101. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137542 by padster1976 on March 3, 2008 at 5:39 am

Begs the question

surely this is why God created computers

prevent the controversy from being even more explosive


These do not impress me.

102. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #136207 by padster1976 on February 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Americans should get their collective head out of their backsides and do something.

Greatest 'democracy' in the world?

Now there's a delusion.

103. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133249 by padster1976 on February 26, 2008 at 1:23 am

"PTA believes that the said footage absolutely stands against the values of religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence arousing deep anguish and distress across the Muslim world."

Values such as killing students, stoning women to death, killing all those who don't believe in exactly the same rubbish, stifling dissent and free thought with threats of death.

Values I con't wait to sign up to!

Surely 'religious tolerance' is a misnomer!?

104. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #132806 by padster1976 on February 25, 2008 at 8:14 am

Quill,

Just, y'know highlighting a few phrases here and there...

This country just needs to sink below the waves.

That said, I am beginning to believe that the world would be a lot better off if the United States were not in it.

Oh! Hang on! They're all yours.

Your point?

105. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #132801 by padster1976 on February 25, 2008 at 8:05 am

Annabanana,

Who do you listen to for your environmental views? Glen Beck?

America is by far the worse the worst for pollution! America is what 4 - 5% of the world population and one quarter of the world polution! Get real! India at around a billion people are around 16 - 17%.

As for strict laws... In Califonia maybe but america was the courty that destroyed the Kyoto Protocol.

106. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #132657 by padster1976 on February 25, 2008 at 4:58 am

Juxie,

'If you want to hate America, you don't need an excuse.' About 10/10 of the defensive meter! But a half decent attempt at sophistry regardless! Have I anywhere said 'I hate America'. Hmm, think not. To me it's fairly obvious but perhaps it's subtle to your mind. Too subtle maybe. America, as a concept is actually very promising. I like that you are a republic. The French did the best thing by getting rid of their elite spongers. Can't say much in favour of their methods other than it was effective!

However, we do get a lot of american culture over here. More than you might appreciate. We get Fox news if ever we want to over dose of nonsense. Yet I am what you might call a liberal. I won't expect Ann Coulter to talk to me however I greatly admire personalities such as Keith Olbermann. What a brave guy!

But just look at how many of the 'other side' there are â€" Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael savage, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Don imus… the list is starting to depress me.

These people are the most listened to in America and are so numerous it is therefore LOGICAL to reason that they reflect/ represent to the main view of America. When they speak to the world, the world sees them as speaking for america. The same for Bush despite his inability to string a sentence together.

So don't patronise me with puerile arguments of 'hating america' when if you used half a brain, you'd see that it's just not that black and white.

'convince yourself of illogical convictions'

What is? Quoting the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE?

Just how, exactly, is that illogical? No please, I really want to hear how a an International Court, recognised by Britain, can arrive at a judgement in 2002 against america for terrorism in Nicaragua in the 80's, and QUOTING them, can be Illogical. Surely that's ironic!?

Er, besides, who said I was British and defending them? Ahem, 'Pray' tell why you think that? You're not stereotyping me are you? Because after all, that would be silly wouldn't it! Especially after assuming I'm British and I hate america because I've dared to criticise america To do that would 'GASP!' make you seem a hypocrite. Shurely Shome Mishtake!

That was awfully presumptive of you wasn't it! And you are fond of name calling as well. 'America hater' and oh! Someone else is an organic eater. At least you apologised for that one.

Yes, name calling is always a highly persuasive argument tool.

Generally your tone is nicely defensive there Juxie. Finished crying into your tissues yet? Where did the 'ass kissing' into it? If you want to then fair enough. You can kiss my ass anytime. But please, try to make more sense in your responses.

So in summary, you accuse me of something I'm clearly not with name calling, state a contradictory accusation, profess you then want to kiss my feet (eh?) or then ass kissing â€" er, only if you want to!

'Clearly I've made up my mind' â€" clearly between us, I'm the only one able to.

Ciao!

107. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132630 by padster1976 on February 25, 2008 at 4:09 am

'evangelical atheists '

Oh dear. For me, the article lost all interest after that.

108. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130389 by padster1976 on February 20, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Hey juxtamonkey -

If you want to quote me, at least ask to see where I get the info from before claiming that its against freethinking.

How about the international court of justice?

The fact that the security council didn't sanction the judgement? Because a certain country vetoed the decision.

