101. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44335 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 24, 2007 at 11:27 am

Looks as if we can scrub Yaweh as a potential God then!

102. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44328 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 24, 2007 at 11:13 am

"Faith is not in conflict with reason."

Oh yes it is.

"Faith does not conflict with scientific truth, unless faith claims to express a scientific truth."

It does and it does.

"Faith can neither be affirmed nor denied by scientific, historical or philosophical truth."

Yes it can.

"Sam confuses the irrational—which he sees as part of faith—with the non-rational."

A+ for stupidity. Distinction without a difference. Non-rational/irrational = devoid of rationality.


"There is a reality that is not a product of rational deduction. It is not accounted for by strict rational discourse. There is a spiritual dimension to human existence and the universe, but this is not irrational—it is non-rational."

Bullshit.

"Faith allows us to transcend what Flaubert said was our "mania for conclusions," a mania he described as "one of humanity's most useless and sterile drives.""

Science, and all it has given us, is useless and sterile. Let us pray.

103. Gay row US Anglicans miss summit

Comment #44319 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 24, 2007 at 10:42 am

"Canon Kearon said the subject of whether to invite Bishop Robinson had "exercised" Dr Williams' mind for "quite some time"."

Really? obviously not enough to stop him taking a bigot's course of action.

104. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42446 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 18, 2007 at 8:07 am

If I had no choice but to "worship" something then it would definately be the sun for me.

Its still a stupid notion though.

105. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41482 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 16, 2007 at 7:14 am

bitbutter: "I'm not convinced. Articles like Pinker's 'a history of violence' point out that the amount of violence in the world does change. We live in an increasingly peaceful world. The amount of violence isn't a constant."

I agree. The amount of sexism, racism, homophobia OR religiosity aren't constants either. Society can be changed for the better. To say that it can't is a cop out, symptomatic of gross laziness and a lack of imagination.

106. In God, Distrust

Comment #40399 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 14, 2007 at 8:28 am

"the biblical creation story certainly seems simpler than evolution"

Er, you what??

107. The Ethics of Hell

Comment #40389 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 14, 2007 at 8:21 am

Fair play!

108. Travolta spearheads Scientologists' attack on BBC

Comment #40363 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 14, 2007 at 7:19 am

BaronOchs, I totally agree. I hope "scientology" gets roasted on a spit tonight. The only thing that infuriates me is why they don't they go after all the other religions while they're at it.

And what's the difference between a religion and a cult anyway? All lies lies lies

109. Atheism in America

Comment #40355 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 14, 2007 at 6:56 am

Well......

Religites never cease to amaze me. Why is it that christians never seem to live up to values they profess?? These lot are downright cruel. Isn't it sick that teachers would join in with students in persecuting this girl.

Dumb interviewer - atheism is not a belief in "nothing". Belief in nothing goes by another name, something like "dilethesism".

There was a documentary about it in the UK (C4?) a few years ago. Believers in "dilethesism" can't actually admit to it because belief in nothing is actually a belief in itself = logical fallacy. Bizarre!

I've used that myself when people accuse of me of believing in nothing because I'm an atheist. Shuts them right up.

110. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #40020 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 12, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Did I say we couldn't win?

84% - 16% against religion.

We kick ass!

111. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #40015 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 12, 2007 at 4:59 pm

The interviewer was better, I thought, than Bill O'Reilly. At least this was a discussion! Paikin's questioning is obviously just the standard issue repeated yet again, to our disappointment.

I think we can safely assume that arguments in favour of faith aren't ever going to get any better as time goes by. How long have we had Pascal's wager now? 100 years? 200? I don't know. What I do know is that it has long been shown to be absurd and yet it is still offered up as a tenable piece of reasoning!

The arguments given in favour of God/religion are consistently poor. And what else can they be? It is pretty obvious that some of the people on the panel find logic somewhere down their list of desirable things. Argument itself is based upon rules of logic, so we're already off to a bad start. If we suspend logic for the "special" case of religion (which is what we do when we "respect" it) you effectively remove the point of, and, need for, argument. As such, you simply can't win with these people! They always have the "trump card" not so much up their sleeve but face showing, down on the table. Hence, we always find people of faith incapable of accepting ANY of the logical arguments being made. The jewish (?) lady started off by saying that she agreed with a "great deal" of what Dawkins had said but couldn't expand convincingly on that and then contradicted her statement as the issues were discussed further; "But its OK! because I'm being illogical! I can agree with both points of view!!"

