from the constant criticisms of bias the way the Templeton Foundation finds it is forced to do. From a quick reading of the Wikipedia entry, it seems that even its 'legit' business appears dubious. I think any researchers who take the bait should be very careful not to allow themselves to be 'leaned on'. I fear the Templeton Foundation will make very selective use of the results of the research.

Which of us could fail to be suspicious if we discovered that a £2 million grant to investigate the correlation between health and smoking had been provided by the tobacco industry?

18. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #125440 by jaytee_555 on February 11, 2008 at 11:15 am

So it was WE who 'misunderstood' was it? Silly us. It is very decent of the Archbishop to conceed that he may have been a bit clumsy in expressing his ideas; but isn't he supposed to be an expert at expressing ideas?

And is it really likely that he could be so appallingly clumsy that millions of people ( lawyers, politicians, clerics, journalists, Christians, secularists, atheists, Muslims, people of many different religions and none, all misunderstood him? The only people who appear not to have misunderstood him, are those members of the Synod, who gave him a standing ovation.

However much I may have disagreed with Rowan Williams in the past, I would have probably agreed with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he said that the Archbishop was a "man of integrity", but I feel his integrity should now be questioned after this fake apology. The Archbishop dishonestly tries to make it look as if he was criticised for raising the issue; but it is what he said about the subject, not the raising of it, for which he was rightly criticised. He has not retracted the statements he made. From what I saw on the six o'clock news this evening, he has apologised only for not being clever enough to find a form of words suitable to prevent idiots like me from misunderstanding him.

The truth is that we did NOT misunderstand him. We understood him only too damn well, and we want him to take his wet and woolly social 'sensitivity' to the people who are responsible for sharia law, and persuade THEM to bring THEIR laws in line with existing British law.

He is entitled to his views, and entitled to argue for them them, but if he want's to retain his integrity, let him not pretend he didn't mean what he obviously DID mean.

19. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125298 by jaytee_555 on February 11, 2008 at 7:58 am

I looked at the advertisement for the post, hoping to see something like;

"Templeton Prize winners and wannabees need not apply".

Can you imagine the collective wail that would arise from readers of this site if somehow establishment reactionary forces managed to bring political pressure to bear on the appointment?

What if we ended up with a Peacock or a Polkinhorne?

Richard - please tell me this is impossible!

20. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125197 by jaytee_555 on February 11, 2008 at 4:02 am

One must admire the courage of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and her colleague Taj Hargey, in resisting sharia law from within its sphere of influence. This impassioned plea from a Muslim woman asking Rowan Williams to stop making things worse, carries even more weight than most other similar criticisms, coming as it does, from someone who feels and sees its effects every day, and risks her own safety in speaking out.

However, I would imagine that most readers and posters on this site will not be able to wholeheartedly support her stated aims. She says, as a trustee of the organisation 'British Muslims For Secular Democracy', that she is

"....attempting to educate Muslims out of authorised obscurantism and non-Muslims into a better understanding of the progressive and evolutionary nature of the practice of Islam".

I have to ask myself what that might be. Will it be the eqivalent of what Luther and the Reformation did for Roman Catholicism? And if so, is it something we think is desirable?

She adds;

'Sharia is nothing but a human concoction of medieval religious opinion ...... Most sharia contradicts the letter and spirit of the Koran, [and] distorts the transcendental text."

So, it seems, sharia is merely man-made opinion and to be distrusted (indeed, got rid of); but the Koran is 'trancendental'. Short of a miraculous latter day appearance by the Prophet to interpret the 'true' meaning of the 'trancendental' text, someone will need to take on the job. But who? The British Muslims For Secular Democracy?

It may seem a little churlish to question the aims of an organisation that is clearly an improvement on Islam's status quo (and perhaps it would be better discussed in a different thread), but I would like to hear other readers' ideas on how long a spoon they think we need to safely 'sup with the devil' when Islam is involved. (Or any other religion, for that matter).

21. Blasphemy

Comment #122600 by jaytee_555 on February 5, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Spot on, Corylus.

22. Blasphemy

Comment #122596 by jaytee_555 on February 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Prof. Dennet is a very thoughtful and careful man. I have no doubt that he thought long and hard about the tone and wording of this letter. I'm assuming that he has adopted a 'concilliatory' stance towards 'moderate' Muslims because of the nature of the issue, where the short term goal is literally a matter of life and death for a few poor individuals.

Anyone who has read his books knows what his atheist credentials are, and I'm pretty sure they haven't changed recently. Personally, I'm not at all happy with some of the phrases used, but if this pragmatic approach turns out to be effective, you'll not hear me complaining.

23. Blasphemy

Comment #122543 by jaytee_555 on February 5, 2008 at 12:24 pm

"......everyone must remain vigilant, as the next victim may not get the [same] exposure as him, and subsequently be quietly disposed of in order to sustain this religion of "peace" (for "peace", read fear)."

