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 PaulJ


101. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45866 by PaulJ on May 29, 2007 at 12:31 pm

But he cannot engage with the millions who just feel better with some sort of confused belief than with nothing at all.


Well who can? Ask them what they believe and they can't tell you. And this is what they base their lives on?

"I've made up my mind (at least I think I have). Don't confuse me with facts."

Pathetic.

102. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #45832 by PaulJ on May 29, 2007 at 11:12 am

But with Prof Dawkins now seemingly set on training his formidable intellectual artillery on politically-correct lefty thinking, the chances that he will expand his Christmas card list to cuddly archbishops seem pretty remote.
I send cards at Christmas. Not many, but those I do send I make myself from my own photographs, and they rarely include any Christian symbolism. An example of such symbolism that I happened to use a few years ago was a picture of the steel cross made from girders at Ground Zero in New York City. It was more an illustration of my travels that year, rather than an implication of seasonal significance. (If I had intended such significance I would probably have waited until Easter. But I don't send Easter cards -- does any atheist?)

103. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45749 by PaulJ on May 29, 2007 at 5:38 am

"Ahh... you didn't tell me Richard Dawkins says he's only 99.9% sure... that means a tiny part of him thinks there is a God."
Unfortunately this is the kind of sloppy thinking we have to deal with. In the same way that the question of God's existence has a yes-or-no answer, what anyone personally believes is the answer is also 100% one way or the other. At any one time you can hold only one belief about such a binary question, so suggesting that "...a tiny part of him thinks there is a God," is nonsense.

People say, "I'm in two minds about...." It's a figure of speech that suggests the person speaking has not yet decided one way or the other. It cannot mean that the person holds opposite opinions simultaneously -- even in unequal proportions.

On the other hand, saying "Sometimes I think this, and other times I think the opposite," is legitimate. As is, "I don't know."

104. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43425 by PaulJ on May 21, 2007 at 11:05 am

Hitchens himself is a public protagonist of compassion and solidarity. But these come, don't they, from the same Creator to whom Judaism and Christianity, as well as the Declaration of Independence, point.
(my emphasis)

Actually, no they don't. Isn't this what's called begging the question? This article seems to be riddled with the prior assumption that God exists, and that therefore Hitchens is wrong.

105. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #41235 by PaulJ on May 15, 2007 at 4:55 pm

The Catholic Church does not just make such things up but has thought long and hard about angelic orders and other matters of equal importance.
This is probably true. It thinks long and hard, and then just makes them up.

After all, these matters probably are of equal importance (as in, "not important").

106. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #39848 by PaulJ on May 12, 2007 at 5:17 am

Despite any evolutionary reasoning behind an insistence on virginal wives, what I find depressing about this business is the hypocrisy of it. The fact that these women willingly undergo expensive and no doubt unpleasant surgery in secret, in order to deceive their prospective husbands, indicates one of two things:

1. These women are truly oppressed. They willingly and knowingly disobey the rules of their religion, in order not to be, at best, cast out from their society, or at worst, killed.

2. Or, they are completely in denial about the utter nonsense of their religion -- do they really believe that the surgery somehow alters their past?

Whichever of the above applies in a particular case, the implications are abhorrent in the extreme.

107. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35798 by PaulJ on April 28, 2007 at 10:36 pm

A contractor by trade, Huibers built the ark of cedar and pine -- biblical scholars debate exactly what the wood used by Noah would have been.
According to one particularly unreliable source it was gopher wood (Genesis 6:14).

As in, "Hey, Ham! Go for some wood while I get these pesky critters rounded up!"

108. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #35661 by PaulJ on April 28, 2007 at 6:33 am

I remember this series from when it was first broadcast several years ago here in the UK. As I recall, it was a fairly subdued but in-depth examination of lack-of-faith, featuring many distinguished notables, including Richard Dawkins.

Miller is erudite and lucid, and despite his continuous expression of puzzlement over those who believe, he is genuinely interested in exploring the roots of faith (and non-faith).