I wonder which country that was?

It would seem that your response is similar to counter-claims of the religious - knee-jerk, defensive, and quite, quite wide of the point.

See for yourself - you're free to think what you want...

Here's just one page...

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=360&code=nus&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&k=66&p3=5

And for those that can't be bothered, here's a salient excerpt...

- that the United States of America had violated and was violating its obligations to Nicaragua, under several international instruments and under general and customary international law;
- that the United States of America was under a duty to cease and desist immediately from all use of force against Nicaragua, all violations of the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of Nicaragua, all support of any kind to anyone engaged in military or paramilitary actions in or against Nicaragua, and all efforts to restrict access to or from Nicaraguan ports;
- that the United States of America has an obligation to pay Nicaragua reparation for damages incurred by reason of these violations.

But its okay, I'm against freethinking. Is that a euphemism for 'ignoring the past'?

109. Fleabytes

Comment #129711 by padster1976 on February 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Who's tried to find Wee Flea's comments?

110. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #129679 by padster1976 on February 19, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I like the way some people on this immediately shout 'hate' as soon as you criticize america.

You can add 'you must hate america' to the list of things that americans seems to mindlessly spout. Even if those that defend america is a brit, well our cultures are enough alike to attract the attention of traditional american enemies. I mean really, you remind me of religious boneheads by crying into your tissue because I've criticized america. Puh-leeez!

As for my reason for saying all that - Bush, the er, elected representative of america, sees the world in a rather 2 tone manner. It seems that america is about us and them - and its well recognised that america is a very isolationist country. Ironically very suspicious of foreigners. Well, suspicious for a country of jumped up colonials anyway.

Hey if you don't feel included in my rather blatant general description, at least have to nuts to admit it and then get over it. Don't instead rely on some pretty dodgy reasoning by using a straw man argument - 'if I don't accept 100% then I'm backward' - *yawn* That's a tired argument technique. ZZzzzzz!

If I use electricity as a another example - do you except the use of electricity 100%?

Including the electric chair?

Maybe you do but most I feel wouldn't so don't try to be a clever dick - coz you ain't pulling it off.

And if america wants 'respect', they better earn it by getting its act together.

As for hate, apart from boring its also as arguments go puerile beyond belief. I think of what america could have been, it really could have been the best place on earth.

So why isn't it?

Evolution has only just been allowed to be mentioned for crying out loud! Welcome to the 19th Century Florida!

Do I paint americans as thick?

Try this...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2261,Dumb-and-Dumber-Are-Americans-Hostile-to-Knowledge,NY-Times

Hmm.

If i really 'hated' america, would I have an apple computer? Or all those DVD's? Or think Megan Fox is the hottest thing around? Pedantic reasoning I know, but it serves to make the point. My consternation is derived more from an instinctive aversion to the empty vacuous BS rhetoric of abstract concepts like 'freedom' of Bush & Co. 'Mission accomplished' still makes me laugh. A bitter one at that.

So we'll call it ideological differences shall we?

So no. Hardly hate is it really? So lets grow up and have a better level of talking shall we?

111. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129659 by padster1976 on February 19, 2008 at 12:34 pm

So Florida has excepted evolution?

Er, welcome to the 20th Century!

Now hurry up to the 21st!

112. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129654 by padster1976 on February 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I can see the sense in thinking it would be more nature than nurture.

This would explain how people like me, who have been brought up in a fairly observant catholic family don't have a religious bone in my body. My brother is the same.

Our other 2 siblings, a sister and another brother, are both quite observant. Personality wise, they are more similar to each other and myself and my atheistic brother, despite 9 years apart, are very similar.

Those pesky genes! Devil's work I tell ya!

Vice verse, it would also explain religious kids in a secular family.

If 'religiosity' had a physical manifestation we would recognise it as a natural trait otherwise. Like eye colour for example.

113. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128640 by padster1976 on February 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I wonder if the americans think being the only country in the world to be be guilty of international terrorism is morally acceptable?

Or funding the Contra's during Reagan's era?

Typically, americans dislike and do not trust what they do not understand. I saw no support for the claim that they were 'informed'.

Americans are seemingly on constant trigger finger. All we hear about is their 'freedom' et al. Quite how they can say that whilst the Patriot Act is in force I do not know.

Look at what Grantaire of JC says - comparison to the use of nukes in WW2 (despite japan surrendering - according to Chomsky) - typical!

