51. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29342 by fonex_86 on April 2, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Professor Dawkins,

Thank you for your post above on the definition(s) of postmodernism. It most certainly clarified the issue for me. I guess all those definitions eventually boil down to

Postmodernism = Garbage

52. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29340 by fonex_86 on April 2, 2007 at 3:36 pm

so what youre saying is, that because i dont communicate the same way as you, with the same goals, i will be dismissed? no big deal, it just confirms most of what ive been saying, directly and indirectly. im not here to play cards, kids.

This raving lunatic reminds me of the sickos in the This Modern World strip. Yes, september, you're raving, and as such, you seem like a lunatic. Clear enough to you?

53. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29245 by fonex_86 on April 2, 2007 at 8:08 am

postmodernism
noun

A late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of "art."

Is this what everyone takes to be "postmodernism", or are there more strings attached? Excuse my ignorance, but I must admit I'm not familiar with the term...

Could someone be kind enough to explain?

54. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28997 by fonex_86 on April 1, 2007 at 5:36 am

I am well aware that there is a religious right in America, that it is eroding the Constitution, and hindering the advancement of science. It is indeed well-funded and politically focused. I am willing to stand beside anyone who cares to fight these religious fanatics at any time. Nothing could be further from the truth than the claim that I object to reasoned criticism of them, or of my country. My problem with Dawkins is, not that he criticizes, but that his criticism is not reasonable. One of his favorite hobbies, for example, is equating the religious right in America with the Taliban. The number of times he does this in "The God Delusion" is hardly limited to "one incident." Rather, he repeats it over and over, like a mantra. The religious right in America is not, however, like the Taliban. The problem with this claim of Dawkins is not that it is criticism of the US and, as an American I am thin-skinned and unwilling to hear reasoned criticism of my own country. The problem with this claim of Dawkins is that it is factually false, and obviously so to anyone who takes the time to actually think about it, assuming they have some rudimentary awareness, not based on exclusive reliance on one-sided propaganda, of the reality of the Taliban and of the religious right in America.

The religious right is not like the Taliban only in the sense that they don't kill people who disagree with them -- or at least, not yet. Do you have to get bitten by a rabid dog before you can call it for what it is?

You claim that Dawkins' claim on the "Talibanism" of the american religious right is "factually false", yet you fail to produce any facts to support your claim, and instead continue to assert that this is "obviously so" -- impicitly claiming us all to be victims of "exclusive reliance on one-sided propaganda". I fear, sir, that it is YOU who are the victim of one-sided propaganda. You certainly are showing its symptoms.

55. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #28993 by fonex_86 on April 1, 2007 at 5:23 am

This is absolutely ludicrous. I guess this is what you get when you include coutries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Russia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Jordan on the bloody Human Rights council. [emphasis is mine]

Hey, what else would you expect from a nation with the largest muslim population in the world? If you're interested in more horror stories from here, I can give you a new one every single day.

To me, this event gives an entirely new meaning to the phrase "infinite regress". Shame on the UN.

56. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28857 by fonex_86 on March 31, 2007 at 9:40 am

Of course what Blackburn, Dawkins, yourself and others object to, is the God who will hold you to account for your own sin and will judge you accordingly.

After being away for a week, it's nice to come back and see some entertainment...

Hmm, this god of yours is considerate indeed...
If I..
-Kill, I go to hell.
-Steal, I go to hell.
-Rape, I go to hell.
-Covet, I go to hell.
-Don't believe in god, I go to hell.
-Fib, I go to hell.
-Cheat on my exam, I go to hell.
-Lie to anyone, I go to hell.

Well, this certainly gives new meaning to "all roads lead to hell"...

God has provided the means by which you can be forgiven and saved but you want none of it:

Yeah... right. Would YOU take the aspirin if the pharmacist first told you to jump through hoops, bark, chase your own backside, and then perform epileptic seizures on the floor? Oh yeah, I guess you would, 'cause in essence, that's what they make you do in church anyway.

57. A hundred residents of a Russian village have refused to switch to new passports because they believe the documents' bar codes contain satanic symbols

Comment #27590 by fonex_86 on March 25, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Finally, the Lord has opened the eyes of our brothers and sisters in Russia! Fear not my brethren, for it is better to be pure and holy than to lead a sinful life by accepting demonic payment slips!!!

Man shall not live by bread alone.. our prayers go with you!

