Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Hip_Priest


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

Comment #92022 by Hip_Priest on November 29, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Its always worth checking out D'Souza's blog should you find yourself taking him too seriously. The only way he can sometimes dominate a debate is by phrasing his arguments in such a bizarre way that sheer bafflement renders you practically comatose for some time.

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/11/29/muslim-girls-choose-scouts-over-vagina-monologues/

2. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91993 by Hip_Priest on November 29, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Richard's seriously oversimplifying the relationship between sexual and social monogamy here. Ignoring all conservative arguments for sexual monogamy and issues of social stability, sexual equality, security etc and assuming that it all boils down to jealousy still means that you've got to ignore what appears to be a fundamental aspect of our psychology, part of our very humanity even, to simply 'rise above jealousy'.

Saying that I do prefer the more laissez faire french Sarkozy soup-opera approach to scandal than the shrill american Clintongate way of dealing with these things.

3. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #91473 by Hip_Priest on November 28, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Putting concerns about zygote ghosts to one side, surely a move away from embryonic stem cells is a positive thing purely in terms of the practicalities of harvesting the cells. There must be serious ethical questions surrounding this harvesting of eggs. I'm guessing donating eggs is a little more complicated (risky?) than giving blood? Does money pass hands?

4. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83035 by Hip_Priest on October 28, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Haha! He didn't have to wear pants because the podium is wide!
LOL! Henry VIII didn't keep his wives for very long!

D'Souza is as nauseating a standup comedian as he is a apologist/pundit/pseudo intellectual.

5. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75714 by Hip_Priest on October 3, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Out of curiosity I clicked onto revcort's myspace and it reminded me of something Sam Harris has written about. In his blog discussion with (catholic) Andrew Sullivan he gives a few reasons why he feels people believe things that, to him, appear dangerously outlandish. He briefly touched on the 'sunk costs' involved and until now I had completely forgot about it.

Getting back to revcorts myspace - there isn't a square inch of it that doesn't revolve around his faith in some way. He appears to have invested hugely in christianity. If I had invested that many years into something it would destroy me to think that so much of it had been pointless and some of it had been, perhaps, downright dangerous.

Apology to revcort: I know, I can't pretend to know somebody from their myspace page (the fact that you're here at all suggests that there's more to your belief that Sam Harris' 'sunk cost' theory)but its clear that so many people do invest so much in their faith I can completely understand why a long-term believer might be reluctant to question their god too much.

This sunk cost idea works not just on a personal level. I find it very easy to sympathise with the athiest/agnostic/liberal writers who claim that religion isn't that bad. Its painful to think about all the lifetimes over the centuries wasted talking to an imaginery god or the lives destroyed in the enforcement of his laws. Its nice to believe that these ancient traditions (that so many have been hurt in the name of) have some worth.

Or have I completely misunderstood this 'sunk cost' idea? I really shouldn't talk about stuff I've learnt about on wikipedia!

6. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74738 by Hip_Priest on September 30, 2007 at 7:45 am

I don't want to resurrect ancient history but in the post BillySands linked to, one thing WeeFlea admits surprised me:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page6#12171

In terms of proof that I get my own personal morals from the Bible – let me give you one example. I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right. I cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible.


Word of advice David - Under no circumstance tell your wife this. Ever.

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #66072 by Hip_Priest on August 28, 2007 at 10:09 am

The google link didn't work for me. Here's the youtube clip:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j---hozZpw4

I love youtube comments. A few corkers from this video:


*yawn* Yet more polemic from the banal dullard that is Richard Dawkins. If his philosophical grounding was any shakier his legs would collapse. Even his first statement in that segment had so much wrong with it, going into it would be impossible. *sigh*

If you seriously claim you only rely on reason to understand the world then you are as bat-shit crazy (and wrong) as Dawkins is.

My favourite:

What about the police that use mediums to solve crimes or find murdered bodies?

8. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56328 by Hip_Priest on July 15, 2007 at 4:18 am

steve99

I find it ridiculous because one of the main arguments made for not going to war, not least by people with some expertise on the dynamics of the region, was that it would lead to sectarian chaos and provide religious extremism an opportunity to flourish.

Hitch was a hugely vocal supporter of the war that created this mess in Iraq but now, nausiatingly, uses the deaths of innocent Iraqis as handy bullet points in his athiest manifesto.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the interviews I have seen, Hitch still defends the decision to go to war. He simply passes the blame for its disastorous consequences to the zealots now running riot in the country, as if we had no idea that they existed before 2003. Thats not good enough; there's blood on Hitchens' hands too.

9. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56270 by Hip_Priest on July 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Just look at how the "faith-based" are behaving in today's Iraq.


I think Iraq is one topic that Hitch should steer well clear of if he wants to be taken seriously, given his unwavering support for the war. I find it ridiculous the way he shrugs off the whole disaster with "well it would have worked if it wasn't for those pesky religious nutjobs!".

10. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48605 by Hip_Priest on June 8, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I had a skim through Theo's other articles. Its a pretty bewildering experience. He sees himself, as a liberal and secular christian, sitting on an island of sanity (alongside agnostics who have the decency to respect religion as a fantastic human enterprise) amidst a ocean of pretentious nutters. On one side sits Dawkins and Grayling with their 'dogmatic athiesm' and on the other side sits the evangelicals and homophobe fundies.

At times he talks a lot of sense - he wants a more secular public arena and agrees that faith schools should be discouraged:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/01/we_need_a_new_sort_of_christia.html

If his dream is a 'secular christianity' then his rambling attacks on athiests in general, and the recent surge of athiest writers in particular, seem very misguided to me. This isn't the only odd critque he has offered by the way. Nobody, not Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or Grayling are arguing that he can't hold whatever personal religious views he wants. They are saying that these beliefs aren't based on evidence and treating this delusional aspect of religion as virtuous can have disasterous effects. It is these popular athiest writers who help create an intellectual climate where views don't warrant instant respect and veneration simply because they are religious. The kind of public secularism Theo is so keen on!

11. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #48496 by Hip_Priest on June 8, 2007 at 7:34 am

"No pokey pokey, that's okey dokey. Stick it in, that's a sin."

Haha I wonder what Wee Flea thinks about this excellent summary of his beliefs on sexuality.

Again, Wee Flea failed to share with us what the nature of the scientific evidence showing the immorality of "pokey pokey" will turn out to be. (That is, once some brave young researcher finally slips past our anti-christian agenda and infiltrates the scientific establishment to publish the truth.)

12. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48371 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm

The incident in the Starbucks happened 10 years ago. Do Starbucks enforce this policy in Islamic countries today? Do they have a choice? Should this earn them a place on my boycott list?

13. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #48348 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Wee Flea is being very evasive when asked about his views on homosexuality. Does this mean he knows how disgusting his opinions really are?

His position:

I believe that sex is a gift from God designed for one man and one woman within the context of marriage. I realise that to say this will invite a chorus of ridicule. But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question? Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having sex with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?


He claims to have evidence for the immorality of sex not "between a man and a woman in the context of marriage":

I've had a look at a significant amount of the literature on the subject. It is not the case that the majority of studies indicate that homosexuality is normal and natural.


That's quite a claim and even if it were true (which it isn't) it has been pointed out that morality (ours at least) does not boil down to what's 'normal and natural'.

His claims of significant literature can't be that strong if he feels it is necessary to make an excuse for the lack of it:

the current scientific climate on homosexuality arose out of the opinion expressed above that there is no debate to be had. People started off with a belief, and then look for science to justify that belief. Any scientist who would wish to argue otherwise would immediately be told that he was a bigot and that there is no discussion to be had. It is little wonder that there will soon be a consensus.


and here:

Would any scientist be allowed to publish a study which was critical of homosexuality in today's climate?


