Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by SRWB


51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167806 by SRWB on April 24, 2008 at 10:44 am

Your question reveals that you do not understand the culture during Biblical times or the Bible. During those times, people required a sign to confirm the truth of a prophet. God confirmed the truth of what they were teaching through signs and miracles just as he did in the Old Testament and in Jesus Christ.

Oh boy that's rich! Do you think people today are any different in that we don't require signs "to
confirm the truth of a prophet." Have you ever wondered why the world has not seen another "bonafide" prophet since JC (barring Mohammed, but that would call into question your religious convictions, wouldn't it?)? Why haven't we "sinners" been visited by God or one of his progeny again? Aren't we as worthy as the people in the middle east were between 1400-2000 years ago? And why specifically there? Why not in China or in the Americas?

52. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167515 by SRWB on April 24, 2008 at 6:00 am

Religion is the manual and handbook of humans if some they interpret it wrongly, that does not mean that God does not exist. If you take it wrong and fail to interpret it according to the time an circumstances, it has nothing to do with religion and accordingly evolution delusion.

So it's all about the interpretation of an old book "according to the time an(d) circumstances"? Funny, that's what many of us have been saying for a long time! The "book" (actually collection of stories) may have made sense 3000 years ago in a tribal society vying for its very existence among other like minded societies, but much of what it contains has come to be shown as superstitious nonsense which no longer (if it ever) applies to human groups.

Philip,
"Eloquence"?! Like this gem.....
Your attempts are like the same as a little boy whose delusional toy is proved that it is delusional, having frustrated, attacking on real toys of other kids who are unable to use their toys properly and they damaged them.

You are too kind :-)

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166875 by SRWB on April 23, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Like I have said, feel free to use your God given free will to believe what ever you want, but be willing to accept the consequences of that decision.

And what exactly would such "consequences" be? How do you know? Have you spoken to someone who has been to heaven or hell (presumably this is what you refer to)? If so are you still in contact with them? Or did you get all your information out of a book which has been shown to be, at least partly, fallacious and downright wrong?

I believe you are a creationist. In which case I ask you this - where does your family come from? Are you descended from Noah's family? Presumably, you (and the rest of us) must all be descended from one couple via the middle east and then throughout the rest of the world. Now according to the Bible that has happened not once but twice. Think about it. Is it possible?

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165392 by SRWB on April 21, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I spent 20 years serving my country, facing off against people who want to destroy this world.

Congratulations - many others also serve. But your comment is a wonderful non-sequitur. What exactly has your military service got to do with the veracity of creationist claims? How is your 20 years of service at all relevant as to whether God and Jesus exist?

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164116 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Do you have a picture of Stalin or mo tattooed on you are?

Who's "mo"? Another famous atheist or communist? And what's an "are"?
You just drink the Kool-aid and have blind FAITH in the priests of your false religion.

I can't speak for Epeeist, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who likes koolaid, as it's sweet, artificial crap just like your ideas on God and creation. Oh and for the thousandth time atheism is NOT A RELIGION, numbnuts! Where's Irate when we need him?

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164069 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Just came back from a trip to Europe. The area I was visiting abounded with rabbits. There I saw a baby rabbit with it's eyes picked out, probably by ravens or other such bird - the remainder of it was virtually untouched! So I suppose that was part of God's plan as well.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164062 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Lying is acceptable under your moralistic world view, even desirable,...

To quote Steve Z - piffle! You have no idea what is desirable under our world view. I think I speak for Billy and the others in saying that lying is in no way part of an atheistic worldview, whatever that might be. Most of us would argue that lying is wrong because it makes one untrustworthy and unreliable, and not because it violates your "God's moral standard". But that doesn't mean we don't all do it consciously and sub-consciously.
if someone gained some kind of an advantage over another person by lying, this would be a desirable trait for survival through the filter of "natural selection". According to your worldview, this would be desirable as a survivability trait.