More annoying still, when Paikin exhibits gestures of understanding to Richard's arguments and then in the very next breath repeats a different contortion of the same question as if he hadn't, actually, understood a single word.

Religious people are almost universally unmoved by every logical argument one can make against their belief. It follows that if they were more logically inclined then they probably wouldn't be as religious. Firstly; there is a cop-out going on, guided by various emotional motivations such as family/culture etc. Secondly, it is a tactical move that is intended to show us that argument against faith is fundamentally futile and the sooner we realise this and shut up, the better.

That is the nature of the challenge that faces those who want to excercise their right to question those of religious faith.

112. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39428 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 10, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Hitchens "I would I miss it" comment is perfectly understandable as he goes on to explain.

The debate and the questions of our origin and existence are given impetus by the sheer presence of religion and all of its falsehoods. This make perfect sense. While we have all these idiots claiming to know the answers we will always have the enlightened and the educated who make it their business to rebuke such people. The argument would be far less passionate and important if we did not have religion and all its idiocy.

As such, our collective discourse is enhanced. We all gain a better understanding of such matters, but also, we appreciate importance of understanding them.

For rationality we must have irrationality. For us to have truths we must also have falsehoods.

I'm getting a bit fed up of people who just can't wait to stick the knife into Hitchens at the earliest percieved opportunity. I didn't agree with the Iraq war but that doesn't mean Hitchens can't be trusted on that subject, or any other for that matter. You don't have to agree with him! It doesn't follow that he is a) stupid or b) evil or c) untruthful - just because you happen to disagree with him on something! Can't people SEE this is the whole point of Hitchens!; to get you talking, to make you think! We are better people for that effort of thought even when we come out of it holding exactly the same opinions!

I'm honestly starting to think that there are people on this site who are just as closed minded and absolutely paranoid as the theists we try to make examples of. It is obvious from some of the comments, here, and on other threads, that there is a undercurrent of ignorance when it comes to Christopher Hitchens. Look, the guy gets paid for his opinion. He's not some wacko off the street. He's a highly intelligent, articulate and knowledgable speaker and writer of many books. PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer - I'm sorry - considering you suspect Hitchens a racist; how do you square your suspicion with the fact that CH went to Bosnia as the Balkans war was getting underway with sole intention of doing everything he could to bring ethnic cleansing to the world's attention while most of world turned its back and did FUCK ALL? How do you explain his keen interest and writings on the black American civil rights movement if you suspect Hitchens of racism? What evidence do you have to support your suspicion? Absolutley none.

You may mean well (though I doubt it) but you've made a blatant attempt to play on other people's ignorance to gain support an utterly false assertion that you have no evidence for.

Do yourselves a favour people - if you are going out to buy "God is Not Great" - buy another one of his books while you're there. "Letters to a Young Contrarian" should be of interest to everybody on this site.

113. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39403 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 10, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Peahix, that made perfect sense, good point.

I was beginning to think we atheists ought to start showing slightly more compassion to our adversaries but on seeing this I've decided against. The more Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris et al keep the heat on theists by forcing them to explain their position the more they are likely to embarass themselves with such wanton displays of ignorance and bigotry as Al Sharpton's blunder. The Rational Response Squad enjoyed similar success on ABC.

Fantastic.

114. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38204 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 7, 2007 at 8:07 am

A very enjoyable article, very well put and good humoured.

115. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38199 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 7, 2007 at 7:57 am

Goshzilla: "A rabbi, a muslim cleric, and a pastor walk into a bar. Five minutes later they walk out with no mutal respect or understanding for one another."

Hahaha : class!

116. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38198 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 7, 2007 at 7:55 am

You couldn't make it up!

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

Comment #38195 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 7, 2007 at 7:48 am

Corylus:

"I don't understand. How can you "loathe something far too much to plausibly challenge it?""

Well, its like racism you see. If you really dislike racism that much that you start saying something about it (shock horror!) then you actually pass a critical point whereupon you concede all moral superiority to racists and are forced to become their sniveling bitch for the rest of eternity.

Er, yeah right. What a load of utter balls.

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

Comment #38187 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 7, 2007 at 7:31 am

Funny how someone's trying to deride atheism as a money making exercise!! Oh the scandal!

Have you been to the vatican recently Madeleine Bunting?

