51. Jesus 'Love-Bombs' You

Comment #34966 by William on April 25, 2007 at 6:31 pm

"...don't show your gun until you're ready to shoot it."

52. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33571 by William on April 20, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Why is the "God" on the US jacket so small? Are the publishers afraid that Americans will be turned off by the title "God Is Not Great"? Are they hoping they'll just see the "Great" and think it's some kind of positive affirmation, self-help book or something?

Although the U.S. subtitle is more mordant than the U.K.'s.

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

Comment #33164 by William on April 19, 2007 at 1:55 pm

O'Reilly had tough questions for Sam Harris a while back, but was generally polite and not as combative as I expected.

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

Comment #33161 by William on April 19, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I hope Richard is prepared to withstand a fusillade of blustering, ill-informed self-aggrandizement.

I don't know if appearing on this sleazeball's show is such a good idea. Why contribute in any way to his ratings?

55. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32899 by William on April 18, 2007 at 4:25 pm

what made evolution change its mind about the benefits of rape?

Especially, as I point out in my book, if the rapist is near the end of his life, and no regrets.

56. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32890 by William on April 18, 2007 at 4:07 pm

And William, the snippet I posted contains an argument. "Sophomoric, pseudo-profundity" does not.

57. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32888 by William on April 18, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Mr (or Dr?) Wilson, there's an edit function available - so you can correct your typos without having to write follow-up posts. I use this all the time, because I'm always making typos; it's a handy thing to know about if you're like me.

58. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32881 by William on April 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm

"You are a hodge-podge of neuron-firings looking into an abyss which you only think you understand. You don't really understand it because you are not thinking at all, but rather doing what chemicals always do under those conditions and at that temperature" (p. 99).

59. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32455 by William on April 17, 2007 at 5:42 am

Re: Comment #32372 by Chamber

Thanks for proving my point with that idiotic and irrelevant parable!

By the way, we CAN see the "atheist mind." It looks like a spongy mass, of about 3 lb, containing billions of neurons, or nerve cells, which communicate through links called "synapses." The spongy mass itself is called a "brain." You should consider getting one.

60. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32175 by William on April 16, 2007 at 5:09 am

Re: Comment #32159 by chamber

"Please address my intelligence and logic."

Ummm...that might be difficult, seeing as you possess neither.

61. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32043 by William on April 15, 2007 at 10:27 am

"'Behavior where one goes to physical attack on someone you disagree with violates Islamic teaching and the prophet Muhammad's sunnah (lifestyle). We strongly object to such behavior,"' the IRN said in a press release."

Who gives a fuck if it violates the IRN's particular interpretation of "Islamic teaching"? More importantly, it violates the laws of modern civilization, not to mention basic human decency! Fuck Islamic teaching, and fuck Muhammad's "lifestyle."

62. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31929 by William on April 15, 2007 at 12:57 am

"what is the thinking if some serial killer declares his atheism?"

Funnily enough, I can't think of a serial killer who admitted to being an atheist. Many of them become born-again after imprisonment (i.e. Berkowitz), some of them say that they are under the influence of the devil (i.e. Richard Ramirez), a few even claim to be divine themselves, but I don't know of any out-and-out atheists.

Ted Bundy was raised a devout Methodist until, according to him, he was ruined by pornography. Needless to say, as the day of his execution approached, he attempted to reestablish his faith. Likewise, Jeffrey Dahmer had himself re-baptized in the "Church of Christ" upon entering prison. Charles Manson was interested in all sorts of fringe spiritual movements, including Scientology, and, of course, he started his own quasi-mystical cult.

Seriously, I can't think of a single serial killer who was a sincere, committed atheist. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. After all, serial murder and rationalism don't exactly go together!

63. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31911 by William on April 14, 2007 at 11:44 pm

Drug-addled rock stars aren't necessarily the most consistent people. Shortly after genuflecting to the Maharishi, John Lennon famously proclaimed his atheism in songs like "God" and "Imagine." A few years later he was sending checks to Billy Graham and Pat Robertson. All the while, he continued to consult the I-ching and astrologers.

By the way, this is Noel Gallagher's quote, in full, about TGD:
"This guy goes out to scientifically disprove the existence of god. F**king brilliant, if you can understand the words. Not that I can. It's good though. I don't read fiction, you end up thinking, 'Yeah but that wouldn't happen, bollocks'. I read books about actual things that happened. And if it's disproving god, bring it on."

64. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31332 by William on April 12, 2007 at 3:33 am

"A hefty tome"? It's only about 400 pages!

By the way, has anybody seen Simon Schama's History Of Britain? I've seen it at my local video store, and I was thinking of checking it out.

65. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29212 by William on April 2, 2007 at 5:38 am

"I don't think anyone has dismissed postmodernism as a whole quite yet."

I have. Everything about postmodernism enrages me. Even the name "postmodernism" - it's not post-modern. It's pre-modern. It's pre-science, pre-Enlightenment.

It's utter nonsense. All of it. It's the reason I dropped my English major. It was exasperating, plowing through nonsensical, jargon-filled propaganda pieces. Cultural constructs and meta-narratives in "Turn of the Screw," etc. Bah! I have better things to do with my life.

66. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29209 by William on April 2, 2007 at 5:09 am

I suggest that if someone could provide a clear and meaningful translation of these papers they should be eligible for James Randi's million dollar prize. Such exposition would at least be astounding, if not actually supernatural.

67. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24627 by William on March 7, 2007 at 5:11 pm

The "non-American spelling" complaint seems profoundly silly to me. How is it in any sense anti-American to write "labour" rather than "labor"?

This guy's obviously a reactionary nutjob. Why does the BBC, or any legitimate media outlet for that matter, bother to have someone like him on the air?

68. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24437 by William on March 6, 2007 at 5:09 pm

DerrickB:

There's a lot of porn stars among the "Atheist Pin-Ups." I'm not sure if they're the best representatives for the cause!

69. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #22279 by William on February 13, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Re: Karen Hunter's Pulitzer

A google search reveals that Karen Hunter was formerly a member of the seven person editorial board for the New York Daily News. The board won the prize in 1999 for its campaign to save the Apollo Theatre in Harlem. I wasn't able to deduce the extent of her contribution.

Other than that, her journalistic credentials appear to consist mainly of trashy entertainment biographies that she "co-wrote" with the likes of Cedric The Entertainer (comedian), LL Cool J and Queen Latifah (both rappers). Her most recent book is titled "Confessions of a Video Vixen," and is the memoir of one Karrine Steffans, "dancer, actress and companion to many a celebrity." It is described on Amazon as "a glimpse at what happens in the boardrooms and bedrooms of hip hop's A list."

THIS is the best that CNN could come up with?

70. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #19979 by William on January 31, 2007 at 1:25 am

What a snake this Rosemary Altea is!

Notice how she throws her peer Sylvia Browne under the bus and portrays herself as the "responsible" psychic. I guess there really is no honor among thieves...

She also, as is the custom when psychics appear on TV with him, attempts to discredit Randi with outright lies - i.e. "he was unable to produce the money." This is not true and she knows it, but she also knows that the people watching at home won't bother to check up on her accusation - which they could easily do with a simple google search or a visit to Randi's website.

Then she attempts to belittle him by cackling at his (quite reasonable) response and saying "here we go again..." (Part 3, 2:14), the object being to make Randi come across as a tiresome old man.

She consistently tries to evade Randi's challenge to answer "yes or no", her only explanation being "we've been down this road before" (as if she's tired of being pestered with opportunities to win a million dollars!) and that senile git Larry King lets her off the hook! He changes the subject at a crucial moment, veering off into a pointless digression - "I once interviewed the guy...what was that guy's name?" WTF?! And this is one of the few shows that will have James Randi on!

I'm sorry to rant and rave, but after watching these videos I was struck with a visceral loathing for this oily woman.

71. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19589 by William on January 28, 2007 at 5:13 pm

"Once you remove an established church, what moves into the vacuum? In America it was worship of the flag. The flag is treated by Americans as holy and not to be profaned."

Longley seems to be saying that if a country doesn't have an official, state church then it will inevitably degenerate into jingoism. But, in America, the flag didn't replace religion. Rather, nationalism became intertwined with religious faith. When that happens, I don't think it makes a difference whether the faith is state-sponsored or not. I think, by portraying the Church Of England as the only bulwark against the kind of mindless patriotism endemic to the U.S., Longley is guilty of gross oversimplification.

72. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19586 by William on January 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

(From The Society Of Novus Spiritus Link In Comment #19580):

"A unique quality that (Novus Spiritus) possesses is that it states: all religions have some truth...Novus Spiritus teaches that there is a male God and a female God...The Society of Novus Spiritus believes that Christ was sent to earth as the Son of God...Reincarnation is viewed by the Society of Novus Spiritus as a tool used by God to help each one of us perfect our souls."

It sounds like Sylvia has just borrowed bits and pieces from different religions and creeds and mashed them all together. How very ecumenical. Anyone, be they Christian or New Age or Hindu or Feminist, is welcome to fork over their money to Sylvia and Francine.

73. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19568 by William on January 28, 2007 at 11:51 am

Re: Comment #19566

There are skeptical organizations in India, such as the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA) and the Indian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (ICSICOP). There's even an Indian version of James Randi in the form of a fellow named Prabir Ghosh who, as head of the Science and Rationalists' Association of India, offers 2 million rupees to anyone who can prove that they possess supernatural powers.

I agree with you though. From what I've heard, it's bad over there.

74. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #19395 by William on January 26, 2007 at 10:58 pm

I always cringe when I hear the phrase "non-denominational prayer."

75. She told them the boy was dead

Comment #19355 by William on January 26, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Re: Comment #19343

"Why would the police actually listen to a crackpot?"

Although psychics like Sylvia Browne often claim to have "cracked" cases, the truth is that the police almost never pay attention to them, let alone solicit their services.

It should be noted that it was volunteer "search teams" that went looking for Browne's non-existent boulders, not the police.

76. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19221 by William on January 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm

"In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven..."

Dawkins didn't deny that those events were "politically driven". He didn't attribute them "solely to religion." He said that they wouldn't have happened without the catalyst of faith. Shermer is addressing an entirely different argument.

"I cringed at the title, wishing it were more neutral..."

Sounds like typical Neville Chamberlain-style rationalism. Don't rock the boat!

77. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19203 by William on January 25, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Uri Geller's Tonight Show Appearance really only affected his reputation in America. He's still somewhat popular overseas and he has his own reality show in Israel (on which he was recently caught cheating: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WmG4G6sdGoQ) He has also maintained his profile by leeching onto flaky celebrities like Michael Jackson.

As for taking down Jon Edward, there's really no way to catch a cold-reader red-handed. Either you believe what he's doing is the result of supernatural powers or you don't. You could attend a performance and notice the overwhelming number of "misses" as opposed to "hits," but true-believers will find a way to rationalize (excuse the term!) such things.

78. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19190 by William on January 25, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Re: Comment #19187 by nine9s:

It wasn't just a matter of Haggard "being wrong" about evolution. He was claiming knowledge of something that he obviously knows nothing about, and then disseminating that misinformation to his flock. That IS arrogance.

I think it's inappropriate to portray Haggard as a victim. The guy was the head of a megachurch that raked in millions of dollars every year. He was also the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, and purportedly had close ties to prominent politicians including George Bush. Clearly, he's not some poor, hapless soul whose life was spent in a "sheltered fundamentalist bubble."

If you're referring to the "what if you're wrong" question asked at the Lynchburg appearance, I disagree with your characterization of the girl as "soft-spoken and gentle-sounding". She came across as unctuous and self-righteous to me, her condescension masked by a veneer of equability. I doubt she was in tears afterwards. She was probably receiving high-fives from her Liberty U. comrades.

79. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19181 by William on January 25, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Well, Haggard is a highly objectionable man so it's understandable that Dawkins would lose his temper. How would you feel if you had to sit through one of his "concerts"?

I think Dawkins was venting his frustration at the entire evangelical movement, using Haggard as a synecdoche. And let's face it, evangelicals have had an easy ride for far too long. They can take a little vitriol.

80. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19180 by William on January 25, 2007 at 11:53 am

Personally, I'm not a fan of either South Park or Penn & Teller's Bullshit!. Although I appreciate the fact that they attack sacred cows, I find both shows vulgar and obnoxious.

81. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19176 by William on January 25, 2007 at 11:38 am

"One has to admire Mr Dawkin's restraint, almost Christian, in not making the obvious easy "told you so" comments about Ted Haggard."

While Dawkins clearly took a disliking to Haggard, I don't think he suspected that the Good Reverend indulged in meth-fueled romps with male prostitutes. I think he was probably as surprised as the rest of us.

82. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19175 by William on January 25, 2007 at 11:30 am

"Hitchens, who regards evolution as an ingenious explanation which unfortunately doesn't convince his Catholicism."

Not only is Christopher Hitchens NOT a catholic, but he'll be coming out with a book entitled "God Is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything" later this year. I've already reserved my copy.

83. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17336 by William on January 13, 2007 at 1:14 am

What does it matter? You can still rent a copy of the film at a video store. Don't expect ANYTHING from the public school system - if you want your kids to be educated, you'll have to do it yourself on your own time. Don't rely on these cretins who make up the school boards.

84. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #9729 by WILLIAM on November 25, 2006 at 5:54 pm

HI TO EVERYONE, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL MEN, WOMEN, THAT ARE STRONG ATHEISTS, LIKE CARL SAGAN, RICHARD DAWKINS, DON'T HAVE TO SAY I'M -- SORRY FOR WHO WE REALLY ARE, "BELEIVE IN SUPERSTITIONS LIKE MOST CHRISTIANS DO IS ABSURD WAY OF LIFE," I WILL NEVER LIVE THAT WAY, FOR MYSELF, OR ANYBODY OF THE WORLD.

I'M ATHEIST THAT WILL NEVER IN ALL OF HUMANITNITY BOW DOWN TO YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD, OR ANY GODS OF ANY RELIGIONS, THEY ARE SO CORUPT, AND THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL,-- CAUSE BY DELUISIONAL CHRISTIAN PEOPLE, AND OTHER CRAZY FREAKS, WITH A VERY BAD MENTAL ILLNESS, OF THE THIER OWN MINDS.

WHY DO YOU POEPLE CALL YOURSELFS CHRISTIANS, WHEN IN REALITLY CHRISTIANS DON'T EXIST?

RICHARD DAWKINS, CARL SAGAN, ARE RIGHT ABOUT RELIGION HARMING THE WORLD WE LIVE IN AS A SPECIES, AND POEPLE WHO BELEIVE IN A GOD OR GODS IS HARTING US AS A SPECIES.

WHY DO YOU CHRISTIANS KEEP DELUITING YOURSELFS WITH THE BIBLE, GOD, JESUS, HELL, ANGELS, SATAN, ETC, ALL YOU ARE DOING TO YOURSELFS IS LIVING A LIE AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT, AND YOU ARE TO BRAINWASHED TO KNOW THE DIFFERECT,-- HOW STUPID CAN ONE GET, EVEN I CAN'T BE THAT STUPID IN ALL OF MY LIFE. I HATE RELIGION FOR WHAT IT DOES TO IT'S VICTIMS AND NON-VICTIMS, "I DON'T HATE POEPLE, I HATE RELIGION." WAKE UP POEPLE AND GET RID OF YOUR BIBLES AND CHRISTIAN WAYS FOREVER BECAUSE IT'S DESTROYING US AS A SPECIES, CAN YOU POEPLE SEE THAT OR NOT.

