101. Taking exception to Jake

Comment #71953 by gcdavis on September 20, 2007 at 1:39 am

Science=method. Atheism=conclusion. They're different. We also argue that a godless nature is a conclusion more compatible with scientific thinking than that ancient superstitions were accurate in the absence of evidence, but don't let that confuse you.

102. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71947 by gcdavis on September 20, 2007 at 1:23 am

We raise all sorts of questions beyond the material world.

103. Religious education

Comment #71545 by gcdavis on September 19, 2007 at 2:31 am

Hey guys that Ark was really some boat

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html

104. Religious education

Comment #71193 by gcdavis on September 18, 2007 at 2:36 am

pewkatcho

Your comment about Noah reminds me of the lyrics of one my favourite songs, It ain't necessarily so.
It could become the atheists anthem





It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so

David was small but oh my
David was small but oh my
He shot Goliath
Who lay down and dieth
Little David was small but oh my

Jonah he lived in a whale
Jonah he lived in a whale
He made his home in that fishes abdomen
Jonah he lived in a whale

Moses was found on a stream
Moses was found on a stream
Floated on water old Pharaoh's daughter
Fished him she says from that stream

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
They tell all your children
The Devil he's a villain
It ain't necessarily so

105. Religious education

Comment #71167 by gcdavis on September 18, 2007 at 1:25 am

For students up to 11 years
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/religion/

For 11-14 years
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/

General
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/rel7a/?view=get


These links provide some of the source material that the author is talking about.
There are very occasional references to a world without god but at no point is the student allowed to examine the atheist perspective in depth.

Questions like "Who was Noah" presume that such a bloke existed! How can you deal with this sort of nonsense?

106. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68521 by gcdavis on September 7, 2007 at 11:54 am

Comment 68519
This is just the sort of disgusting suggestion that we have come to expect from you atheist rabble. The holy.... explicity states that eating your children is forbidden. If you are hungry you should eat someone else's!

107. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68519 by gcdavis on September 7, 2007 at 11:45 am

Hey guys I'm new to this forum. Is it ok for atheists to eat their children, I'm getting mighty hungry!

108. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68359 by gcdavis on September 7, 2007 at 2:08 am

Happy Hominid

We don't get countdown, thanks for the link, its powerfull stuff!

109. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #67971 by gcdavis on September 5, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Polly has been a trenchant voice in British journalism for a long time. She comes from a tradition of social justice and liberal values and is a long time member of the National Secular Society and this is where her real strength lies, in challenging the privileges and special pleading that religion has enjoyed within the British political system. British humanism is a bit sandals and beards and I do not think that it is offers a platform worthy of her talents, of course I hope that I am wrong.

110. The New Atheists

Comment #67659 by gcdavis on September 4, 2007 at 7:59 am

As others have said, a thoughtful article. I think we should distinguish between atheism and secularism. Although I describe myself as the former I consider the latter to be more important. The advocacy of secularism is sensible in any society even for the religious and some of them actually acknowledge this. Secularism and all that stems from it underpins freedom, democracy and justice. A secular society that bases its decision making processes on rational argument is less likely to fall pray to extremist politics.

Tragically the body politic of the USA has been corrupted and subverted by the religious right to the extent that politicians are required to compete with each other to demonstrate their faith in a spiritual virility test. This demeans them and insults the electorate.

Although finding common ground is necessary in resolving any dispute, I think the ante has to be maintained for some considerable time before conciliation is appropriate.

111. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67287 by gcdavis on September 3, 2007 at 2:48 am

What do these atheists understand of religion?

Nothing and Everything!

Nothing: because faith in the supernatural is infantile and does not warrant further examination

Everything: for the same reason as Nothing.

112. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67007 by gcdavis on September 1, 2007 at 10:08 am

Socrates was deemed the wisest of men because he "knew that he didn't know".

I thought that was Donald Rumsfeld!

113. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66991 by gcdavis on September 1, 2007 at 8:36 am

NJS
The article refers to the paradox of people approving of the benefits of science whist still retaining religious beliefs. The risk is in polarising the debate and forcing people to choose. However when push comes to shove, for instance if schools try to give equal status to Creationism and Evolution, I would agree we do have to stand up and fight for science.

114. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66931 by gcdavis on September 1, 2007 at 3:15 am

It is a dangerous idea to pit science against religion. You don't necessarily need science at all to come to the conclusion that religion and belief in god are irrational.
You just need an enquiring mind and a healthy dose of scepticism.

A few years after realising that my christmas presents didn't come from a red suited man in the sky, I turned my attention to the white bearded one, god, and decided there wasn't one. Aged about 11 or 12 I knew little of science and didn't have parents or adults around me promoting either cause. I wasn't clever or precocious, and I have achieved little in the way of qualifications but I did (and do) prefer to think for myself and challenge received wisdom. That was the only tool that I needed. I was lucky that I lived in the UK, I realise my transition would have not been as easy if I had lived in a strongly religious society that many experience.

Of course science has provided an explanation for virtually all the questions that religion once sought to answer, however when you force people to choose between them there can be only one winner and it isn't science! Surely we should undermine religion by attacking its privileges and the spurious structures that support them. We should explain the dangers of fundamentalist belief, religious or otherwise. We should demonstrate that atheists are moral, ethical people and we don't need science to do that.

115. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66726 by gcdavis on August 31, 2007 at 6:45 am

They waste breath arguing over the "rights" of a chicken whilst continuing to mutilate the genitalia of millions of boys!

There is a comment facility at the Jewish Daily Forward website (url given in article)

116. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66040 by gcdavis on August 28, 2007 at 2:48 am

There was a devout Pastor called Ted
Who occasionally like to give head
When caught he denied
And simply replied
That his "cup" runneth over instead

117. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66038 by gcdavis on August 28, 2007 at 2:25 am

A more local account of the story is here
http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2630

118. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65272 by gcdavis on August 23, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Science and religion are mutually exclusive for one simple but fundamental reason. You can't reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into in the first place

119. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65130 by gcdavis on August 23, 2007 at 1:46 am

I have submitted mine to CNN International, but I cant find the relevant I-Report pages on Faith, anyone have a link?

120. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64607 by gcdavis on August 21, 2007 at 2:03 am

Even in the litigious US this seems bizarre. The indictment: Injury - Assault, Libel, and Slander. Is Pivar just a conceited nutcase?

He seems to have the dosh to fund it himself?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/pseudoscience-n.html

Are there any lawyers out there, does an action like this have any chance of success?

http://www.selforganization.com/

he is in "good" company under the delusional tag at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/rss/tag/delusional/new

121. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64155 by gcdavis on August 18, 2007 at 6:02 am

I am interested by CH's response to the penultimate question about art, his comment was somewhat unsatisfactory. For most of history the majority of art was undoubtedly inspired by religious belief and "genuine" devotion. In addition to their skill and practical talents what separates great artists from the rest of the pack, or indeed us, is the intensity of their feelings and their ability to harness this emotional energy and use it to inspire their art, this is particularly the case with the most abstract of all art, music.

I am a hardened old atheist but I can listen to Bach's St Mathews passion and I get goose bumps, it is a beautiful piece of music totally steeped in religious devotion. What translates to me is the devotion, it doesn't matter that I don't share the faith that inspired the composer, just like if I read a novel written by a woman I can empathise with a woman's feelings although I will never feel them as they were felt by her.

For the last couple of hundred years art has not just relied so much on religious devotion to inspire it and I hope that eventually the world will grow up and discard all vestiges of religious belief. In that future world I am sure great art will shine just a brightly, but the inspiration will be love and devotion for our fellow human beings, the natural world and the wonderful planet in which we live.

122. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61369 by gcdavis on August 5, 2007 at 1:12 am

RD is right to turn his attention to the new age nonsense, however there is an obstacle to overcome; the placebo effect. If you can feel "better" after taking a dummy pill during a clinical trial as some people do, how do you persuade people that clearly want to believe in something magical or supernatural that they are delusional? They often feel that their life, health or whatever has improved.