I understand your sentiment, Verylee. But surely the whole point of executing blasphemers it to instill fear and obedience in the population. To dispose of blasphemers 'quietly' would defeat the object of the exercise, so I feel it is not likely to be done that way. Let's hope not, anyway.

I totally agree that pressure must be brought to bear by decent people of all religions and none, to protest against the regimes who perpetrate this vileness, and to embarass all 'moderates' who turn a blind eye.

24. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120291 by jaytee_555 on February 1, 2008 at 11:44 am

About the kindest thing anyone can say about Dr. Simmons is that if he were a geographer, he would be a flat-earthist. If he owned a telescope, he would be an astrologer. If he were a chemist, he would be trying to turn lead into gold. If he were a presidential advisor, he would be examining the entrails of a goat. It appears he is actually a medical man; I wonder who was keeping an eye on his leeches while he was busy debating?

It was really quite pathetic. He just didn't have a clue, did he? To say he had got everything utterly wrong would be to compliment him.

25. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117998 by jaytee_555 on January 30, 2008 at 7:23 am

.
The theologians ARE on the run! This article reeks of desperation. Only someone who was more interested in the approval of his superiors than his own intellectual reputation could misrepresent the entire issue in such a blatantly devious way.

We must remember that this man is a Jesuit, and has taken a vow of obedience. I'm sure his Vatican masters will approve of the enthusiasm with which he is keeping his vow!

As the poet John Betjeman observed;

"Approval of what is approved of, is as false as a well-kept vow".

26. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117949 by jaytee_555 on January 30, 2008 at 3:42 am

By writing this article, Oakes has greatly contributed to the body of evidence that has persuaded many perceptive people that Jesuits are the most slippery and willfully dishonest of theists.

27. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117159 by jaytee_555 on January 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

Styrer (in comment 117053) hit the nail on the head.

The several worthwhile observations O'Donnell makes in this article are not his own. They are barely disguised plagiarisms lifted from Dawkins' and Harris' books. He has, in effect allowed Dawkins and Harris to write the article for him, so it's not surprising some readers here think it is good. However, instead of paying tribute to these authors, he turns on them and criticises them, biting the hands that fed him.

He looks to me like someone who really agrees with the 'New Atheists', but was desperately looking for some 'disagreement' he could hang his rather pedestrian article upon.

28. 'Telepathic' Genes Recognize Similarities In Each Other

Comment #116747 by jaytee_555 on January 27, 2008 at 10:30 am

It's obvious! The flourescent bits of DNA found each other easily because they were glowing in the dark.

29. Jay Spears: Smak Dem Christians Down

Comment #114709 by jaytee_555 on January 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm

It's good to see that the 'Get Religion Out of Politics' crowd are getting pretty organised these days. I thought this was a very professionally done video with lots of class. I hope they do more like this.

30. The New Theology

Comment #113183 by jaytee_555 on January 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Seems to me to be a rather long boring and uninteresting article. Nothing much is being said except that the gaps where the theists need to install their 'God of the Gaps' are getting to few and too small.

I suspect that soon, some clever theologian with come along and explain how God is really the Ultimate Minimalist who demonstrates his infinite power by being totally invisible and doing absolutely nothing. Now what could be more awesome than that?

31. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111928 by jaytee_555 on January 16, 2008 at 3:06 am

It looks to me as if Huckabee realises he has no chance of winning anything; so before he returns to obscurity, he is trying to set himself up with a nice little sinecure by identifying and ingratiating himself with the knuckle-draggers who support the Falwalls and Robertsons of this world.

32. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111338 by jaytee_555 on January 14, 2008 at 11:49 am

Good luck, George,

I hope things go well for you.

(...but if I find out it's you who has been providing all the straw for the 'straw-men' arguments we have to put up with, I'm gonna be very disappointed.)

Kindest regards to an old soldier

Jaytee_555

33. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107495 by jaytee_555 on January 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm

The many concessions that theists are now making to science lately seems to indicate that they know they have lost that particular fight. They have reverted to a 'God of the Gaps' approach based on the Argument from Ignorance. Most of the slicker theists (like Wolpe) are now shamelessly denying that logic, evidence and reason have any place in the debate at all, since the whole issue is 'metaphysical', and all about 'feelings' 'intution' and and 'revelation'. This is a clever move, because it panders to the less rational people in the audience - and they make the best religites. Even though they can never win arguments this way, at least they appear not to lose; and under the current onslaught from atheists, they are grateful to settle for what they see as a face-saving 'draw'.

Another old trick being revived by theists more and more often is to muddle things with huge swathes of concentrated vagueness in their arguments, hoping their opponents will simply not be able to unpack it all in the time available. Sam Harris's was not phased by this, and his incisiveness in this debate was very impressive. He effortlessly cut through Wolpe's obscurantism to nail the central flaw in the argument every time.

