Comments by junklight

Comment #102264 by junklight on December 22, 2007 at 7:59 am

The thing is though this guy is on the front page of the bbc website. I have come across a number of people recently who you might describe as agnostic or atheist by default who are more likely to side with this guys opinions than 'ours' (I put that in quotes because I am very aware that unlike the portrayal here the atheist side of the coin has a vast many opinions and views and debate is lively)

Most people don't do 'thinking about stuff' - they like their opinions delivered to them in neat sound bites. That's how people like this keep on hanging on in there - no need for any rational just keep telling lies.

I do find it interesting that pretty much all anti-atheism commentary seems to rely on misportraying the other side of the debate. Do you think they know they are doing this - or are they so deluded they think it is the truth?

2. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102025 by junklight on December 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"the guy definitely got romanticized. Couldn't this be the case with Jesus"

Oh absolutely - if you look at message boards and forums you can see that people don't even agree about events they all witnessed earlier - see sport and reality TV etc.

All I would take it as evidence for is that someone called Jesus was either a strong enough mythical figure to be written about as though he was real - or a real person called Jesus was wandering around and had enough charisma to be well known.

I would tend to think that there was some historical basis in both Arthur and Jesus even if it was just to provide the name - however would the tales of either figure tell us *anything* else about them? - nope. Not a thing.

3. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102009 by junklight on December 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

robaylesbury - am intrigued by the concept of a 'weak' atheist - you believe sometimes? or one or two Gods seem possible to you? or are you just not very strong...

Surely the best evidence for Jesus is the bible - after all it is a bunch of texts written by disparate people over a fairly large period all refering to this guy. The non-canonical texts all mention him as well.

Mind you if you read lots of Harry Potter Fan Fiction you could come to the same conclusion about Harry Potter....

4. The truth in religion

Comment #84241 by junklight on November 1, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Scientific proofs are a damn sight more absolute than anything I've seen from religion! This is one of the main troubles with religious believers. They want "absolute" knowledge. Just 99.999999 percent wont do for them! Yet they are still not prepared give up their favourite beliefs even if there is only 0.0000001 percent evidence it just might be true.

C: so do you know what is making these small holes in the skirting board?
A: no. but we've deduced that its small, moves quickly and quietly
C: but you don't know
A: well not as such
C: so it could be a Rhinoceros then.
A: no
C: but you just said you don't know
A: well...yes...but..
C: so it could be a Rhinoceros
etc. etc.

5. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78734 by junklight on October 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm

So - I am reading William Criags justification of killing children* and all of sudden it's got atheists in it. Why? - the question seemed sensible enough - a theological question (well at least I assume that's what theology is about) looking for explanation of the 'hard' parts of the bible. So why did a question about the bible answered by a Christian need to include non believers? (or is this another of those - you don't understand because you are an atheist moments)

*they get eternal life so its ok apparently. Which worries me slightly because it would imply that these Christians who keep telling me the only reason they are not murderers, rapists and thieves is because they are scared of the chap upstairs with the big stick (well thats the message I take home from atheists are all murderers, rapists and thieves because we don't believe in God) think that murdering children is not only fine - but God is good with it too. hmmm.....

*buys more locks for the door*

6. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78626 by junklight on October 13, 2007 at 11:44 pm

I got the impression from the John Humphries interview some time ago, and other statements that The ArchBishop has made that he barely believes in God at all. He certainly doesn't think God can or even would intervene in human affairs for example. If we wasn't head of the Church of England I would have him down as a Theist and leave it at that (ie. believes in some wooly vague 'higher being' that set up the big bang but has bugger all to do with us humans when it comes right down it it type of god)

7. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77494 by junklight on October 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Journalists alway give themselves away when they 'emphasize' that it is only a 'small group of Muslims' who are causing all the trouble. As employees of the NHS we hear these oddities like other people do: fromt the loud mouths of the well meaning journalists.

Typical Daily Telegraph scum.

So what - we just turn a blind eye to the currently few instances of letting Muslims let their nonsense dictate which parts of jobs they do. Until when? Until it is a widely accepted practice?

8. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77476 by junklight on October 9, 2007 at 11:58 am

So the health service which is overstretched is happy to hire people who won't do all of the job?

Hmm - perhaps the FSM religion (the only one which I could even pretend to believe in) should declare that its adherents won't work on wednesdays, oh and perhaps Friday afternoon too. Oh and need their coffee delivering to their desk, *with* chocolate biscuits, on the best china.

9. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74694 by junklight on September 30, 2007 at 2:11 am

Why are we discussing the faith of the monks at all - when there is a perfectly acceptable secular reason why they might be the ones to stand up to the government.

The Monks rely for their daily food on the charity of the society around them. They are given two meals a day - this is part of Buddist culture. My understanding is that society is under such pressure that they have not been able provide more than one meal a day (from the UK Ambassador on radio 4 today program).

Therefore these Monks have a direct threat to their existence. I don't see you need religion at all to explain their resistance: You have a bunch of organized people under threat with nothing to lose.

Let me just add that the situation in Burma is terrible and it is good that the people are standing up to the junta. I would also just like to note that the desperation needed in order to do so - to go out and risk being shot or worse imprisoned and tortured - shows just how serious the deprivation caused by the junta is.

10. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #71005 by junklight on September 17, 2007 at 12:54 pm

20. Comment #70185 by Steven Mading on September 14, 2007 at 9:25 am

To defenders of a religion, I'd like to say, "It cannot be simultaneously subjective and objective. PICK ONE OR THE OTHER and stick to it!

See look - now you are falling into the trap of fact (and logic) based reasoning. By waving a magic 'religious thinking' card you get to have both subjective and objective and cheese and onion flavoured all in the same sentence!

36. Comment #70229 by tieInterceptor on September 14, 2007 at 12:24 pm

what's next? monkeys reviewing bananas?

Surely that would be a good thing. If a monkey indicated to me that it considered some bananas to be the bees kness then they would be my banana of choice.

11. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #66476 by junklight on August 30, 2007 at 5:01 am

If the simulation argument is correct - ie. we all live in a simulation made by something in another universe. Maybe this gap is just a server down. If we look again in a while (could of course be centuries depending on the simulation speed) it will be back full of the usual universey type stuff

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

Comment #24746 by junklight on March 8, 2007 at 9:50 am

Reading the comments - 'Oh no that is just your experience and not Islam'. It is funny how her experience tallies with the treatment of women as outlined in the Quaran. I find it odd that the Muslim apologists are not saying "yes. you were treated like that because that is how our religion says you should be treated" and are instead trying to make out that it's not like that really.

Or is this another of those religious things were we all don't understand that the texts they work from don't mean what they say at all (despite it seeming like loads of people take them literally).

Or is Islam just like Christianity - make it up as you go along?