I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN, RICHARD DAWKINS AND CARL SAGAN ARE RIGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT THIS PROBELM OF RELIGION, OR RELIGIONS. IT TO BAD THAT MOST POEPLE LIVE IN A WORLD OF SUPERSTITIONS, AND NOT REALTILY.

THANKS, WILLIAM.

85. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5786 by William on November 11, 2006 at 4:05 am

David said:

>>Of course I realise he is a busy man and has a lot of books to sell. I also realise that he is preaching to the converted.<<

Your tone here is that the Professor is only selling books - in order to grow rich? You say 'converted', as if Atheism is a type of Faith.

I suggest you check your premises - all Theists do is attack Atheism - instead of providing HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of a supernatural explanation as to the origins of life. Further, there is NO POINT in debating with Theists. You come up with extremely silly notions when asked direct questions and/ or you skip around them. I'll debate you if I wish. But we won't convince each other, so what is the point?

As for financial gain - that monopoly is contorlled extremely skilfully by the Church. You endow yourselves with special titles such as Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Pope - as if you're somehow better than the rest of us, as if you're special channels to God. And you have a monopoly on school education - my children have been taught ridiculous nonesense about many varied faiths - yet they know little of evolution, the big bang and Atheism. Onwards Christian soldiers, eh?

You revel in your ancient texts, which explain NOTHING of the true nature and wonder of our universe. Genesis? What a joke of an explanation that is. Revelations? OOH! Let's all be scared of this AMAZING God and his wonderful return.

If it were left to Theists, we wouldn't have gained modern medicine, Space travel, Computer Technology, Aviation or any of the wonders of 21st Century life.

No. You'd love us all to be in Church Sunday, confused, scared and worried about saving our Earthly souls. You want us back in caves complete with ignorance, witch-hunts, doom, superstition and fear. Only God can know the truth - according to you lot.

THAT'S what religion is. And it's an invention of man.

Kind Regards, William.

86. THANK GOODNESS!

Comment #5017 by William on November 7, 2006 at 8:07 am

Hi Billy!

HA HA HA HA! Your down-to-Earth Humour never fails to make me laugh!

Truth be told Billy, many Believers attribute success of some sort or something positive as a 'miracle'.

Yet, if they stepped back and REALLY looked at that success, they'd see that they did it all on their own.

Kind Regards, William.

87. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #5015 by William on November 7, 2006 at 8:03 am

Correct Tamer. If you proved through science that God didn't exist, Theists would espouse that God was 'Beyond' science! (Apparently he is already beyond Time and Space! How convenient!).

I watched the God Channel UK last night. I'll show you the the other facet of belief. It's not been highlighted much in here, but is well-known to Atheists.

The pastor (and a sexy one if I may add!), was preaching about Psalms. In particular she (Ha! You thought I meant a a man!?) mentioned PSALMS 68:19.

>>68:19 Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah.

She preached. A message kept splashing up on the screen. She preached some more. 'I used to be trailer trash!' she preaches some more. It went like this: God is going to load you with benefits.

"Jesus is saviour! Jesus is truth! Give $68.19 a month for the next 12 months! Jesus will bless you! Jesus is the light! Give $68.19 for the next 12 months! Jesus will repay you! You will be rewarded with money, property and other gifts you weren't expecting! Jesus is the way! Get on that phone! Donate $68.19 for the next 12 months! Follow the propechy of Psalms 68:19! Jesus is a miracle! Give $68.19 each month for the next 12 months!" This went on for an hour, whilst the audience stood up with their hands pointing to the roof and in some sort of hysterical trance.

OH YES! PUT A DOLLAR IN THE BOX-AHHHHHH!

Now, they're may be many a poor person in the States, who could JUST about put that much together. How heart-broken will they be, when it is obvious that God hasn't repaid them?

Kind Regards, William.

88. Fundamentalist Religion and Science

Comment #4980 by William on November 7, 2006 at 5:08 am

Hello again Dragutin.

I understand some of the above - basically your Bible is open to intepretation. I'll grant you this as a victory for Theists. 1-0 to believers! (Though, people who take the Bible word-for-word are in a bad way).

I still think you have evaded my logic of perfection, though it was a good try.

>>Let us assume GOD IS PERFECT and meets all Oxford Dictionary specifications, and even more. He creates PERFECT PEOPLE which does not mean a perfect machines, but beings who can choose to love. Now we are talking about the freedom of choice as the main characteristic of «perfection» in people. Now is this freedom real or just a facade? If it is not real, then it is not perfect. To be perfect it must be free to decide. To really decide about anything one should have at least two options, doesn't he? It is true, God took the risk of creating somebody «after his likeness» and IMPERFECTION occurred by the free will of the perfectly created being. In remedying the situation God again acted PERFECTLY, by his love and not by force, so that at the end, everything may be PERFECT.<<

You are MANIPULATING my words here to fit your worldview. Your God is defined as a OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, OMNIBENEVOLENT AND TRANSCENDENT IN BEING. Is this correct? Well, the IMERFECTION, by DESIGN has to be the fault of your CONCEPTUALLY PERFECT GOD - AN ILLOGICAL CONTRADICTION.