Also broadcast were some longer versions of some of the interviews that were edited into the series.

109. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34015 by PaulJ on April 23, 2007 at 3:40 am

As I see it, the main thrust of The God Delusion is that religion -- any and all religion -- does not deserve the hushed respect that has erstwhile been bestowed upon it. That's why the growing lack of such respect gets labelled 'militant'.

Going soft on religion will just be backtracking to the prevailing problem. We shouldn't do it -- we should continue pointing out the manifest absurdity of faith without evidence.

110. In the beginning

Comment #34013 by PaulJ on April 23, 2007 at 3:28 am

...the manner in which life developed was indicative of a "divine reason" which could not be discerned by scientific methods alone.
Or any other methods, least of all 'theology'.
As Father Fessio observes, Catholics accept three different ways of learning about reality: empirical observation, direct revelations from God and, between those two categories, "natural philosophy"—the ability of human reason to discern divine reason in the created universe.
If I may offer a fourth: 'Let's just make stuff up.'

111. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34006 by PaulJ on April 23, 2007 at 3:07 am

Utter nonsense.

112. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33428 by PaulJ on April 20, 2007 at 4:44 am

padster1976 said:

We had a program here on the BBC in the UK where the reporter spent some time with the family.
You can find a trailer on YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O228AQRvcqQ
or get the whole thing via bittorrent.

113. Iran Exonerates Six Who Killed in Islam's Name

Comment #33418 by PaulJ on April 20, 2007 at 4:00 am

nworbynot said:

And just think, this country is close to getting it's very own nuclear bomb.
This is really scary. While I have doubts about the west imposing rules concerning the possession of nuclear weaponry on what is supposed to be a sovereign nation, the fact that not doing so could lead to such screwed-up trigger-happy fingers on a nuclear button sends a shiver down my spine....

114. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31408 by PaulJ on April 12, 2007 at 1:26 pm

But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.
This is plainly a usage of the word reason that I wasn't previously aware of...

115. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29626 by PaulJ on April 3, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Maybe the very first thing that kids should be taught in science class is a definition of science, followed by a thorough explanation of the scientific method. Then round off that first lesson with a grounding in critical thinking.

116. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29625 by PaulJ on April 3, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I watched this programme last Sunday with mounting incredulity, and then realized it was being broadcast on April 1st. But it surely couldn't have been a hoax -- it would have been too elaborate an April Fool's joke to perpetrate. Wouldn't it?

So, not a hoax then. And therefore very sad -- to see these misguided people (and their innocent kids) expending so much mental and physical energy in such futile ranting.

But why were they so gleeful when telling everyone outside the sect that they were going to hell?

117. Snake Oil and Holy Water

Comment #28246 by PaulJ on March 28, 2007 at 1:53 pm

minstrel:

Science should not simply be the domain of scientists. It should be accessible to all in a language they can understand.
Isn't this what Richard Dawkins does?
For that to happen, scientists are going to have to slacken the reins of rigor.
If it's not rigorous, it's not science.

118. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28040 by PaulJ on March 27, 2007 at 4:50 pm

The first statement is by the present Pope the second by the previous Pope. So no conflict -- just different Popes.
So not only are different religions claiming incompatible and mutually exclusive 'facts' about the universe, but different heads of the same religion are doing it.

Ludicrous.

119. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #27997 by PaulJ on March 27, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful...
Just like the the bread and wine, which really does change into the body and blood, not just symbolically.

This is what you get when metaphors are taken literally, betraying thought-processes lacking in subtlety.

Hell-fire and damnation, not to mention gnashing of teeth, which always struck me as an odd image...

120. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27772 by PaulJ on March 26, 2007 at 4:02 pm

In principle I'm in favour of teaching the Bible -- in English class. It is a core part of western culture and should be studied, along with Shakespeare, Chaucer, et al.

I'm reminded of Philip Pullman (author of the His Dark Materials trilogy) when on the BBC's Desert Island Discs Sue Lawley asked which book he would take with him to the island, in addition to Shakespeare and the Bible. "But I suppose you won't want the Bible, given your views on religion?" (Pullman is an atheist.)