Where did you get this idea? Of course, the irony is that people, even you, probably lie every day for numerous reasons, good and bad, i.e., to avoid hurting feelings, to avoid uncomfortable situations, and even to hide crimes and embarassing situations. So is lying always bad?

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163846 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 7:00 am

Keith,

Ouch! Remnant's analogy really is scraping up remnants of the same old tired argument. Remind me who is the desperate one?

59. Flea of the week

Comment #163515 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 12:50 pm

all the works of science are outweighed by the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who believed that all the world's species lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

What's your point? I mean, these "cattle-sacrificing primitives", as you called them, were there when all these world-changing events were happening, weren't they? Are you telling us that none of what is written is true?! Surely we should trust their completely objective motives in all this. And isn't it possible that all the world's species could have lived within walking distance of Noah's house. After all, he only needed two of each, not all of them.

60. Flea of the week

Comment #163503 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I think what we need is a(nother) book written by God to settle this once and for all! I'm surprised that one of these fleas simply hasn't been able to whisper into His ear to get him to do that and make this whole silly argument go away.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163334 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 8:00 am

Another thing Muslims don't like to talk about is the "young boys" of "handsome eyes" that also reside in paradise, and are there to serve their man masters. Pederasty in the hereafter.

Sounds like equal opportunity delusion, never mind that it is simply wrong and corrupt!

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163326 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 7:46 am

I think that is simplistic.

That may be so, but the comment wasn't about what children (specifically) believe. It was in relation to the Xian premise, i.e, the basic question "why are we here?".

Seeing we are on the "childhood indoctrination" issue again, I basically agree that the issue has the potential to be overblown and that not all religious teachings are child abuse (not that Dawkins or anyone else has said it was/is - but he has been misquoted and his views distorted). But it is also a matter of degree - teaching children about a loving God and Jesus is on par with stories about Santa and Easter bunnies - it's hardly child abuse. But the line is crossed when concepts like Hell houses, etc., are introduced into the mix.

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163311 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 7:21 am

That is why suicide bombers wrap their genitals in wet towels. So they will be fresh and ready for the virgin-fest.

Is this true? If so, how bizarre. I've always wondered why 72? Is this number symbolic of something? And is there a never-ending supply of virgins, as once one has been deflowered, she's no longer a virgin. Or are these 72 girls miraculously "re-virginized" repeatedly to get ready for the next ascendants?
Looks like the standard christian purpose of existence. You behave well in this life and get your reward in the next.

That's what it all boils down to in the end for these people. They simply cannot accept that we (all life) are here for no other reason than the fact that our parents/ancestors reproduced. Why does there need to be a purpose? If you need a purpose, why not just behave in such a manner so that you will be remembered as a good person by your descendants and friends. Is that not enough?

64. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162749 by SRWB on April 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

How do you measure Love, how subjective is it?

I agree that love is very subjective. Do you love your wife in the same way, and for the same reasons, that you love your parents? Have you ever loved someone and then changed your mind - love depends on many factors. It is also not necessarily unconditional or forever.

65. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162688 by SRWB on April 17, 2008 at 8:54 am

Vaal,

Well said. I tend to agree with all your comments. Love is an overused word, which has become a trite and hackneyed expression of fake emotion. I love my family, but I do not love or even care for most people (I don't even know most of them!). However, as a human, I can feel emotion and respect for some people, close friends for example, and other acquaintances. I can even have emotional bonds with some animals.

66. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151213 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 9:16 am

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently. these are two different classes of questions and not surprisingly would have different standards for answers

Why would/should "certainty" be on a sliding scale, dependant upon the type of question being asked? If one allows that, then the issue is wide open and all bets are off. Anyone can then be "certain" about anything they believe. Is that useful?

67. Fleabytes

Comment #151192 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 8:52 am

I can't BELIEVE some people can be so insensitive as to not appreciate the differences in cultural humour.

Funny is funny, no matter what cultures one is imbued with. I find some German stuff funny but I also enjoy Brit, US and Canadian humor as well. It's often about language nuances, etc.

