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

Comment #73897 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm

733. Comment #73894 by Bonzai on September 26, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Steveroot,
My mistake. Where is "the Good, the bad and the ugly" section? I never knew such a section even exist.

No biggie! Look almost directly to the left of this text! (a couple images above Sam Harris)
Steve

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

Comment #73888 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 1:59 pm

725. Comment #73882 by Bonzai on September 26, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Veronique wrote:

"All religites, everyone of them. Disgusting, really."

That is a very sweeping and unwarranted generalization. I think most of us who have read the posts of CHeard on this thread would strongly disagree.

V was speaking of the twits quoted in the "Ugly" section of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". I agree with her, as it isn't a generalization at all- it's a complete sample.
Steve

753. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73875 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 1:01 pm

208. Comment #73848 by Dianelos Georgoudis on September 26, 2007 at 10:44 am

I justify my belief in God by its superior (in comparison to naturalism) explanatory power, among other things. The explanatory power of the God hypothesis implies a series of predictions. Some of these predictions apply to my life here and now, and some to my afterlife. If any of these predictions failed to obtain it would amount to evidence against my theistic belief.

Stop! Stop! I can't take it anymore! :-0
Steve

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

Comment #73871 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 12:32 pm

717. Comment #73868 by revcort on September 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm

In a way, it's inevitable. People are becoming more and more wicked and more and more God-hating. The venom I see here is mild.

People on this forum do not "hate god". It is impossible, and unhealthy, to hate something that doesn't exist. I think it is safe to say what is hated is the attempt by others to run our lives based on what is clearly insufficient evidence. What's more, wickedness does not come from failure to believe in a particular imaginary friend; it comes from other sources and the religious are not necessarily immune. I believe you would find that most of us are as concerned with "wickedness" (human rights violations, environmental degradation, unscrupulous business practices... to name three that come to mind) as you are. We (you and those who believe as you do, and I and those that believe the same as I do) would be better off in my opinion working to fight some of those things, and spending less time worrying about who shares our beliefs about things that should be private.

BTW, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! :-)
Steve

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

Comment #73816 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 9:01 am

699. Comment #73812 by revcort on September 26, 2007 at 8:48 am
So, it only leaves us at one point. I can't absolutely prove He DOES exist, and neither can you absolutely prove He DOESN'T exist. So, we're both operating on a kind of faith. My faith is that He is real and my death will actually be the beginning of life. Your faith is that He is not real and your death will simply mean you cease to exist. If you're right, it won't matter that I've been deceived all my life. But if I'm right, well, I would tell you to pray that I'm not right, but what good would that do? I guess you should keep trying to prove He doesn't exist- either that or seek Him to find out whether He does exist.

Oh, good... Pascal's wager. Now we're getting somewhere! (not)
Steve

756. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73745 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 4:01 am

Bill Maher said it pretty succinctly:
"(This) religion is batshit."
Steve

757. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73688 by steveroot on September 25, 2007 at 8:56 pm

I dated a girl in college who wound up valedictorian with a double major, then earned a PhD and taught at a university. She suffered a head injury and now does "nursing home ministry", saving (she believes) the oldsters before they lose their chance of getting into the country club. She talks like this comic strip and begs me to accept Jesus... yada, yada...
Pathetic.
Steve

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

Comment #73654 by steveroot on September 25, 2007 at 6:23 pm

668. Comment #73649 by revcort on September 25, 2007 at 5:47 pm

revcort 666.....sorry, can't help myself.


Ha! Yeah, I noticed that too, but I'm not superstitious. (and the crowd groans in disbelief)

Well, as long as people seem to have a sense of humor...

