Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by SRWB


101. Fleabytes

Comment #147384 by SRWB on March 20, 2008 at 8:55 am

Bollocks? Where I come from they are usually considered quite useful!

102. Fleabytes

Comment #147343 by SRWB on March 20, 2008 at 7:37 am

What you experienced is an example of coincidence.

This is exactly the point many of us tried to make all those pages ago. I cited the story about my daughter finding $10 floating in water at a beach (without the benefit of prayer) and DR scoffed at that. The point was that it was a coincidence, albeit a fortunate one, which DID NOT REQUIRE prayer. Sometimes shit just happens, sometimes it's bad and sometimes it's good!

103. Fleabytes

Comment #147046 by SRWB on March 19, 2008 at 5:48 pm

I mean two socks that don't form a pair.

Yeah, I sometimes do that with black and navy socks (accidentally). But the upside is that now you've got another identical pair as spares.

104. Fleabytes

Comment #147022 by SRWB on March 19, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I am part German and can attest that it isn't just they that wear socks and sandals - I've seen Brits, Canadians and Americans do it too; tends to be age related!

Ah, lederhosen - geez I'm glad I've outgrown those. :-)

105. Fleabytes

Comment #146907 by SRWB on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 pm

"The older I get, the better I was"

Or this one, "It won't hurt, did it?"

106. Fleabytes

Comment #146807 by SRWB on March 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm

On the issue of oral traditions and stories in the Bible and the gospels there are a few problems. For one, those who wrote these stories probably had an agenda (political, faith-driven, power seeking, etc) to pursue, humans being humans, so might have succumbed to a little bit of propagandizing and deliberate embellishment to further such agendas (everyone is familiar with fish stories, wherein the caught fish grows larger and longer with each retelling of the tale). Second, levels of literacy in the ancient world were unlikely to be as high as they are today, and spreading stories by word of mouth alone is notoriously inaccurate even within a small group or sect over minutes (games like telephone or Chinese whispers prove this), let alone over even a relatively long span of 30-50 years. Furthermore it is likely that ancient illiteracy rates were high and coupled with the almost total lack of written records (at least for common folk) such as newspapers, books, etc. upon which people could rely for corroborating evidence. Finally there is too much likelihood that stories were simply mistranslated, copied down falsely, and distorted purposely or otherwise, on countless occasions to be taken too seriously.

107. Fleabytes

Comment #145831 by SRWB on March 18, 2008 at 7:43 am

No, I'm Brian.

No, I'm Brian and so is my wife........

108. Fleabytes

Comment #145482 by SRWB on March 17, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Pathfinder,

What "magnificent point's" have you raised that forced us to run screaming about avian life? And just what exactly have Teller, Oppenheimer and Einstein got to do with atheism? And Auschwitz wasn't about atheism either - read some history and do some research.

109. Fleabytes

Comment #145415 by SRWB on March 17, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I believe it's with my atrocious spelling paint roller...........

Athiest's are FASCIST'S who wont under any circumstances brook contradiction

Sure some are, but they are also libertarians, liberals, communists, socialists and a whole host of other ideologies and political stripes.
Pathfinder - are you for real? Or are you an oxygen thief a la Wooter? This has got to be a put on.

110. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145018 by SRWB on March 17, 2008 at 7:18 am

Was the attack justifiable?

Yes, and I say that as someone whose maternal grandparents lived right in the path of the deluge of water (mother was born a few months later). But to debate the justifiability of it is, I think, Harris's point - how much collateral damage are we willing to accept, and still shy away from torture. Was killing all these innocent "enemy" civilians and non-combatants justificable in the big scheme of destroying a threat?

111. Fleabytes

Comment #144308 by SRWB on March 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Steve,

I didn't review Paul's other posts, but if they are decidely atheistic in content, then I do have to wonder if he is bipolar.

112. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144304 by SRWB on March 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Torture is wrong and immoral

Is it in all possible circumstances, real or hypothetical? Again, I don't think you have completely hoisted aboard Harris's complete thoughts on the subject - are you as upset about so-called collateral damage? If not, why not? Many more people, most of them innocent, die or are injured in such commonplace results of modern warfare. Is that any more moral?

113. Fleabytes

Comment #144300 by SRWB on March 15, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Paula,

The tenor of the "original" comment does appear to be a put on, ie, BS, due to the use of "stoopid head" for example. The intent seems to be, as "Paul" says, to keep things "stirred up". And as you have stated it's no proof that "Paul" is an atheist. In fact, the quote seen in its entirety, would argue otherwise. Well done.