The article is pretty inoffensive until you get to the very end, where I guess she was looking for something barbed to say that would round things off nicely.

Dawkin's helped me change my mind. My proof? - I SAY SO! Stick it in your pipe and smoke it.

119. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #37986 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 6, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Heart warming article. Rationality marches on strong.

The fact there is a church every ten minutes whether in the UK or US only spurs us on more Bizarro.

Dawkins does what he does not out of hatred but concern for humanity. Will you never understand that?

120. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37879 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 6, 2007 at 5:08 am

newatheist:

"It's almost incomprehensible that this story has more than one innocent victim, but it does."

Precisely. And religion is the cause with them all.

121. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37872 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 6, 2007 at 4:20 am

Oh and Dave Robertson - you brainless fuck

Get your head around this - if there was no religion the girl would be alive. Religion justified her murder.

And while we're on the subject do you think that if you went to a psychologist and declared that when you got home you were going to murder your daughter because she had been seeing someone of a different faith that you would not be sectioned?

What if you kept an imaginary friend from your childhood well into adulthood and talked to it on a weekly basis? Open to psychological analysis I would say.

Overstepping the mark? No. I say call it what it is - MENTAL ILLNESS.

I'm glad I upset you, I meant to. Go and take a good long look at reality.

122. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37864 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 6, 2007 at 4:01 am

I don't mean to be rude I just want to understand - how can any of you bring yourselves to watch this video? You read the story, the poor girl dies at the end, horribly. Its awful.

Why would you want to actually see the stones land on her and hear the noise they make? I should imagine it goes for a long time.

There's no way I could watch this video I would feel like I was partaking in what was happening. I'm disgusted with both religion and brutality enough already without having this video on constant repeat in my head for the next two weeks.

123. Ape gestures 'show human links'

Comment #37733 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 5, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Bizarro Dawkins are you an really an atheist?


You can come out here............go on, you know it makes sense haha

You're among friends now. You old crank.

124. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37712 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 5, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Horrible, sick fucking bastards. I hate them.

There's no way I'm watching the video! No way.

Religion = mental illness. Fuckin. End. Of.

125. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36776 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 2, 2007 at 9:22 am

"There is truth in Shakespeare but it is not scientific truth. We can find explanations in Julius Caesar as to why Caesar falls, or in Hamlet as to why Hamlet is in an agony of indecision, or in King Lear as to why Lear ends up a penniless outcast - but these are not scientific explanations. The explanations in religious belief are much more like this than scientific explanations"

Freudian slip surely? An unthinking admission? Religion is exactly "like" this - fictitious characters, invented stories and pre-planned outcomes. Hence the use of the words "much more like" to dishonestly insinuate that religious texts have a genuine historical merit and that the whole thing wasn't merely made up.

126. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36769 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 2, 2007 at 8:42 am

I'mNotAlone:

"Even if it could be established that Hitchins was drunk, we have no way of establishing whether he would have given a better interview sober unless we could duplicate the situation (parallel universes, anyone?)"

I've been taking a keen interest in Hitchen's work and read and heard quite a bit about him and IF some of what has been said is true then Hitchens could be an alchoholic. If true whenever you see him on a news interview, in a documentary or giving a lecture he is in some way shape or form "pissed"; or if not then well on the way.

On one level I can understand this as I'm not particularly fond of public speaking myself and on another level the standard of argument at his command is quite bewildering, sloshed, as he allegedly is.

127. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36753 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 2, 2007 at 7:12 am

I agree with bouwe - I couldn't give a damn if he is drunk. He'd still thrash a theist in debate even if he was legless. Good old Hitch.

128. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35949 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 12:48 pm

ImagineAZ I think you've got it spot on. Aside from making some christians look very silly I should imagine the fallout from this episode has done Mike Daisey the power of good and good luck to him too!

From looking at his website it looks as if he got a lot of very interesting material offer, there's certainly a book or two that I'd like to read on there.

Its a shame that the incident happened at all however, the guy struggled with his next show due to what had happened. I know it only looked tame but as the fella approached the stage (obviously to cause trouble) Mr Daisey must have been wondering whether he was going to be assaulted.

His reaction was commendable.

129. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35943 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Vee eL

The point was these people were apparently told what to expect when they rang on the phone to book their tickets.

What more can you do?

If they booked anyway then that's their own fault! Again, you don't have to ruin the guy's work - just leave.

130. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35937 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 11:25 am

Dinoboy:

"Though I am confused by it; If this was to be a protest it was a odd and costly one, no? I mean, I don't go to Mass, place $2k in the collection basket, then WALK out... That will show those Christians!"

I suppose they thought they the "moral point" they were making made the financial outlay acceptable.

131. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35930 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 11:12 am

When it comes to Christopher Hitchens I really feel that a lot of people are missing the point.

What Hitchens brings to the table is simple - a fresh way of looking at things. He is, by definition, a contrarian and as such it is his personal mission to expose himself to new information while never letting his current opinion stand in the way of his new opinion. Something we should all aspire to. This explains his ability to "jump" from Trotskyism to become something of a "temporary ally" (his words) of the neo-cons. Some people here find this "sea-change" disturbing which is absurd considering that our goal (surely) is to win theists over with logical argument.

There is no "group agenda" with Hitchens. He is not pandering to anybody's sensitivities. He is not seeking to win friends. He is simply arguing his point, I believe, from the heart and as a humanitarian aided by an unquenchable thirst for information, old and new, from which he might compose, for our analysis, the most clear and precise summation that he can. Some people, understandably, in this day and age, do not understand this. Hitchens is a brave man. How many people were so disgusted by the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia that they were prepared to relocate to Bosnia itself to try and help in any way possible as it was all kicking off?

Before I ever heard or read Hitchens I disagreed vehemently with the Iraq war (I still do) and I was most disappointed to find that Hitchens supported it. There was a time that I would not even listen to Hitchens speak on the subject, such was my disgust. But by happy accident I discovered through this site he was an atheist and I was pleased to hear his views at least on this. I'm glad I did because Hitchens is adroit at making stunningly convincing arguments.

Reading Hitchens was like discovering Dawkins all over again. Hearing him on Iraq, as I have since, is a shock to the system. You begin to realise how locked into a mindset you can become, for someone such as myself who thought of himself as a "free-thinker". Although I still disagree with him on Iraq, the case for war is much, much healthier as Hitchens explains it and I am glad that I took the time to listen to him.

This is why Hitchens does what he does. He takes it upon himself to shake other people out of their mindsets. We don't have to adopt his opinion, it would be pathetic if that were the outcome every time somebody picked up one of his books. He shakes people enough so that they at least have to think about things. You'll always find yourself discovering something you didn't know.

It is an issue of trust. We trust Richard Dawkins' books because at the very least they have the quality of honest argument coursing through the text -"Here is my honest opinion - with all the facts as I know them and as best as I can explain it". This is what, more than anything, lends power to books like The God Delusion. Only idiots cite the honesty of Ann Coulter's or Alister McGrath's work. Normally, in our media age, we have to sift and filter through a constant stream of waffle, lies and perversions in the hope that, in the end, we can reconstruct the truth. Such a mindset sometimes imposes limitation criteria for new information. We tend to ignore what we don't like. It can sometimes lead us to disregard people before we have even heard them because we presume them to be disingenuous.

I once read on this site a female member, posting that she would not read an article by Hitchens on atheism, simply because he had written another article for Vanity Fair entitled "Why Women Aren't Funny", explaining, in his opinion, women's lack of faculty for humour. This in itself was a provocative piss-take - which obviously succeeded in ensnaring the female poster in question. (Hitchens I suppose would argue that if women were more humorous the accusation would never be made and, even if it was, women would just laugh it off and indeed, fall over themselves to read the article to laugh heartily at the absurdity of this fat drunkard). Nevertheless, refusing to read a totally unrelated article on such a ad hominem basis is the intellectual equivalent of taking your ball home.

Hitchens deserves his chance. I've seen a few silly comments about him here that are only the product of sheer ignorance. To those I say - do yourself a favour - take time out to read Hitchens and be enriched by his argument.

132. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35929 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 11:09 am

Philos:

Don't be an idiot. The people who walked out were informed as and when they booked as to the content of the show as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the background to the story. Even then, if you don't like it just walk out. Don't try and bully someone by pouring water over their work. Where's the respect there?

What the hell has being a "6.8 agnostic" got to do with you choosing (if you were in the same position) to remove your kids from the show you fool? The guy's show isn't garbage - perhaps you've missed the wealth of critical acclaim this guy has recieved for his work.

Time and again the performer asked for an explaination. The only one that came was that they were a "christian" group.

How telling. How pathetic.