51. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96712 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 9:07 pm

The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems.

With thanks to theists everyone.... This doesn't sound like MY atheism!

52. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96611 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Maybe it flopped simply because it's a bad film? Oh, no that can't be it!

Oh, and the reason Invasion and The Brave One flopped is because they had women in the leads.

Please!!!!

53. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96607 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 6:42 pm

A) Religious people have killed less people than non-religious people.
B) Therefore, god exists.

Don't you just love this argument!

And let's not forget that atheism says nothing about how to treat other people or how to run a society. Religion, however, in its sacred textx does support the stoning of adulterers and the killing of homosexuals.

54. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #96040 by Inferno on December 9, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Pathetic. Is this what constitutes an interview or even a discussion on fox news? O'Reilly refuses to let any point go to the stage where the discussion just turns into a tit for tat contradiction.

O'Reilly needs to watch that Monty Python sketch "The Argument Sketch"

55. The art of the soluble

Comment #95966 by Inferno on December 9, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Religion, by contrast, accepts the limitations of our senses and brains and posits at least the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye - a meta-dimension that might be called transcendental.

There are plenty of times scientists posit the existence of something yet to be proved. String theory for example, says there are many more curled up dimensions than we see, yet this has yet to be proved.

The difference between science and religion asking these questions is that science wants to test these ideas. Do they reflect reality or not. Science wants to progress, religion does not.

Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived. Ironically, these arguments break the rule of parsimony - always opt for the simplest explanation - which lies at the heart of science itself.

And a conscious infite being called God for which there is no evidence whatsoever is not contrived? Really, which is simplier - a singularity was the starting point to the universe, or a extremely powerful self aware entity with desires and thoughts that itself had no creation?

56. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93274 by Inferno on December 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm

The first half of the article is ok. But the second half really fails to make its point clear.

speaking, liberalism takes no position on theological questions.

Fine, then we're illiberal. Does it really matter? Left, right, centre, communist, capitalist..... who cares.

57. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90603 by Inferno on November 25, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Now the movement can count hundreds of scientists with master's or Ph.D. degrees in the sciences from respectable universities.

How are these people getting Ph.Ds? I thought for a Ph.D you needed to prepare an original scientific paper. Surely creationism would never meet this? Are they doing papers and research according to accepted science but themselves secretly not believing the results? Isn't this akin to lying?

58. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87286 by Inferno on November 11, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Dawkins must be sick of being askwed the same things all the time.

You get the feeling that not only can he answer the interviewer's question before the interviewer has finished asking it, but he can also respond to the next one before the interviewer has even thought of it.

59. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85444 by Inferno on November 5, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Very sad.

It's quite amazing that theists can take certain sections of the bible and take them unbelievably seriously (eg hate gays), but yet happily ignore others (eg stoning adulterers). How do they keep the logic of this going in their head?

60. Washoe, the sign-language chimp dies

Comment #85438 by Inferno on November 5, 2007 at 9:46 pm

learned to imitate sign language, but did not develop true language skills

What is the difference between these two?

61. Creating controversy

Comment #84294 by Inferno on November 1, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Good article.

To save the theists the effort of responding, I'll do it for them...
"This is not my religion"
"Science is a belief system"
"You're can't prove god didn't put dinosaur fossils in the ground to trick us"

62. The truth in religion

Comment #84290 by Inferno on November 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm

On the question of evil...

You cannot have the one without the other. Humphrys asks why there are not repeated divine interventions to avert evil consequences. Such things could only happen in a magical world, and that kind of world is not this one, because its creator is not a capricious magician.

To create a world without evil, without suffering would be capricious? Why couldn't god create such a "magical world"? Was it beyond his power?

63. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #83023 by Inferno on October 28, 2007 at 3:27 pm

If you accept Dawkins's characterisation of religion, you'd probably agree. Religious parents, to him, are Mr Dogma and Mrs Bigot: they terrify their kids with tales of eternal hell, fire and damnation, when - that is - they're not carrying out female circumcision or coercing them into forced marriages. Flat-earthers the lot, they're brainwashers, fanatically opposed to science and rationality.

Sorry, Anne, Dawkins does not think all religious parents are bad - just the ones that do not teach their kids that other religions exist and may be equally as valid as their own.

Parents attempt to exert control over almost every other aspect of their kids' lives as well. And parents almost invariably fail.

Completely misses the point that children almost without fail (even more so in non-western countries) will choose the religion of their parents. So the parents in that sense do not fail.