*sarcasm (supposedly) ends here*

Yeah.... you'd better start praying...

58. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Comment #27588 by fonex_86 on March 25, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Common lip-service to religious schmuck:

"I may not share your beliefs, but I respect them".

*QUACK-O-SP33K Translator v.2.3*

"I may not share your beliefs, but I respect your perceived right to stab, rape, maim, behead, burn, and/or kick the asses of others, especially those who disagree with you".

Gee, I guess that includes me...

59. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27483 by fonex_86 on March 24, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Blacknad,

Virtually every Christian I personally know accepts evolution as a sound theory and will agree that the evidence clearly supports it.

Oh really? What, then do they think of Genesis? I would like to see how one can seriously reconcile evolution (we evolved slowly over millennia) and Genesis (we got "poofed" into existence). Most christians don't -- they happily cherrypick their way through all and any contradictions.

You have experienced one form of Christianity, its worst form, and this will surely colour your perspective. It's just that as a Christian for 22 years my experience is that (outside the US) those types are in a minority, but obviously the most vocal and newsworthy. Those who just take Jesus' words at face value and try to go about doing good in their community are just not noteworthy. Moderate Christianity is massive and, in the main, is much less black and white than those who think they have a monopoly on truth and assume they have a literal, inerrant scripture.

Assuming what you're telling us is true, then it would seem that you don't really go out much. Fundamentalist christianity, a minority? Outside the US? Here in southeast Asia, fundamentalism is all there is. People believe in the "power" of the holy communion in a literal sense -- not to mention anointing with oil and submerged baptism.

Well, since you claim to be a moderate, are you ready to admit that the bible is erroneous? That it's possible that the muslims are right, and you're all going to hell? Or maybe the buddhists are right, and you might wind up as a slug in your next life?

I'm curious, where exactly are you from, if not the US?

60. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27341 by fonex_86 on March 24, 2007 at 6:35 am

I don't know about other religions, but christianity's "prime directive" is to "love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind". This is taken literally by dominionists/fundamentalists, and as such, they DO represent the "purest" form of christianity.

Hear that? Religious moderates don't really know what it is like to believe in God. (But Sam Harris does!) I would say that is a breath-taking assertion -- except that it isn't. It is just stupidly arrogant. But that is not the main problem; people say stupid and arrogant things all the time. What is signficant about this is that this statement is integral to the views of someone who is prominent and perhaps even influential in the current discourse about religion in public life.

This piece of ignorant drivel here is what's REALLY stupidly arrogant. Religious moderates, when it comes to faith in god, tend to be somewhat hypocritical. Doesn't god heal all kinds of sickness? "But it won't hurt to see the doctor.." Won't god take care of your house while you're away? "I'd better lock it, just in case..." The hardcore believers, on the other hand... well, let's just say they REALLY swallow the book, cover and all.

I was a moderate once, and I can still see this cherrypicking, hypocritical attitude in the lives of my friends and family. They often spout about "religious tolerance" but condemn other religions and beliefs as "astray" and "ungodly". Where in the bible are christians taught to be tolerant of other beliefs?

Before you label other people as "crackpots" and "arrogant", Mr. Clarkson, I suggest you go take a hot shower, eat dinner, then sit down and reflect on how you've shown yourself to be the jackass you are through your ignorant article.

61. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27324 by fonex_86 on March 24, 2007 at 1:53 am

Neil S,

I for one can understand your point of view. Being an ex-christian myself, I can still remember the struggles I faced in altering my worldview. Please believe me when I say it wasn't easy.

However, allow me to point out some things I disgree with in your post (464, #27264):

Similarly, if a crack addict who's just managing to turn his life around tells me that the reason he's able to make the effort is because of a revelation that Jesus (or Thor) loves him, I'm going to be hesitant in my "truth-telling". If a guy feels his only friend in the world is one that's to me plainly imaginary, shall I expend energy to put this before him?

It's rather ironic that you used this particular example, because the way I see it, the "repentant" crack addict hasn't sobered up at all -- he only switched brands. Religious belief, from certain points of view, acts in an eerily similar manner to hallucinogens -- they're addictive and they take away your ability to think straight. The first time I tried to get through a day without praying or "talking to god", I felt like an alcoholic going through withdrawal. It took concentration to stop putting my hands together, or to refrain from "calling out to god" in my mind.