Logically, your God could ONLY conceive of perfection. He COULDN'T have imperfect thoughts - by the very definition of a Christian-Judaist God. Thus, Stars that collapse, would be impossible - they should exist forever. To not do so, is not perfection. Death would be an impossible concept, because an immortal, all-loving God could only conceive of immortal beings in an eternal universe. Death is an impossible evil concept for a loving perfect being.

You say we have 2 choices - a righteous path or an evil path? This is the logic of the above, yes? But we DON'T have free will. Because if we choose the evil path - then we are doomed to hell for all eternity. THIS IS NOT FREE WILL! IT IS A CONFLICT!

Again. A PERFECT Being, could not CONCEIVE of a tortorous ETERNAL SUFFERING for ALL ETERNITY for crimes committed in A FINITE Body, BY THE VERY IMPERFECT CREATIONS HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. There is no justice by this logic. There is no love by this logic. This is illogical logic of an imperfect being. Yet you insist that God is perfect? How? God CANNOT BE PERFECT, if he does exist. I don't deny he COULD exist - but the God of the Jews, CANNOT exist in the form expected of him, by my very arguments above.

Let me ask you a question: I am an Atheist. If I was God, do you think I could have created a better world than this? This world is full of divisiveness, war, hatred (and love), evil, sickness et cetera. If you or I were God, could YOU or I have created a better world? I bet we would have. I bet we would have eliminated:

Disease
Poverty
Death
Suffering
Jealousy
Anger
War
Murder
Rape
Theft

I would have created beings who knew NOTHING of hate-mongering. They would have loved from the get-go. Further, as God, I WOULDN'T have created Sin - for surely if sin exists, then he must have created Sin - and further, if I did create Sin, then I wouldn't have punished my creations for committing the very Sin, I created. Creating Sin as an immortal, all-loving perfect being and then punishing the lesser mortal imperfect beings for that committing that sin, is illogical and impossible as a concept.

The concept of God is illogical. Your views are illogical. You haven't fully answered my questions, though I respect your right to pray to the almighty.

I don't need God anymore to live a full, quality and productive life. I still view the Earth as wonderful. I still view the universe as marvellous. I fear NOT death - just the manner of my death. I am no lesser morality wise, since dispensing with Christianity. Indeed, my ethics are better than many a believer. Beleivers that commit Sin are in a far worse place than I.

I suggest, respectfully, that you check your premises. The God of the Bible is an illogical concept, devised by men in the 1st Century, trying to understand the world around them.

Kind Regards, William. May your God be with you.

89. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #4554 by William on November 4, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Hi Mitch. As a Theist, you're pretty well-mannered. I'd like to highlight a couple of points though and I am a strong Atheist (just so you understand, where I'm coming from):

>>Now you are getting into the thick of theological argumentation. It proves the point that the debate of evolution vs. creationism is a theological/philosophical one. Not a scientific one.<<

I'd have to disagree with this point. If God gave us reasoning power, then it follows that eventually our own scientific progress COULD eventually answer the call 'Does God exist?'. Thus it is a scientific question as much as a philosophical question. We could conceivably, through science, eventually solve the riddle and prove/ disprove God - through science. Does this make sense to you? Hope so.

Secondly, you mention the 'something from nothing' - I assume you mean the Big Bang? I'll assume you are pretty intelligent and would know that the Big Bang DID occur? There is evidence of it, identified through cosmology. So the Cause of Causation DID occur. You can still argue that God caused that event! Nevertheless, the Big Bang is a real event, that happened 13.7 Billion years ago, by current Cosmological estimates. We don't fully understand all the processes involved with that event - particularly the First second of Causation. To often though, Theists dismiss the whole idea, without actually knowing that the Big Bang occurred. I'll assume you know this though, because you seem rational to me!

It is that 'Nothing' we don't understand, at this point. It's a huge, perplexing question!

You could say "I have nothing in my freezer!", but that doesn't mean you have an entity named 'nothing' in your freezer! There cannot be a concept of 'Nothing', except as a relational concept denoting the absence of 'something' (in the case of your freezer - the Christmas Turkey! YUM! YUM!). The unknown variables, the 'Something', are the omitted measurements of that 'nothing', by present Cosmological standards It is those answers we still need to clarify and are still seeking.

It is that 'Something' that we seem to argue over! You would call it 'God' - and I really do respect that viewpoint. I'd call it 'Energy-Mass' transfer of unknown origin! Because we just don't know yet.

But then to turn that unknown into the Bible and babble on (like Theists do - not you Mitch) about floods and burning bushes and flying across water and turning a few loaves of bread and fish into a meal for thousands, takes the idea too far!

Kind Regards, William.

90. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #4544 by William on November 4, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Michael E Said:

>>Believers try to defend the evil in the world by telling us, "God gave us free will." If your free will leads you to superstition and ignorance, then you have to pay the price.<<

I agree. I don't buy this argument at all. Never have. I think any God that can conceive of such evil concepts as Death, Disease and Suffering, really needs to be questioned.

I consider myself to be fortunate and relatively healthy. I live in a First World country (England) and really, by other countries standards, and have a wonderful standard of living.