Talk to the American child of 1960s activists and they might well describe themselves as a "red diaper baby". And sit in a car with a bunch of 10-year-olds discussing reincarnation, as I did recently,

Errr....Is this a habit of yours Anne, to sit in a car with 10 year olds discussing seudo-science? Oh, it would be easy to make a "because they're at the same intelligence level as you", but I'm far to dignified for such a cheap shot!

and you'd have heard as passionate an engagement with moral, religious and philosophical issues as you'd come upon in any Muslim madrasa, Jewish yeshiva or other kind of seminary.

So arguments in favour of religion haven't progressed beyond those developed (and no doubt countered) by 10 year olds?? Actually, she's probably right about this one!

The difference between indoctrination and education is whether you use religion to try to open up debate or close it down.

Some of us can argue passionately in favour of moral and philosphical issues without regard to sky fairies, interdemension transendental arks, or saviour zombies.

And what does any of this article say about the truth of religious claims? Nothing as usual.

64. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79539 by Inferno on October 17, 2007 at 3:53 pm

while our children and grandchildren were away at Bible camp...

This whole letter is a joke, right?

Evangelize:
1. To preach the gospel to.
2. To convert to Christianity.

65. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78741 by Inferno on October 14, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Ah, the old "But this is not my god" argument.

I wish religious leaders would come out and make clear what their religion believes. Perhaps a Bible footnoting each verse with "This is literally true", "This didn't happen it's just a metaphor". Heck, I'll even let them have a "We're not sure about this one."

Have any studies been done to see what the average christian believes, compared to the actual teachings of the religion? i'm sure we'll find them quite different.

66. A New Debate

Comment #75532 by Inferno on October 3, 2007 at 12:16 am

Is there an American version of Stephen Fry's show "QI"? A show like that with Presidential candidates would be brilliant.

67. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75139 by Inferno on October 1, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Good article.

68. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73945 by Inferno on September 26, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Comment #73788 by CruciFiction

Even though online polls are unscientific, check out the sad numbers of this current poll that reflect an incredible 35% believe the bible is LITERALLY TRUE:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11656508/

What's your view on the accuracy of the Bible? (372005 responses)

Every detail is literally true.
35%

Some details may be inaccurate or exaggerated, but the fundamentals are true.
33%

The Bible is fundamentally fiction, incorporating some historical facts.
27%

None of the above.
5.3%

We should post this in the forum and get everyone to overwhelm the "fundmanetally fiction" answer.

69. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73713 by Inferno on September 26, 2007 at 12:19 am

Amazing how merely eating the fruit from just one tree meant mankind was "lost" forever. That's some design flaw!

70. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73698 by Inferno on September 25, 2007 at 10:47 pm

haha, I love the phrase: "He is worthy of death!" That's so my new catch phrase!

71. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73683 by Inferno on September 25, 2007 at 8:33 pm

So..... Noah saved the dinosaurs only for them to be eaten afterwards? Man, he must have been pissed.

72. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73035 by Inferno on September 23, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Well put. This is probably the reason I could never succeed at politics. I'd too readily listen to evidence and change my mind if necessary. Then I'd be accused of "flip-flopping."

73. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73020 by Inferno on September 23, 2007 at 8:44 pm

It's not like atheists are traveling door to door and shoving copies of "Origin of Species" into people's hands!

Well, actually ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmC0DaE6rE

74. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72992 by Inferno on September 23, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Of course religion is advancing!! I mean they did just work out from years of rigious testing and applied mathematics, that limbo is a load of cobblers. What an age we live in!

75. Yes, it's a Hobbit. The debate that has divided science is solved at last (sort of)

Comment #72954 by Inferno on September 23, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Absolutely fascinating. I wonder if such a species did live with us today, what would their lives be like? Slaves at some point I'm sure. Zoo animals? Pets? Wildlife sanctuary? No doubt some religious nutters would be trying to teach them the word of god...

76. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72944 by Inferno on September 23, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I think it's an ok criticism. I have no problem if you want to argue that Dawkins et al are building walls rather than bridges.

What I take offence to is the old "But Charles Darwin believed in God!" excuse. Like he is our atheistic leader or some such nonsense.

77. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72309 by Inferno on September 20, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Theologians and theists are alot like Star Trek fans. They worship all the various series from the original to Enterprise, and are now desparately trying to explain away all the apparent contradictions..... "Oh well, you see when Scotty came out of the transporter he assumed Kirk would be there because the sub space array was refitted to release an energy beam that went back in time ...."

78. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72299 by Inferno on September 20, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I found this interesting.....

the straw God that Dawkins sets up and then demolishes is often uncomfortably close to the notion of God that we Christians all too frequently seem to talk about, pray to and worship.

Previsely why these theologians complaining their god is different from Dawkins description is meaningless. The vast majority of theists believe in precisely the sort of god Dawkins mentioned.

Further, these articles always seem to say that theologians god is different, but never exactly explain how. The best they can do is....

Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, grappling with what is meant by 'God'

In other words, they presume God exists then try to work out what god is like.

Dawkins gave the most simple and wide definition of god you could imagine. One that tries to pin down what is the fundamental basic idea of what is god. And that is, that god created the universe and, too most theists, continues to interfer with the universe.

I have yet to see a single article give a shred of good evidence why this god exists or why their god is different to this god. Their god may be more than this definition, but surely this is the basic premise of god?

79. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72294 by Inferno on September 20, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Interesting that Mr Well's acknowledges that individual species (the blades of grass analogy) can separate into different species. He just doesn't accept that all species themselves had the same origin. So he does believe in evolution! The only difference is that he would have many starting points/many simple organisms, rather than the traiditional single common ancestor.

I'm looking forward to watching Part 2 to see how they leap from the idea for a creator to the very specific nature of the chrisitian god (and also why the first cause argument does not apply to their god).

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

Comment #71487 by Inferno on September 18, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Dawkins needs to read some theology

Most of the polemic in The God Delusion is directed at US fundamentalist Christianity. This is somewhat like writing a book about gastronomy but focusing on the McDonald's "restaurant".

No, it's more like writing a book about the most commonly visited restaurant. Moderate theists just don't like to admit that they may be in the minority, especially in America.

Dawkins further limits his investigations in two ways. Firstly, he restricts himself to the view that "the existence of God is a scientific concept like any other".

Yes? And why isn't it a scientific concept? Religion supposes the existence of something. Testing whether this something exists or not is science.

Secondly, he denies that personal religious experience has any real cognitive value. These limitations greatly hamper his understanding of religion. He appears not to note that restrictions of these types would also seriously limit the account of all subjective experience, including the evaluation of the self and free will.

Interesting that he mentions self and free will. These are things that we internally believe exist, yet objective studies are suggesting they may be illusions. This is why we can't rely solely on subjective evidence.

Dawkins fails to recognise that religious thinking develops with time and that its expression, both personal and collective, is continually changing in response to new situations. There is another way of saying this: it evolves – strange he missed that.

Completely untrue. Dawkins will readily admit that religious thinking changes over time. After all the whole thing is man made, so of course it will change as our social morals and ideas change.

If it were truely the word of god it wouldn't change!

81. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71390 by Inferno on September 18, 2007 at 4:46 pm

I "pray" this won't happen. Aren't other catholics disgusted at these sort of policies?

82. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71389 by Inferno on September 18, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Kathy Griffin is annoying, but damn American theists (and Fox) get upset over the smallest things.

83. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69813 by Inferno on September 12, 2007 at 11:01 pm

I'm sick of hearing comments that religious people give more time, money and blood to charity. I'm sorry, but any organisation with principles that exclude people solely on sexual preference and believes that the majority of people in the world will be tormented for eternity in a firery hell, is not a moral organisation. Any morals they do have must be purely coincidental!

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

Comment #69565 by Inferno on September 11, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Hmm, can anyone else see this on a new atheist t-shirt?

"I'm an atheist.... Suck it, Jesus!"

85. The Mix Tape of the Gods

Comment #68029 by Inferno on September 5, 2007 at 5:31 pm

When Voyager (or was it Voyager2?) made an appearance at the end of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as "VGER" I thought it was one of the best endings to a sci-fi movie - EVER!

The nerd in me must point out that the probe in ST:TMP was Voyager VI. Didn't you know? The US government sent out 4 more of those probes without telling anyone. =)

Oh, and The Motion Picutre is easily the most underrated of all the Trek films.

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

Comment #67805 by Inferno on September 4, 2007 at 10:40 pm

First!

Anyway...Appears Linklater is someone who enjoys the religious traditions and customs, while not believing a word of them. That is fair enough for somethings, but for sitting in church wasting away an hour or more each week listening to how you're going to hell? Not much fun in my book.