I wish Wee Flea would explain what this evidence for the immorality of homosexuality will turn out to be, once some plucky scientist overcomes the barriers presented by our atheistic agenda and publishes the truth.

All evidence I have experienced (scientific, sociological, personal and anecdotal) suggests that homosexuals can live perfectly successful and moral lives, regardless of the consensual sex they enjoy with their partners. The only suffering experienced is the trauma caused when families are told by their holy man (eg Wee Flea) the moral danger their loved one is under.

I cannot express it any better than newathiest:

Boy, that idea sure hasn't seriously fucked anybody up!! But "Hey, give it a try, Mr Homo. Can't hurt. Don't forget, there's always suicide to fall back on."

14. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48263 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 8:07 am

An earlier post of mine:

Over half of all Americans don't know that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year


I don't believe that for one second.



http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/eppure-si-muoveor-does-it/

If this is accurate, then the truth might not be much better.

15. Scopes Two

Comment #48238 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 6:57 am

The Creationism-Homophobia-Torture party doesn't like aswering questions on creationism, gays or torture?

16. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48235 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 6:42 am

Over half of all Americans don't know that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year


I don't believe that for one second.

17. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48213 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 4:03 am

can anyone nominate the least worst, or the most articulate, of the God-botherers?


I found Andrew Sullivan debating Sam Harris very engaging. This is probably because if you took away what little of the supernatural Andrew had preserved in his version of 'catholicism' it would still stand up as something very positive and worthwhile. It's sad that Andrew's religion is totally unrepresentitive of the other billion catholics, not least the pope.

18. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48207 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 3:45 am

In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power.


Show me one official holy man in the religious establishment of your choice who preaches these 'wider' aspects but is openly skeptical to the notion of a supernatural power, never mind the specific dogmas of the church. (It doesn't count if they've been condemned to the stake!)

19. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47793 by Hip_Priest on June 5, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Fortunately my two daughters didn't undergo anything like this at school. But I have been through the same process at work with the "Operation Christmas Child" people. A more cynically nasty set preying upon the third world you would struggle to come across.

I don't think many people who put together shoe boxes realised what was being done with them. Once exposed the amount of giving dropped by around three quarters.

If you have the same sort of thing happening at school or work then lift up the stone and let people see what is underneath.


Awww, I always enjoyed making up shoe-boxes. All this time I was helping indoctrinate kids?

I seriously thought it was the other way round. I read somewhere last xmas that Jesus/God/Xmas themed gifts were banned from the boxes. To be fair, the article I read was in the type of newspaper that only ever uses the words 'political correctness' followed by 'gone mad!' so I'm more than little skeptical.


EDIT: The article I read is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415551&in_page_id=1770
And yes, they use the phrase 'political correctness gone mad'. I'm even more skeptical now I know its the Daily Mail. For anyone who isn't british, their front page story is usually related to paedophiles, celebrity sex-scandals, immigrants, gypsies or princess diana. Or any combination of the above.

20. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47365 by Hip_Priest on June 4, 2007 at 8:48 am

I think a quick reminder is in order. It's not you, personally, that people don't respect. They just don't respect your beliefs


I don't respect David - not because of his religious views but for the way he is so unashamed about his views on sexuality. I've known families torn apart because a gay person's parents have been told by their respective holy man about the sins of homosexuality. I hate the way religions have isolated sexuality from other issues (race, disability, age and even gender in some churches) as a 'question of conscience'. Its a question of bigotry David. It wouldn't be so bad if he based these views solely on scripture, thats just ignorant. But to claim that there is actual evidence that homosexuality is not moral or natural is hugely disingenuous and plain crazy. As is the claim that a homosexual lifestyle is so perverse that the secular scientific establishment needs to protect it from the world by conspiring against the publication of evidence.

21. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47320 by Hip_Priest on June 4, 2007 at 4:44 am

The lack of evidence actually fuels their beliefs, because after all there is no evidence that there isn't a God, so it is reasonable to believe. They have no problem with grasping that it is not reasonable to not to believe in something like the Holocaust, as there is substantial evidence in this regard.


It really is quite amazing. You just need to read a few of Wee Flea's posts in the Robert Winston thread for more examples of this selective skepticism. He uses vague appeals to beauty, personal experience and morality (sunsets and warm fuzzy feelings) as evidence for the specific doctrines of christianity. At the same time, however, he rejects homosexuality as bad but dimisses the lack of studies showing how homosexuality is immoral/unnatural/dangerous etc as evidence of a fundamentalist-athiestic intellectual climate where publishing such data is impossible.

22. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47311 by Hip_Priest on June 4, 2007 at 3:58 am

Man, that was quite a rant. David sure doesn't want to drop his discriminatory views on homosexuality. He's framed the discussion in such a ridiculous way:

The fundamentalist athiest scientific elite is conspiring against christians by not publishing studies that show homosexuality is immoral.

What?! Presumably it is his right to discriminate and spread bigotry that we're discriminating against.

There is no evidence that a gay lifestyle/marriage/family is somehow morally wrong. There is however lots of evidence that repressing people's sexuality by spreading these views regardless is psychologically damaging for the people involved.(Hey, just look at Ted Haggart!)

I hope members of Wee Flea's Church don't take his bigotry serious even if they don't see through his 10 arguments for christianity.

23. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46797 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Shuggy,

On closer inspection I've reached the conclusion that blogs4brownback has been completely ovetaken by people like us taking the piss engaging in a bit of satire. The new conservapedia?

http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/brownback-shows-the-new-york-times-whats-what/#comments

At least I hope so. Here are three good posts:

I am laughing so hard at all the Leftist Democrats on here sputtering in vain trying to defend the "theory" of Communistic Evolutionism.

If evolution were more than just a theory, it could provide an explanation for homosexuality as a purportedly "innate" trait. It cannot, as homosexuals cannot procreate, which is antithetical to the theory of evolution. Hence, evolution is proven wrong, and homosexuality is proven to be a lifestyle choice. Of course, you'll probably dredge up lots of so-called "scientific evidence" of homosexual behavior in other creatures besides humans. It's not convincing, of course, because those animals are all burning in Hell along with the other sinful sodomites, roundearthamentalists, copernicans, heliocentrists, liberals, and other assorted soulless atheists.

They would much prefer same sex treefroging in public, on a mailbox, while eating a sandwich made with soy or hummis or some such other gay inducing food substance. The depth of their depravity is astounding. I know this for a fact.

24. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46780 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 2:40 pm

I have come to the conclusion that One Supreme Being exists and that consciousness continues after death


Nice one. Fancy sharing with us how exactly you reached that conclusion?

by using critical thinking skills when investigating the deep questions about life.


Damn it, all this time we just needed to use our critical thinking skills. Why didn't I think of that?!

25. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #46778 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm

If anybody is interested the 'debate' has reached its conclusion. I can't say it was very interesting.

Hitchens had a dig at christainity and pointed out the absurdity of Wilson's position - that without the absolute word of god, good and bad are meaningless. Wilson replied by pointing out that with the absolute word of god, good and bad are meaningness.

26. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46718 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 9:04 am

I checked out the blogs4brownback page regarding this article: http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/brownback-shows-the-new-york-times-whats-what/#comments

The comments section is best.

One reader writes:

This sandwich was created. Lovingly. With great attention to detail. With the finest of ingredients. With a plan! And, thus, obviously, so were we.


Another refutes:
Sandwiches do not procreate, so cannot evolve.
Man does, so can.
Simple.


The reply?
We already knew that the Democrat party is obsessed with sex. It's their defining trait as a party, hedonistic lustfulness and wanton depravity. To see them extend it into their pseudo-sciences should surprise no one, frankly.