68. Fleabytes

Comment #151137 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 7:37 am

I always found it strange that humans were supposedly made in the "image" of YHWH who is supposedly perfect, yet humans are not perfect?

Yes, this too has always mystified me. But of course, the fact that we, God's creation, are not perfect kind of blows that whole myth right out of the water. Now the theologians and faithful might tell you that we were perfect until Eve ate that apple (forbidden fruit). So was she perfect, if she erred by not following simple instructions? That is a bit if a conundrum.

69. Fleabytes

Comment #151085 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 6:22 am

In my youth beer was our god.

So now you're an a-beer-ist as well?! Does that mean you no longer seriously "worship" beer daily? Do you just pay lip service and "worship" on the weekends, like most people?
Off to Germany next week (via five days in Paris first). So I'll be imbibing some of the finest brews on the planet. Cheers.

70. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150905 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Happy belated birthday wishes!
Steve

71. Fleabytes

Comment #150884 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm

What is the date of that discussion?

72. Fleabytes

Comment #150866 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm

NASD licensing exam

What is this, for the acronym uninitiated?

73. Fleabytes

Comment #150865 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Pilsener Biere sind die besten!

74. Fleabytes

Comment #150850 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Warsteiner, the original, not Dunkel (dark) is one of the best. And who could forget Guiness?

75. Fleabytes

Comment #150842 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 1:14 pm

You guys are strange

We're strange?! What a strange comment coming from a guy with anal-bottle insertion issues...........

76. Fleabytes

Comment #150829 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Oh al-r, have you turned into a "clearthinker"? I said you could, but I personally enjoy drinking mine ;-)

77. Fleabytes

Comment #150825 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Steve; Do you think it matters if it's on tap?

Probably not, in most cases. It's really a matter of preference. Beer technology being what it is, with nitrogen widgets in cans to give you that draft beer at home, one is able to get a pub pint in the comfort of your own home.

78. Fleabytes

Comment #150818 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm

I assume if you like Labatt Blue you stick the bottle in your ass and stand on your head. That would be the best way to consume it.

That's one way to "enjoy" it - but let me say it for the THIRD time - on tap, i.e. draft or draught; I did not say "bottled" Blue (although it's better than Bud, Strohs, Pabst and any of the other major-brand liquid shit that passes for beer in the US of A.

79. Fleabytes

Comment #150812 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Vomit! LaBatt blue is the nastiest beer I've ever had.

Ah, but as I said it should be on tap - in the end it's all a matter of personal taste. If you like a beer, it's a good one (and matters not that your taste buds are in your arse):-)

80. Fleabytes

Comment #150802 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 12:36 pm

We wash urinals with Molson. Mossehead is also used as a household cleaner.

That's certainly one use for Molson's and Moosehead. Not sure about "Mossehead". There are good Canadian beers - Keith's, Labatt blue on tap, and many microbrewery products are very nice. Not sure about US beers - Bud just doesn't cut it but the original Czech version is worth a try (now called Czechvar but comes from Budvar). But German beers are among the best - apparently that's what God drinks. :-)

81. Fleabytes

Comment #150550 by SRWB on March 27, 2008 at 5:19 am

This has nothing to do with the facts. This is a theological discussion.

Hahahahahahaaaaa - fucking excellent!

82. Fleabytes

Comment #148356 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Belief based on dogma. Belief based on supposed supernatural guidance. Not all religions have dogma, or believe in guidance from God.

Thanks for the clarification. If based on dogma and God's or other supernatural guidance then we are completely in agreement.

83. Fleabytes

Comment #148344 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm

I am arguing against your view that moderate religion is harmless.

Is that statement not a little simplistic and out of context? I would argue that it depends on what a "moderate religion" actually teaches and practices. I know that many here, including me, are often of the opinion that any religious beliefs, no matter how benign, inadvertently justifies the actions of the more fundamental and extremist ilk. But is this true in all cases?
My point is that I would argue that your approach seems to be a little disjointed. Earlier you commented on Condell's videos and that they were not particularly helpful, and that they might actually retard progress by being too aggresive, yet now you seem to be more adamant that any belief, even moderate, is harmful. Which is it? Have I misunderstood?