Steve

114. Fleabytes

Comment #144246 by SRWB on March 15, 2008 at 1:08 pm

"This work of Paula Kirby's is one of the finest on the subject I have read. Her fluent writing style and clarity of thought make it a pleasure to read."
But in this case it would be an accurate review.:-)

115. Fleabytes

Comment #144241 by SRWB on March 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Still, at least it gives you the perfect excuse to hit the malt.

Perfect excuse? Any excuse will do!
"Wow, this is an intelligent and well-crafted view of RD's book."

So what, even if the quote is accurate and was made by an "anonymous atheist", does it do any more than simply imply that Robertson's book is a knockout blow. Lots of things can be "intelligent and well-crafted" and still be completely wrong or distorted, can't they?

116. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143949 by SRWB on March 14, 2008 at 5:36 pm

For me he is comfortable with torture

That's simplistic, as you have said about other opinions. Whether you agree with him or not, I think that Harris is at least being honest about the issue of torture based on the fact that it is no less morally objectionable than dropping bombs and other tactics of modern warfare. His position is a logical one - basically we can't (shouldn't) be too squeamish about waterboarding when we don't react (generally) with the same amount of revulsion to the collateral damage (death of innocent civilians and destruction of property) caused by modern war. The difference is that he is at least able to admit the dichotomy and speak about it intelligently.

117. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143898 by SRWB on March 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm

a man can advocate torture and nuclear strikes on non-nuclear countries and not be hounded. Hitchens is the same.

Can you cite actual writings where either advocates such activities. Don't forget to provide the appropriate context.
Religious texts have to be interpreted, and are interpreted according to circumstances.

And that is the critical, even fatal, weakness of such texts. Any text which claims authorship of God would not need to be interpreted. Your example of contraception makes the point. But this has been debated to death.

118. Fleabytes

Comment #143234 by SRWB on March 13, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Oh no, did I give away Atheist religious secrets by posting possible questions in my post 5114?

119. Fleabytes

Comment #143174 by SRWB on March 13, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Quetz,

Give him a cup of tea and then pin his slippery soul down on his 10 "proofs":
1.The Creation.
2.The Human mind and spirit.
3.Moral Law
4.Evil
5.Religion
6.Experience.
7.History
8.The Church
9.the Bible
10.Jesus

Good luck or as we say in Canada good luck!

120. Fleabytes

Comment #143166 by SRWB on March 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

My best friend is a woman - I mean my second best; my best friend is the great Phari-swarm! (It never hurts to be on the safe side)

121. Fleabytes

Comment #143159 by SRWB on March 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Science needs religion like I need a woman.

Do you mean as a lover or as a mother? ;-)
Let us tell you about the All-Powerful Xrglyuf, the Swarm-Father and creator of all life in the Universe....."

and
He was devoured by the great Phari-swarm...

Hang on a second - I smell a rat. How could an all powerful entity like Xrglyuf be devoured by a lesser swarm, unless the great Phari-swarm is even greater still?! Shouldn't we be worshipping the Phari-swarm just to be on the safe side? Unless you're just spouting theological twaddle like the rest of them. You're not, are you...........?

122. Fleabytes

Comment #142921 by SRWB on March 13, 2008 at 7:51 am

Just coffee for me as well while at work. :-(

In regards to Coventry and the bomb - yes it must be a miracle, and probably has nothing to do with the fact that some bombs just never functioned due to technical problems (a certain percentage were duds). Even modern munitions are not 100% error-free, and produce duds.

123. Two More Fleas

Comment #142484 by SRWB on March 12, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race.

Berlinski would have been better off to stop there, but on he goes...
But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

Of course, we now want to know what those "questions that religion asks" are. My gut tells me they are of the "why is there air" ilk, such as:
- why is there evil?
- where did morality come from if not as an edict from Daddy?
- why are we here, if not for some greater purpose?
- why is the earth so perfect for life if it was not specifically designed for us?

I'm sure this book will provide answers to all those thought-provoking queries. Not.

124. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141159 by SRWB on March 10, 2008 at 6:18 am

Wooter, Wipeout and Wheeler - the wingnut trio. Seriously, you three (one) are oxygen thieves. If I might quote an old acquaintance - you are sharper than an average round rock, thicker than whale shit.

125. Fleabytes

Comment #140733 by SRWB on March 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm

You must mean "Christianity" is not picked on hard enough, not "Christians".