Excellent stuff.

27. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46668 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 3:43 am

If you are interested in really discussing the subject further, rather than using it as a colony to beat me.


On this issue Wee Flea is always going to be mocked and ridiculed. Nobody is going to have a 'real' discussion here with David because there is no discussion to be had. He holds bigoted views. He's wise to be evasive on this issue because he knows how ridiculous it really is.

Would any scientist be allowed to publish a study which was critical of homosexuality in today's climate?.


Not only a bigot but a conspiracy theorist.

28. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46531 by Hip_Priest on May 31, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Those aspects of evolutionary electrostatic induction theory compatible with the truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine the truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic a-zeus-ic theology posing as science.

29. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46520 by Hip_Priest on May 31, 2007 at 2:30 pm

My favourite response so far:

Sam Brownback talking about evolutionary biology. That's a bit like saying: "Here's Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations"


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMzNTY1YWJlOTZjMjAzYWFlMzE2Zjc5NzcxMGY1NDI=http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMzNTY1YWJlOTZjMjAzYWFlMzE2Zjc5NzcxMGY1NDI=

30. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46454 by Hip_Priest on May 31, 2007 at 9:55 am

I believe that sex is a gift from God designed for one man and one woman within the context of marriage. I realise that to say this will invite a chorus of ridicule. But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question? Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having sex with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?


I know that the absurdity of this statement has been covered already but I think its worth doing it again because it illustrates perfectly how dangerous Wee Flea's faith really is. It is dangerous because it isolates questions of morality from our common humanity and ethical intuitions. Human suffering (and victims of paedophilia certainly do suffer) is a terrible thing – nobody here but Wee Flea needs a magic book to confirm that. To equate homosexuality with immorality is indefensible.

Wee Flea, would you marry a gay couple or support their right to raise a child? Would you welcome them into your church? Do you agree that gay people should hold positions of power in your church?

31. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46197 by Hip_Priest on May 30, 2007 at 2:16 pm

On the subject of David's arguments from personal experience - has anyone seen Derren Brown's instant conversion? It's probably been posted somewhere on this site already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI

32. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45858 by Hip_Priest on May 29, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Fundamentalists on both sides love him.


Kettle seems to be suggesting, like many others who have commented on TGD and the 'new athiests' that (regardless of the truth-value of his claims) Dawkin's tone forces religious people into a fundamentalist position. Dawkins creates a wall between the religious and secular, he alienates moderates from the joys of science and reason, he makes those of faith feel patronized or even persecuted. A similar point is being made in James Randerson's article (also in the Guardian).

Its a very tempting way to frame the discussion but it doesn't seem to hold any truth. What these books ultimately promote is a political/intellectual/conversational climate in which evidence is paramount if you want to be taken seriously. In Sam Harris' words "Its a matter of discourse" and the only type of 'faith' that can survive and be taken seriously in the public sphere given these rules of conversation is an incredibly personal and moderate or 'wishy-washy'kind.

33. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45836 by Hip_Priest on May 29, 2007 at 11:21 am

Who's guessing that if David Robertson does reply, he'll totally ignore any polite criticism from contributors like Benjamin Michael and instead opt for an essay on how disgusting it is that Patchell called him a douchebag and imply that this abuse somehow strengthens his position.

34. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45724 by Hip_Priest on May 29, 2007 at 4:48 am

For anyone who feels that Mr Robertson (Wee Flea) is being unfairly treated, spare him the time to read the reasons he gives for believing:

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=0aa0c7bed30f38806b34a6a6ae0168ea&page=16

You may find this very challenging to your small-minded views. Luckily I have an extremely fundamentalist mindset so this stuff didn't even touch me. Those of you who haven't been so heavily indoctrinated into militant athiesm like myself however may find these arguments more appealing.

35. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #45656 by Hip_Priest on May 28, 2007 at 5:52 pm

mintcheerios writes

Moderates are the worst.


