Comments by WilliamP

51. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166654 by WilliamP on April 23, 2008 at 11:17 am

This story is almost as ridiculous as the one about those people who wake up early on Sunday mornings to drink blood.

52. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165928 by WilliamP on April 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Well, maybe these writers just haven't heard of Okham's Razor. Dawkins said:

They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex...you might as well say flagellar motors were always there.

This deals with most of these responses- no god is still a better explanation even if you don't know the real answer.

53. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165032 by WilliamP on April 21, 2008 at 12:32 am

This guy is lying to try to look like approaching this movie objectively, saying that he wasn't looking forward to it. For a man with so many ties to so many conservative and religious groups I find it hard to believe that he was doing anything but wetting his pants in anticipation for this film. Have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III

If you follow the link to the Catholic League you'll also find out that he and his friends there publish material denying the Catholic Church's possible role in the Holocaust. Why so credulous when one movie proposes a link between Hitler and Darwin?

The Scientists are dishonest, but not the producers of the movie? No mention of Myers being kicked out of the screening in ultimate irony?

I hope people who read this crap aren't falling for his implied objectivity. Yet more dishonesty from the pro-Expelled side.

54. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162416 by WilliamP on April 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm

What a fiasco this movie has become. It seems to be a publicity stunt for the Intelligent Design movement that keeps generating bad publicity. It hasn't even been released yet and its makers have been accused of plagiarism, possible copywright infringement, misrepresenting themselves to experts appearing in it, and denying a potential critic access despite its contention that critics of evolution are being silenced.

The film supposedly tries to link evolution with Nazism, but it's far more successful in liking Intelligent Design with dishonesty and charlatanism. It's not surprising given that the latter connection is far stronger.

55. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158575 by WilliamP on April 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Then again, for the real simple-minded, we can apply Intelligent Design reasoning:

Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise. -Hitler

Look! Look! Hitler said "Creator"! He must have been a creationist! Therefore Creationism is false!

56. Expelled Overview

Comment #149819 by WilliamP on March 26, 2008 at 9:03 am

I really think someone should take the ID crowd to task on academic freedom. They claim to be pushing for free inquiry when it comes to ID, but how many of these conservative religious types would stand up with anti-Bush 9/11 conspiracy theorists who want to present their views in universities in the name of academic freedom?

Someone should get some of these ID nuts on camera and press them on this issue. Will they be hypocrites and reject equal academic freedom for both theories, or will they alienate their Bush-loving ID supporters by supporting freedom for both?

57. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46264 by WilliamP on May 30, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Boy, I really feel bad for this kid. And also for the proponents of the "science" of creationism who are astounded by the groundbreaking advances made in that field by a child with some paper towels.

58. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42989 by WilliamP on May 20, 2007 at 8:29 am

I find it hard to believe that people find it so hard to accept that Hitch is conservative toward the Iraq War and liberal toward religion. There is a good reason for this: he has well thought out reasons for both views. Perhaps it's just too uncommon to see someone like Hitchens who doesn't stick to a single ideological line.

59. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42205 by WilliamP on May 17, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Bizzaro Dawkins said:

I must believe what is most reasonable. I cannot accept the scientifically and philosophically absurd notion that matter created itself or possesses aseity. I cannot accept that molecules can organize themselves into complex life that we are just beginning to understand.

So a supreme being more powerful than anything in human understanding was able to create itself? Matter cannot have aseity, but something capable of willing it into being it does? The ordering of matter into life is such a mystery that only something well-ordered enough to give order to that matter must have been there?
Is it most reasonable to believe in an entity, which by definition is not subject to observable evidence, and which does not offer any explanation for anything you have cited in the first place? Seriously, I'd like to know.

60. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #41856 by WilliamP on May 17, 2007 at 7:58 am

BillySands,
that's no surprise that Robertson would block your comments on his site and whine when it happens to him here.