Numerology of the Beast
666_____The Number of the Beast
667_____The Neighbor of the Beast
660_____Approximate Number of the Beast
DCLXVI_____Roman Numeral of the Beast
666.0000_____High Precision Number of the Beast
0.666_____Number of the Millibeast
/666_____Common Denominator of the Beast
666*sqrt(-1)_____Imaginary Number of the Beast
sin(666)_____Transcendental Number of the Beast
1010011010_____Binary Number of the Beast
6666 6666 6666 6666_____Credit Card Number of the Beast
666-66-6666_____Social Security Number and Taxpayer ID of the Beast
6-6666-6666-6_____ISBN Number of the Beast's Book
1-666_____Area Code of the Beast
00666_____Zip Code of the Beast
66 & 66/100%_____Purity of Beast's Soap
1-900-666-0666_____Live Beasts! One-on-one pacts! Call Now! Only $6.66 per minute!
$665.95_____Retail Price of the Beast
$699.25_____Price of the Beast plus 5% state sales tax
$769.95_____Price of the Beast with all accessories and replacement soul
$656.66_____Walmart Price of the Beast
$646.66_____Next week's Walmart Price of the Beast
Phillips 666_____Gasoline of the Beast
Route 666_____Way of the Beast
666 F_____Oven Temperature of the Beast
666k_____Retirement Plan of the Beast
666 mg_____Minimum Daily Requirement of the Beast
6.66%_____6-year CD interest rate, First Beast of Hell National Bank, $666 minimum deposit
DSM-666_____(revised) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast
Lotus 6-6-6_____Spreadsheet of the Beast
Word 6.66_____Word Processor of the Beast
i66686_____CPU of the Beast
666i_____BMW of the Beast
6 iron, 6 iron, 6 iron_____Contents of Beast's Golf Bag

(After Jill Harvey, Andover Newton Theological School. Submitted by Alice Haugen. Contributions from Tim Romano and Norman Hinton.)
From www.dogchurch.org ("The Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua")
Steve

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

Comment #73580 by steveroot on September 25, 2007 at 11:06 am

23. Comment #73356 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 8:40 pm
While I was reading some of the comments at the Des Moines Register for this article, I came upon this one that is just too good to miss:

If your (sic) still silly enough to think the Bible was meant to be taken in a literal manor, then rebut these passages...

Which room do we take the bible in?
(John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions...)
Steve

760. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73159 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 9:59 am

4. Comment #73048 by Richard Morgan on September 24, 2007 at 1:00 am
(The whole article is excellent and so complete it's almost a non sequitur.)

"Non sequitur", Latin for "that which does not follow", doesn't seem to apply here. Am I missing something?

Excellent article.
Steve

761. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73153 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 9:39 am

34. Comment #73149 by Yorker on September 24, 2007 at 9:22 am

No, the English is correct. The reference is to the name of a program, a single item.

Technically, the name of the program should be in quotes (or bold or italics...) since the words in the title are "mentioned", not "used". FWIW.
Steve

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

Comment #73150 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 9:26 am

609. Comment #73131 by revcort on September 24, 2007 at 8:17 am

Here is my simple question, and this should settle the entire issue...
Do you believe God to be sovereign? Omnipotent? And if so, can He not preserve for a people writings that have come from Him? Can He not allow them to "think" whatever they want to think their reason for writing it was? Can He not further, even in allowing them to write their own thoughts, sovereignly direct what the finished product would be?

Then why did "He" allow the final product, as Hitchens and (I believe) Dawkins have said, to be so poorly written? And nothing new (no "updates") for 2000+ years? Give me a break.
Steve

763. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73134 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 8:24 am

72. Comment #73120 by Bertybob on September 24, 2007 at 7:13 am
Technical question -
How do you get your quotes in the posts nice boxes?

Like THIS? :-)
Click on "[Comment Posting Guidelines]" above your entry and follow the instructions for "blockquote text".
Steve

764. Out of Thin Air

Comment #72983 by steveroot on September 23, 2007 at 5:18 pm

1. Comment #72913 by LawJik on September 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The National Geographic story that they seemed to be obsessed with is online here:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html.

Seems like other wing nuts have attacked the same story.. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

I got 404'd on the NG site, but god let me see this on AiG:

Darwin was partially right about natural selection explaining the origin of species. But because he didn't pay attention to the Bible (but rather rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator), he didn't understand that speciation is simply the God-designed way for the original supernaturally created kinds to produce wonderful variety and perpetuate themselves in the changing environments of a sin-cursed world that would be radically changed by a global year-long Flood at the time of Noah.

I'm glad *that* got cleared up!
Steve

765. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72981 by steveroot on September 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm

57. Comment #72931 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm
chabry, that's either Salman Rushie, or a very convincing replica. Who's the guy on the other side who, of the three, seemed to be the one who was least overjoyed with what Maher was saying?

I'm pretty sure that's Salman Rushdie. No idea who the others are. Who's the woman? Nice tats! ;-)
Steve

766. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72874 by steveroot on September 23, 2007 at 9:49 am

49. Comment #72847 by laroquois on September 23, 2007 at 8:25 am
Comment #72741 by ergaster on September 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Best response is, "God Only Knows."

That reminds me somewhat unpleasantly of: "...god will recognize his own."