Why does it have to boil down to whether it's a potential threat? That tells me more about what americans default use of things are -

Eg -

'Is it a weapon?'
'It's a what? A toothbrush?'
'Can we use it as a weapon? I wanna protect my freedom against the threat of flossing!'

Nano tehnicians will be evil do-ers next! For crying out loud. We'll probably see which people actually use nanotechs and which ones are the most vocal opponents.

They will be more than likely one and the same!

We'll see if sanity returns to the world when that illiterate, nonsensical speaker, rough red necked hill billy Bush is gone.

I can only hope a prison sentence awaits him. With a nice cell next door for Blair.

Democracy? It's just an illusion.

I can't remember who said this - our politicians are 'elected aristocrats'.

114. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #127588 by padster1976 on February 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Wow!

Hitchen's is so good to listen to!

That Boteach was awful. Couldn't he hear that the audience were laughing AT him?

115. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127538 by padster1976 on February 15, 2008 at 11:37 am

With the recent interview of Dubya aka 'The Burning Bush' ringing in my ears - with his broken incoherent sentences, thinking of his wise and sage-esque comments on sex education, stem cell research and evolution, and I read...

"Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?"

What could my answer possibly be?

116. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126903 by padster1976 on February 14, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Lets hear from our dear wise friend Rowan the Archbishop of Twatdom!

So Rowan, still want this?

Why not even have the Mutaween here as well! Why, we should have our own version.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

Patrick

117. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123694 by padster1976 on February 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm

I wonder if he sees this as a way then to introduce Christian law as a 'balance'?

That man is a moron.

118. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123692 by padster1976 on February 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm

'"face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. '

Then whomever wants that can face up to the fact that they can piss off.

119. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

Comment #122779 by padster1976 on February 6, 2008 at 4:00 am

I thought string theory was not considered viable as a theory - the point like particles of matter are actually oscillating 3 dimensional objects that appear to be point like.

Too much like a faith position ie not empirical.

I've tried to read books like Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe', but it was too much like reading a sales pitch - he spoke about how great the theory was at uniting quantum and relativity theory, without actually explaining it. I didn't finish the book admittedly but the reason for that is that I felt I was being sold the idea and not really having it explained.

120. Some non-Christians feel left out of election

Comment #121781 by padster1976 on February 4, 2008 at 6:38 am

I'm amazed that the vast majority will blame a minority for the societies ills.

eg -

Atheists and agnostics have long been targets of the religious right who see moral decay in secularization

Surely, as a majority, they will have a proportionate responsibilty for how the society acts. By sheer probability, the likelihood that to stop someone on the street, in the US will be a Christian. Yet, even their jails have a disportionatly high amount of 'C's.

So does that mean that they are in fact responsible?

121. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121387 by padster1976 on February 3, 2008 at 10:47 am

Sorry, but they can piss off.

Hygiene is more important than their faith.

What happens if a death can be traced to a muslim women not washing her hands because of her religion?

Will the death be ok because otherwise it would offend her faith?

There must be a line drawn somewhere! Soon this place (UK) will offer more rights based on faith than reality!

PS - Does anybody want to take a morality test. V interesting at the Cognitive Evolution Lab at Harvard.

Check it out...

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/

122. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116398 by padster1976 on January 26, 2008 at 11:55 am

This is one shockingly crap piece of reportage.

First of all...

"The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged."

Why is father given the term 'contend' as opposed to the weaker term 'alleged' for the mother. I sense an attempt to manipulate opinions with a bias towards the male. It would have been a lot fairer to place the parents claim as equal.

"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances,"

I would put money that the full quote gives a completely different slant to the what that person said. A highly cynical use of a quote if I ever saw one!

123. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115570 by padster1976 on January 24, 2008 at 10:45 am

Al (post 16)

I'll post them love messages here.

I'll count how many words until I'm accused of being gay.

124. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115564 by padster1976 on January 24, 2008 at 10:28 am

Animal farm is prohibited in the muslim world for having pigs in it.

Read God is not Great for a good explanation for the origin.

Who do we write to complain about this.

Pat Conley is right. no more pussy footing around. When are we going to complain - when my buying bacon is offensive and I must go to jail or be stoned? Piss off.

125. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115562 by padster1976 on January 24, 2008 at 10:22 am

al rawandi -

yes talented.

Who do you like?

Tom Cruise?

126. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115561 by padster1976 on January 24, 2008 at 10:21 am

I've just written this to their website...