I think thats a little unfair. I definitely prefer the whining of of Chris Hedges to, say, the rantings of Ted Haggart.

I do think moderates like Hedges choose their battles quite unwisely though. In the intellectual climate that Dawkins and the like endorse (where evidence is demanded for claims of the supernatural, divine revelation, scriptural authority etc) Hedges mysterious, uber-liberal faith in a metaphorical god (for want of a better word!) is the only kind of religion that might survive relatively unscathed.

He ought to be cheering the 'new athiests' on rather than taking sides with load of people who - after reading this article at least - probably consider him hell-bound.

36. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #45307 by Hip_Priest on May 27, 2007 at 6:24 am

Oh snap! My predictions (in comment 87) were pretty good. Wilson even used his ridiculous fizzy pop analogy in the fifth instalment.

As far as I'm aware Wilson invited Hitchens to debate him so I'm guessing he chose the title "Is Christianity good for the world?"

If so this guy is even more pathetic than I first thought. If you seriously believe that the only intellectually defensible way to define good and bad is through an explicitly literal reading of the Christian bible then this question is utterly meaningless. It's like asking is niceness nice and nastiness nasty? Hmm...

Lets concede for a moment that Wilson is right when he asserts that life, morality, responsibility, good, bad, happiness, suffering, reason, logic and debate are completely meaningless given 'atheistic and materialistic assumptions' and humour him when he explains why his foundation for these things - fundamental christianism - is so much better. Read his fifth instalment but prepare to be underwhelmed.

Money quote:

When I said that Jesus is good for the world because he is the life of the world, you just tossed this away. You said, "You cannot possibly 'know' this. Nor can you present any evidence for it."

Actually, I believe I can present evidence for what I know. But evidence comes to us like food, and that is why we say grace over it. And we are supposed to eat it, not push it around on the plate—and if we don't give thanks, it never tastes right. But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order. The engineering that went into ankles. The taste of beer. That Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, just like he said. A woman's neck. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt. Forgiveness of sin. Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning. Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist). The ocean at night with a full moon. Delta blues. The peacock that lives in my yard. Sunrise, in color. Baptizing babies. The pleasure of sneezing. Eye contact. Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. You may say none of this tastes right to you. But suppose you were to bow your head and say grace over all of it. Try it that way.


Why on earth is Hitchens wasting his time debating this loon?

37. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44391 by Hip_Priest on May 24, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I think this guy had better persuade some of his fellow theists that they actually worship a "human concept" simply a "name we give to our belief that life has meaning" before he starts arguing the case for his "god".

Who else thinks they would laugh in his face?

38. Welsh Hindus fight to save Shambo the sacred bull

Comment #40196 by Hip_Priest on May 13, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I'm surprised the disease has not spread right across the country given the number of reporters that must have been in close contact with the holy cow and his loony keepers. This ridiculous story is everywhere.

39. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #40194 by Hip_Priest on May 13, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Wilson is a bore. He's got the one argument and he's prepared to use it over and over again. I'm not kidding - read his blog.

He's defined morality in such an absolutist way that it is impossible to seriously comment on it without believing in something supernatural. Quite simply he's denying that athiests can even enter in a discussion about ethics. It doesn't make for a very enlightening discussion. Here is my prediction for the rest of the debate:

Hitchens: Christianity is responsible for suffering in the world (eg discrimination of gays, the spread of misinformation about condoms in Africa etc)

Wilson: What does it matter, given you athiestic assumptions, whether people suffer or not? Are we not, after all, simply chemical reactions, a bunch of bouncy bouncy atoms - all bound to a common oblivion? (Cue humorous fizzy pop analogy)


Of course christianity is good for the world if your notions of good and bad are completely defined in christian terms. The whole discussion is totally bizarre. What can either man say in a debate that Wilson denies even exists?