Maybe if we knew more about how the placebo effect works it would be easier to convince believers. Presumably self-hypnosis must use similar means; I am reminded of a BBC radio 4 program that recorded a man undergoing a vasectomy without anaesthetic, he had apparently hypnotised himself and talked all the way through the procedure. As someone who has experienced the op himself, with a local anaesthetic, it is not something to undertake lightly!

123. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61360 by gcdavis on August 5, 2007 at 12:45 am

Good points Dr Benway. Where I live in rural South Cambridgeshire UK a group of lads ranging from 9-15 have built a BMX bike track in a set aside field, it is truly amazing. Using just earth they have created a series of jumps that get bigger and bigger so that on the final one they leap about 12 feet from the ground. Each jump comprises a take off ramp and a landing ramp, as they get higher the distance between them increases. The whole thing has been created instinctively using trial and error, no calculations about increase in velocity etc. I walk my dog in the same area and always think to myself there is a lot of science on display here even though the kids are probably not aware of it. Harness that and we may get somewhere.

124. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61196 by gcdavis on August 4, 2007 at 5:40 am

atticus_of_amber

You're right he did say that but in the very early stages of an adaptation this would not be the case. As evolution does not have a road map to where it eventually ends up why does an adaptation commence in the first place? (You can tell that I am not a scientist).

125. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61182 by gcdavis on August 4, 2007 at 3:49 am

On a rather more specific point, the last question wasn't answered completely. Take the evolution of a wing, presumably it doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage until it becomes a functioning wing, so what is it the "drives" the intermediate stages, having a couple of "stubs" might even be a disadvantage?

126. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61181 by gcdavis on August 4, 2007 at 3:42 am

What a great trio, RD with his schoolmasterly clarity, Steve Jones with humour and insight in equal measure and Lewis Wolpert, who is like a thunderstorm that clears the air. It makes me regret that I was not turned on to science at school, it left me completely cold and what really horrifies me, in the UK 45 years on, it hasn't improved much, my kids have shown the same lack of interest.

My question to the panel would be, how do you turn the young on to science?

127. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60867 by gcdavis on August 3, 2007 at 3:07 am

JAJansenJr
You say "As to proof that a Creator exists the jury is out."
Your analogy is apt. A jury considers the evidence presented by both sides.
Where is your evidence?

128. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60864 by gcdavis on August 3, 2007 at 3:01 am

JAJansenJr
Do you believe in fairies? This is not a facetious question. I find no evidence for them, do you?

129. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60842 by gcdavis on August 3, 2007 at 1:22 am

I'd like to see the likes of McGrath turn their attention to other religions, McGrath on Islam or Hinduism would be interesting, rather than spending his energy on trying to discredit atheism. There are huge differences of belief and dogma between faiths but do you see them criticising each other, no. In fact they support each others privileges, a cosy cartel (maybe the US regulators should look at this instead of BA fare fixing!). Of course the reason is clear, once one religion is undermined the entire edifice of all religions will eventually crumble. They are all fellow travellers.

130. The Out Campaign

Comment #59990 by gcdavis on July 31, 2007 at 11:27 am

I agree with you Sara, the link to RD is tacky

131. Come Out!

Comment #59767 by gcdavis on July 30, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Oh all right, I give in, I have created my own messages on a mini T-shirt!

132. Come Out!

Comment #59693 by gcdavis on July 30, 2007 at 8:32 am

I have created a poll in the Forum

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20398&p=331391#p331391

My prediction of the result 80% for, 20% against, age breakdown may be interesting

133. Come Out!

Comment #59530 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 11:30 am

Heathen2
That was a good slogan!


How about this for our side:

MIRACLE!
Man saved in Tsunami, 10,000 drown

134. Come Out!

Comment #59523 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 10:53 am

hightrekker
So you want a T-shirt ok. But why do so many of you want to belong to something, its pure tribal. Have the bottle to stand up for yourself, say who you are and what you don't believe in! If you want a membership card join a T for Tennis club.