"SUBJECT
You sad poor deluded people.

Dear Weirdo's,

Lo and behold for before you is a message from an atheist. Yes, I reject all your bullshit and... I live quite well thank you very much.

And I don't have to hate anyone to fell better about myself.

So go ahead and picket Heath Ledger's funeral. And the end of the day, you will only be showing yourselves up and damaging the religious cause in america.

You appear to be that cousin that comes over at christmas and is such an ignorant red necked hick, that the rest of the family are tempted to disowned. Oh, actually, I think they have!

Do you get off on causing more hurt and pain or are you simpley just moronic ignorant slime?

It truly amazes me how you think you are following god's cause.

Did you know there is evidence that jesus was gay? There's barely any evidence about him at all so why not think he was gay? No wife, 12 boyfriends. Keep an open mind that's what I say!

Your message is so far removed from the teachings of jesus I think if he did come back, even he'd disown you.

Shame that you had to waste your one life with this. That's another tragedy."

127. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115554 by padster1976 on January 24, 2008 at 10:08 am

Where is that obnoxious wanker De Souza when shit like this happens?

Where are Atheist's when bad things happen? Feeling sadness and grief for when a talented actor like Heath Ledger dies from what appears to be a tragic accident. For having sympathy for his family. This atheist actually quite admired him (and my atheist wife thought he was 'a bit hot'). This is a disgrace. Do not silence them but humiliate them.

Atheists are not spouting this kind of hate filled crap.

128. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114364 by padster1976 on January 22, 2008 at 4:35 am

'"It's historical nonsense and I wouldn't want to go and see it. Life's too short."'

My view of religion.

129. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #114021 by padster1976 on January 21, 2008 at 8:18 am

When I read this...

But critics fear the technology could be exploited by mavericks to clone babies and accused the scientists of reducing the miracle of human life to a factory of spare parts.


Lets see what they say if they loose an arm and the technology to grow it back is available.

Idiot scare mongers!

130. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #112605 by padster1976 on January 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm

'...to provide teachers with the scientific knowledge and teaching skills necessary to actively engage their students and to prepare scientifically literate graduates."

How to render term scientific completely meaningless by attributing it to the very opposite of what it means!

Their context is a 'science' based on creationism. Which, er, isn't science.

For a genuine glimpse into the attitude of americans I suggest you have a look at amazon.com and look at some of the blogs on the 'the god delusion forum'.

My good grief!

131. Blind Faiths

Comment #108585 by padster1976 on January 7, 2008 at 9:34 am

I noticed a few familiar themes here,

The occurrence of the 'suicide' of the west. This has been peddled by various hate mongers such as Bill O'reilly. As well as the transformation of Europe into 'Eurabia' with all the immigration. I haven't really read much of Ayaan Hirsi Ali however out of principle I do support her and what she symbolizes. Also, is this not further peddling of the so-called culture war. Most of the right wing tabloid rags rant stuff like this.

Although I agree with her about the attitude of americans and the idea of 'exceptionalism' - a concept lucidly argued by Chomsky. His books are always illuminating. However, I get the feeling that this Harris merely wants to fight islamic fundamentalism with christian fundamentalism but Ali seems to skirt around the issue without naming it directly.

Overall, an interesting read.

132. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108570 by padster1976 on January 7, 2008 at 9:02 am

Same old same old.

I think i'll start writing a history book - the rise fall of the american empire.

Just as Christians brought about the end of pagan rome, the christians are bringing the end of america.

Why should we think that americans will vote with their heads? They put Bush in for a 2nd term for crying out loud!

This guy is practically in the door!

Patrick.

133. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #107814 by padster1976 on January 5, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I got half way through - this has to be a joke!

134. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #107442 by padster1976 on January 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm

At 32.34 "... it points to the capacity of all world views to begin to do this its not so much religion or indeed anti religion it seems to be something actually about human nature itself. Which means that acts of kindness can be accompanied by acts of violence. There's something about us i think that really needs to be addressed there. So i dont think its (muffled) forward as this. Religion poisons everything? I'm not sure. It can do. But so can other things as well. The real problem I think is extremism, the kind of ideologies that force violence upon us and those it seems to me do need to be challenged and with that I am at one with Mr Hitchens. But is it God that's doing this?..."

I think that Mcgrath is avoiding the point and at the same time inadvertantly affirms Hitchens position.