84. Fleabytes

Comment #148211 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 10:41 am

Politicians who openly profess faith would be viewed with suspicion and would disqualify themselves from national politics.

That's not entirely true - faith is seen by many in Canada as the Achilles heel of the Federal Conservatives and is often seen as the reason (the "hidden agenda") they might not achieve a majority in any future election - but many will vote for them exactly that reason. My use of "multiculturalism" was deliberate - it was a euphemism for, as you wrote, the reasonable accommodation of demands by muslims. So we agree there.:-)

85. Fleabytes

Comment #148203 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 10:24 am

Steve,

OK, but "Mike" is a friend. What would have been your response if a stranger said it to you? I'm not suggesting you would be rude, but perhaps the second retort would be more appropriate....

86. Fleabytes

Comment #148195 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 10:04 am

I would be interested to know if that was sampled opinion, or self-selecting

Admittedly, this is my read of attitudes and letters in the local papers, etc. NOT scientific by any stretch. But one can sense a hardening of support against that great Canadian love of multiculturalism.
In regards to Condell, it's clearly a matter of opinion. His direct approach is, as I have said before, just one more tool to be used against the more fundamentalist theists. It is NOT suitable for all situations. Like Dr Benway's approach we need to have both strategic and tactical plans to use as required.

87. Fleabytes

Comment #148187 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 9:17 am

Bonzai,

So far, you are largely correct (where are you in our benighted dominion?). The problem is that it will go on and on. I know all about Tory's faith school nonsense. Although I don't agree with his stance, the position of the Premier, McGuinty, was clearly hypocritical and more disjointed, and was simply a feeble "well it's been like that for a hundred years and we can't change it." Bullshit, but you can see that most of Ontario at least partly bought into this crap.

88. Fleabytes

Comment #148183 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 9:07 am

Steve,

Personally, I don't really care what people believe and whether they go to church 7 times a week! The problem with the softly, softly approach is that it doesn't work in all situations. We often face the specter of religions imposing, or at least trying to, their beliefs on the population in general. Here's a recent example in Ontario: we've had a huge debate about the appropriateness of opening each daily session of the provincial legislature with the Lord's Prayer. The majority of the commentary from the public was along the lines of "this is a province with a majority of Christian inhabitants and a lengthy history thereof so if you don't like it, tough." (Nevermind that the real issue which is never mentioned is whether prayer is even effective in making the place better to live in!) Besides, I happen to like Condell's approach, as it provides another tool in the debate.

Steve

89. Fleabytes

Comment #148176 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 8:44 am

Unfortunately, we are increasingly getting lectures from Christian leaders about how our morality is failing and how we should reform.

Very true, but not unique to the UK. It's like that here in Canada as well. Big kerfuffle recently about whether catholic politicians should receive communion if they support, or vote for, issues which violate RC teachings/beliefs. The problem is that many people want to have it both ways, i.e., they wish to remain faithful to their religion, yet still pick and choose which of the tenets they should follow, typically discarding the ones that are distasteful in modern society. Frankly, that's a cop out.

90. Fleabytes

Comment #148163 by SRWB on March 22, 2008 at 8:19 am

I am sure I have had some influence on them simply by being gay, atheist and nice..

An interesting turn of phrase. I suspect your friends have been more influenced by your lack of atheist horns, tail and cloven hooves than by your "being gay" :-)
In all seriousness, if one behaves in a moral, upstanding manner within society, then the whole facade of Christian morality becomes superfluous and proves the point that religious belief has very little to do with it.

91. Fleabytes

Comment #147889 by SRWB on March 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I'm not saying that there was not a specific act of rebellion on the part of a single human pair, and that the human race descends from that pair. There was an explicit command from God which was wilfully disobeyed. What it is not necessary to believe is that this happened in a garden called Eden or that it took the form of humans taking a (f)orbidden fruit in response to being incited by a literal serpent.