Of course; my error as well - we would never wish to be accused of being fundamental atheists whose only tactic in this ongoing debate is to launch ad hominem attacks!

126. Fleabytes

Comment #140721 by SRWB on March 8, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Paula,

A God that had no beginning is necessary for one thing and one thing only: Christianity.

To be more accurate, would we not include Judaism, Islam, and all other deistic religions here as well? Let's not always just pick on the poor Xians; they have it so hard. ;-)

127. Fleabytes

Comment #140407 by SRWB on March 7, 2008 at 9:01 am

Steve Zara,

Speaking of metaphors and symbolism, have you received anything back from Dodgy Art on the subject?

Steve

128. Fleabytes

Comment #140399 by SRWB on March 7, 2008 at 8:53 am

Paula,
Good point - I'm almost convinced myself now ;-). I don't expect God to give me MORE evidence, because I don't believe there has been ANY so far. Should we believe hearsay evidence concerning supernatural or inexplicable happenings in religious contexts, when we wouldn't do so in other aspects of our lives? I think not.

129. Fleabytes

Comment #140390 by SRWB on March 7, 2008 at 8:38 am

an all-powerful supernatural being that doesn't want to leave natural evidence because it wants us to believe in it through faith, can intervene naturally WITHOUT leaving evidence

For Xians, how does that jibe with the whole story of Jesus? Didn't he walk among us and intervene and leave evidence, like dead fig trees, overflowing baskets of bread and fish, crucifixions, etc.?

130. Fleabytes

Comment #140365 by SRWB on March 7, 2008 at 7:50 am

there are also "other ways of knowing".

I've always disputed that religion is truly a "way of knowing". "Knowing" implies a degree of certainty that religion definitely doesn't possess. I would agree that religion is a way of viewing or thinking about the world, but that's a far cry from knowing anything.

131. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139242 by SRWB on March 5, 2008 at 11:09 am

fides,

In the unfortunate event of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being in a position where it's leader(s) represent a large number of people, then yes, it should be given a voice on the public stage.

BS, and no it should not. As I and others have said (hungarianelephant quite neatly) churches/religions don't democratically represent anyone except their own hierarchical regimes and self interests. Even in Islam, where there is no true structure, the religious leaders certainly don't represent their faithful in anything even remotely approaching a democratic manner.

132. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139233 by SRWB on March 5, 2008 at 10:49 am

Maybe he was living in the Southern Hemisphere at the time? :)

Good point - I am so northern hemisphere centric.
Maybe he was getting in a early start as he wanted to create everything on Thursday the 25th?

Outrageous - God would never create anything on a day named after Thor, a god that doesn't exist!

133. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139227 by SRWB on March 5, 2008 at 10:36 am

the Earth was created on Sunday the 21th of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.

Uhh, how is this possible? I thought that Sunday was a day of rest. Why wait until October - why not midnight on 1 January? I think God would've wanted to maximize the time available, and make use of all that nice spring and summer weather too.

134. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139115 by SRWB on March 5, 2008 at 6:50 am

I said their voice not their opinions were authoritative.I agree that their voice should be listened to because they represent poeple.

Why is "their voice" authoritative? You think so, but isn't it because historically the masses have deferred to religious authority voluntarily or through coercion, which is why these "authorities" "represent poeple (sic)",
and not because they speak self-evident truths. When was the last time one of these "authorities" was elected democratically by the people you say they represent?

135. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138608 by SRWB on March 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Surly not equally divisive,

Do you mean "surly" or "surely" (either fits :-))

136. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138603 by SRWB on March 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Steve,

One thought struck me after reading the link you sent. Would the real God be so informal as to refer to young Meredith as "Mer"? I mean has he no manners? He hasn't even met her officially! I also note that it was in fact a "special angel" that wrote this as God dictated, so it isn't even in God's own hand.

I'm afraid I will require more convincing.

137. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138598 by SRWB on March 4, 2008 at 3:40 pm

...Pin, who holds that every religion is equally valid...

Not just equally valid, but equally foolish, wrong, contradictory and divisive as well. What next?

138. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138441 by SRWB on March 4, 2008 at 10:22 am

Quetz,

Am I the only one who thinks that Catholicism is practically polytheistic, with the amount of reverence it shows to Mary and other "icons"?

I too think this reverence for Mary, all the saints, the crucifix, etc., does make catholicism a polytheistic religion at very least, and an idol worshipping one as well.

139. Fleabytes

Comment #137757 by SRWB on March 3, 2008 at 12:47 pm

al-rawandi,

You can't disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny.