'religion' is a world view as the idea of the Lenin and Stalin and Hitler providing a religion of their own and therefore another kind of world view. In this sense, there is no difference between these regardless of any labels such as 'atheism' or 'theism'.

World views that are dogmatic and utilise violence to back up their claims. A world view makes claims on peoples thoughts, beliefs, customs and provides a figure head for 'devotion'. Religions main complaint against the Russian and Nazi world views is that they usurped their own!

So Mcgrath is saying what? That his 'world view' is somehow different? That is how religion posions everything. Whether it is 'established' religions or personality cults from the era after the first world war.

As far as I know, atheism doesn't put forward a world view. Only that faith teaching should stay out of schools and away from any government policy.

135. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106702 by padster1976 on January 3, 2008 at 9:31 am

I find that the article merely pigeon holed people into those that 'know' the answer and those that don't.

I find that a little off the point - Dawkins himself has said that 100% proof that a uber being exists is impossible to either credit or discount. Therefore if one honestly looks at the different arguments, sees, like myself, that the probability that one exists, let alone sending his 'son' to earth is so unlikely that the only reasonable course is to go through life as if he doesn't exist.

This seems like a typical over simplification of the issue.

I wouldn't surprised if many people feel this way.

136. Man and God

Comment #103651 by padster1976 on December 26, 2007 at 12:14 pm

"Similarly, a claim to know what Einstein admitted was the unknowable about the existence of the universe cannot be made by anyone who is himself a human and therefore part of that universe."

This sums up how religion operates in a nutshell - they find an area that is not undersood, or, in other words, cannot be fully explained, and they plaster 'god did it' stickers everywhere.

And since when did Einstein say that?

137. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #103206 by padster1976 on December 24, 2007 at 1:38 pm

In response to Bonzai, comment 152 -

Religion is a part of civilization and it is woven into every fabric in tradition and culture.

This in no way proves anything and certainly in no way proves that it is a good thing. When one considers that during the era (Mainly, pre Enlightenment) when those of a religious bent held the reins of power, all that resulted was that those they considered heretical were incarcerated or executed for believing something other than 'revealed truth'. Its no surprise then that the church became ingrained into tradition' and culture. I would refer you to Malise Ruthven's Fundamentalism; a Very Short introduction as a very good explanation and rebuttal of this piece of sophistry.

Perhaps you intentionally do this or not but you are blurring the definition of 'tradition'. There is a religious context and there is a broader non- religious context as well. In typical style, when defending things with a religious connection, the boundary's are blurred so as to cloak one thing under the guise of another.

Some of the bank holidays in the UK are based on religious origins. I do not go to work that day. That's similar to Dawkins when he says it makes him and myself a 'cultural' christian. However, I in no way subscribe to a 'christian' world view. Ruthven defines tradition by being something done without thought. What religious tradition must be done without conscious thought?

Also, the idea that it is in every fabric is quite repulsive. Though use of the term 'fabric' is rather apt. I would go further and describe religious tradition as a 'stain' in the fabric of society. A stain that has been left too long. It truly is that corrosive. Sure, you perhaps disagree with what I'm saying however, if one merely contains themselves to consider the 'fluffy' part of religion, I no doubt come across as 'militant'. Another dreary piece of sophistry! However, I consider the entire aspect of religion: the part that resists the abolishment of section 28, the section that permits bishops to attribute weather to 'our' tolerance of a particular sexual preference between adults and to push creationism in schools. Not just little old ladies having a cup tea with the vicar.

Society evolves, it is not something that we can design in a lab. While we can reject the metaphysical claims of religion and oppose the dogmas of organized religion, it is impossible to explicate every religious imprint in our culture.

Er, not sure what you are getting at. You 'reject metaphysical claims by religion'. How so? Religious claims are far more than just 'abstract reasoning' on the nature of reality and the origin of the universe. I would say that one would reject the supernatural claims of religion. (i.e ALL of them!) I may be pedantic yet I see time and time again that wooly terms just give reason for the religious perspective to get away with explaining itself due to spreading a gossamer veil of obfuscation.

How then, if you state that one can reject the claims of religion, it would be 'impossible to explicate'? Are you intending to say 'eradicate'? I'm only inquiring as to explicate every religious imprint implies to explain every imprint.

You continue…


Neither is it desirable. At its most fundamental level, before all the dogmas and dos and don'ts, religion stems from the impulse to come to terms with the experience of other worldiness, that there is a "transcendental" existence outside of us.