At this point, you might argue that, just as for alcoholics and drug addicts, immediate removal of the focus of an addiction would be unwise, perhaps even fatal. Well, I couldn't agree more. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't expend our energy to try to help those these god-addicts.

In this case, expending energy to help the addict (I'm not sure how, but there must be a way) would, I presume, also help him to realize that he's got more friends than he thinks -- sometimes this is enough to snap people out their religious reverie.

I'm probably saying too much already, so I'll end my post here. I hope you'll be able to reply soon.

Regards,

fonex_86

62. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27253 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Yorker:

You say you formed your opinion after 5 or 6 years, I have formed mine after 40 years. You did not say where you formed your opinion, I assumed the USA which is why I characterized it as narrow. My experience of engineers has been virtually the reverse of yours, almost all of them non-religious and most of them very good at their job; great lovers of science and its method. Here in Scotland we have a few religious people but most are not, in the area where I was raised we looked upon Godites as freakish people who "were not all there" to use a Scottish expression. We also have a great history as people of science, engineering, medicine and literature who have produced famous people vastly more than would be expected from such a small nation. But of course, if you have any knowledge of science history you will already know this.

Thank you for sharing your experience with me. It is heartening to know that not all engineers are like those I've encountered.

It seems we are both guilty of presuming each other to be from the United States. Upon reading that you actually hail from Scotland, your positive outlook of engineers suddenly makes much more sense. I do have some knowledge of science history: enough to know of Scotland's great tradition of science and engineering!

My initial post, which upon retrospect was rather uncalled for, was caused by the swirl of emotions I was experiencing after another unpleasant encounter with an engineer (my, what is it with me and them?). It is a rather odd fact that the physics lab at my institution is owned and run by the EE department (not the physics dept). The way they do this, however, would make any scientist's blood boil. When I tried to intervene and correct the (many) misconceptions they were teaching to the students, I was swiftly kicked out of the lab and barred access to it indefinitely. The precise nature of the misconceptions are so shameful, I will not elaborate on them here -- let's just say, for example, that their understanding of Hooke's law wasn't exactly up to par with that of a typical physics freshman.

Finally, allow me to apologize again for my rash language.

Cheers,

fonex_86

63. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27202 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Yorker:

I can only assume you have come across the dregs at the bottom of the barrel. You need to have some experience with Japanese, Indian and European engineers before airing your narrowly formed opinions. Look also to China, another country not in the grip of religious fervour

Well, unfortunately it is also my experience with Indian, Singaporean, and Chinese engineers that made me think twice before considering them fellow critical thinkers: almost all I've met at least considered that a belief in a deity is warranted and respectable. Most would not hesitate to say "hey, I'm a scientist, but I believe in god/am not an atheist/think god is possible" and their engineering degrees serve only to give them credibility.

My opinion was formed during a period of 5-6 years, during which almost all encounters with engineers have been negative. I have considered engineers from quite a few other countries (and subjects), I have searched in vain for sufficiently critical minds among those I knew. So please, I've refrained from further hate language; could you at least refrain from calling my honest and statistically justified opinion as "narrow"?

karlJ:

Since 20 years or more I've been working as a software engineer. I think that I have some saying: Firstly, you don't learn it by studying(at least not the finer details of it) and getting degrees, you have to like it, then you have to have a faculty of logic and organization that most folks don't have, geeks comes to mind.

Unfortunately, it appears that most engineers I know fail to bring that heavy-duty logic to bear on their beliefs. My opinion is that there is a correlation between the engineering studies and religiosity -- a rough back-of-the-envelope count gave me the following figures: about 90% of all "engineers" I've met professed belief in god, with 25% of them of the fundamentalist type. It is in stark contrast with the people I know who studied the basic sciences: only 50% professed a belief in god (the rest were mostly agnostic), and among these, only 10% were fundamentalist.

64. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27147 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 9:37 am

jonecc,

I think most of us have bedtimes "centrally controlled" by that large slimy organ sitting inside our skulls... =D

65. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27140 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 9:12 am

Yorker,

Firstly, allow me to apologize to you (and to everyone) if my statement was offensive to you. I suppose I could have worded it more carefully to avoid this, as Logicel pointed out.

My harsh view of engineers ultimately comes from the experiences I had with them. I don't know what passes for an engineer in other countries these days, but in mine, they're mostly rubbish when it comes to the understanding of science.