I'm not trying to! Read it again - I'm a believer in the EB! Chocolate and eggs proves it!
I'm still amazed every time a faith head comes on her

I noticed that too - I guess there's more than Peace upon her! :-)

140. Fleabytes

Comment #137743 by SRWB on March 3, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Were it not for large groups of people reinforcing these notions about crucifiction, atonement, virgin birth, A-bombs in volcanoes, Easter bunnies, and honor killings, no one could possibly swallow any of it.

OK that's it - You can say anything you want about these notions but I draw the line at the Easter Bunny! He's good, for he brings eggs and chocolates, therefore he must exist.

141. Fleabytes

Comment #137643 by SRWB on March 3, 2008 at 9:37 am

but isn't that technically a simile?

You think the two cavemen would know the difference?
Metaphor is curiously correlated to scientific development. No doubt another of God's miracles.

That's the beauty of a religion where one can interpret and have something mean anything you want it to, as long as you believe! It's the old inerrancy argument until it's shown to be inerrant; then it's the "well that's not the God I believe in" ploy.

142. Fleabytes

Comment #137632 by SRWB on March 3, 2008 at 9:22 am

How long has metaphor been around.

At least since the first caveman said to his hunting partner, "That mammoth is as big as a mastodon"!

143. Fleabytes

Comment #137623 by SRWB on March 3, 2008 at 9:09 am

Speaking of metaphors, I'm always reminded of the "blessed are the cheesemakers" comment in Life of Brian. It too was meant NOT to be taken literally, but was really referring to all manufacturers of dairy products! :-)

144. Fleabytes

Comment #137604 by SRWB on March 3, 2008 at 8:44 am

Par for the course!

Why yes it is. You come on here and make some vague accusations about atheist hate-fests and Xian roasters, when it's the ideas and comments that are under attack (with notable exceptions like Flea, who brings it on himself).

I too would like to hear your method for defining metaphors. As the saying goes, put up or shut up!

145. Fleabytes

Comment #137259 by SRWB on March 2, 2008 at 3:09 pm

You are going to give Flea a complex! He's going to think he isn't appreciated here. Is that the sort of response we want?

I wonder if he has prayed for our conversions? I mean he got £80 after a prayer, why not this?

146. Fleabytes

Comment #137202 by SRWB on March 2, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Dr B,

Of course "it's the whole long process" as you have stated. That was kind of my point - Flea "poops" all the time, and that is what we have come to expect - why's anyone offended, let alone surprised? So I personally don't take offence, certainly not as much as many others seem to have done. As the old saying goes, I've been called worse things by better people.

147. Fleabytes

Comment #137143 by SRWB on March 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm

You are correct that it is Flea's beliefs which are backwards. After all, if they really believed it they would be lining up to get to heaven as soon as possible, like many of their more eager Muslim brethren.

Devil's advocate time. Respect for life is a sliding scale, and everyone can have an opinion. Some basic questions - is all life of equal worth all the time? Would you support euthanasia under certain conditions? What about capital punishment? Did Saddam deserve to be hanged?

Now the answers to those questions aren't really dependant upon whether one is a theist or an atheist, but one's views may be influenced by what side of the fence you fall.

148. Fleabytes

Comment #137126 by SRWB on March 2, 2008 at 11:47 am

Is it just me or did everybody else take the 'throwaway survival machines' too seriously? Personally, I took no offence, as Flea was just trying to get a rise out of us. His beliefs that we humans are special because of God, directly contradicts the beliefs of most of us that we are nothing special in the big scheme of things - hence his stupid comment. You see, according to him only Xians can know how to deal with death. But it doesn't offend me - as I said to Diacanu several days ago, I don't really care what David thinks. I just have to be able to look at myself in the mirror.

149. Fleabytes

Comment #136546 by SRWB on March 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

Perhaps he could have used Miracle Grow(TM)

Impossible, it didn't exist then! Besides he should have been able to have that tree bear fruit with the sheer force of his godliness and charming personality!

150. Fleabytes

Comment #136540 by SRWB on March 1, 2008 at 11:31 am

Ah yes, the fig tree story. What a load of tripe. Has anyone ever wondered why the tree was killed by Jesus? By the way, I've killed trees too (my wife is still pissed because I killed her beautiful rose bush while trimming it - obviously a little too much), and anyone else can too.

If Jesus was an all powerful god, why didn't he make the tree bear fruit instantaneously? Now that would have been convincing.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next