How many of us though have had health problems? Myself alone I've had:

Colds, Influenza, Gastroenteritis, Labyrinthitis, Respiratory Tract Infections, Hundreds of Stomach complaints, Sciatica, Lumbago, Tinnitus, Vertigo, migraines, muscle sprains et cetera.

These too me, are nothing complaints, compared to what many people suffer. Yet they have been far from fun. For myself, the very real experiences of these minor complaints is evidence of a natural selection at work. NOT Benevolent. NOT Benign. Just life, surviving where it can find a hold.

Are these and the many varied health complaints evidence of a 'God'? What kind of 'God' could conceive of such notions? Terminal Cancer in a child teaches us what, exactly? The Bible and its riddles is evidence of 'God'? Is this the same God that bans women from talking in church, tattoos, homosexuality and all the other well-known arguments Atheists are aware of?

The concept 'God', whatever one believes, is too far reaching for my understanding of existence. I wish I'd been taught Atheism and science from a young age. Perhaps then I wouldn't have felt dirty as a kid, when masturbating! Laugh you may, but religion does provide powerful influences over young, impressionable minds. I think its corrupt. Am I wrong? That loudmouth Haggard has been found out. He has violated his religion; lied to his wife; lied to his flock; bought disgrace on Christianity and his family. He has only been man enough to admit part of what he has been up to.

I wouldn't mind, but how often do we hear of ANOTHER religious person being found to be anything other than Christian?

The Human condition is perplexing. You don't see any other species arguing or warring as much as we do. We can't agree on much and we have to invent silly notions of afterlife and a higher power, to explain existence.

The concept God is too perplexing for myself. Rationality and reason is all there is. Is God reasonable? The evidence is sadly lacking.

Kind Regards, William.

91. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #4540 by William on November 4, 2006 at 11:50 am

Hi again Billy Sands!

Afraid, although Phil has a good mind, he can't help but preach! Hope Phil is not offended by these words, but often, Theists end up preaching at some point in their arguments.

It's the same old tired Dogma. UNLESS you give a Theist ABSOLUTE PROOF AND ANSWER ABSOLUTELY EVERY QUESTION KNOWN TO MAN, then they throw the whole argument out the window!

I can accept the idea of God. This doesn't make me an Agnostic though. I definitely don't believe. That first second after the Big Bang, is still being investigated. But it definitely happened. And creationists have to include every scientific discovery with every scientific discovery. Technically, unless science gains the answer to every possible question, a Theist could argue for God's existence ad infinitum!

earlier you said:

>>Was doing well until I did some barbell curls, I was getting tired and started curling my back, then I just felt it go. Still, evolution has equiped me with a self repair kit. I should be back in 10-14day. Just have to concentrate on legs for now. Dont think holding a fundie over a cliff at the monent and saying in my best arnie voice "Urry up and start thinking for yourself. Zis iz my veak arm!" :-)<<

Ah yes! Good old evolution is marvellous! The same post-workout soreness that HEALS the body from weight-training stress, also heals injury! Hope you are applying a good R.I.C.E procedure to your injury?

I don't do a lot Billy. Got my own gear recently. I just concentrate on Squats, Deads, Bench, Military, Curls and when I get a VKR station I'll add Chins and Dips.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

Kind Regards, William.

92. The God Conundrum

Comment #4535 by William on November 4, 2006 at 11:42 am

Brian said:

>>I'm not disputing that religion has had an influence on culture, or that this influence has occasionaly been postive. Merely that it has outlived it's usefulness, and that as regards broadening real understanding of our world, it has largely been a relentless obstruction.<<

I love your posts Brian. So clear in thought, that it's hard not to agree.

I would add to your list of useless past-times such things as fairies, goblins, ghosts, ghouls, re-incarnation, UFO's, The Loch Ness Monster, Past-Life Regression, ESP, Out-of-body experiences, tea-leaf reading, male-bonding workshops, Clairvoyance, Mediums and any of the other versions of superstition.

Believers should admit that they believe because they WANT too. Because they don't see how there could be any natural reasons for existence. I can respect this view, because that first second after the big bang is open to much speculation. We don't have enough understanding or evidence yet. This doesn't make me agnostic though. I definitely don't believe. I DONT WANT TO BELIEVE. I can't accept a God that can claim to be loving, yet invents the concept of death, disease or suffering.

I also can't accept the ideas of the Theists who take the Bible as red. Jesus may well have lived - I now there are Atheists that wouldn't agree and would state that Jesus is a myth or a composite. I don't subscribe to that. I believe Jesus existed. That he was a MAN. Not a God. The distinction is important. The stories of Jesus lose credit, once people talk about miracles and resurrection etc., These premises take the idea too far for me. Again, I can't obviously prove any of this; these are just my own ideas. So Theists can attack me all they wish. I'll not be upset if they take me to task. Because quite simply, none of the believers were there 2,000 years ago - so they don't really know, either. The Bibles claims are absurd and from the little I've read of it, the Qur'an is not much of an improvement.

I would add to your idea of religion existing in a 1,000 years. I realise this is just a figure off the top of your head. Personally, I would predict that, so long as we survive the 21st Century (and no religious freaks create a pandemic of death, from a Human engineered virus that makes AIDS look like a cold!), then science should progress to a time where sheer immortality could be a real progress.