I've always thought that the reason the hospitals ask for religion to be specified is well-intentioned. Not that the medical world will screw up, though undeniably it happens at times, but patients *do* die, sometimes unexpectedly. Since a fair number of hospital personnel and patients suffer the same delusion (that it matters), the common desire is to get the appropriate magic spell. I doubt most hospitals are trying to proselytize. "None" would generally be the best response, as seems to be the consensus here.
Steve

767. A Table for One

Comment #72767 by steveroot on September 22, 2007 at 8:40 pm

21. Comment #71165 by Silviu Gherman on September 18, 2007 at 1:18 am
This video illustrates best the arguments against atheists.
...
So please, treat every departed human being with some sort of empathy.

It is a fallacy of relevance to say an argument is invalid because it seems (or is) mean-spirited.

And once you're dead, you're dead. Was Hitchens too hard on Jerry Falwell?
(Psssst: "sympathy", not "empathy")
Steve

768. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72715 by steveroot on September 22, 2007 at 12:20 pm

20. Comment #72681 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 8:55 am
I received an appointment letter to see an ENT specialist today and the out-patient form has a space for religion.

That's a good place for it. :-)

Seriously, my eyes are still watering from watching this clip. That was probably the best put together essay on the foolishness of religion I've seen. Succinct, yet with plenty of serious meat within a howlingly funny delivery.

Now, as to the form with space for religion (it will just about fit, won't it?)- I agree with Dr. B. In addition to the privacy issue, there is the possibility that someone in the healthcare chain will identify you as "difficult". That could be a problem if it becomes part of the wallpaper in life-threatening situations. As a "provider" myself, I know the temptation to be more expedient with "PIA" patients (I like to think it's no more than a temptation!).
Steve

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

Comment #72350 by steveroot on September 20, 2007 at 7:36 pm

495. Comment #72325 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Well, you know, I guess it's possible, God once spoke through an ass (donkey). :D

28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"

What the??!!?? God is a *VENTRILOQUIST* too? I'd better re-think this atheist shit.
Steve
Uh... don't suppose you have a recording of that? Tape, wire... wax cylinder?

770. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #72026 by steveroot on September 20, 2007 at 7:05 am

13. Comment #71504 by Goat Boy on September 19, 2007 at 12:20 am
It's a bit childish I know, but about 1.13 from the end, the subtitles mention "The Southern Baptits Convention".

Suck it, Jesus!

Steve

771. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #72022 by steveroot on September 20, 2007 at 7:02 am

25. Comment #71857 by 82abhilash on September 19, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Let me speak metaphorically here. If the two groups where two different types of food, American Christian fundamentalists are like rotten vegetables while Iraqi Muslim extremists are like nuclear waste.

Which would you eat, if you have just these two to pick from?

After transubstantiation, they're both equally unpalatable. ;-)
Steve

772. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71834 by steveroot on September 19, 2007 at 6:27 pm

49. Comment #71692 by IceFreak2000 on September 19, 2007 at 1:24 pm
@sillysighbean #42

Whoopi is obviously a Jatravartid (I always thought her name wasn't particularly Terran)

A reasonable guess; however, those in the know will recall that she is really an El-Aurian female named Guinan. She's dealt with "Q" and the Borg- the god of the bible is small potatoes by comparison.
Steve

773. Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god

Comment #71026 by steveroot on September 17, 2007 at 2:46 pm

"The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions, an official said."

I wonder if they were sacrificed in front of _the passengers_ !!

"Folks, we can now accommodate a few more standby passengers!"
Steve

774. Evolutionary Design

Comment #70949 by steveroot on September 17, 2007 at 10:03 am

The selection pressure is provided by the suitability of the organism for the prevailing conditions, *not* some entity picking out what seems best.
Steve

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

Comment #70943 by steveroot on September 17, 2007 at 9:46 am

63. Comment #70935 by Teratornis on September 17, 2007 at 9:38 am

Is it also intellectual suicide to claim with absolute certainty that there are no leprechauns?

I haven't seen much intellectual harm resulting from all the people who commit intellectual suicide over the Santa Claus question.