I just saw his letter to the Times on this thread and it looks like more of the same. He claims that Dawkins makes strawman arguments about religion in the same piece where he says:

Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot. It is the classic circular argument of the fundamentalist believer who will not allow the possibility that he may be wrong.

Is this a joke? Dawkins wrote a book reasoning through the arguments for god's existence. He doesn't start with it as a fundamental belief. Is his assumption that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it? What an absurd assumption! And what circular argument has Dawkins made? How does Dawkins' rejection of theology prove what it already assumes? Who's really making strawman arguments?

61. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #41672 by WilliamP on May 16, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Again, David Robertson (The Wee Flea) is back and commenting. I really don't know why he comes here. He writes a lot about how he gets trolled off the site and about how we atheists don't realize how intollerent and irrational we are. I don't know why he posts here. If we want him to go away I suggest we corner him on the issue of god's existence. He never seems to want to talk about that, and always tries to divert people to his website, where he has posted ten reasons for beliving in Christ.

His reasons are nothing that we haven't heard before. Most of them can be reduced to the following formula:
I can't see how ____ came about except for it having been created by god. Therefore god exists.

Despite being a main critic of TGD, I doubt that he has much to offer in terms of arguments against Dawkins' criticism of the Design Argument, or anything to revive Anselm's Ontological Argument. He seems mostly to want to argue that atheists characterize believers unfairly. He particularly talks a lot about how he accepts the bible on evidence, contrary to atheist claims that there is no evidence for god
s existence. Of course, not much explanation follows.

So if anyone wants Mr. Robertson off this website, then I suggest that you ignore him until he's ready to discuss his belief in god and his evidence for it. I don't know why he comes to this site, but it seems to be for something other than that.

62. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39641 by WilliamP on May 11, 2007 at 12:22 pm

I also read the second part of the debate. Hitchens said that Wilson's first reply, arguing that Christianity provides universal morality:

contains nothing that distinguishes it from Islam or Hinduism or indeed humanism.

These words are prophetic because they also apply to Wilson's second reply in which he says:

The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed [moral] standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either.

This means that if something 1. provides a moral standard, and 2. forgives sins, then it is good for the world. That sounds a lot like just about any other religion out there. I guess Wilson missed that one.

And again he asks how can moral order exist without god, but what I would like to know is how humans can disagree about morals as we do if there is a god-given order?

63. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39468 by WilliamP on May 10, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Here's a quote for you guys:

Oh dear god, save me from the crappy production value and insane rantings of this awful video!

-WilliamP

64. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39324 by WilliamP on May 10, 2007 at 10:17 am

Since Wilson went onto this tangent, I want to ask, how can god be the cause of human morality? There seem to be a few things that all humans see as being wrong like stealing. Then we get to rape, and guess what, god sanctions that in Pakistan!

Are we to believe that the crime of rape is different from the apparent non-crime of "rape-in-Pakistan". Not to mention polygamy, ingesting alchohol and other "toxins", birth control, owning dogs, eating pork, crashing planes into buildings, and many other things. I'm just picking out rules here that religions can't agree upon, but I could point out others.

If god gave humans morals, then god is an incompetent fool. The differences in what people see as being right and wrong show some very sorry work on the part of this alleged supreme being. All people may follow a general set of rules, but those rules don't extend very far, because there are many, many things that they differ on. There is no reason to say that because humans share some basic behavioral tendencies, the only conslusion we can reach is that there's an invisible, all-powerful man in the sky.

65. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39050 by WilliamP on May 9, 2007 at 9:29 pm

...the Archbishop of Riga called homosexuality "total corruption in the sexual arena" and "an unnatural form of prostitution."

With all the gay Catholic priests out there, I suppose this makes him a pimp. And that makes the Pope -the church's father- the "Pimp Daddy"! No wonder why he dresses so flamboyantly!

66. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38891 by WilliamP on May 9, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Bizarro Dawkins said:

I have to admit, I was very worried when I read that Sharpton was debating the existence of God with an atheist.

Bizarro, you're either getting your news from a really unreliable source or your missing one big detail:

The question under debate ("Is God great?")

67. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38822 by WilliamP on May 9, 2007 at 8:41 am

This obviously isn't the whole debate and there might be more to be said here. I'm for arguing about the existence of god with theists, but Sharpton shouldn't have brought it up here for two reasons: 1. He couldn't make a good argument for it. 2. It's not the topic of the debate.
About number 2, the topic was "Is God Great". If I were debating the question "Is Homer Simpson Great?", I wouldn't spend much time talking about Homer's existence.
Sharpton was arguing that god explains why humans have morals, but maybe he didn't go into the bible because he couldn't explain why our god-given morals often clash with what we see in the bible.
And what Sharpton said about Romney, if I understand it correctly, was very inappropriate.

68. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38483 by WilliamP on May 8, 2007 at 9:20 am

Sorry, double posted.

69. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38481 by WilliamP on May 8, 2007 at 9:16 am

Harris' quote has been thrown around here quite a bit-

some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them

I haven't read Sam Harris, and I don't know the context that this was taken from, so I can't say for sure what he meant.
It seems to me, however, that it means something like this:
There exist certain propositions (x) for which if a person (p) believes x, then it might be ethical to kill that person. That is to say that if p believes x, then it might be okay to kill p. I don't agree with this. The belief itself has no ill effect on anyone else, and someone entirely unable to act on a dangerous belief is no threat to anyone else and nothing is acomplished by killing them.

Since I am an athiest I am not bound to what Harris says and disagreeing with him will not get me excommunicated from atheism. I'm allowed to ask him for justfication of his statement, and if he can't give it, then I'll just have to disagree with him unless he changes his mind. That's the good thing about not having faith and not believing dogma.

70. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38257 by WilliamP on May 7, 2007 at 10:29 am

Let's talk about the problems that religious apologists seem to have in making their cases: they just can't address the arguments against believing in god.

Their problem is that they write articles like this whinining about how mean atheists are and they forget to argue WHY you should believe in god. Here we have no mention of how Dawkins won't convince people because he's made errors in reasoning, no, he's not convincing because he isn't nice. So what if he's shown that the argument for design is an untenable absurdity, he's doing it for a political reason, so don't listen!

If apologists don't address the main issue at hand (the existence of god), then they're not really apologists, they're just making excuses for religion or for not believing atheists. Ms. Bunting (if this is her aim) and others should try to show that atheists aren't plausible because we are wrong, and if they can't then they should just admit defeat.

71. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38101 by WilliamP on May 7, 2007 at 1:24 am

I applaud Mr. Gardner for taking up the issue of Stalin. I fully agree, and I think more should be done to show that much of Communism is based on faith like religion. It is a system that called people to action based on the belief that there is an inevitable course to history that would bring about a worker's revolution. Russel was baffled as to how Marx could believe this and still be an atheist.
Then again, Russel himself was an atheist and therefore likely had dozens of abortions in his 97 years.

72. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37897 by WilliamP on May 6, 2007 at 7:15 am

It looks like Ahmadinejad better redeem himself and do something to show he is an upright and moral Islamic fundmentalist. Maybe to show that he hasn't lost his sense of ethics he can threaten Israel with nuclear war again. Or just have Hesbollah indiscriminately murder more civilians with their rockets.

I'm sure Ahmadinejad's faith will lead him away from this atrocious sin and back to the correct, moral path.

73. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37355 by WilliamP on May 4, 2007 at 7:11 am

As Mike Seaver, the oldest son in the smash hit sitcom "Growing Pains," actor Kirk Cameron could make audiences roll with laughter.

I bet he'll get a similar reaction from the debate audience.

74. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35163 by WilliamP on April 26, 2007 at 12:43 pm

weefree said:

You will find a summary on www.freechurch.org and you are welcome to interact with it there.

I have already looked at your website and posted a response here, which you didn't answer. I wonder why you refuse to discuss reasons to believe in god with atheists. You claim to be a religious apologist, yet most of your posts here are snyde comments about the arguments posted and about how you'll eventually be trolled off the site. Why won't you address the issue? Are you afraid to address us on the issue because we've all read Dawkins and know how to respond?

75. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34830 by WilliamP on April 25, 2007 at 11:43 am

Weefree, come on. You expect us to believe that you really are here to convince us that outspoken atheists are like Hitler and Stalin because one of them used a line from Nietzsche? Never mind what that line even has to do with Hitler or Stalin.

You know your time would be better spent addressing Parris' points about Hume. If you had answers for Hume, then you wouldn't have to worry about so-called "militant atheists". We'd be on your side if you could do away with problems with faith like this mentioned above:

Forced to choose between doubting the evidence, and believing in a divine suspension of the laws of Nature, only someone already convinced that divine intervention occurs could opt for the miraculous as an explanation.

Last time you engaged us you were reluctant to discuss reasons for believing in god. Why dance around the issue? Why not present your compelling argument for god's existence and do away with what you seem to fear might be the next Hitler?

76. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34451 by WilliamP on April 24, 2007 at 5:33 am

I think Hitchens is pretty consitent about his support for the 2003 Iraq war and his atheism. I saw a debate between him and George Galloway which Galloway turns into a long ad hominem attack against Hitchens. Hitchens talks a lot about his reasons for supporting the war. If you want to spend an hour on it, you can watch the first half here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INy2ysHhgYM

Surprisingly, Hitchens actually didn't support the 1991 Gulf War, and changed his mind later. He also didn't seem to care much about Bush's WMD claims, but supported it more for the Iraqis' welfare. I think his claims on al Qaeda-Saddam connections are sketchy, and I don't know from this how far he goes to support Bush.

77. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34368 by WilliamP on April 23, 2007 at 10:24 pm

gwolf,
I agree about Communism and I think atheists need to press that point. Communism is like a religion. Communists have faith in the eventual proletariat revolution. They did awful things because they (like many religious types) thought their cause was inevitable and that justified their actions. "God" was just replaced by "revolution" in their thinking.

Russell was baffled as to why Marx didn't believe in god despite his mystical claims about the course of history. I think most most atheists that base their atheism on reason would reject Communist fatalism too since the reasoning supporting is as good as that supporting religion.

arthursanford,
the same goes for Hitler who believed his reich would last a thousand years.

78. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34171 by WilliamP on April 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm

devolved said:

The Anthropic Principle is a powerful argument that the universe was designed. Of course, whether it is an intricate watch or a beautiful planet, any design plan requires a designer!

I suppose the Anthropic Principal does make a powerful argument to those who accept circular reasoning like this.

79. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33361 by WilliamP on April 20, 2007 at 12:22 am

This is rather enlightening. Even some of the main religious apologists simply posit that the lack of an explanation for some phenomonon in nature or society (beetles, morality, etc.), is sufficient evidence for an omnipotent and thoroughly undetectable being that is responsible for it. Anything better in these new books?

80. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33146 by WilliamP on April 19, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Kingsaurus, Fishpedler, and Felder,
I have no problem if you are open to talking. There are a few posts here by people who are outright dismissive. I don't see where that gets us, but I see that it gives the theist side an excuse to label us as "militants" or "fundamentalists".
And really, I think the main point in discussing their books here is to decide whether or not we should even bother to read them. If they can't say anything here that gives me reason to think that they have an argument to make, then I'll just ignore both their books and their posts.

81. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33132 by WilliamP on April 19, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Gabe Martini wrote:

Through reading these replies, I have been made profoundly aware that a decent amount of atheists are closed-minded.

Yeah, that sums up what I am seeing too. We have two authors here who have replied to Dawkins and Harris, so why not talk to them? A lot of the insulting responses here seem to say: you theists aren't welcome here because you are closed minded, and you're not gonna tell me otherwise!

If you are an atheist and aren't willing to question why, then what's the point? If you have no better reason to be an atheist than to religious, then you just got lucky and picked the right answer. If you don't want to even admit that you might be wrong and discuss it, then maybe we should call you a "Faithiest".