By immortality, I mean should concepts as - cloned bodies in storage, should anything happen to ours. Technology and man, integrated as one - not unlike the Borg on Star Trek! This may sound ridiculous, but is it? I'd say that if we can cheat 'Death' that Grim Reaper that haunts us all, then we will have ended The God Delusion.

God would be extinct. We'd have no need for God, nor religious teachings. Is that a worthy goal?

Kind Regards, William.

93. BBC Profile - Richard Dawkins

Comment #4479 by William on November 4, 2006 at 4:49 am

I can certainlty understand what you're saying Janus.

I'd definitely disagree with the part where the reporter states that Religion teaches us all to live at peace with each other!

What peace is this then? History has demonstrated a sincere lack of peace between differing faiths. It's still going on today.

Kind Regards, William.

94. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4471 by William on November 4, 2006 at 4:06 am

Roger Said:

>>Fundamentalists lie - out of need, habitually and repeatedly and we have seen through their arrogant and opinionated rotteness.

Roger Stanyard<<

Agreed. Recently on here, A Theist accused us all of being NAMBLA members. For those who don't know, NAMBLA is an imaginary organisation from the TV show South Park. It stands for North American Man-Boy Lover Association. Basically, because Professor Dawkins states in The God Delusion, that relgious abuse of children is as bad as paedophilia, thus, by defintion, all Atheists are paedophiles. There is NOTHING I detest more than a paedophile - and I bet most Atheists would be with me on this.

So. If that same Theist is still reading:

Ted Haggard is what...?

Kind Regards, William.

95. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4296 by William on November 3, 2006 at 8:44 am

All true Manfred.

I'll say this though: If EVERY religious person was like Rosy - well, the world would be lovely! We'd have heaven on Earth - because people would be more considerate and respectful of each other.

Rosy, even though I no longer believe, I hope your God watches over you. You've NEVER been 'holier-than-thou' in any of your postings - which I find humbling. Too many EVIL people grab onto religion and then use it as tool to commit evil deeds. This is the point Professor Dawkins is trying to make, I believe, in his work. These types, who blow up buildings etc., are divisive and evil. They forget the whole premise of Religion.

I wish you well, Rosy: I still don't believe.

Bob Said:

>>Comment #4279 by bob on November 3, 2006 at 7:27 am
Pastor Ted Haggard is a meth smoking homo
hahahaha seriously I just saw it on good morning america<<

HA HA HA HA! I'm afraid I laughed rather loud at this! I find Haggard to be an intolerant, despicable man.

Here is a typical example of a man making a FANTASTIC living from religion. I bet he is a millionaire. His religion has given him POWER. Indeed, he claims to be in weekly contact with Bush. I bet he is. I bet, like on South Park he says:

"Put a dollar in the Box-aaar!" to his FLOCK - for that is what they are, meer sheep - on the way in and out of the door.

I suggest he re-reads his Bible. The part about Camels and needles!

Kind Regards, William.

96. Fundamentalist Religion and Science

Comment #4294 by William on November 3, 2006 at 8:36 am

Hello again Billy Sands!

I don't understand why Theists come in here! True, the arguments are a great laugh, but consider this:

THEISTS will NEVER convince ATHEISTS God does exist.
ATHESISTS will NEVER convince THEISTS God doesn't exist!

True. An open-minded individual may dispense with religion, or take up a religion. These aren't the Theists in here though. Theists in here have made up their minds that the fairy tale book of witchcraft is correct and we unGodly Atheists are doomed to hell and we need saving. Theists: I am telling you now, as an Atheist I don't need your prayers or your love or your God to protect me. I don't believe in him! I wish your God would help you to see this!

The arguments involving the Bible intrigue me though. HOW does any Theist KNOW God exists, by using the Bible as a reference tool?

Supposedly, the Bible is The Word of God. It's ridiculous! Everthing in the Bible is contradictory in nature. I could find a book, about ghosts, in a cave. I could say that the book is true, because it is the law of ghosts. If anybody tries to rubbish the book of ghosts, I'd say it is true, because the ghosts wrote the book!

The point is, that this is circular arguing and incorrect logic! A perfect example of why the Bible is an authority of nothing. To inlude itself as RATIONAL PROOF is illogical. We'd need an external proof to verify the claim that the book of ghosts is true. Anything! A photograph, a prediction, et cetera.

The book of Isiah states that the prophet will be IMMANUEL not Jesus. Another contradiction?

>>7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.<<

To take the Bible as the 'WORD' - and then use it as a frame of reference of proof - is illogical.

None of it makes sense to myself. Do Theist have a differently wired brain to myself? That would be an interesting study, eh? Maybe there is something in a person's BioChemistry that defines one person as believing and another as unbelieving? I'm not an authority on this - but it would interesting to know.

Kind Regards, William.

PS - It would have to be an EVOLUTIONARY reason for believing! HA HA HA! Just kidding Theists, don't get all pious on me... :-)

97. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #4290 by William on November 3, 2006 at 8:17 am

Laura M Said:

>>To Si- (#30),

You wrote: "...our relationship with America is unhealthy, we are acting above our station."
What precisely does this phrase mean, in the context of Britain's relationship with the U.S.?
Just curious(I'm American).<<

Hi Laura! you and I have spoken before. Si does not speak for all us Brits. Just because the American and UK governments made the awful mistake of going to war in Iraq, DOESN'T for one instance mean we shouldn't treasure our alliance with America. I'd side with America, if push came to shove.