Religion 'stems' from a primitive attempt to explain the observed universe. It accepted 'revealed truth' only. How else was Copernicus ignored despite his evidence? How else was Galileo branded a heretic for saying the Earth was not the centre of the universe? That is not 'transcendental'. It's nonsense. The inclusion of 'other worldliness', is best explained by my good friend Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan-

".. and therefore when there is nothing to be seen, there is nothing to
accuse, either of their good, or evil fortune, but some power or agent invisible.."

In other words, with a lack of imagination to look for reason, 'men' will invent something to explain it.

As Einstein puts it, it is the same impulse that underlies all true art and true science.

Einstein put it like that did he? I thought the nearest Einstein got to religion was by saying…

"it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as
our science can reveal it"

Removing its supernatural claims and dogmas, religion can be seen as a kind of symbolic, metaphorical representation of the world. While religion contains much nonsense and superstitions, it also contains wisdom, like all ancient mythologies.

By 'removing' religions supernatural claims and dogma's leaves er, not much. You are correct that what is left is 'symbolic', I'd add allegorical if I was being generous. However, this merely shows that religion, in it's broadest term, has no greater claim than any other form of philosophy to the 'truth'. Even as a symbolic piece, its not very good. There may be 'wisdom' in it however it is neither original nor that inspiring.

Religion is more than just belief in the supernatural and Church teaching, it was a way for the ancients to express their relationship with the world and other people.

This sentence is self-contradictory. You state 'religion' as capitalized and taken in a holistic context. But then you mention church, again capitalized denoting importance and a particular type, which at once excludes all forms of religion that do not have a 'church'.

It was their language in a sense.

Like I said before, in ignorance mankind used the tools at hand to rationalize their environment. However, it morphed into self serving intolerance to maintain the status quo and maintain a certain power structure.

The meaning of rituals and music has a significance on their own apart from any Church dogma. They can be seen as means to introspection and contemplation about the world in a way similar to Buddhist chanting. The Bible stories that apparently inspired some of the highest artistic achievements in the past could be understood as just the vehicle the artists used to visualize and express their vision of beauty and sublimity.

Yet music and art forms have been banned under religion. And other art movements are some of the most beautiful have nothing to do with religion. Note that the term 'art' in a modern context is only a recent invention. Perhaps as recent as 200 hundred years ago. Religion was 'uber dominant' only what, 500 years ago? All the wealth was concentrated around the papacy and therefore the artists were commissioned by those with the finance to command it. In the context of being killed for not believing, you'd make a good effort as well!

However, this is not to detract from what are amazing demonstrations of what humans can achieve. This in no way make their claims anymore believable or that we should therefore continue the world view. I myself am artistically trained and therefore can appreciate the balance that goes into such enterprise. In that context, the 'illuminators' of the bible, those monks that spent years illustrating the bible, creating all those beautiful triptychs and the like are all ancient PR executives. Remember, illiteracy was high and the 'sacred texts' were in latin. What better way to get the common person 'onside' than with a striking visual aid.

It may be harsh to consider 'art' in this light. However, we look at them with 21sy century eyes. Study art history and when you see 'art' in situ, they take on a whole meaning.

You may say religion is only a culturally specific trigger. In our time the trigger might be a picture taken from the Hubble telescope.

Getting carried away?

Being an atheist shouldn't deprive me the joy of appreciating the beauty of music, paintings and glorious architectures simply because of their religious themes. They are expressions of human creativity and celebrations of the human experience, religion just happened to be the vehicle to bring them about. Without these things life would be much more barren and the world would be a much poorer place.

Indeed! I am right there with you! However, again, this in no way allows that we continue with a world view from such an ignorant time.

138. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100733 by padster1976 on December 19, 2007 at 8:29 am

Do I need to 'believe' in what I'm singing?

So I really think that I'm on a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair that leads me to a hotel where I can check out but never leave?

Get real.

139. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100675 by padster1976 on December 19, 2007 at 5:06 am

The Evangelical Alliance's Thacker noted, "I think the atheists will love it because it's bashing Christians around the head. It's another thing to take a CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL and abuse it.

Er, slight re-write of history there.

25th December was originally celebrated by many religions. So why insinuate its 'christian'?

140. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100662 by padster1976 on December 19, 2007 at 4:39 am

"We're concerned about this," said Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the program. "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out."

Yeah, missing out on a crap idea.