I'm not that type of atheist, and I'm starting to see why we get labeled "fundamentalists" by religious apologists. I'm also sick of being called that. I think it's great that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Wilson have dropped by here, and I hope we can all invite them to talk. If we're right, then what are we afraid of?

82. Flea Circus!

Comment #33090 by WilliamP on April 19, 2007 at 6:27 am

Mr. Robertson,
I just looked at "Final Letter to the Reader - Why Believe?" at:
"http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/febb07.htm

I hope your book appeals more to atheists because this doesn't. You give 10 reasons for belief, but I don't think any atheist would be swayed. Reasons 1-5, 7, and 8 are just things that you seem to think that only god's existence can explain. Dawkins, Dennet, (and presumably Harris, whom I have not read) have given lots of answers that do away with the need for god. Reasons 6, 9, and 10 all seem to be just appeals to personal belief that offer no real argument. We've heard it all before.

My advice is that if you want to sway atheists, you have to show us that belief in a completely undetectable creator that only speaks through independently unverifiable revelation, actually explains something that can't be otherwise explained. Particularly if you want to reply to Dawkins, address his critiques of arguments for god. How does the existence of a complex god explain order and complexity? And while I'm asking questions, why does Sam Harris' $200k advertising campaign bother you if you have an omnipotent being on your side?

83. Flea Circus!

Comment #33035 by WilliamP on April 19, 2007 at 3:30 am

weefree,
assuming you are David Robertson, author of the book baring that name above, I'd like to thank you for posting here. This is actually a real opportunity for you. You might actually get your book on the best sellers list and more importantly, convince us that we're wrong.

Not all atheists are as ignorant and prejudiced as you have made us out to be. Some people here just seem to want to blow off anti-religious steam, but I for one would like to hear what you have to say. What sort of arguments do you make in your book? I see pro-god arguments as falling into two categories. First there are apologists who address the reasons for believing in god's existence philisophically (like Hume's Cleanthes). The second group seem to be excuse-makers who just talk about how good religion is and why we should have it, ignoring the fact that there is good cause to think that it is false.

What kind of arguments do you make? Are you an apologist or an excuse-maker? If you're an apologist, I'd really like to hear what you have to say. If you're an excuse-maker, I typically treat that sort of argument as I would a poisoness mushroom in the woods and avoid it to save myself some trouble. But if you think you have something new to offer, I would like to hear it.

84. The Empty Wager

Comment #32968 by WilliamP on April 18, 2007 at 9:49 pm

I think that there is as much evidence to believe that Pascal's wager (as Harris describes it) will backfire as there is to believe it will work. It isn't really based on faith in god, which is a requirement for entry into heaven. Also, it's a form of gambling, which most major religions frown on. If god exists, then there's no reason to believe that he'll accept it, and it might even get you into hell.

Satanburiedfossils-
That's a great webpage. I often evoke Cthullu (an ADMITTEDLY ficticious god) when I discuss religion. The funny thing about Lovecraft's gods is that they are just as real as the gods of the Bible or Koran- it's just that their creator was honest in admitting their falsehood.

85. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32788 by WilliamP on April 18, 2007 at 8:56 am

Keinen_Gott said:

I recently saw a late night telethon of a man disputing that there "ain't" no such thing as atheists.

Well, since this statement contains a double negative, it's logically sound. Judging by the soundness of the rest of this guy's argument, I'd guess he was being ironic.

86. Mozart doesn't make you clever

Comment #32539 by WilliamP on April 17, 2007 at 10:30 am

Here's an idea: to make your kids smarter, how about making sure they learn formal logic and problem solving skills? That might actually work.

87. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32502 by WilliamP on April 17, 2007 at 7:41 am

Let the godless write their books and the faithful answer them.