So if the "explicit command" wasn't about fruit, what else could it possibly have been about? Was the "act of rebellion" about whose turn it was to do the dishes, or whether it was woman's turn to be on top? Come on, even you have to admit that this whole tale of talking snakes and fruit could stretch credulity.

92. Fleabytes

Comment #147879 by SRWB on March 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Just as your Holy Quartet might be missing yours :-)

Holy Quartet? I assume you are referring to Dawkins, Harris et al. Well let me tell you that I don't even know the gentlemen - I just happen to agree with much of what they say and write. For your information, not that it matters, I have been an atheist since childhood; even then I had doubts about the fairy tales told in school and in church, etc. The point is I don't believe in such mythical figures, let alone worship them, and I never have, unless there is verifiable evidence for doing so.
By the way, the smiley face doesn't make your comment any less inane.

93. Fleabytes

Comment #147861 by SRWB on March 21, 2008 at 12:49 pm

This is exactly what I have often thought about this thread. I couldn't have put it better myself!

Do you count yourself among the "clueless" then? Or do you just pop in to "enlighten" us heathens?Don't you have a crucifixion, or something to re-enact today? Run along and report to your deity, he's missing your prayers, genuflecting and obedience.

94. Fleabytes

Comment #147847 by SRWB on March 21, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Steve,

I was just thinking the same thing now that Dodgy Art is back............

Steve

95. Fleabytes

Comment #147804 by SRWB on March 21, 2008 at 9:44 am

a particular child had its cold cured by a nice salt bath 'it worked' said the mother.

You know what they say about a cold - if you don't treat it, it will go away in 14 days. If you do treat it (salt bath) it will only take two weeks.

96. Fleabytes

Comment #147787 by SRWB on March 21, 2008 at 8:45 am

well i suppose they are crucifying themselves and praying at the same time. to think, had the full moon been at a different time they could have delayed the pain until later, oh the sillynesss of it all.

I read in the paper this morning that the next time Easter will be this early in the year will not be until 2228! Why, you ask. Well apparently it has something to do with that council of Nicaea. Until AD 325, Easter coincided with the Jewish festival of Passover. But that year, bishops at the First Council of the Christian church meeting in Nicaea decreed that the feast be celebrated on the first Sunday after the paschal or spring moon. How's that for making shit up!?

97. Fleabytes

Comment #147500 by SRWB on March 20, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Apparently people pray all the time, and often they request certain things, i.e., David's £87.50 or to win a football game, etc. But has anybody ever prayed for miracle repairs to a car which suddenly stops running, for two weeks groceries to feed the family or to win one of those big lottery jackpots? And we all know how effective prayer is in regenerating amputated limbs, unless you're a newt (I'm all better now). What about prayers to stop weather events, like hurricanes, tornados, or the 4 meters plus of snow we have had in Ontario this winter. If so, how effective have these prayers been?

I know, I know, Clearthinker et al will say that's not how God works. But then how does he work? If he doesn't answer all prayers, then why bother? How will you know when it's your turn to cash in? Do you stick with the prayer in hope that someday your ship will come in? Is it possible that what you attribute to prayer is simple coincidence and luck, and that any moral strength and resilience you possess comes from within you, without any supernatural assistance or interference?

98. Fleabytes

Comment #147419 by SRWB on March 20, 2008 at 11:12 am

What? With life-sized bollocks printed on both sides?

Nah, then there wouldn't be enough room on the card for all the "evidence" and "proof".

99. Fleabytes

Comment #147392 by SRWB on March 20, 2008 at 9:04 am

I wouldn't print a new book - why not just a double-sided, wallet size card aide memoire?

100. Fleabytes

Comment #147387 by SRWB on March 20, 2008 at 8:58 am

Total number of pages: 15.

Does that include the Foreword, the addendum and the Afterword, or just all the true bits?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next