Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Comment #102234 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 22, 2007 at 5:44 am

Hear bloody, hear hear!

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

Comment #102220 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 22, 2007 at 3:31 am

To anybody, 84 percent of believers to believe that the entire universe is created by a creator with ultimate knowledge, wisdom, power. We believe this just because it makes sense not because it is easier to believe.

Even if this were true, and I'm not convinced it is, it tells us very little.

Billions of people "believe" in astrology, but a few tens of thousands of astronomers are certain its nonsense. Which opinon do we assign the greater value to?

The real question should be what % of cosmologists, astronomers and biologists, experts in fields relevant to the question, believe in a creator?

This figure we do have some certainty about. Roughly 90% of the most learned people on the planet are atheists. This seems to me something of a slam dunk.

153. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #102098 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 21, 2007 at 2:44 pm

And Brian, what's wrong with the care bear stare?!

Well .. if you have to ask ... actually, you look young enough to have been raised while the the care bears were on prime time TV in the US.

I bet you have a whole cuddly care bear religion worked out, and are just waiting for us atheists to reduce the world to a state of nihilistic stupor, helpless victims, when you will pounce with your fluffy cushions, cheery "friendship" songs and pretty "things", basically everywhere.

It's a care bear nightmare!!!

[EDIT : Sorry flashbacks. Sometimes ... I remember.]

154. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101916 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 21, 2007 at 6:52 am

Spandex? By the fluffy santalike beard of Dennett ... SPANDEX? And shaven legs .... holy Harris.

... and some lunatic was promoting carebears on another thread. You people are simply DEPRAVED.

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

Comment #101859 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 21, 2007 at 3:20 am

wooter : If something is made then there should be a MAKER.If something is in perfect order and designed perfectly then there should be a perfect DESIGNER.

Not really, and even if this was the case, who is to say your particular brand of "God" is responsible?

The religious world view now balances akwardly on a shrinking iceberg of ignorance, and although we may not ever know everything, and we may never even know what (if anything) created the universe, we already know more than enough to dismiss, with some confidence, the idea of the judeo christian God.

But back to Augustinians unmoved mover, which you allude to. This has been knocked on the head in the last few decades, because there are now mathematical models that show it more probable that a universe would exist, than that it shouldn't.

Simply, it is likelier given what we know about quantum physics, that a universe could simply spring into existence from nothing, than not.

Now I'll grant you that the idea is weird and a head wrecker and not terribly satisfying, but a lot of quantum physics is like that:-) Heck I'll even grant you it's an absurd idea. However an objective viewer finds the God speculation at least equally absurd, and it doesn't have the benefit of math supporting it.

Then there is the disruption of the infinite regress. This postulates we were created by aliens, or our world is a simulation. This doesn't answer the question of "if there is a God" or even "why is there a universe". However, it does explain our existence, and solves the infinite regress in the sense that we no longer care about that for personal metaphysical reasons, because we've identified "our" creators.

So you see. Anyone can erect a tower of evidence free speculation, and this is exactly what I have done here and what theologians do all the time. None of it is terribly productive.

Lets wait for some probabilities to build before we start worshiping anything, I mean all we have is their word (Allah, Krishna, Jesus, Yaweh etc.) filtered through flawed humans, and millenia of time to go on. Not only is the message unreliably transmitted, then further distorted by the notoriously unreliable lens of "personal experience", but we also have no way of determining if we are being told the truth, or are simply victims of celestial propaganda.

Take a closer look at the world we live in. Does it really seem plausible that the "good guys" won?

156. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101826 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 21, 2007 at 2:27 am

Richard Morgan: "If you sang "All fags deserve to die, trala -lala -laaah -lela le la." would that make you a homophobic?"

Good question! In today's society, it's hard to imagine such words would be written into a popular song. Perhaps it could be in a pro-gay musical, sung by the villain. So, no, unless I was playing the part of the villain in that musical, I wouldn't sing it. Christmas carols hearken back 2,000 years into a very different world, and to me (like RD), the songs are about fictional events.

Yeah likewise. I wonder how comfortable I would be singing hymns about smiting the unbeliever?

Bastards. I'm confused now as well. Metaphysical stuff I still have no problem with. There is no God to offend with my faux worship, and likewise no atheist deity to take offence.

However, religious hymns with content that celebrates real world violence, or appears to do so, I would have an ethical objection to singing.

157. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101822 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 21, 2007 at 2:23 am

225. Comment #101723 by Diacanu on December 20, 2007 at 8:27 pm
So, how many of you Googled "carebear stare", after post 203?

Oh I got the reference immediately:-)

I was in carebear hell from 1997 - 1999. Thankfully my daughter is now almost 13, and those videos are locked in a lead casket in the attic.

Sometimes .... though ... sometimes I think I hear the distant echo of Shreeky's hideous banshee howl ...

158. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101562 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 20, 2007 at 2:09 pm

65. Comment #101539 by FightingFalcon on December 20, 2007 at 1:44 pm

I would appreciate if people avoided blanketed statements about the US military. No, we aren't the most popular organization in the world right now but please don't judge all of us by the actions of some.

Everyone knows I'm a rabid anti GWB ranter, but this is a great opportunity to set the record straight as regards my attitude to americans generally, and those in the military in particular.

I consider those in the american military to be (for the most part) victims of GWB's inept and criminal policies, and am confident that the vast majority of the men and women serving in the armed forces do so with honour and integrity.

The problem with the US is not its people or it's military, but primarily it's political leadership and political system. Nothing a bit of proportional representation wouldn't sort out:-)

Great to have such a novel atheist on board FF:-)

159. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101544 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 20, 2007 at 1:49 pm

185. Comment #101502 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Let me put it even more brutally : If you were with a group of carol-singers, and masked men arrived brandishing long, sharp sabres and announced they were here to slay all the Christians they could find, when the singing started up again, would you still join in?
If not, why not?

There I was quietly browsing the Dawkins site and then THIS!

You made me snort my coke. And not the good kind.

You put your finger on the problem, here but not the way you intended to. I think anyway.

The question you have posed here is a religious question, because you have formulated an ideology or dogma with atheism at it's core. Hear me out ... really I'm just talking here:-) If the subject of your posit was a christian true believer (tm), then the answer is clear, they die for their faith. If the subject is an atheist, well then, the answer (my answer) is no, I'm not a christian so ... I'll just ... let myself out.

However, switch this around. The swordy beardy types have come for the atheists, not the christians. So waddya do? Personally, I say I'm a christian and sing whatever the freakin' hymn sheet says at the very top my lungs, making full use of my basic but serviceable vocal range.

What you would do in this situation Richard, reveals vanilla atheism (I don't beleive in God) or some kind of detailed ideology, integrating atheism as a key component, but with lots and lots of coloured sprinkles added to taste.

So what would you do Richard? Sing the hymns or die?

160. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101530 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 20, 2007 at 1:32 pm

57. Comment #101519 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I know I was being pessimistic, I'm sure there are a few others, but around here, everyone is uber scared of admitting it because of the possible consequences...maybe I should start a group...

You should absolutely start a group! I met an atheist muslim last night. Or an ex-muslim? Anyway, from Afghanistan now living in Sweden, himself and his wife raising 4 faithless daughters. It was on the tip of my tounge to suggest we start a group, or at least get together to chat about our experiences, but it seemed too ... well ... wierd.

I regret I didn't say it when it occurred to me. However, you have no excuse! Go thou and do likewise (without the wussing out part at the end). Start a group and keep us informed!!

161. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101443 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 20, 2007 at 11:20 am

Anyway, you'll be pleased to hear I'm not going to post on this topic again ....

Oh suuuure ..... Fool me once shame on ... you, fool me twice ... yuh caint get fooled again.

162. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101276 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 20, 2007 at 7:08 am

Are we at war with theists? Or do we simply find the theist position untenable and therefore must reject it as a realistic possibility based on evidence?

This is a curious thread, and my views are quite at odds with a lot of people whom I have lots of respect for.

Firstly, we are absolutely not at war with theists.

However, I'm with SH when he says we should have a conversational intolerance of nonsensical views. This doesn't mean I confront my 84 year old aunty, Sister Pius, and tell her she has wasted her life on a fiction. However, it does mean that should the subject of evolution come up at the canteen at work, those holding creationist views are fair game for ridicule, and a robust rejection of their position.

I think it wise to sharpen the edges of debate for the more ludicrous religious views, and reopen the discussion between the religious and the secular. The argument is clearly being won, even though secularists have not even been particularly engaged for the last 100 years or so! We should continue (or perhaps restart?) hammering them with the evidence, as it is simply overwhelming now. Be it cosmology, evolution or any of a million other disciplines, our understanding of the natural world has increased exponentially, and is still accelerating.

The religious, on the other hand are balancing akwardly on a shrinking iceberg of ignorance. So war is not needed, and frankly an awful word to choose.

Thus, participation in cultural christianity or islam doesn't matter to me, even if it is an issue for the religious. As an ex theist I can see the links of logic leading to outrage at the profanity of an unbeliever singing "our" songs. However, there is no such logic for the atheist.

To maintain there is, is to fall into the trap of elevating simple atheism to the level of an ideology. Yet, it can never be this. My atheism may inform my ideology, but it can't be my ideology. To be offended by a few carols requires more than just atheism, it requires a fully worked and consistent ideology, and I for one don't have that yet, and I also object to being told what "good atheists" ought to do.