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

Comment #67205 by Inferno on September 2, 2007 at 4:37 pm

A Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion by John Cornwell

THIS BOOK IS A PIECE of sheer heaven. It kicks Richard Dawkins's self-aggrandising polemic, The God Delusion, into touch with featherlight footwork and is deliciously wise, witty and intellectually sharp into the bargain.

Ok fine, but it would be nice if the rest of your "review" actually did any reviewing of the Cornwell book! This is like me reviewing The X-Men movie, by talking only about how bad I found Mary Poppins.

Next the seraph gently takes Dawkins to task for his breezy disregard for – some might say ignorance of – serious theology. You cannot criticise a theory until you have made some proper attempt to come to grips with it, and Dawkins hasn't; or doesn't show us that he has tried. He overlooks the big theologians altogether in favour of some pretty low-key, unknown figures.

Dawkins starts with looking at the evidence for a god. He looks at the most common arguments (and a few less common). There is hardly much point going into detail about this or that obscure theologian discussion about god if we haven't proved god's existence in the first place.

Theology is about "if" god exists, what must god be like. Dawkins is starting from a point before that and asking "does" or "could" god exist?

Therefore, it is perfectly respectable to "pick and choose" when reading the Bible, something that Dawkins takes Christians to task for

Disumbrationist already covered this, so I'll just repeat his/her words which I completely agreee with:

"Fine, as long as you then admit that the Bible was neither written by God nor divinely inspired, the Bible is not the source of morality (since it is your innate morality that is doing the "picking and choosing"), and that a majority of Christians (at least in America) would disagree with you."

Just as Jesus told stories to get across his points, the Gospellers told stories about him. It doesn't follow that they are false because they are stories

True. But it is suspect that the gospel do contradict each other on key points of Jesus' like and death. The only way to reconcile these contradictions is with some external evidence to the bible, which then natually enough leaves you open to question everything about Jesus' life, including whether he existed at all.

Not that any of this is likely to alter the minds of the antiGod squad. They "know" they are right – that least scientific of attitudes since it precludes changes of heart or openness of mind.

*Sigh* I can understand if you misunderstand some of Dawkins points, but how could you misunderstand this? Didn't you at least read the chapter titles? "Why there is almost certainly no god", not why there is no god or why there is definitely no god. Geez!!!

88. The importance of doubt

Comment #66643 by Inferno on August 30, 2007 at 7:32 pm

"John Cornwell struggled with his faith for two decades before finally returning to Christianity"

Why is whenever we hear of a religious person who struggled with their faith, they always seem to return to the faith they started off with? If it was a genuine struggle with questioning and doubt, shouldn't some of these former christians become Hindus or Sikhs or Zoroastrians?

89. The importance of doubt

Comment #66633 by Inferno on August 30, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Dawkins is as reluctant as any evangelical fundamentalist to recognise the importance of an element of doubt, or doubt of doubt, in religious faith, or to accept that much of the content of religious faith is metaphorical, poetic and symbolic rather than factual in a scientific sense. He is convinced that faith is in all circumstances absolute, seamless, literal.

Wow! Talk about completely missing the message! Dawkins is ALL about doubt. That's why we need EVIDENCE. Doubt something until the evidence says otherwise. And the evidence is firmly against all the established religions.

And Dawkins has NEVER claimed that religion is all literal. In fact, something he continually asks is on what basis do religious people decide what in their sacred texts should be taken literally and what is merely mataphorical. The answer to this goes to the very question of morals and the justification to religion.

90. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66381 by Inferno on August 29, 2007 at 9:57 pm

I have to say, I do like the title to the article: "There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet".

Almost beats my other favourite: "Hitchens to God: Drop Dead".

91. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66331 by Inferno on August 29, 2007 at 5:49 pm

I liked the first third of the article, but then it falls into the usual drivel of claiming there are proofs of god that Dawkins hasn't discussed, but never mentions what these are.

The alternatives to the origin of the universe and god are good enough as food for thought, but the author draws the wrong conclusion. There are an infinte ways a god MAY exist, but without any evidence, isn't it more likely that none of them are true?

92. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66314 by Inferno on August 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa's side ... Brilliant!

Does this now mean that if any good did come out of her life's work, we chalk that up as a win for atheism, ie she did it despite a lack of faith, not because of it?

93. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59586 by Inferno on July 29, 2007 at 8:12 pm

[quote]"The idea that just giving them a lot of information is going to solve it, I think, is kind of naive," [/quote]

So giving them no information/highly biased information will work?