135. Come Out!

Comment #59497 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 9:00 am

I have just re-read P Z Myers comments at the top of this thread, and I am struck by arrogance and condescension that are bordering on the papal:
...brings out the whiners and concern trolls... indeed!
I have always enjoyed his contributions to this site but this time he owes us dissenters an apology.

136. Come Out!

Comment #59489 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 8:39 am

Beth
Your alarm bells are noted, but the circumstances are so different here, The Vardy college is notorious because of its uniqueness, my guess is with Blair gone the faith school issue will simply fizzle out. The biggest difference of all is money, no one gets rich out of religion here so it is impossible for religion to corrupt the politcal and education system to the extent it has in the US. We do have a problem with home grown jihadists and their supporters and organistions need to be ( and are being)confronted

137. Come Out!

Comment #59488 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 8:27 am

MrEmpirical
The key word was personally

138. Come Out!

Comment #59471 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 7:19 am

Steve99
I concede your point that most of us here in the UK have become "comfortable" with the idea of homosexuality and that the gay rights campaign is at least partly responsible for this change in attitude. The difference is that I as an atheist in the UK have never been discriminated against personally, what I object to are the privileges afforded to religion by the state and the threat to our freedom from religious fundamentalism.

What has also helped gay rights are the number of high profile gay people, in entertainment, the media etc. Now if we had more high profile people asserting atheism, we might make more progress. The issue, as Henri Bergson said, is the risk of setting up atheism as a rival creed, by giving it the trappings of faith!

139. Come Out!

Comment #59469 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 6:52 am

Henri Bergson
Well said
Your first point sums up the issue fo me. The proof will be in the pudding, I cant see Hitchens, Harris, Grayling, Dennet etc sporting the T-shirt, in fact I'll be surprised if RD dons one.

140. Come Out!

Comment #59462 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 6:27 am

Rieux
You're missing the point; sure you can wander around with a big A and an OUT slogan on your shirt, you will probably labelled as a gay anarchist but what the hell. My point is the "fight" should be between secularism and religion, this is a political and human rights issue. To say look at me I am an atheist is not enough! Education should be free from religious bias or bigotry; this can only be achieved by political action and social activism.

141. Come Out!

Comment #59448 by gcdavis on July 29, 2007 at 4:52 am

The idea behind this campaign is flawed and some of the reasons have already been aired, A = anarchy, OUT is completely associated with Gay issues. The other problem is geography, in the UK being an atheist is not an issue publicly, politically or commercially. In parts of the US and the wider world it obviously is a big issue. Paradoxically although church and state are separated by the American Constitution you have seen a greater corruption of politics by religion than we have in the UK. Here although we do not have a written constitution with any such guarantees, our body politic is not corrupted by religion, just a little tainted perhaps by specific issues like the state funding of a small number of faith schools and our archaic system where the Queen, our head of state, is also head of our "official" religion the church of England. Nobody gets fired for being an atheist here.

Atheism is an absence of faith, it isn't any thing else! It is illogical to mount a campaign and contrive logos to defend and support an empty space. Rather the campaign should be opposition to religious privilege, influence and corruption. What we are is secularists, that is a tangible and real position to hold and our primary effort in each of our countries should be to shore up and defend secular institutions against an assault by religious authoritarianism and stop trying to "get off" on being atheists.

142. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55949 by gcdavis on July 13, 2007 at 2:42 am

To Bizarro Dawkins

Apologies in advance for what will seem arrogant and opinionated.

You are a student at Liberty "university". Being a student is an opportunity to open your mind, to explore ideas unfettered by intellectual constraints, to develop your potential and who knows, perhaps make a lasting contribution to your subject.

By joining Liberty you have abandoned all hope of doing those things. Its motto is "Challenge your mind... Build your faith". These concepts are mutually exclusive. Perhaps if it were "Challenge your faith..." you would then be able to "Build your mind".