I love you guys though, I love all my brothers and sisters in ... erm .... ah .... all my brothers and sisters.

On the off chance anyone would like to join in, I am continuing my theist baiting here :
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20966052&postID=3050096946372258565

and here : http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php

163. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #101236 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 20, 2007 at 6:13 am

Oh no! Does this mean there are now two evolutionary gaps instead of one!?

164. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100835 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2007 at 12:17 pm

21. Comment #100801 by bamafreethinker on December 19, 2007 at 10:51 am

Even after I had decided it was all nonsense, I was terrified to tell my wife, or worse still my daughter for fear that I would be the instrument that would condemn them to hell.

Happily, I discovered quite by accident that my wife had independently reached the same conclusion, but it still took a few years to get over that fear and it still recurs occasionally.

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

Comment #100690 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2007 at 6:01 am

Borders in the UK can be contacted via http://www.bordersstores.co.uk/contactus/

Good call NB. Here is my contribution.

Good on you for the "come all ye faithless" card. Don't be intimidated by these christofascists, most of them don't even read:-)

You want to stay on the good side the intellectual, atheist and avid reader types, like myself:-)

Keep up the good work:-)

166. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100659 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2007 at 4:36 am

52. Comment #100610 by pyota on December 19, 2007 at 1:46 am
would also like to admit that that this clip was amusing, but fear of being flayed alive for dissenting from the atheist herd mentality stops me ...

TOO LATE!! Your subtle, reactionary barbs were not subtle enough unbeliever!!

In the name the Dawkins, the Dennett and the unholy Hitchens, FLAY THE HERETIC!!!

167. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100444 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

136. Comment #100425 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Brian,

I'm intrigued. Do you feel there might actually be an explanation beyond simple hallucination for these experiences?

This is a tricky formulation. Let me put it this way. I have had experiences where I felt connected to something greater than myself, I thought this was Jesus or the Holy Ghost or God at the time. I now don't think I was connected to anything greater, so in that sense the experience was an hallucination.

However, I am also convinced by Sam Harris that these experiences form part of what it means to be human, and a discussion shorn of superstition (or dogmatic rejection) might yield useful outcomes.

The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that people have these trancendent experiences. Is it still an hallucination when we realise what it is, can pick apart the neurochemistry driving it and MRI image it in real time?

168. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100409 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 3:16 pm

BigChiefRainInFace wrote:
avatar"Are those people that say they have had a religious experience deluded?" RD: "I think they are"

The answer, although correct, might turn off less people if it included an acknowledgment that these experiences can be transformative [...]

I disagree BigChief, I think it's great just to say it straight forwardly.

If there were more time in the interview of course I think it's only fair and good to acknowledge the points that you make, but start off with a succinct: "yes, I think these are delusions!"

I disagree with Dawkins and both the posters here. We can say with high probability that religious experiences do not come from a specific God. However, without having a clear idea of their cause, it seems rash to simply label the subjective experience delusional.

I'm with Sam Harris on this one, particularly given my own religious experiences. These things happen to people, who generally attribute them to the local deity. This is of course nonsense since they are experiences common to all humans, in all of recorded history. However, whatever their actual cause, many of the experiences are real. We don't do ourselves any favours by dismissing them out of hand.

So easy on the judgements guys:-)

169. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #100398 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Is this guy on drugs?

Nope, he is pretty standard, and far from the worst. He's intelligent, articulate and fully functional on practically every level, but the virus is in deep and protected by multiple fire walls of rationalisation.

Other than it being terrifying to see someone in this state, he's really a kind of work of art, and a graphic illustration of how our species can burn witches or gas jews and yet be wonderful parents to their own kids.

The power of compartmentalisation. Staggering.

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

Comment #100375 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 2:34 pm

47. Comment #100373 by mmurray on December 18, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I would.

Michael

Splitter!!

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

Comment #100374 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 2:33 pm

45. Comment #100368 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 2:29 pm
avatarI'd have liked the card to say "Oh come all ye faithful. After all, they're the ones who should really be reading TGD. Wonder how the Christians would have reacted to that ;-)

Perhaps amended to :

Wise up all ye faithful,
you too can be agnostics,
of come ye and join our rational throng,

There is no Jesus,
To behold in Bethlehem,

O come let us ignore him
O come let us ignore him
O come let us ignore him
Christ isn't Real!

Jesus, Jehovah, Allah and Krishna
Let us consign them to the mass grave of myth,
Let them join Mithras, Zeus and Apollo

O come let's not adore them
O come let's not adore them
yes, come let us ignore them
None of it's real

Sing choirs of rationalist's
Sing in exhultation
The dark night of ignorance
is passing at last.
Let us rejoice,
for the triumph of reason

besides, religions boring
yes, infantile and boring
so, come let us ignore them
Time to get real

172. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100362 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 2:25 pm

What the fuck was that at the end? If anything, it sounded, perhaps remotely, like Richard Attenborough, I guess it's hard to tell all those limey scientistorists apart. Huh?