40. A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

Comment #38209 by Hip_Priest on May 7, 2007 at 8:24 am

I'm sure Dawkins once described the guardian as one of britain's "least disreputable" newspapers. Does that count as an endorsement? (The guardian is roughly centre-left) He's also openly critical of the Bush administration I think - but then again who in their right mind isn't.

41. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38127 by Hip_Priest on May 7, 2007 at 4:12 am

This frames the debate in a pleasingly symmetrical way. Over on that side are the insane religious fanatics who fly jets into skyscrapers and march around with signs saying "God Hates Fags." Over there are fanatical atheists. Between the two extremes are sensible moderates who take the Goldilocks approach to faith and reason. Not too hot. Not too cold. Lukewarm, please, keep it lukewarm.


What a perfect summary of the vacuous 'athiest fundamentalism' argument. How many articles posted on this site fall into this category?

42. A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

Comment #38034 by Hip_Priest on May 6, 2007 at 6:59 pm

This reminds me of a recent post by Dinesh D'Souza on his blog called "Why Darwin scares conservatives - when he shouldn't"

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/05/04/why-darwin-scares-conservatives-when-he-shouldnt/

Yuk. Trust D'Souza to read evolution and misunderstand it enough to endorse a brand of social darwinism.

43. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #37991 by Hip_Priest on May 6, 2007 at 3:26 pm

this article makes my stomach turn.


Seriously? That's quite a reaction - can you explain what scares you about a more vocal secularist 'lobby'? Gay marriage or embryonic research? I'd like to know.

44. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #37187 by Hip_Priest on May 3, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Andrew's Final Response:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/peace_now.html

His most persuasive arguement is that 'faith' is so inextricably linked with society and the human condition that Sam's 'aims' are at best utopian and at worst dangerous. That may be the case if Sam's aims were those of Stalin and Pol Pot; to enforce athiesm on the masses. But they're not! Sam simply asks that we do not treat blind unquestioning faith with any more respect than we treat atrology etc. This is hardly a bloody revolution he's talking about.

The rules of conversation Sam endorses do not breed fundamentalism but rather the vague faith Andrew embraces that, by definiton, must be steeped in mystery and doubt.

45. Are You There, God? It's Me, Hitchens

Comment #36271 by Hip_Priest on April 30, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Gross.

46. In the beginning

Comment #33930 by Hip_Priest on April 22, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Only a handful of the world's 2 billion Christians will be able to make sense of his intricate intellectual arguments


So that's why we don't understand his vague ramblings intellectual arguments. They're just so damn intricate.

47. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33928 by Hip_Priest on April 22, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Spinoza, humanists aren't part of an 'athiest organization'. The description in this article "humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice." is pretty accurate I think. Many people would like to be part of an organization that stresses such important things as social justice but don't want to believe preposterous dogma, and humanism provides an alternative to religion.

48. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33916 by Hip_Priest on April 22, 2007 at 4:33 pm

astephan, thats not really the subject of the interview. But I still think its a safe bet the religion = child abuse topic will come up.

49. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33679 by Hip_Priest on April 21, 2007 at 4:54 am

I wonder how he chooses which dogma to drop for allegory, and which to keep? I quite liked the god's 'miracle quota' explanation, where god is a cosmic Gordon Brown writing his budget in the sky. It would simply not be prudent to answer all prayers or make an earthly appearence outside of a grilled cheese sandwich. I guess the god of the old testiment must have left quite a deficit.

50. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33610 by Hip_Priest on April 20, 2007 at 5:41 pm

In all honesty, the problem of objective morality does trouble me because I can't help but conceive of certain things as being objectively right or wrong. I am about to read Mark Hauser's "Moral Minds." Maybe it will provide some insights. Anyone else read it?


Don't bother. Its because you're created in the image of god that you feel things are objectively right or wrong. But if you must waste your time looking for explanations in a pesky science book... Nah seriously, keep us posted. I was thinking of getting it I think I saw it advertised on the edge.

More Pages: 1 2 | Next