141. This Week's Flea

Comment #100657 by padster1976 on December 19, 2007 at 4:32 am

Er, here's the first bit...

'In God and the New Atheism a world expert on science and theology gives clear, concise, and compelling answers to the charges against religion'


'World expert on Science'?

Note the science comes before the theology. Yet look what wikipedia has to say about the author...

'Dr. John (Jack) F. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian and the Landegger Distinguished Professor of Theology at Georgetown University. His area of expertise is systematic theology, with a special interest in issues of science, cosmology, ecology, and reconciling evolution and religion.'

A blatent misleadin and unsubstantiated claim. He only has a 'special interest' in science so er, no actual qualification.

In the vein of a personwith a religious lead perspective on life, it begs the question - what qualifications DO YOU have to discuss science? (in the vein 'are you qualified to talk about theology)

Ergo, ignore.

142. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #100212 by padster1976 on December 18, 2007 at 11:42 am

He added: "I fully recognise the full historical and cultural significance [of Christianity] in our country.

So has the holocaust - i.e learn from it so it is never repeated.

Really. Witch burning and all other bigotry is not the foundation of a free society.

143. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99977 by padster1976 on December 18, 2007 at 2:35 am

What a horribly slanted cynically reported piece of crap.

'See! The Great Atheist sings carols! The bible is completely accurate and must be obeyed!'

Utter rubbish. Shame on the BBC for their self righteous 'balanced' view.

It is probably correct that the UK was founded on Christian principles. But then we took the antidote called enlightenment and left the dark ages behind.

For crying out loud. The 'founding principle'Its not something to be proud of - leaving the dogma behind is what the intelligent ones amongst must be proud of. Once again, we see the obfuscation of some traditions and complete and utter nonsense. You can have one without the other.
I would say for a lot of people, perhaps a majority, find that christmas has lost the original reason - ie celebration of 'baby jesus'. Its rather too commercial now eh? How about the xmas tree thing - that the bible prohibits. Yeah, the christians really missed that point didn't they!

More hypocritical tosh. I wanna complain to the BBC.

144. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99527 by padster1976 on December 17, 2007 at 1:48 am

A story to tell when you hear apologists say that surely there's nothing wrong with religion if it gives people comfort. I.e Huw Edwards of BBC fame when interviewing Dawkins.

'Yeah, the dad was comforted. Shame about the daughter. Oh well, we can't critize someones beliefs.'

There's something for the debate points.

Gives comfort? To whom? The daughter who was killed or the father who killed her for being 'un-islamic'?

145. Believe it or not

Comment #97748 by padster1976 on December 12, 2007 at 3:19 pm

I see a few people have been talking about the label atheist has - for myself in the UK, I am surprised (in hindsight i don't know why) because I thought it wasn't so stimatised as in the USA.

My 4 year old nephew, who incidently hasn't been baptised, goes to a C of E school. His mum (my sister) is religious and his father is a agnostic. They didn't get him baptised because they 'wanted him to make his own mind up' when he is older.

So I was a little taken back by sending him to a religious school but bearing in mind something like 80% of primary schools are C of E, I suppose they didn't have too much choice.

So anyway, you can imagine my surprise, after my initial respect for such seemingly open minded people, that my nephew comes up to me and starts telling me about 'baby jesus' and 'jesus as an adult' and about his 'mummy mary'.

In the interests of his 'balanced education', I told him that people, myself included, think jesus doesn't exist.

Well, in the honesty that only a 4 year old can have, he took it to heart. He does look up to me and sees me as somewhat of a hero according to his mum. It brought home to me the absolute mercy that people leave their children to that their minds can be so open.

Naturally his parents, in true hypocritcal stlye, hit the proverbial roof. My sister expressed shock and used the word 'you're an atheist?' in the same tone one would use as an accent to accuse someone as 'you're a serial rapist?'.

The 'agnostic' immediately demanded that I prove jesus and god didn't exist - then promptly kept repeating the question over attempts to explain the invalidity of his question. The idea of proving a negative is false seemed to escape him.

But then the accusations! I'm 'a fundamentist' apparently. I'm 'no better than the extremeists'!

At this point my dad, who is roman catholic, waded in bellowing ' your veiws have been responsible for the wars'!

How I asked.

All he could do was bellow even louder that he didn't know.

Case closed.

In the end, myself and my partner left and have not spoken to them since. That was a month ago.

More was said - however it was merely purile name calling so there's no need to mention it here.

