101. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54927 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 10:50 am

DIANELOS-
Just entered the thread myself, and trying to backtrack here.

Just for my own point of reference, would you agree that God at one time existed as pure consciousness before anything else existed?

102. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54876 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 8:07 am

Yes, the very skilled editors attempt to hide the mop from its faithful viewers that Hitchens is cleaning Haggity's floor with. The trouble is they will from most theists who possess not the tools to identify all the smoke and mirrors. And this is why MOST of them remain theists. However, I can't see how a few fence-sitters could not clearly see Hitchens mop here.

103. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54870 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 7:37 am

I can sympathize with the frustration many experience when debating the first cause, when the theist insists there can be no other explanation of the origins of the universe, or turtles into his cozy 'faith' corner. Yes, perhaps we will never know what occured before the Big Bang-but what could NOT have occured was a conscious entity existing BEFORE anything else existed. And I will ask the theist "So if god created everything, then there was a point in time when He existed before anything else did?" If he says "yes" Then I know I've got him nailed. ( getting him to admit it this is so may be is another thing--but sometimes you can ) The problem here is that consciousness means to be conscious of SOMETHING, and if there is nothing to be conscious OF, there can be no consciousness. At that point the theist will say something like "God is conscious of himself"
But God could not exist in the first place if his entire being is dependent on being conscious--which again means he must be conscious of something. The key here is to have the theist agree with you point by point, and I have yet to hear anything that comes close to an adequate rebuttal. The theist will usually act like he doesn't understand what I'm saying, again attempts to hide in his faith corner, says "well we don't know the ways of God" ( even though up till now he acted like he did )or changes the subject to another facet of his God being necessary being for explanation of "how we see beauty all around us" etc.. but it all goes back to the original point. He simply can't be there first.

At which point I start talking about something like how tasty the taco dip is.

104. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54168 by PeterK on July 5, 2007 at 8:00 pm

I'd be interested in seeing some poll results of just fundamental biblical knowledge. I would not be surprised in the least that pure evolutionists would score higher than pure creationists.

105. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53995 by PeterK on July 4, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Just dusted off and snooped about in "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith for the past few days ( Sam Harris included it in his list of recommended readings. )

Although Smith really does not, some have attacked him for denying the occurence of the Big Bang. ( "existence is eternal" )

His arguments that suggest that God cannot exist at all are extremely thought provoking to say the least,("nothing can exist as a contradiction of itself" ) and still convince this reader that this is the case.

For all those who have not yet read this book , I would highly recommend doing so, if for no other reason than to read an extremely well-written philosophical perspective of the necessity of atheism.

106. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53802 by PeterK on July 3, 2007 at 9:02 am

Atheist: Just look at how cruel and vindictive God is in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, how could you possibly..

(Christian interrupts)Ahh,,but when Jesus was revealed as the Son of God, we see a different God, a loving God.

But Christians can just call upon the God of the Old Testament at their convenience to mete out that holy vindictiveness to the people THEY don't like. And amazingly, it's still carried out with that trademark blundering OT sloppiness; man now has created weapons which cause much less collateral damage.

107. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53596 by PeterK on July 2, 2007 at 6:50 am

Pure chicanery. The clery KNOWS that its adherents that finance their institution, will always fall for these alarmist circular declarations.

108. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52701 by PeterK on June 27, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Mr. Jillette:

Bravo! I'd love to hear more well written testimonials expressing the same feelings about NOT being bound by the myths from the cave.

109. Researchers May Remake Neanderthal DNA

Comment #52590 by PeterK on June 27, 2007 at 11:38 am

Bring BACK the neanderthals?

I always assumed my neighbour was one.




( sorry blokes, I just had to do that )

Peter

110. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52340 by PeterK on June 26, 2007 at 7:29 pm

I'm sure everyone in my building heard me scream as if I was being stretched on a middle-age rack when he started doing that complex human eye-thing thing. I am afraid however these cliche arguments will always be around as long large masses of people find them convincing.

