1. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23571 by tk on March 1, 2007 at 2:47 pm

I would like to ask Prof Plantinga, or whomever could possibly offer a reply, why does he refer to God using `He'? Is he sure that God is male? I once asked a Muslim about this and he started cursing me. When I pointed out to him that, by referring to Allah as `He', he implicitly implied that Allah has male genitals, he told me that I was a sinner. When I pointed out to him that I only concluded this because he told me that Allah was a man, he started shouting and cursing. I would very much like to ask Prof Plantinga the same question. What could he reply? Perhaps that we do so as a custom? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to refer to God neutrally? Well, `It' could be more appropriate but perhaps not so acceptable by theists--understandably so. Therefore why don't they change the language in order to refer to God by a pronoun different from He/She/It?

2. Misbegotten sons

Comment #384 by TK on September 27, 2006 at 2:10 pm

It always surprises me how the human mind can intellectualise about the most abstruse subjects. Come on, get down to Earth guys, either there is a God or there isn't. No smarmy diplomatic talk here please. The human mind can create whole universes with words, and multiverses if mathematics is included.

Religion generally must be the organised social expression of belief in the supernatural. Otherwise what's the point of it? Which christian, muslim, jew, etc does not believe in God? There again, maybe most of them never think about their faith, they just go through the motions, because that's what is expected of them, and it gives them some comfort.

What a great thought that however hard this life, as long as you behave yourself there's a safety net waiting in the sky when you're dead. If you go through life with this attitude you will be more inclined to put up with all sorts of oppression from your fellow humans than you would otherwise. Unless you're sure of what you think, most people would go for the safety net. Therein lies the false promise of religion. Was it Joe Hill, the Wobbly who called it pie in the sky?

3. The real reasons to hate the Pope

Comment #320 by TK on September 25, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Hatred is easy but is no solution. If the Catholic ( and the other 57 varieties of priests) are spreading ignorant and harmful ideas around the world as they have been doing for centuries, then it is up to us, including Dawkins, to expose these ideas for what they are: a load of rubbish.

What we should remember is that orginised religion is really the manifestation of formalised superstition. In the pre history days, it was spirits like Puck or Aeriel. As society became more sophisticated, there was little more room (but some) for these spirits, and there had to be only one all powerful god. Zeus was banished by Jehovah. Allah no doubt is more powerful than the christian God. What does it matter, they are all fairy stories?

Being the organised social form of superstition, religions take on a real role in societies as the arbiters of morals, the givers of wisdom, those with special knowledge about humanity's place in the cosmos. The social ceremonies that take place throughout the year in the name of various religions generally make the members of those religions feel better about life than they otherwise would. They comfort you in times of grief, make you feel happy when you marry, give a meaning to Christmas, etc etc. The fact that these social ceremonies give comfort gives no proof of the beliefs underlying the various religions. As Marx said religion is the opium of the people.

In the meantime, we had better get on and try and sort this world out, because there won't be another one! If I may quote the German jew again: workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to gain.