Good one. I loved the parenthetical "(attention Sam Harris)" as well.
Steve

776. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #70449 by steveroot on September 15, 2007 at 2:27 pm

4. Comment #70415 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 11:44 am

This quote comes from Doc Mtusi, an official in Zimbabwe's Finance Ministry, interviewed in the Cape Times; and reproduced in the latest edition of "The Week":

The unpatriotic hoarding of food gives the impression that we have a problem, which clearly we haven't, except in the South African media's mind. We do not call it starving, we call it fasting. Fasting is actually good for you. Lots of famous people have fasted for the benefit of their people. Gandhi, for instance. In our case, the people themselves will be encouraged to fast, thereby strengthening themselves against the onslaught of colonial imperialism. We have no objection in principle to people eating. Those of us in government all eat, but only because persons in our important positions have to. What we must guard against is the belief that people have the right to break the law if they're hungry.

High parody, that! Doc Mtusi must be a field correspondent for The Onion!
Steve

777. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69799 by steveroot on September 12, 2007 at 8:36 pm

This isn't exactly a "Flea" in the sense that term is being used here, but since it is a response to The God Delusion and God Is Not Great, according to the article in the link, I thought it might be of interest. From today's Daily Herald: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=36131

Strobel "wrote about his faith-finding journey in The Case for Christ, which uses arguments based on logic to present his belief that Christianity is true."

The book reported on here, The Case for the Real Jesus, "...takes apart what Strobel identifies as six major challenges to contemporary Christianity." The author "was a known atheist who took it upon himself as an investigative journalist to do his homework. The rest is history."

Sounds like a "must read". Not.
Steve

778. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69760 by steveroot on September 12, 2007 at 3:28 pm

2272. Comment #69754 by PaulEmecz on September 12, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Goldy:
First time I had sex - I didn't know what to do but things seem to have taken care of themselves. My body responded in the way it was meant to

Way too much information! ;-)

Steveroot,
Clearly you have values, and these are subjective, but you think 'So what? I still have them'.

You are making unwarranted assumptions about what I think.

Do you not have to do some sort of mental gymnastics, as people have been on this site, and really behave as though morality is objective for most of the time.

None I'm aware of. Yes, there are *quite* a lot of mental gymnastics on this thread! This is how I benefit by not dealing with Pascal's wager. I have better things to do with my life.

Surely you find yourself treating morality as prescriptive and doing so whilst at the same time recognising that morality is subjective must cause some intellectual conflict. It must.

Please don't let your imagination run away with you.

I have been honest about the difficulties of holding theist beliefs. Please be honest about the inconsistencies in holding atheist beliefs.

Thank you for your honesty, but I will not be badgered into admitting anything of the kind. I'm sorry you find difficulties in holding your theist beliefs.
Steve

779. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69601 by steveroot on September 11, 2007 at 8:48 pm

2252. Comment #69522 by PaulEmecz on September 11, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Talking with people on this site, I have a picture of how it is for an atheist.

Atheists are regular people, with normal lives, who don't waste the precious time given them by pandering to an imaginary boss.

An honest atheist response is that morality doesn't exist.

Oh- so I don't know right from wrong; I've raised two successful, well-adjusted children; I've been married to my only wife for 25 years now; I take care of other people (some I don't know). How can this be?

I could not be an atheist.

No one here said you have to be. We simply won't believe the same things you are content to believe unless we see the evidence (Clara Peller:"Where's the beef?"). And we certainly aren't willing to be controlled by people who subscribe to the imaginary supervisor.

...how do you cope with the inconsistencies of being an atheist?

I think these "inconsistencies are fig newtons of your imagination.
Steve

780. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69590 by steveroot on September 11, 2007 at 7:53 pm

30. Comment #69578 by k1mgy on September 11, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Plastic Jesus. Emmy.

Plastic Jesus... Emmy.

Hmmm. Tough choice.

"You can buy him pink and pleasant
he comes on a phosphorescent
pedestal of abalone shell...
Goin' ninety I'm not wary
'cause I've got my virgin Mary
guaranteein' I won't go to hell."

Or- http://www.reverendcolin.com/PlasticJesus.html
Steve

781. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69488 by steveroot on September 11, 2007 at 1:06 pm

2230. Comment #69338 by Dianelos Georgoudis on September 11, 2007 at 12:03 am


Well, obviously, he is explaining *his* reasoning about this.

We have different definitions of "reasoning", and they are mutually exclusive.

Oh, I think I will put the evidence for the existence of God in a box and send it to you by post ;-)

Great! Judging by many of your posts, I'll expect a very large box containing not much. ;-)
Steve

782. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69318 by steveroot on September 10, 2007 at 8:55 pm

2222. Comment #69314 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 7:49 pm
All fine points, steveroot. I'm arguing something a little different, having to do with authority and morality.