111. God Hates the World

Comment #51928 by PeterK on June 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm

WeeFlea--Of course this is not how most christians/religious people act ( I'd say however, considerably more than the .0000001% you assert ). But this group, which were christians DID act in this manner--and this video clearly shows what can be the result when one's thinking is directed by religious faith and dogma--rather than basing an opinion on independent rational thought. To deny that religion has poisoned this particular group would certainly be folly.

It strikes a chilling resemblance of how the KKK supports their hateful idealogy via biblical scripture, and how they cheer their young when they attack and curse cardbord cutouts of African-American children their own age.

112. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51062 by PeterK on June 21, 2007 at 10:29 am

Oh so THIS was the article RD was referring to at the IdeaCity Conference in Toronto on Wednesday, but eventually didn't get around to explaining what it's contents were.

The writer thinks he is being so clever in just basically saying that old and tired tu quoque parallel "You (Dawkins--new atheists, et al..) are no different than the fundamentalists are"

It's really becoming quite pathetic.

113. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50843 by PeterK on June 20, 2007 at 7:19 am

So where did the universe 'come from'? It still remains a mystery! Even to most theists, a good part of God himself remains a mystery. So why not attempt to solve one myastery with another mystery?
I would say to believe as such would be not an exercise of faith, but rather an exercise of lunacy.

114. Bengali Translation of The First Chapter of The God Delusion

Comment #49736 by PeterK on June 13, 2007 at 7:37 am

If not already done, TGD should be translated into Arabic and copies by the millions air dropped over the entire Muslim world...for a start.

if nothing else-- and very shortly after air drop -- the world will never another bonfire this huge see .

115. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49411 by PeterK on June 11, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Damien--terrific exchange:

Him: And Jesus said unto Thomas, "Blessed are you for you have seen me and believe, but more blessed are those who have not seen me and believe, for their's is the kingdom of heaven."
Me: The kingdom of heaven and a home for the retarded sound awfully similar.

My only worry here is that this will more than likely literally swoosh over all empty the heads of those of 'faith'--and herein lies the problem which frustrates the kahoonies of all us non-believers. And that is arming the masses the tools of how to discern pure nonsense from reality.

116. We of little faith

Comment #48671 by PeterK on June 8, 2007 at 5:13 pm

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" or in Merriam Webster as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

I feel this is just scratchimg the surface of what the hideous province of religious faith entails. The actual distorting, altering and ignoring of premises that would lead to a desired conclusion which cannot ever change, is where its evil lies. Faith is the heinously abominable act of viewing reality with mistrust and contempt.

117. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48414 by PeterK on June 7, 2007 at 7:36 pm

This is such an incredibly fine moment for Hitchens. Finally, he is allowed to speak and fill the room with his intelligence, articulation, wit and insight. Bravo, simply brilliant.

118. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48091 by PeterK on June 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm

This entry is especially clownful.

119. Man to die over insult

Comment #47258 by PeterK on June 3, 2007 at 6:59 pm

I wonder what would happen if someone yelled publicly "Muhammed's mother wears army boots!"

120. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46539 by PeterK on May 31, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Clownful blatherings.

121. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #44734 by PeterK on May 25, 2007 at 8:33 am

Good stuff, but the foul language isn't necessary--even for emphasis purposes.

122. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44383 by PeterK on May 24, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Blatherings such as this one are certainly becoming more creative as time passes. Rather than stopping to think about how their own belief system is just simply has nothing whatsover to do with reality, and admit that this is so--they invent new sides of their mouth from which they can speak, and perform some logical gymnastics and contortions that are becoming so convoluted,( now far exceeding the idea of 'being irrational') that I can only see the point where an invention of an entirely new language where even the speaker himself can no longer understand, let alone to whom he speaks, be the playing field of those who continue the attempts to support a theistic position.

123. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #43989 by PeterK on May 23, 2007 at 6:14 am

"The trouble with the present flight from religion to the welcoming embrace of atheistic scientists and philosophers is that they offer precious little more than a new conviction that religion is the cause of evil in the world."

This is because you aren't reading any of these books

124. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #42984 by PeterK on May 20, 2007 at 8:14 am

An excellent article, I especially was fond of:

"Not surprisingly, the rising currency of atheism has provoked a flurry of often indignant counter-attacks by believers who seem to draw from a sadly limited arsenal."

Well said, and oh so bang on!

What is regrettable however, is that Moore gets bogged down by what appears to be a lack of a universallly agreed upon definition of what an atheist and what an agnostic is. And whenever someone who proclaims himself as being either by stating what the definition of his position entails, all those who hold an opposing view become uncomfortable in that they must take issue with someone who agrees with all their other views
on this matter, but not on how one labels it.
This may sound wishy-washy, but I always dealt with this situation as avoiding any discussion on how one defines 'atheism'--declaring people can call themselves whatever they want to, and go from there.

If one still questions my position I will refer him to how George H. Smith defines atheism in his book "Atheism:The Case Against God":which I think is as acceptably well-researched and succint as any I've seen.

"....The prefix "a" means "without" so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism" or without a belief in a god or number of gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of a theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or the supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind" or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism—they are somewhat misleading with the respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form is not a belief, it's the absence of a belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who BELIEVES that a god does NOT exist; rather, does NOT BELIEVE in the existence of a god."

125. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42556 by PeterK on May 18, 2007 at 11:48 am

Wicca attracts weak-minded, male-rejected females who feel powerless and oppressed in what is still male-dominated society. They are frustrated by expections not quite being met by the feminist movement of the late 60's early 70's. They like TV shows that have 'magical' themes. Ever notice that it's the women who possess the most impressive powers in these shows?

126. Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments

Comment #41496 by PeterK on May 16, 2007 at 7:39 am

Looks like Benedict could be a strong candidate to carry that torch of "Cruel and Stupid Things said by Religious Leaders" left behind by Falwell.

127. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41494 by PeterK on May 16, 2007 at 7:31 am

CJ22

Bravo--Excellent response!

128. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41487 by PeterK on May 16, 2007 at 7:20 am

De Souza is simply yet another theologian writer squirming awkwardly attempting to defend his vested interest. Of course, to an atheist reader the poorly-defended appeals are easily found as fallacious arguments, but will no doubt appease his followers--and that's who he's writing to. However, after reading so many poorly-defended critiques of these attacks on religion, one must think that eventually their followers tank of support will simply run out of fuel. We must be persistent, and we must be patient. What is real will eventually be recognized.

129. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39480 by PeterK on May 10, 2007 at 8:39 pm

My wife came up with the best word yet to describe the endless nonsensical blatherings from the creationist camp:

"clownful"

130. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38450 by PeterK on May 8, 2007 at 6:12 am

Hey, why not just go bowling?

131. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #37975 by PeterK on May 6, 2007 at 2:34 pm

.."Everyone knows, of course, that after death martyrs go straight to the Garden of Eden, where they recline on couches, savor meats and fruits and enjoy the company of dark-eyed houris while listening to the sound of flowing rivers..."

What? No pizza?

No Steely Dan?

I wonder if that talking snake is still hangin around....

132. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37696 by PeterK on May 5, 2007 at 1:24 pm

As the co-discoverer of the term 'sarcastheism' ( along with my dear wife ) I hereby proclaim Tipler represents the Lollipop Guild of Science in the Land Of Oz.

133. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36566 by PeterK on May 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm

"..behold... beginning of the end of western civilization, and no one even seems to care..."

..yep, and Dubya just announced he vetoed congress...