Except one bit - according to my brother in law, the 'agnostic', he is 'better' that me because he is 'an adult' (he's 3 years older than me - I'm 31), and the proof of adulthood? He's a parent.

Oh dear!

My retort earlier that agnostiscm is intellectual complacency in that he just hasn't thought about the issue enough nor has courage to make a decision either way, let alone live by it, stands.

146. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97482 by padster1976 on December 12, 2007 at 7:18 am

Spinoza -

Without 'belief' (in the hope/faith context) there is no religion. Only reality remains.

Apart from the baubles of pomp and ceremony, which is nothing more than self-serving nonsense that gives the appearence of importance - the core factor is belief.

They aren't seperate at all. But 2 parts of the same problem.

147. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #96216 by padster1976 on December 10, 2007 at 7:13 am

Steve99 - good call on the Dune book. Fantastic. And top marks for the shout to Bear.

USA Limey - High 5 for the space-travel thing. It was the inertial dampeners that irritated me.

I prefer the acceleration/ gravity crushes the travellers with the light speed being free of gravity (Star Wars - definite case of design with no thought to function.) Mind you, you need something to counter act the infinite mass that you would have suddenly developed!

HPMcCall - Double high 5 - how could I forget the Mighty Simmons. The 2 Endymion books were also excellent though. Did you enjoy 'The Terror'? Although I felt the first 2 books were more from the Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales' and Calvino's 'The Castle of Crossed Destinies' rather than Shakespeare. Or am I unfamiliar with the bard?

148. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #96205 by padster1976 on December 10, 2007 at 6:51 am

Now now everybody. Remember that this is a novel for young adults. It's not going to be Shakespeare is it? It's all down to taste.

On the broader picture, I found Pullmans style to be good. Hence, it may be obvious but I absolutely devoured the book. Also, for those who like this stuff, I recommend Garth Nix's Sabriel series. Top notch Stuff.

It maybe something to be said about taste. I love P K Dick, but not Heinlein. Asimov is amazing, but I never got into A C Clarke.

Tolkein rocked my world when I was small with The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Only I remember that I was disappointed that it was Frodo in the LOR and not my favourite character - Bilbo.

Jonathan Stroud has a fantastic trilogy out called the Bartimeus Trilogy. Highly recommended.

However, Northern Bright may be bristling with the thought of more like Pullman. There's always Peter F Hamilton who invokes that rare feeling in me whenever I read them - jealousy. In that he writes what I would love to write. At least I can read them. North B - try the Reality Dysfunction. It's a little rude in someplaces but is sublime.

For those that dislike any fantasy? How about Jasper Fforde? Simply astounding! Or someone a little older (and dead!) Italo Calvino? His Cosmicomics is a wonderful read.

For full on fantasy, there's George R R Martin's excellent series. The fact that it's fantasy is almost a subplot with some of the best characterisation I've ever read!

It is interesting to note here about Pratchett. Some people love and woe betide any would criticise him in their presence. Ignoring the obvious similarity of books, it's interesting to note the degree of loyalty and defensiveness people give the author. Sane people don't live their lives in accordance with the Discworld series yet the severity of their feeling towards the author is astounding. I used to work in a bookshop and the feelings towards the series were either - not my type or absolute devotion. No-one ever seemed to think 'so-so'.

I love books me. 8)

149. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says

Comment #93226 by padster1976 on December 2, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Beth,

just posted this on the ini's website -

'I have read today that you have forced the resignation of your Science Curriculum Director for being 'biased' against 'Intelligent Design' or as its known colloquially - 'Utter Rubbish'.

Chris Comer is merely doing her job. Promoting Science. Which you should be proud. However, as ID is not science - Dover Vs Pennsilvannia - a) as Science Director, she would know abd b) how can she biased? Its simply not Science.

Your actions speaks volumes. BE please that you are not in the UK - we would eat you alive.

I thought that the rumour that americans are generally thick on average, but hey - more like you and it won't be a rumour!'

Thought the thick bit would generate some response.

150. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93216 by padster1976 on December 2, 2007 at 12:41 pm

'the other driven by a visceral contempt for the personal faith of others.'

- Nah. Other faithiests do that!

'Visceral contempt' - read 'presentation of facts and reality'.

Its just another example of what Dawkins described as the self imposed degree of importance and 'untouchability' of a religious belief.

C'mon! Since when should ignorance be protected!?