"Oh yes," he said. "There are lots of good stories in the Bible."

[Note: these quotes are from memory, and unlikely to be precisely accurate.]

121. A hundred residents of a Russian village have refused to switch to new passports because they believe the documents' bar codes contain satanic symbols

Comment #27520 by PaulJ on March 25, 2007 at 6:28 am

You almost got me. But you're not supposed to publish stories like this until it actually is April 1st.

122. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26323 by PaulJ on March 18, 2007 at 5:00 pm

This is a depressing review. Unable to counter the straightforward, easy-to-grasp arguments against the unsupportable tenets of religion, Novak resorts to the usual nonsense:

The religion that Dawkins et al are against is of course not the real religion, which is something profound and deep (and therefore incomprehensible and unjustifiable by any rational effort).

If Novak thinks that the majority of religious believers share his profound understanding of faith, he's probably mistaken. What percentage of professed Christians would make any sense at all of the several paragraphs that begin with the words, "One: A Theology of the Absurd..."?

After all the complex tying of logical knots, to the point where they are utterly incapable of unravelling, the basic points in the books he's reviewing remain unaddressed.

123. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26135 by PaulJ on March 17, 2007 at 6:34 am

He wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality...
If this is really what he wrote, it demonstrates completely illogical thinking: The Bible does condemn homosexuality -- there's no argument about this. It's a fact that anyone with a copy of the Bible can verify. The quote above suggests that there might be something that could actually change what's already written. Plainly nonsense.

124. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24041 by PaulJ on March 4, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Fascinating how all three use the same typography as TGD on their jackets. Is anyone going to be fooled into thinking they're a four-part set?

125. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #23910 by PaulJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Go Cardinal Biffi!

Really, hard-line Catholics like Biffi, and Pope Benny himself, can only aid a global rise of atheism.

126. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #23906 by PaulJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Where do they get the idea that facts can be legislated?

Whether the theory of evolution is the most useful explanation for diversity of species isn't something that can be 'declared.' It stands, or not, on the evidence. Evidence isn't subject to legislation.

127. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23904 by PaulJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Craig seems to be justifying his 'belief without evidence' by saying there are other things we believe without evidence. If he takes that line, it seems to me he can justify any belief whatsoever.

...there's no way you could prove that the universe was not created, say, five minutes ago....
That way lies madness.

...the origin of the universe at a point in the finite past points to a transcendent cause beyond the universe, which brought it into being....
But of course, that transcendent cause does not itself, for some reason, point to anything other than...God.

If astronauts were to find machinery on the backside of the Moon, it would be easy to recognise that this is the result of some extra-terrestrial agency, even if you couldn't explain the origin of those extra-terrestrials.
Naturally we wouldn't dream of asking where those extra-terrestrials came from, what they were like, what was their purpose. No, we'd just say, "God put them there." Right.

128. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22495 by PaulJ on February 19, 2007 at 11:17 am

Well, I had a look at that 'fixed earth' site. It's obviously nonsense as there's no mention of turtles.

129. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15526 by PaulJ on January 1, 2007 at 3:54 am

I'm uncomfortable with 'bright' -- it seems the wrong word to describe something one is not. 'Atheist' is a negative word that has negative connotations, but what should we expect? How else do you describe a lack of something?

Encouraging the general populace to use 'bright' is likely to be seen as an effort to misdirect. I'm not defined by my atheism, any more than I'm defined by my lack of a huge bank balance, or my lack of an ability to fly or to read people's minds.

Like many I was brought up as a Christian, but saw through the whole charade in my teens. Becoming finally free of the needless superstition was intensely liberating, but I was still (and remain still) in an environment of religious believers, whose blind attachment to nonsensical faith continues to puzzle me.

As far as a word for such a condition is necessary, I think 'atheist' will serve. It's short, accurate, and has none of the smell of obfuscation that 'bright' is likely to attract.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3