For example, a graduate (!!) in Electrical Engineering, whose everyday work involves IC's, microchips, and assembly coding, when questioned, couldn't even explain the workings of a simple transistor.

Indeed, I once confronted an EE lecturer (!!) who was trying to convince his superiors to fund a certain project of his, which was basically a free energy machine (!!). Needless to say, our relation remains strained to this day.

To make a long story short, most "engineers" I have met (and that's quite a LOT) turn out, upon closer inspection, to be little more than number-crunching, knob-tweaking, button-pushing robots. They have little, if any, understanding of the basic physical principles behind their field. Even in the case where understanding is present, few manage to apply the very same principles to solve a (much simpler) problem in basic physics!

As these kinds are the only "engineers" I've ever met, I feel my harsh view of them is certainly justified. These people are what I call "ignorant engineers". Although I know that not all engineers are like this, the sheer number of negative encounters I've had with them has (perhaps mistakenly) led me to believe that there must be some correlation between the occupation and belief in the woo-woo world.

Hmm, I've overshot my bedtime, so I'll end my post here.

Looking forward to reading your responses,

fonex_86

66. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27110 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 7:03 am

Still wondering how I missed this gem...

chesirecat:

No dear, in this house we shall have but one God and that will be marks and spencer. (my emphasis)

Again, I suppose the nick might have something to do with it....

67. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27081 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 5:27 am

I used to think that all "proper" scientists would view religion with disdain -- perhaps even contempt. Heck, I usually reserve the hey-I-know-science-but-I-*respect*-religion attitude as exclusively engineer territory. Then Orr came along, and >>boom<<.

I'd dismiss him as an anomaly, but now, I see more and more people like him cropping up all around me! What gives?

Is it fear of religion? Fear of offending others? Geez, people, what?!?

Will it take a religion to demand that 3+3 =7 for you to quit your downright stupid defense of religion?

*end of rant*

68. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27076 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 5:14 am

BaronOchs,

I would also like to add that even Muhammad once remarked hell was mainly populated by women, so I imagine that those firmly indoctrinated are probably so scared out of their minds they desperately obey every sick and perverse law their epileptic prophet regurgitates.

Hmm, if you're a virgin, you (maybe) end up serving someone who died in jihad, alongside 71 others. If you're a promiscuous woman, you end up in hell. What happens to those perfectly obedient, *happily married* women?

69. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27059 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 4:04 am

Mr fonex_86: Do you believe in God? Which God do you believe in? What reason do you have for believing in your God?

fonex_86:

No; the None; She doesn't exist.

*sarcasm ends here*

At least his nick indicates that he's honest...

70. Religion

Comment #27006 by fonex_86 on March 22, 2007 at 8:06 pm

AtheistJunkie,

I've been asking the same thing for 6 years now..... and you expect results in 6 seconds?!?!?!!

Shame on you, shame on you...... =D

71. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27003 by fonex_86 on March 22, 2007 at 8:02 pm

My experience with both academic and professional engineers seem to suggest that the education of the scientific method (or even the scientific way of thinking) was not a priority in their education.

Unfortunately, many are unaware of this fact, and in their ignorance continue to spread scientific misconceptions and bigoted worldviews, all the while flashing their engineering diplomas to lend their arguments some weight.

I utterly HATE these scum (ignorant engineers -- not ALL engineers, obviously); they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and completely useless, both in the academic and social context.

72. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27001 by fonex_86 on March 22, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Yes, I also realise that my attitude can be described as "anti-social and selfish" and if all people thought like me, perhaps nothing would be done to combat global warming (I don't know...). But I don't care!

Your last exclamation has already clarified your position. Thank you very much for your participation in making the future of our children much more bleak than it should be. You should be proud.

73. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26828 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 9:26 pm

cheshirecat:

If you don't know now you never will. I cannot make you self aware with regard to your own perspective on this matter.

Suit yourself.

Where did I say I believed in God by the way?

I don't know. Neither do I know where I accused you of believing. Honestly, cheshirecat, I must agree that the quality of your posts has most certainly degraded since we first began. I am most disappointed that you do not even seem to make an effort to answer kkant's or my points.

74. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26800 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm

BaronOchs,

I didn't have a ruler at hand, but I did have pencil and paper -- and I found that the measurements, in my case, fit perfectly. Perhaps your browser is resizing the images? Were you measuring it on a CRT monitor? Mine was done on a laptop LCD screen, resolution 1280x800, and results are just fine. But I must say I was quite baffled by this illusion... I was so sure that the lengths were different! Guess I was wrong (as I was about religion =D ).

75. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26797 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 6:07 pm

cheshirecat:

How a religion is interpreted is the religion. You cannot separate the interpretation from the religion.

Let me get this straight: the interpretation of an interpretation is an interpretation? Perhaps you meant to say, "how the divine commands of a particular belief are interpreted is the core of religion"?

I'm not attempting to "seperate interpretation from the religion", I'm pointing out that it is exactly this interpreting that diminishes the authority of the religion's sacred texts/divine commands. My point is essentially the same as that of kkant and epeeist.

And remember that you too are in the process of reconciling your beliefs by entering into this discussion.

No, I am not in any process of reconciliation, because my position is that of an absence of belief. Perhaps you would care to clarify what you meant by this?

76. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26784 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 4:15 pm

cheshirecat:

But your logic says the God of the old testament is a vicious bastard, therefore christians are vicious bastards. This is simply not bourne out by fact and ignores most of christian teaching to pursue a particular characterisation of believers.

Correction: the god of the OT is a vicious bastard, therefore christians OUGHT to be vicious bastards. Alternatively, those who are not vicious bastards are not christian. As I have stated before, it is the practice of "interpretation" which enables the believer to reconcile his vicious god's commands with his conscience. Current "christian teaching" has undoubtedly been influenced by this "interpretation", resulting in significant deviations from the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

This deviance is even more vivid in the claim of muslim moderates that islam is a "religion of peace".

As a side note, I never claimed that the christian god is a "vicious bastard", nor did I make the generalization that all who claim to be christians are, in fact, "vicious bastards". =)

EDIT: ADDITION

Indeed, they are usually polite, pleasant, benign, and great people to chat with -- until the discussion enters the domain of their beliefs, that is. I alienated many friends simply because of my skeptical approach to religion, even before I was an atheist.

77. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26778 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Ah, but christianity drives its roots from judaism, and claims to worship the exact same god that ordered the jews to stone those working on the sabbath. Again, why the sudden change of heart?

Just as there is jewish tradition, so is there a christian tradition: the dates for christmas and easter, and the declaration of sunday as a "holy day".The sanctions imposed for trade are also traditions; there is no mention of the sort in the NT by Jesus (forget Paul, he's a real nutter).

78. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26772 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Living in a country possessing the largest muslim population in the world, I can profess to the effifacy of jilbab and niqab as means to differentiate "them" from "us" -- whether the affected realizes it or not.

On a side note, many muslims have been offended when I remarked that their niqab is reminiscent of ancient japanese ninja/shinobi, despite the obvious truth of the statement.

79. Your Mom Was Wrong: Horseplay Is An Important Part Of Development

Comment #26770 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 3:06 pm

jeepyjay,

Unfortunately, neither Einstein nor Newton were particularly sociable men: one (Newton) was downright cruel, selfish and arrogant, while the other (Einstein) was a skirt-chaser and rather dreamy idealist.

It is also my experience that too-introverted people often develop a rather perverse view of others, which all-too-often further distances them from society. Needless to say, this often turns into a rather vicious cycle. The fact that these figures survived is probably more due to the level of tolerance displayed by modern societies than the "survivability" of their social behavior.

80. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26767 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm

cheshirecat,

As epeeist has pointed out, once you begin "interpreting" the bible, there's no telling where one should draw the line. In this sense theology is, in my opinion, a load of nonsense, little more than the rape and misuse of logic to justify ancient and barbaric concepts spelled out in the bible.

Epeeist also correctly points out the fact that authoritative writings are often taken literally -- would I be "exceptionally stupid" to literally believe in my physics textbook which states that the "gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface is approximately 9.81 m/s^2" ? Interpretation of the bible implicitly reduces its authority, and robs it of credence to any claim to divine inspiration it might make.

81. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26704 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 7:59 am

Keep on withdrawing those funds, Sullivan, and you may find yourself bankrupct before your death rolls around. And what would save you then?

A mortgage on his heavenly real estate, perhaps?

82. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26703 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 7:57 am

IMO, the worst part is that at least some of these "critical thinkers" might actually be intelligent and scientifically literate -- which lends them quite a bit of ill-deserved credence. I've dealt with biology teachers who taught that evolution "is a dead science" which "is no longer taught in the United States and Europe", and even those -- who are most certainly incompetent -- are trouble enough. I shudder when I think of having to put up to a religious nutter who would otherwise be a remarkably intelligent person.

83. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26698 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 7:48 am

cheshirecat:

When people attack him for not knowing any theology they have a point. Dawkins counters that it is not neccesary to know any theology to attack a belief in God which is true if he did not contend constantly that religion is somehow responsible for most of the evils of the world and a form of child abuse. To attack christianity as being a cruel religion it is neccesary to do more than quote the old testament. (for a start because what is said in the new is meant to superseed the old Jewish laws - I know nothing about theology but I know this)

Oh please. They would have a point if Dawkins was attacking, say, the Standard Cosmological Model without knowing any physics. Theology essentially boils down to philosophy, only in a narrower field, and no scientist in their right mind needs to study theology in much depth to find that it is intellectually lacking when compared to science.

What? Where is it EVER said that the NT supersedes the OT? Someone has obviously NOT read the bible here, and it isn't me. But let's assume you're right -- so now god can change his mind? What happened to his omniscience?

84. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26577 by fonex_86 on March 20, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Has anyone seen/read this book? I'm very interested in seeing just what Mr. Cornwell considers to be

... lapses in logic and errors of fact ...

in TGD. I just hope it's not really "Darwin's Rottweiler: A Rabid Response to TGD".

Maybe "Darwin's Death: A Demonic Response to TGD"?

85. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26343 by fonex_86 on March 18, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Christians are now finding decisions going against them in a more high-profile way.

No, you blockheads are now finding it harder to push your gay-bashing, science-stultifying, brainless agendas.

Xians are so used to bullying others that they don't even recognize it as such anymore.

86. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26237 by fonex_86 on March 17, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Another nail in the Creationist's coffin lid.

Unfortunately, coffins are quite useless against zombies... they never stop kicking and moaning in there -- you'd think they were alive.

87. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26231 by fonex_86 on March 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm

denoir,

At first I disagreed with your view, but it seems to hold more value than I thought.

Suppose an embryo is determined to have three eyes, two in the 'normal' positions, and one on the forehead. Obviously many people might view this as a monstrosity. What do you do? Abort the embryo, for fear of discrimination; or would you rather let it live (given the assumption that the third eye causes no health complications whatsoever, and may actually be advantageous)?

Makes me think (again). =D

88. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26005 by fonex_86 on March 16, 2007 at 4:17 am

scottishgeologist,

Wow, that's a powerful story there! Where did you read it? Is it in TGD? I must admit, I haven't been able to finish reading it yet... :P Anyway, if it isn't, could you be kind enough to post some references? This one might just be what I need to throw to some faith-heads -- ridiculous yet dark and frightening.

Thanks!

89. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25797 by fonex_86 on March 15, 2007 at 7:11 am

[quote]
If the Bible is written by an omniscient being, he taunts, why does it not 'say anything about electricity, or about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer?' This is just plain silly, reducing the task of challenging religion to the level of playground jibes. In a world in which people often feel estranged from themselves and from others, and appear to lack control over their destiny, they often seek consolation in the belief that destiny is controlled for them.
[/quote]

Well, why didn't he, Malik? Instead of telling us to slaughter sheep and 'infidels', why didn't he educate us about this damned universe we have to live in?

Malik's overall tone throughout the article is really ironic -- I feel that it's HIS OWN cheering of religion that proves that "such bigotry and irrationalism can take more than one form."

I do hope he sobers up, and at least criticizes RD/Sam without having to pose as a religious nutcase cheerleader.

90. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25277 by fonex_86 on March 11, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I never have heard of a war caused by religion or for religion

Did you go to school?

Its all about POWER!

Maybe, but...

Religion has nothing to do with it,

is simply nonsense.

...and to think if religion vanished from mankind we would progress into some kind of higher life form is nothing more than a belief.

Maybe, but it sure as hell beats believing in a 2000-year old myth. Or perhaps you disagree?

Why are there so many comments on these boards all saying the same thing. No one disagrees because all of you ape RD. Be free thinkers!

1. Have you seen the forums?
2. Disagreement? I've seen plenty here.
3. Be civil, and respect other people's opinions.

91. 'Don't discuss polar bears': memo to scientists

Comment #25206 by fonex_86 on March 10, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Bah, this reminds me of Richard Feynman's experience in Brazil, which he discusses in one of his books (I think it was in Surely You're Joking but I'm not sure).

