










1. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza
Comment #99878 by boblin on December 17, 2007 at 6:16 pm
This debate is infuriating - I've reached part 9 and I'm desparate for Dennet to land a meaningful blow, but he's so spoilt for choice it seems his head's spinning.
My personal favourite so far is when Dinesh 'There's Obviously a God' D'Souza ridicules the author humble enough to describe his multiple universe theories as fantasy. IT'S AN OPEN GOAL DANIEL!..STICK IT IN THE NET!..DO IT NOW MAN!...ARGGHHHH!
2. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance
Comment #49374 by boblin on June 11, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Heh - realising the religious brain drain is a threat to the economy - if that doesn't tempt the politicians away from pandering to christian voters, nothing will.
3. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate
Comment #48124 by boblin on June 6, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Comment #48097 by TheHardProblem: Also, nice of you to call it 'hitchens greatest hits', terminology not unknown to certain critics of Sam Harris. At least we know who you are now.
4. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate
Comment #48095 by boblin on June 6, 2007 at 3:05 pm
On that point (Comment#48088), is it not rather unbalanced to post a video of Hitchens 'greatest hits' from this debate (even parts 1-7 chop out hedges contribution at the lectern)? This was the last place I expected to find people worshipping.
Comment #46232 by boblin on May 30, 2007 at 4:10 pm
A point that struck me as a little odd - Prager's confident assertion that lack of population growth is a secular flaw of Western European society. The Family Planning chapter in the Selfish Gene springs to mind.
6. Der Digitale Planet (lecture)
Comment #33865 by boblin on April 22, 2007 at 10:05 am
Does anyone know when this lecture took place?
7. A debate on people who profess no religion
Comment #33432 by boblin on April 20, 2007 at 5:15 am
Here's the quote from Archbishop Sentamu:
"Religious and non-religious people need to recognise the absolute mystery of existance, and by mystery I don't mean the unexplained, but the question that persists beyond the possible explanation. Wittgenstein put it wonderfully when he said 'Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is'".
So God did it, and we're rats in god's maze. Presumably all the things that exist and can't ask 'why?' are teaching props, here solely for our benefit. They don't think the sun orbits the earth any more, but they think the whole universe revolves around man.
8. The Most Hated Family in America
Comment #29780 by boblin on April 4, 2007 at 4:33 pm
According to the Phelps, accidents, natural disasters, disease - all are Gods will, a deserved punishment for some past sin. You get hit by a bus, you're going to hell. So why the sympathy from Shirley when God smote that kid with a drink? He's been up to something - he should be grounded.
Comment #29771 by boblin on April 4, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The ego has landed! The agnostic accuses both atheist and theist of arrogance and a lack of humility, while speaking with an air of utter superiority over both, as if fence-sitting is the ultimate virtue. Infuriating.
10. If only gay sex caused global warming
Comment #27111 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 7:09 am
Yes Toivo - did you calculate that 'free riders' beat 'bucket fillers' in the game of life, and adopt the strategy? That's my 'bucket filler' genes down the pan.
11. If only gay sex caused global warming
Comment #27098 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 6:18 am
Understood. Nothing wrong with it as a conciousness raiser though - perhaps Mark1958 thought it might encourage people to think outside the box.
12. If only gay sex caused global warming
Comment #27093 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 5:59 am
The gay thing is an eyecatching hook to reel in the readers. The true gist of the article is remniscent of RD's 'middle world' references.
13. If only gay sex caused global warming
Comment #27085 by boblin on March 23, 2007 at 5:35 am
I agree with MartinSGill - it's not a declaration of homophobia, it's just an example of the kind of topic that gets some people hot under the collar in the US, while global warming does not (no pun intended with the collar thing).
I think it's well written. I also don't really see a problem with it being a 'commentary on the authors perceptions of our reasons for failing to respond to global warming'. Is that kind of thing banned around here?? I'm sure there'll be a 'substantive piece on the evidence of global warming' knocking around this site somewhere for those who prefer dry facts to an entertaining and accessible read.