In common with many atheists I view religious belief as absurd and deserving of ridicule not respect. Perhaps you would feel the same about my views if I said I believed in fairies or the god of thunder?

You may wonder why the tone of this post and many others is angry. The right to pursue your religious faith is not in question, but when that faith results in actions that are impervious to challenge, we must all be worried, look no further than 9/11. If you respond by saying that you are a christian not a moslem, I say to you that they are as fervent in their belief as you are in yours. Both cannot be true!

Religion is an infantile throwback to the prehistory of humankind and deserves no place in the modern world. In time, probably a very long time, I expect it to be replaced by secular rationalism, the ills of society may still be with us or maybe we will have developed a more just and equitable social order and in that god free world we will be able to express our true humanity towards each other without supernatural oversight..

143. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55682 by gcdavis on July 12, 2007 at 1:30 am

By treating belief as worthy of consideration I think we are in danger of losing the plot.

Like most families mine kept up the pretence of Father Christmas/Santa Claus until one day I said to my parents, "it was you wasn't it", they duly acknowledged that it was they who were responsible for my Christmas presents. For a few years prior to that moment I was still prepared to suspend disbelief even though I thought it likely that it was indeed my parents who had left my presents.

A few years later I underwent the same process with god. It was simply that there were better explanations to the questions that I had begun to ask myself. God was as silly as Father Christmas, simple as that. Aged 11 I was an atheist, aged 61 I still am, no big deal.

Maybe my account doesn't amount to a bestselling book, but the problem is by engaging in debate about the holy books, the historical personalities and the global influence of religion gives it (them) an undeserved credence.

Perhaps we need a ridicule offensive not an intellectual one.

144. A force for good?

Comment #55487 by gcdavis on July 11, 2007 at 9:10 am

66. Comment #55382 by Luis_Cayetano
________

Luis,Thanks for posting that comment; I really enjoyed it.
________

I'll second that, a fantastic piece of writing.

145. A force for good?

Comment #55470 by gcdavis on July 11, 2007 at 7:56 am

[quote]Everyone accepts quite happily that there are some truths about human existence that have to be approached obliquely, through art, because they are not susceptible to a scrutiny rooted in the scientific method.[/quote]
No they don't.

[quote]Religion seeks spiritual truth, not scientific or historical fact. It allows us to cope with ambiguity and uncertainty, with the ultimate mystery of human existence.[/quote]
As the concept of spirit is a construct of human imagination rather than of reality, spiritual truth is a non sequitur. The "ambiguity and uncertainty" of human existence is not a mystery but it is part of a cosmic jigsaw puzzle. Each day another piece is added to that puzzle by the expansion of our knowledge allowing us to make a bit more sense of the picture.

Whether or not we will eventually see the whole picture and understand everything is not a question worth asking. But just look at how far we have come and with the constant entropy of religion always trying to drag us back.

146. A force for evil?

Comment #55412 by gcdavis on July 11, 2007 at 3:35 am

I am a long time admirer of Grayling but his contention that "religion itself is the lunatic fringe of human thought" doesn't accurately describe religion or help to explain it.

Humankind has lived in fear for most of its existence, fear of the elements, fear of the unknown, fear of hunger, disease and death. How terrifying an electric storm must have seemed to our distant forefathers and how natural to ascribe a vengeful intent to its perpetrator. And how reasonable the desire to placate and appease a power that was so overwhelming. It wouldn't have taken much to persuade me the Thor was not a guy you mess with!

When you ascribe god or gods to the events that dominate your existence, worship, ritual and religion will inevitably follow, in fact it seems a perfectly reasonable, even rational response!

Those who still believe in god and embrace religion do so in the face of colossal evidence to the contrary. The explanation surely is that many are ignorant and uneducated; most will have been born into a faith that provides a cultural as well as religious identity. Some will still be motivated by fear, fear not of the unknown but the known; the fracturing of society in much of the developed world, in the alienation of youth and drugs culture, the frightening pace of change and the prospect of "civilisation" being reversed.