Why be afraid of offending people? If, in the light of scientific evidence, their opinion is downright stupid, I tell them so. No wonder international policy/diplomacy never gets anywhere: everybody's afraid of offending everybody else!

92. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24036 by fonex_86 on March 4, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I fail to see these theists' point. If god exists, and is as powerful as they claim (forget omniscience for now), why would he need any religious yahoos to defend him/her/itself?

93. The Silence That Kills

Comment #24013 by fonex_86 on March 4, 2007 at 6:57 am

karlJ,

I was most certainly not using the word, 'sick', in the sense of 'physical or mental illness.' Think more 'disgustingly insane'...

It's no longer 'when it becomes a religious virtue' -- it already is, by Islamic standards.

The author of the article does indicate his opinion of the source of this maniacal behaviour: schools, where kids are taught to blow themselves up for their faith. I can understand your outlash, but have you really seen those so-called 'programming centres'? I have, and believe me, it really IS about 8-year-olds being taught to die for the 'honor of Allah'. But then Jesus Camp also comes to mind...

IMO, these brain-washing centres are what we 'enlightened' ones should seek to eliminate.

94. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23832 by fonex_86 on March 3, 2007 at 4:48 am

karlJ:

"Stop and think for a moment how sick this is." is a moral or ethical statement by a pompous external ass that fuels the polarisation of we and them. It has no meaning for someone that is the victim of the terrors of war. The fact that someone takes extreme actions as a last resort, I am conviced, is a human characteristic that has nothing to do with religion, although religion may make the decision easier.
How many people would not resort to vindictive violence if, for instance, they where left alive in despair after their family where killed?

I fail to see your point in objecting to said phrase. Those actions are sick, and the victims of such acts would most certainly call them so. Moreover, you claim that taking '...extreme actions as a last resort, I am conviced, is a human characteristic that has nothing to do with religion, although religion may make the decision easier.' Aren't you contradicting yourself here? I must also question the notion that these suicidal maniacs are truly victims of previous acts of violence, as your last statement would imply.

95. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23809 by fonex_86 on March 2, 2007 at 9:43 pm

torgosPizza:

Sorry, since I don't live in the US, I tend to forget how US television can be. You're right -- it doesn't help. To be honest, I was one of those ignoramuses, before I took some time to read a little about American History. I now recall how broadcasts from the US helped reinforce my delusion. Nowadays, I can't help but wonder how the US's Founding Fathers would feel, seeing 'In God We Trust' everywhere.

96. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23807 by fonex_86 on March 2, 2007 at 9:34 pm

You silly atheists! Of course Christian Biology is different! Just look at our anatomies -- you have that big pink thing inside your skull, but we have no need of it! We also don't have the bunch of slimy tubes you have in your abdomen, for we 'do not live by bread alone'!

Nyah nyah nyah we're better than you

97. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23803 by fonex_86 on March 2, 2007 at 8:48 pm

I think it is important to understand that the issue here isn't actually Arab per se. It's only because Islam has become such an integral part of their society that it is now possible to take the jump and make the identification of Arabs as Moslems; moreover, this deep integration makes it rather difficult for them to accept the fact that other nations are different, hence their perception of America as a Xian nation. Add to this their paranoia and Islam's hatred toward the kuffar, and you begin to understand why the Middle East is what it is today.

Just my $0.02...

98. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23713 by fonex_86 on March 2, 2007 at 7:15 am

You heathens!! How could you possibly prefer the pacifist-ecologist Antichrist to the childish, spoiled, environmentally-irresponsible Living Saviour Praised Be His Fossil-Guzzling Pollution-Puking SUV?!?!?

I hope you freeze.

99. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23698 by fonex_86 on March 2, 2007 at 5:49 am

Um, weren't the IDiots complaining that complex stuff can't come out from simpler matter? Wait till they read about Plantinga's 'Simple God'....

*grasps stomach and rolls in pain from overt laughter*

100. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23695 by fonex_86 on March 2, 2007 at 5:41 am

Falwell said the Bible teaches that God will maintain the Earth until Jesus returns, so Christians should be responsible environmentalists, but not what he calls ... quote ... "first-class nuts."

I don't remember any bible verse about this, but I could be wrong. But wait, if god takes care of everything, why should anyone be environmentalists at all?