You know, I really wish more people would answer books on atheism. The only thing that theists seem to be able to do is reassure everyone that religion has been around for a long time, has some good effects, and can't be disproved.
Nothing gets done when theists just reassure each other that religion is good by spouting platitudes about moralism and questions of why we're here. I'd welcome a good response to Dawkins' rejection of the argument from design, or a good reworking of the ontological argument. With all this backlash and no real responses, maybe atheism is the final word.

88. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31692 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 9:51 pm

A Canadian teenager named Adam Dreamhealer claims to cure cancer, coax the comatose to consciousness, and drive out infection. He has written books, sells DVDs, and offers seminars.

If he can really heal people with miracles, then why is he spending his time cashing in on books, DVD's and lectures?

89. For God's Sake

Comment #31690 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Stereoroid,
thanks for the NY Times link. I had no idea about the podcasts, but then again I only just got an mp3 player a few weeks ago. I'm a bit behind the times.
Jimill,
considering how behind the times I am, maybe I would fit in at a backward-thinking institution like Regent.

90. For God's Sake

Comment #31580 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 11:01 am

you'd end up with a degree that only qualified you to work in a Republican government

You know, I should have mentioned that I don't think that I could keep a straight face working in the Justice Department under any administration that would hire a Regent Law graduate either. I mean, come on!

By the way, I'd like to thank the NY Times for allowing this posting. Usually you have to pay to read writings by columnists like Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman; and those two are the only ones worth reading on a regular basis. For those of you who read the NY Times regularly, and feel the same way about Maureen Dowd as I feel, here's a great link for you from the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/most_e_mailed_list_tearing_new

91. For God's Sake

Comment #31570 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 9:52 am

Funny thing, I was just applying to law schools this past year and guess who invited me to apply. Yup, Regent. I'm clearly not a Christian, but I was invited to apply anyway. I thought about it too. I could do some damage to the school, and probably get a good scholarship too. The only problem is that I don't think I'd be able to keep a straight face for three years. It would be a funny situation, you have to admit; like a sitcom or something.

92. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31325 by WilliamP on April 12, 2007 at 2:51 am

Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

WilliamP says Pope's mind is too narrow to understand evolution

93. Is God poison?

Comment #31200 by WilliamP on April 11, 2007 at 10:34 am

Helian,
I'm an American expatriate too actually, and I do agree that there is a lot of absurd criticism about the US. I also dislike Bush for the most part, but I think that the US and Bush take a lot of unballanced criticism. It seems absurd to me, for example, that Bush has heard far more opposition for invading Iraq than Saddam ever heard for murdering children with banned chemical weapons. I also think that the rest of the world is too quick to point the finger for US failures in Iraq. I don't exactly see anyone else sending more troops to help the poor Iraqis.

I haven't read "The God Delusion" yet, but your claims seem to be that Dawkins said:
1. (Erroneously) that a member of the Regan admin. called for a nuclear apocalypse.
2. Fundamentalist Christian Americans are like the Taliban.
3. The US government is a Christian theocracy.

Again, I haven't read the book, so I don't know his exact words. I don't think that I'd call him Anti-American based on this alone. His criticism really seems to be focused at conservative Christians, not the US in general. Your main contention seems to be that he made unsupported claims about the things listed above.

Perhaps he has good reasons to believe these things, perhaps he had a lapse in research, perhaps he's indulging in his dislike of religion. I don't know. Your claim just seems to be that he was uncritical about some statements about the Christian Fundamentalists. That's certainly not sufficient to make him anti-American. After all, he did also write this:

Please please, don't ever accuse me of anti-Americanism. It is mainly because of my love of America that I, along with all my many American friends, loathe and detest Bush and the damage he has done to that great republic.

94. Is God poison?

Comment #30911 by WilliamP on April 10, 2007 at 9:45 am

I hope you infer innocently William...

Don't worry Yorker, it's a joke at Haggard's expense, not yours.

I wonder if he's a closet Darwinist too.

95. Is God poison?

Comment #30896 by WilliamP on April 10, 2007 at 9:02 am

Yorker on Haggard:

I would've done my best to make him physically assault me...oh how I would have enjoyed that!

I'm sure that he would have enjoyed it too.

96. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #30801 by WilliamP on April 9, 2007 at 10:10 pm

The article was good, but I bet this will show up on the back cover of the next updated edition of "Godless":

"Coulter has very cleverly written a... criticism of evolution... And it was brilliant." -Peter Olofsson, PhD in mathematical statistics of Göteborg University

97. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30693 by WilliamP on April 9, 2007 at 11:11 am

Isn't the Rapture the time when all faithful Christians disappear from the face of the earth? Isn't everyone on this website waiting for that too?

98. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30540 by WilliamP on April 8, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Comment #30458 by epeeist
You said:

Posit a simple god designing a self-learning mechanism.

That could be a way to have a creator that isn't in conflict with the Discovery Institute's principle of "complexity necessitates design". But I wonder what they have to say about it. Could they come up with anything that is explanatory or anything that doesn't violate Occum's razor? What evidence would they present? They always run from the hairy business of naming a creator, or a creation process. What would people have though if Darwin had posited evolution but refused to describe it?

All they ever seem to do is talk about the idea that what is complex must be designed. Here's a quote from an article I found on their site entitled "Intelligence by Design":

the flagellum is complex--that is, there is an extremely low probability that such a structure could be the product of chance

Of course they suggest that it was designed, but if they find flagella to be so complex, then they better come up with some answers as to what created them. In arguing for design, they may appeal to common sense by claiming that there are no cars without engineers, but I can appeal to common sense and say: So, god is less complex than a flagella-bearing protazoan?

And by the way, I've never heard of cars reproducing sexually, so I guess "no cars without engineers" isn't a good analogy for living things. If objects desinged by humans could reproduce, that'd be great. I need a new computer, does anyone have one have a laptop in stud?

99. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30418 by WilliamP on April 8, 2007 at 3:01 am

By religion, I mean any faith-based set of values that makes exclusive claims for its truth and explains the mysteries of the universe. Yes, atheism begins with a faith, namely that only material and physical (not spiritual) causes make the world run.

Well, finally we see why a theist belives that atheism is a religion; and it's because he's wrong about atheism. I don't know any atheists who would reject a spiritual cause for the world if there were evidence of one. If there are any, then they are a different kind of atheist from the kind I am.

About atheists he says:

A favorite strategy of such groups has long been to attack cartoon versions of older rival religions.

He would seem a lot more clever in saying this if he wasn't guilty of it himself--in the same article nonetheless. He clearly has failed to understand atheism as Dawkins and Harris have described it. Yet he does assert:

Dawkins does not grapple with the latest arguments for intelligent design as formulated by their chief proponents

Has he made an attempt to address Dawkin's argument against the Design Argument? The Discovery Institute should be scrambling to undo the damage that "The God Delusion" has done to their work. Somehow they forgot in aserting that design is necessary for complexity, that a complex designer needs to be designed too. Ooops. Where does their money go? Why are they wasting their time writing books called "Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril"? They have far more imporant things to do and they can't move ahead a bit until they answer Dawkins' argument.

100. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30269 by WilliamP on April 7, 2007 at 11:17 am

The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn.

Again, like in the Moore article before this, atheists are seen as dogmatic. I really don't understand why this is the case. Here is a set of definitions of dogma for those who are wondering like me what the author is saying here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

I can only see how atheism might fit the broadest definition of dogma, which is listed as "a principle or belief" in the above link. Really, then any belief could fit this definition, including the belief that I have milk in my refrigerator. But he means to equate atheist belief with religious faith or authority.

As I understand it, the "neo-atheism" addressed here rejects faith and belief based on uncritical appeals to authority. If he thinks that this is a principle and therefore dogma, then it's equivocal to say that it is dogma in the religious sense, where dogma is an absolute dictum from authority.

Perhaps we need to do more to disabuse people of the notion that atheism is dogmatic. Perhap theists discussing atheism have to do more to understand what they are talking about.

And why can't he joing us atheists? I just don't get it. Aren't we passionate too?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next