134. The God Delusion

Comment #36456 by PeterK on May 1, 2007 at 7:33 am

After I read this review of "The God Delusion" I found it to be the fairest and most accurate one I have yet seen--and lo and behold, it's written by an objectivist! A coincidence perhaps, but when an assessment is brought forth, via objective means, this is the result.
I find it somewhat curious as to why Rand gets slagged at all by any atheist, as she is just basically a defender of logic and reason, and her entire philosophy/ethical system is built on that foundation. And isn't this what it's all about? In my opinion her extistence/conciousness/identity axioms still provide the best argument for an atheistic position. Sure many disagree with her arguments--myself included--but as been mentioned, all too often it's a result of not really understanding her ideas. And MrEmpirical, I found Shermer to be in that category as well. His argument for the 'cultists' for objectivists to be dead on--but his attack on the philosophy was weak, and he himself admitted to a lot of it being valid.
Many of the objectivist 'leaders' of today are pretty silly however when it comes to environmental issues, and are indeed acting like theists. "Infinite Growth" was one of their original positions and global warming wasn't then an issue, but if they are really thinking like objectivists, they would consider the new evidence and make the necessary adjustments.

135. New Planet Could Be Earthlike, Scientists Say

Comment #35473 by PeterK on April 27, 2007 at 9:14 am

.."Jehovah Witnesses once believed God lived on a planet in the constellation Pleiades"..

It figures they would. The Pleiades isn't even a constellation, it's a star cluster in the constellation of Taurus.

136. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #34668 by PeterK on April 24, 2007 at 8:54 pm

I like Sid the Kid.

I like Richard Dawkins.

Somehow, I just didn't think anyone would compare
one to the other.

Kinda like comparing John Lennon with Neil Armstrong.

137. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34178 by PeterK on April 23, 2007 at 1:00 pm

8. Comment #34170 by Pieter on April 23, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Was anyone else really bugged by the fact that they place the Taber AB shooting somewhere in SW Manitoba. I mean i know the provincial lines weren't on the map, but still...

Yes I noticed that too, and even commented on it on the Coughlan video site, though it's now way, way down in the stack. Yes, Taber is about 500 miles east of where it should be.

138. Flea Circus!

Comment #33511 by PeterK on April 20, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Arguing the existence/non existence of God with a theist is like playing chess on a basketball. It's a waste of time.

139. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32860 by PeterK on April 18, 2007 at 1:51 pm

61. Comment #32819 by DNAtheist on April 18, 2007 at 10:22 am

Please provide an example of an objective standard for morality.

It seems that the posters here are afraid to mention Ayn Rand's name for fear of the repercussions one often receives when making mention of her philosophy. Admittedly, there are flaws in it, but her attempt to define an objectivist standard of morality in her 1961 essay "The Objectivist Ethics" where she answers the question "WHY should man adopt a code of ethics?", rather than "WHAT code of ethics should man adopt?" where "man's life" is the standard of morality, is worth a perusal.

140. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32810 by PeterK on April 18, 2007 at 10:01 am

112. Comment #32798 by bouwe on April 18, 2007 at 9:10 am




....A world WITH a god would be....oh, I dunno.... maybe where animals don't have to kill each other (either directly or in competition for resources) in order to survive? (That includes us too, because -- and I know you still haven't come to terms with this, Don -- we are animals too!). Probably a world where you can just walk up to trees and break off some bark and it tastes like flake chocolate, and you can eat as much as you want and not get sick, ie. a world without starvation and malnuitrition. A world where God makes himself known in an unambiguous manner, like maybe "god-was-here" spelt out in our DNA when a scientist looks under the microscope, instead of endless repeats, mistakes, and molecular junk (a gene to grow a TAIL!!!! What's that doing there, Don?) Or...maybe in big neon letters written in the stars at night for everyone to see, so we could all agree that there is a god and which one it is......in other words: NOT THIS WORLD, DON!!!!


..Hey, this sounds just like heaven!!

141. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32640 by PeterK on April 17, 2007 at 8:42 pm

"Though no one can prove or disprove God's existence"

..so we just don't quite know for SURE--kinda like an agnostic, huh...?


, "our history reveals the unmistakable footprints of something greater than man."

...oops, gettin to close to the 'a; word!--, so now we do know there IS a God???

Well if christains are able to reconcile the notion of the trinity, ( and some can even reconcile ALL biblical contradictions! ) this one should be a cinch.

142. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32322 by PeterK on April 16, 2007 at 9:21 pm

It's as if someone asked this writer to compose an essay that would include as many logical fallacies as possible. He then cleverly chose to defend christianity "against" atheism, as this offers one the greatest opportunity to do just that.

143. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31539 by PeterK on April 13, 2007 at 7:38 am

I feel the title of this article "Einstein and Faith" is an implication that Einstein subscribed to the province of "faith" as an acceptable method of cognition. To describe particular set of beliefs to having "faith" is a collosal misnomer, and as an atheist myself, who invariably is accused to having "just as much faith as a christian"- I so, so very often feel compelled to defend that my position is actually the result of a total rejection to the "faith " process, as often as defining what an atheist is, and why that position is the only one to embrace for anyone with even a shred of respect for reason.

A far more responsible title here would have been "Einstein & God" -and I regret there was no mention made as to what Einstein's thoughts were
on one having "faith", as the author irresponsibly equates a belief system that concerns itself with a thesitic entity with "having faith".
I would like to think that if such a question were posed to him--if he had "faith" in his position- Einstein would have responded with a resounding "Neine!!"

144. We'd be better off without Religion

Comment #31374 by PeterK on April 12, 2007 at 7:33 am

Some of us, I suspect quite a lot, are not religious for comfort. It is because we need to be battered, reduced, to have our monstrous egos squashed so we can control them properly. Speaking entirely for myself here of course.

I'd like to see how mankind would conduct themselves if they DIDN'T feel battered, reduced without their egos squashed. Maybe our general self-esteem, creativity, self-awareness, joy of being alive and general happiness would increase signifigantly. Hey, maybe atheism would be a good thing after all!

145. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31369 by PeterK on April 12, 2007 at 7:11 am

"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps,"

Kinda like Santa really can't fit down most chimneys?

146. Is God poison?

Comment #30890 by PeterK on April 10, 2007 at 8:46 am

...I would have had him foaming at the mouth and leaping up and down like a child throwing a supermarket tantrum...

LOL!

147. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30569 by PeterK on April 8, 2007 at 8:21 pm

But an atheist society could not survive. It would first live on the fumes of ancient moral traditions.

Isn't this precisely what all the ancient religions are doing now? And isn't the central purpose of these "Prophets of the new Atheism" to speak out against the large percentage of the earth's population that still insist on sniffing these "fumes"?

148. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30368 by PeterK on April 7, 2007 at 9:37 pm

I remember thinking in Sunday school when I heard about "He died for our sins" something like: "Oh ya, and make me feel guilty for the rest of my life for doing something I never asked you to do in the first place"

149. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30366 by PeterK on April 7, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Theists who feel their boat sinking when locking horns with atheists will inevetibly accuse the atheists of being "dogmatic" being "fundamentalists" having MORE "faith" than a theist--which is amusing especially after faith will be referred to earlier in such discussions as a "virtue" thus rendering the atheist as more virtuous.
Theists really have nothing else to defend their position, so this is simply name-calling.
All one need do is ask them to define these terms, and then explain how they apply to an atheist.
And they'll be able to do neither.
This is why they are theists.

150. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29800 by PeterK on April 4, 2007 at 8:16 pm

I just wished the Australian atheist gentleman on the phone would have asked that extremely annoying condescending smug "agnostic" if he believed God existed. Then after he said he did not believe in the existence of God ( as he alluded briefly )informed him that in the broadest term of the definition of "atheist" he was one. THAT would have been interesting!