Bush and Blair would get a lot more respect if they came out and ADMITTED They were wrong. That they had really messed up big time and that they were now going to try and do what they could to put it right. Britain lost a lot of respect in the Moderate part of the Middle East, deservedly so. I would not be the proper authority to say how this could be undone, though.

I do worry that the media play a big part, sometimes, in making divisions where none should exist. The BBC are awful in their Bias. If Brits are unhappy with America, then it is not directed at Americans, but more likely American foreign policy. I feel it is important to state the difference - I'm sure Si would agree with this point. We have NO PROBLEM With Americans!

There is NOTHING unhealthy, in my opinion, with our relationship to America. This view is held by the anti-American elite of the U.K. We have a shared history, speak the same language because of that history; we have fought side-by-side in many wars; we share surveillance intelligence amongst groups such as the CIA and MI5; our countries are both stronger for it. Make no doubt.

The Iraq issue is enormous. I'd never understimate that. I feel for all the lives lost. But to take that a step further and say we should 'dispense' with American alliance is taking the assumption too far.

America donated 4 of the 5 billion gallons of oil during WW2. Did you know that? America was working in secret with the British BEFORE Pearl Harbour, even though a war involving America was not wanted. America helped us against FRENCH originated weaponry during the Falklands War. America donates a lot of money around the world. I'm not saying America is wonderful example of democracy, but America does, I feel, get a lot of undeserved criticism at times.

I don't like the arguments made in favour of cutting diplomatic ties with America. I think both countries would suffer as a result. Usually, Britain is a voice of reason (Yeah, Blair ain't been) to America. I think our countries benefit from our alliance.

BUT IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE! No doubt about it! Does anybody REALLY feel safer now?

98. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #4263 by William on November 3, 2006 at 6:18 am

An interesting and truly frightening article.

>>"I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places... Excuse me, but we have the truth!"<<

As I write this I am listening to the BBC World Service. American GI's wives are on the radio, talking about how ANRGY - how VERY ANGRY they are that their loving husbands have been deployed to Iraq.

Where is THAT LOUD MOUTH DRAGUTIN NOW, THEN? Are you here Dragutin Matak? Have you got anything to say about this VILE Diatribe. Dragutin accused me of not-behaving correctly, because I am offended by Theists and their irrational behaviour. What has that loudmouth Dragutin got to say on this matter? What about 9/11? 7/11? 7/7? The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Divine Rights of Kings?

'Creation Adventure' videos?

What is this utter, utter crap? This camp is clearly indoctrination of innocent minds. Onward Christian soldiers, eh? I hope that pompous Professor Matak answers this piece. I'd love to see his warped view on this clear buffoonery.

Kind Regards, Willia.

99. Why there is no God

Comment #4193 by William on November 2, 2006 at 4:19 pm

Billy Sands said:

>>William, myself and others have lost our faiths, so our minds were not closed to it in the first place. Reason brought me to disbelief, and I realised more and more that I had no evidence for god. It was all in my head. That is how we know that you have a closed mind. We have been there<<

Right on the nail! I'd gladly embrace again God, if it could be demonstrated that God is there. Trouble is, with every advance in science and even our own 5 senses, no evidence can be provided that a God exists. Natural phenomena all around us. Nothing SUPERnatural can be observed.

The logical conclusion, from the current evidence available is Atheism. Agnosticism does not fit, because the claim 'you can't know' is invalid in my mind - not all theories can be true; only 1 theory can be true. There either IS a God or there ISN'T a God. Theists know this though, I assume?

If a Theist could provide ONE piece of evidence; JUST one, then all these arguments could end overnight. A photograph of God. A supernatural voice recording of God. A new instruction in the modern era, declaring the old laws as invalid. You'd think, with the amount of history, 'he' would have at least made ONE piece of evidence available by now! SURELY any creator God, could observe the chaos on this planet by now!

No. It's irrational. Theists should admit they just WANT to believe. I don't want to believe any longer. I've thrown away my comfort-blanket and view existence as truly wonderful, but an all-natural gift from nature. I could have been born in the 3rd world. I could have been born a snail! To be alive in the 1st World, in the 21st century is amazing! To be able to exchange views with similar-minded individuals is amazing! To live in the information age is amazing!

None of it is attributable to God. It's all our own doing. The works of Edison, Curie, Einstein, John Logie Baird, Marconi, Pasteur et cetera... these are the reasons for our wonderful way of life.

We don't need God any longer.

Kind Regards, William.

100. Collateral Damage 1: Embryos and Stem Cell Research.

Comment #4188 by William on November 2, 2006 at 3:57 pm

>>Comment #1082 by ZT<<

I think you've hit the nail on the head there ZT.

The Relgious fundamentalists will use ANY excuse to prevent the forwarding of Mankind.

I can see Galileo now, in his solitary confinement, alone with only mental images of the wonders of the heavens he had gazed upon, through his primitive telescopes. Theists sicken me with their holier-than-thou approach to all areas of life. They can't prove any of their beliefs and become very hostile at anyone who refuses to accept their irrationality.

Kind Regards, William.