I also admire Sam's forbearance. Several times in this debate, Wolpe allowed Sam to develop a rational line of reasoning, only to interrupt and deliberately drown out the last few words as he made his final point. Sam's neat response to this was to make the same point again later, when he had the full attention of the audience. Nice work Sam.

34. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106388 by jaytee_555 on January 2, 2008 at 7:27 pm

"What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God—or secularism or unbelief—but ruthless certainty"

Are you absolutley certain about that, Lisa?

35. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104933 by jaytee_555 on December 30, 2007 at 4:26 am

The Bishop seems to follow the logic of morality being derived from genes doing their best to survive into the next generation, but then cannot resist the temptation of adding a totally unjustified and unnecessary supernatural element.

It reminds me of the old story about a man who thought television worked because lots of little men lived inside the TV set. Someone took the trouble to educate him in electronics and showed him how television really worked. He thanked his teacher and said "Wonderful! I understand it now, thank you for explaining it all to me - but I still think there might be a couple of little men in there".

36. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104475 by jaytee_555 on December 28, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Message to the Bish; You can criticise Dawkins if you like - after all, it's your job - but don't try to steal the bits of him you approve of to support your crackpot religion. It's quite sickening to watch.

37. Man and God

Comment #103470 by jaytee_555 on December 25, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Do journalists never bother to check out facts these days? It's a bloody disgrace that no one in authority at The Times cared enough or knew enough to correct the factual errors in this piece. I'm not talking about opinions, which are fair enough - I mean the barefaced lies in this article that underly its structure. This article can no longer be excused as simple ignorance. It can only be a deliberate and mischievous attempt to perpetuate misrepresentations of authors - authors who write clearly and go out of their way to avoid being misunderstood.

Atheists are much more attentive and crtitical readers than theists, and are much better at spotting bullshit too. Journalists who write shoddy articles like this, and who clearly make no effort to get basic facts right, cannot expect to be taken seriously - not by atheists, anyway.

38. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102637 by jaytee_555 on December 23, 2007 at 10:45 am

"Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics?

Well here's another one - entirely about politics!

39. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99842 by jaytee_555 on December 17, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Mmm....sort of stuff you'd expect from a 5th form schoolkid who hoped to be a journalist one day.....and the arrogance to criticise Christopher Hitchens as "infantile". Jeez!

Libby Purves' delusions of grandeur are misplaced. I'm not even convinced she's entitled to delusions of adequacy.

40. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95503 by jaytee_555 on December 8, 2007 at 1:12 pm

For a TV presenter to invite someone on to a program just to interrupt the end of every sentence as the point of the sentence is being made, is the dirtiest trick in the book. O'Reilly is a disgrace to his trade, and a total shit. Lori Lipman Brown did very well to keep her temper in the face of such loudmouth bullying.

41. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92842 by jaytee_555 on December 1, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Prof Dennet's opening 25 minutes was all that was necessary to convince any person genuinely open-minded on the question of whether or not God is a man-made invention. D'Souza is not a thinker. He's a politician, and one gets the impression that he isn't even faintly interested in 'truth' - it's the 'winning' that counts for him, and it doesn't matter if it's by fair means or foul.

He doesn't deserve to share a platform with a serious philosopher like Dennet. He has the facile delivery and disregard for facts usually associated with used car salesmen. Though glib and confident, he seems lacking in true conviction and doesn't even care if he himself believes what he says, so long as it seems to help his argument.

If I were guilty of a crime, and needed a lawyer to get me off, I might well choose D'Souza to represent me, but if I were innocent, I'd want Dan Dennet on my side.

42. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91594 by jaytee_555 on November 28, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Prof. Dennet is mild mannered and polite, and I look forward to see how he'll handle D'Souza, who is an agressive master of misdirection and obfuscation. One of D'Souza's most successful debating techniques is to quickly rattle off (in a carefully rehearsed sentence or two) a dozen shallow arguments in sound-bite form. He's smart enough to know that although his arguments are refutable (indeed refuted) it will always takes a lot more time for his opponent to expose faulty logic than it takes for him to spout it. It would be really useful if Dennet could actually make this point in his opening remarks, and prepare the audience to look out for it. There is absolutely no doubt that Dennet could wipe the floor with him in honest debate, but I wonder if he has enough experience in debating with a professional disembler like D'Souza who, though intellectually lightweight, is nontheless a skilled and slick political trickster for whom truth is an irrelevance.

43. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91140 by jaytee_555 on November 27, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Mormon beliefs are not significantly nuttier than run of the mill fundamentalist beliefs, really - just less familiar.

Let's keep up the questioning of ALL religious political wannabees who claim their faith is central to their morality. If it's THAT important to them it's important to us too, since they aspire to be in positions of power over us. Hitch is spot on as usual. We are entitled to answers.

44. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89630 by jaytee_555 on November 21, 2007 at 9:34 am

I was one of the early posters who politely asked for more information to enable me to decide whether or not to contribute, and I'm glad I did. I fully expected Sam Harris to oblige with some answers, and I was not disappointed. I'm sure Sam responded because he realised the questions raised and concerns expressed were not unreasonable. I strongly suspect that the explanations he has provided will result in more contributions than would otherwise have been the case.

It is regretable that certain individuals (who seem to get off on insults) used this thread as a vehicle for ugly personal attacks - but that's folks, I suppose. Worst were the dogmatists, who insisted that other people who genuinely felt their limited resources would do more good directed to charities elsewhere, were somehow traitors to the rationalist cause. It was good to see their dogmatism dismantled by more rational posters.

I thought admin becoming involved (in a rather self-pitying and personal way) was unfortunate, and hope it does not become a normal practice.

In some ways, I feel this thread has been the most unedifying on this site to date - not because of the controvertiality of the topic, but because of the totally unnecessary nastiness on the part of some individuals. Surely we can have the occasional disagreement on issues without lowering the tone of this excellent and important site.

Thanks Sam Harris, for providing the above article, helping me (and no doubt others) to make a better informed decision.

45. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88694 by jaytee_555 on November 18, 2007 at 3:08 pm

My initial reaction was to support Sam Harris' suggestion, but on reflection, I'd like some of the questions raised above to be answered before I decide.

46. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85940 by jaytee_555 on November 7, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Just another idle thought.....

I wonder if God (if he exists) ever wonders where he himself came from. Surely he cannot be certain that he was always there. How could he be sure that he hadn't been created with a sort of false-memory that made him think he was older than he actually is by some super-super-intelligence with a sense of humour?

47. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85937 by jaytee_555 on November 7, 2007 at 2:15 pm

By Flew's(?!) reasoning, evil must have its origin in God. If this is true, then God is not to be worshipped, but rejected. Conversely, if it is not true, the problem becomes 'how could 'evil' arise? - since it is a 'purpose-driven' form of information just as much as 'good' is.

If evil can exist without having been created by God, then so can everything else.

This was my simple intuitive reaction to the article, so if this reasoning is faulty, I'd appreciate someone picking the bones out of it for me.

48. The truth in religion

Comment #84269 by jaytee_555 on November 1, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I think Polkinghorne is plain dishonest. I'm sure he knows very well that this article is all wind and piss. If there was any real chance of proving this one way or another, I'd be willing to place a very large bet on it.

Obfuscation is the last refuge of the defeated, and it shows. He obviously feels he has muddled things enough to deserve his paycheck and make it look like he had something to say. The sheer cynicism of this type of theologian just depresses me. Give me an honest-to-goodness fundamentalist any day. At least you can respect their sincerity and pity their ignorance. This type of 'learned' dishonesty just makes me despair.

It's much easier to wake up someone who is asleep than it is to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep.

49. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81732 by jaytee_555 on October 25, 2007 at 5:32 am

A central plank of De Souza's argument is that scientists are essentially 'faith-heads', taking a leap of faith when they place reliance in scientific laws. This is a completely false argument, and what is more, De Souza knows it. Whatever else he may be, he's not a fool.

Scientists' commitment to the laws of physics is evidence based, and totally unlike religious faith, which is no more than wishful thinking. Religious faith is man-made, and varies from religion to religion and culture to culture. There is no leap of faith involved in accepting the laws of physics. Indeed, they are called 'laws' precisely because they are demonstrably universal.

Note that De Souza does not even try to elevate 'faith' to the level of the rationality of science; he betrays his position's weakness by trying to drag science down to the level of 'faith'. He instinctively recognises the strength of the scientific position, and hopes he can disarm it by relegating it to the insubstantiality of 'faith'.

JT (UK)

50. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80414 by jaytee_555 on October 21, 2007 at 6:04 pm

.
I hate to admit this, but purely in terms of who "came off better" in the debate, the answer in my view has to be that De Souza did.

This is not because he was right, but simply because he was more fluent and confident than Shermer and a better debater. Shermer had all the best arguments but was was simply not up to the job of getting them across. De Souza's arguments were pretty pathetic but Shermer could not find a form of words incisive enough to expose them. He even read about 80% of his opening comments directly from notes and bored the arse of everyone, then in the later sessions he allowed De Souza to take control. Shemer knows the answers - I know - I've read quite a bit of his stuff (which is excellent) but in this exchange, he didn't deliver. Debating successfully requires particular skills, and unfortunately, being right is not enough.

The only consolation is that DeSouza mentioned he'll be debating with Christopher Hitchens soon, and I predict that Hitch will eat this odious little squirt alive and spit out the bones.

JT (UK)