The practise of religion in many European countries and especially the UK has usually been associated with piety and with harmless or even beneficial activities like fundraising and charity. So for many in our society any attack on religion and god has seemed vulgar and misplaced. However since 7/11 and 7/7 and the Iraq war perceptions have begun to change. Many people are now hostile to all Islam rather than simply tolerant of it. The emboldening of other faiths and their claims of protection from ridicule and insult has begun to ring alarm bells, even though the UK government still seeks to maintain their collective privileges.

Grayling is a philosopher so perhaps "human thought" has a particular meaning to him, yes some religions do have a lunatic fringe of fundamentalist zealots but this is not a true description of religion as whole, I prefer to see religious belief as a throwback, a nostalgia even for a more certain world for those who do not have the courage to see the world as it really is; "red in tooth and claw".

147. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51280 by gcdavis on June 22, 2007 at 7:44 am

Dear Cardinal Robert Bellarmine

Re your application to enter the online game "AfterLife". I regret to inform you that your application has been turned down. The board of Heaven Inc have accepted take over terms from our rivals Paradise plc and as you are probably aware they have revised the entry criteria.

I do hope you are not too disappointed; may I take the opportunity of suggesting an alternative to "AfterLife". Some of the other applicants have found "RealLife" offers a much more rewarding experience.

Best of luck

God

148. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50345 by gcdavis on June 17, 2007 at 2:45 am

I get the bandwidth error to!

In the meantime let me run this past you.
Posts to this site now run into the hundreds of thousands but we rarely get to grips with this fundamental question; why do "they" continue to believe and what is it about you and me that mean we don't?

I realise that 10 reasons are an arbitrary number but this is my take on it:


10 reasons why people believe in god

1. They are born into a family with a particular religious belief
2. That belief is consolidated by attendance at a place of worship and ritualised ceremonies
3. During childhood that belief is not questioned by parents or influential adults
4. The prospect of life after death is used as an incentive to reinforce their faith
5. The "truth" of their religion becomes an unchallengeable fact
6. Religion provides garrison against an uncertain and apparently hostile world
7. That without adherence to religious teachings, humans would revert to savagery
8. The existence of god gives meaning to an otherwise purposeless life
9. The perception that religious faith benefits society
10. They are convinced by the longevity of their religion and of the authenticity of their "holy" book


10 reasons why people do not believe in god

1. They are raised in a free thinking family where questioning all assumptions is encouraged
or
2. As they mature they begin to question the widely held assumption that god exists
3. They seek a rational explanation for all human experience including morality
4. They deem the myriad of claims from religions old and new to be contradictory and false
5. They think religion is divisive and dangerous as it is impervious to reason
6. They consider that belief to be a delusion that impedes the development of humankind
7. They recognize that uncertainty and purposeless is the natural state
8. They acknowledge that at the end of this life is there is no other
9. They seek fulfilment through human relationships without supernatural endorsement
10. They trust that science is the most likely vehicle for improving the future lot of humankind

The religious will doubtless look a my list and say how bleak it is, whereas theirs is cosy and secure and it is this dependency on the comforting narcotic of religion that is difficult to overcome. But the reality is of course that our lives are rich and fulfilled and that for 95% of the time, for most of us, our atheism is no more important than the colour of our hair.

149. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49886 by gcdavis on June 14, 2007 at 2:47 am

That was on of the best performances on any subject that I have ever seen... and Hitch was good as well. No seriously without notes, Hitch is an orator second to none. I am glad he has become a US citizen as it might give him a bit more street cred "over there".

It is always frustrating that the religious apologists never confront or even debate the arguments presented, Olasky was an exceptionally poor opponent. 10 : 0 to Hitch.

150. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49717 by gcdavis on June 13, 2007 at 6:02 am

The bible as we know it is not an ancient work, it was re-translated by William Tyndale in the early 1500's and it was his writing skill that resulted in such beautiful and much quoted phrases, he was burnt at the stake for his troubles.