A good God would have to vanish.

I'll leave the heavy stuff to you, Dr. B. You and a number of others are doing a fine job here. I wasn't really following the thread- I check in from time to time and - sorry to say - Paul's last post did sound a bit almost-desperate (Goldy said it & I was thinking it); I just had to add my low-order comments. I am not a "philosopher"- I just slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;-)
Keep up the good work!
Steve

783. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69311 by steveroot on September 10, 2007 at 7:28 pm

2219. Comment #69309 by PaulEmecz on September 10, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Dr B,
It is possible that there is an all-loving, all-powerful creator. It is also possible that there is a God, but (yada, yada, yada)...

Please correct me if I have missed something, but I don't think anyone here is saying these things are *not possible*, but rather that there is no good evidence for them.

Why can we not say "Let us reason well, as this is the thing that singles us out, that defines our human nature".

I like the "reasoning well" part. What does this have to do with *your* point of view?

I'm a long way from giving evidence to support belief in the existence of a truly superior God.

Fine, but it's been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. From what I see on this thread, after literally thousands of posts, there is none. Just discussion.

Hypothetically though, if such a God did create the world, why would it be wrong to wish to fulfil such a God's plan for intelligent, reasoning life in the universe?

This sounds like a watered-down variation of Pascal's wager. Nothing would be wrong with such a wish, but it would appear you have to know what god's plan IS. Even Christopher Hitchens (if I read him right) wouldn't object to you trying to fulfill *your* idea of god's plan; but please don't try to model our society on it. For what it's worth, I don't object either. But that gets us back to the evidence problem.

I don't have time for this.
Steve

784. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68381 by steveroot on September 7, 2007 at 3:36 am

1559. Comment #68375 by BillySands on September 7, 2007 at 3:16 am
Hi Epeeist,

Loved the picture of the monkey spanking the creationist.

Ham also mentioned a fossil spark plug as evidence of a young earth.
It just gets wierder and wierder

What? You doubt the evidence of fossilized tire tracks and human footprints- proving that early man and automobiles co-existed? It is certain that man rode in cars.
And I thought it was creationists who liked to spank the monkey!;-)
Steve

785. 'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' Released on DVD

Comment #68045 by steveroot on September 5, 2007 at 8:06 pm

31. Comment #68037 by windfall on September 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Wow, has anybody seen THIS?!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dQ5KJ8rgA&mode=related&search=

(Ted Haggard admits he bought Meth from gay prostitute)

I like the body language: when asked point-blank if he did certain things, he says "no" and starts shaking his head but the motion morphs into a nod!
Steve

786. 'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' Released on DVD

Comment #67979 by steveroot on September 5, 2007 at 1:59 pm

4. Comment #67850 by CJ22 on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 am

...Just check your DVD and/or TV is capable of duel-format (most modern machines will be).

I love a good fight! Swords or pistols at 20 paces? :-)
Steve

787. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67977 by steveroot on September 5, 2007 at 1:48 pm

45. Comment #67974 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 1:25 pm

aitchkay -
I'm a bit intrigued as to what WWFSMD might stand for (the FSM part is obvious). Could you elucidate?

Does "What Would... ?" help any? :-)
Steve

788. Pig study sheds new light on the colonisation of Europe by early farmers

Comment #67797 by steveroot on September 4, 2007 at 8:44 pm

1. Comment #67796 by Damien White on September 4, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Oh, please. Everyone knows that pigs were genetic modifications of humans made by the ancient Atlanteans. That's why Jews and Muslims don't eat them.

Damn! I just spit out my BLT on my keyboard!
Steve

789. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67665 by steveroot on September 4, 2007 at 8:53 am

19. Comment #67558 by Solarium Solaris on September 3, 2007 at 7:39 pm
"Several lawmakers and members of a conservative Muslim political party threw flowers and other items at her and called for her death."

Am I missing something here? Calling for the poor girls death whilst flinging flowers at her? Seems like a very mixed message.

It's not the flowers- it's the pots they're in!
Steve

790. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67388 by steveroot on September 3, 2007 at 7:54 am

29. Comment #67315 by Dimitar on September 3, 2007 at 3:41 am
A Minor point for Steveroot,
The Parthenon was a Bank (ok, a treasury, but it sounds better). Its inspiration was primarily money, and the defeat of the Persians.
A minor rebuttal for Dimitar ;-)
I thought it was built as a temple of Athena. It was also later used as a treasury, a christian church and a mosque. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon
Steve

791. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #67309 by steveroot on September 3, 2007 at 3:27 am

39. Comment #67299 by leigh on September 3, 2007 at 3:10 am
Could someone explain the naked eye distance thing to me?

It's simple: with your naked eye you can see any heavenly body that's on the dome.;-)
Steve

792. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67302 by steveroot on September 3, 2007 at 3:13 am

Of the most awesome creations made my man, most were inspired by God – the pyramids, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, the temples of India, St Paul's Cathedral and the works of Michelangelo.

Missing a punctuation mark, my man? ;-)

We forgot a few: the Parthenon in Athens, the Baha'i Temple in Wilmette, Illinois, and others too numerous to mention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_architecture
And that's just architecture.

But... which god(s) are they inspired by?
Steve

793. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #67289 by steveroot on September 3, 2007 at 2:51 am

90. Comment #67284 by irate_atheist on September 3, 2007 at 2:37 am
"Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa" - now there's a scenario I'd pay good money to avoid watching.

Oh, did I misinterpret the headline? Sorry.

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw about 35 years ago: a guy is going into a bar with a dead girl over his shoulder and the barkeep says, "Sorry, we don't serve necros." ;-)
Steve

794. Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

Comment #67283 by steveroot on September 3, 2007 at 2:34 am

I want it for my avatar!

Once again, special (I *would* say "kid-glove", but are goats OK?) treatment for muslims. Based on respect, of course.
Steve

795. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67151 by steveroot on September 2, 2007 at 8:25 am

173. Comment #67145 by steve99 on September 2, 2007 at 7:35 am
(Off topic, but can anyone tell me how to put a picture up with your posts? I have searched (or so I thought) everywhere on this site, but can find no such facility).

Passing it on...
1) click on your name (bold text) at the top of one of your posts. This gets you into your Profile.
2) click on "User Control Panel" in the upper left.
3) click on the "Profile" tab.
4) click on "edit avatar".
Note the restrictions on image size, and you're in business!
Steve

796. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67148 by steveroot on September 2, 2007 at 7:46 am

158. Comment #67118 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 2:41 am
This is posted on Vickers' web site.

...her first name, Salley (about which she is often asked, and which can cause problems on computer searches for her books), is spelled with an 'e' because it is the Irish for 'willow' (from the Latin: salix, salicis) as in the W.B.Yeats poem, 'Down by the salley gardens'.

Well! That explains the sudden need to run to the medicine cabinet after reading her drivel; another -very- subliminal suggestion (missed by me, as usual). She *IS* rather a pill, isn't she?;-)
Steve

797. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67098 by steveroot on September 1, 2007 at 11:36 pm

147. Comment #67094 by mmurray on September 1, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Is this Salley Vickers the author ?

http://www.salleyvickers.com
Can't be:

"Her prose flows effortlessly, carrying the reader along on a gentle stream of consciousness, while the character of (Richard Dawkins) is so intricately crafted we feel we know him better than he knows himself"
Ilone Amos, Scotland on Sunday
Steve ;-)

798. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67045 by steveroot on September 1, 2007 at 2:10 pm

124. Comment #67042 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 1:41 pm

I just figured, if Salley is entitled to cherry-pick from the Good Book, then I'm entitled to cherry-pick her review.

"THIS BOOK IS A PIECE OF SHIT" is clearly her deeper meaning.

I don't think you have to claim that entitlement here. It is obviously a subliminal message, and it worked, too, because I came away with that feeling. But I didn't see it 'til you pointed it out. That, plus the bit about having to kill me, answers my question. I need to get out more- most of my time is spent looking down little holes through a microscope; it's harder to see the BIG picture!
Ciao!
Steve

799. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67038 by steveroot on September 1, 2007 at 12:52 pm

81. Comment #66963 by Richard Morgan on September 1, 2007 at 5:50 am
avatar ("Everything I say is a lie.")

Last year Cornwell wrote an article from the point of view of God

And he so misrepresented Me that I forbade him ever to speak in My name again. Using one of my Angels is a cheap form of revenge.

Richard, you are on a roll! First the excellent visual representation of the "liar paradox"*, then a nicely-constructed limerick, now extremely stingy sarcasm. Well-done, sir!

Dr. Benway: Did you used to work for the CIA? ;-)
Steve

800. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66855 by steveroot on August 31, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Nice of them to enrich the chickens with sin before donating them to the poor. "Sinfully delicious"? Wonder if there's trans-fats in there...
Steve