I liked the lyrics though:-)

173. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100355 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm

This is a pretty important point. As a former theist I completely grasp the bemusement and borderline hostility Richard is getting on this issue.

Imagine a true believer (tm) muslim, and a true believer (tm) christian, singing each others songs. Now that would be wierd.

This is exactly how the true believer (tm) theist feels. It's as if they think there is a "God of Atheism" that Dawkins is profaning, and of course their particular deity, from their perspective, quite real and tangible, is being mocked.

What they don't get, is that from the atheist perspective, it's all good, no harm done, and clean family fun had by all;-)

174. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99735 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Interestingly, that Neil fellow appears to be reading this thread, as seen by edits to his blog entries. This suggests an odd fascination with a site that he considers so unworthy of attention.

You know I did notice that. Maybe some of the good sense will rub off?

If he would just stop spinning his wheels on bronze age goobledygook, and read up on current cosmology and evolution, Neil would probably be a fairly sensible human being. In the meantime lads, lets keep asking questions.

Keep it nice though:-)

Neil can be found here : http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/

175. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99632 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2007 at 8:19 am

I see a few others have been kicking Neil around, if you want to join in it's here : http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/
Do try and keep it clean and polite, he likes that.

Besides, I want revenge for being banned .... muhahaha .... he'll soon realise how immoral we truly .... oh wait ...

176. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #99614 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2007 at 7:37 am

People simply have no idea what is coming down the pipe, and how swiftly the world will change, simply no idea whatever.

Incredible.

177. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99611 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2007 at 7:25 am

Can anyone remember the URL for Ruhts blog...

but I've begun to hassle this poor fellow ...

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20966052&postID=3050096946372258565

178. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99569 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2007 at 4:40 am

120. Comment #99501 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Brian, methinks old Neil suspects something...

Does not seem that happy to debate, does he? He has a strange definition of the word "hostile", meaning almost anyone who puts forward any serious challenges.

Indeed, it's a bit rich to be "moderated" after 10 or 15 exchanges, and nary a naughty word to be seen:-) I guess by hostile, he means "unwilling to accept religious pap without question." Still, I've seen worse, Neil is actually fairly intellectual in his approach.

Perhaps we should conduct such "raiding parties" more often, the internet is infested with these smug self righteous blogs. Even if the authors remain unconvinced, no harm in their audience hearing a few alternate arguments?

I sent yourself and Goldy a PM. Apologies all for the hopelessly off topic content by the way ... it just sort of happened.

179. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99401 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 16, 2007 at 2:54 pm

71. Comment #99383 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Oh dear, Brian. You have got several of us at it there now.... what have you started?

Ha, ha ... I'm a bastard alright, and the worst of it is that Neil seems like a decent enough sort. It is chilling how an apparently sensible chap can just keep churning out the same dodgy pap when it comes to religion. *shudder*

180. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99374 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 16, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Hey ... I was bored with atheists (no offense, just too much damn agreement), and decided to do some trolling here :

http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/i-like-the-teachings-of-jesus-but/#comment-18452
and
http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/more-on-hell/#comment-18451

Whos with me? A little evangelical atheism gets the blood boiling. Someones blood:-)

181. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99370 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 16, 2007 at 1:05 pm

207. Comment #99357 by empyrean on December 16, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I don't agree with him, but I'd love to debate him and share a couple of whiskeys. I'm sure that beyond his undoubtable erudition on literature and religion, he also has some great stories/experiences that he could share.

Looks like we are both on the same page then.:-)

182. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99283 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 16, 2007 at 8:48 am

196. Comment #99276 by empyrean on December 16, 2007 at 8:21 am
I disagree with those who give Hitchens a hard time.

Why? We have all embraced rationality, or at least we are paying it lipservice. That means all of our positions most be argued for and defended with logic, fact and evidence.

Millions of people realised the Iraq war was a terrible idea, nonetheless Bush went ahead with it. Now we can actually see it was a terrible idea, that the cost has far outweighed the benefit. The middle east is far less stable, and tens, perhaps hundred of thousands of perfectly innocent people are dead and millions more are pitched daily into what can only be described as a living Hell of unremitting violence and terror.

Anyone standing up to defend that needs to make their case, and expect some robust resistance. If anything I thought they avoided the issue possibly because of a gentlemans agreement to do so, the spirit of which Hitchens seems to have violated. Spectulation, I hastily acknowledge, but they really did seem to navigate quickly around Hitchs little snide barbs.

I think Hitch is absolutely brilliant on religion, but he has a complete blind spot on this Iraq thing, has had from the very beginning and it's quite obvious to an objective observer.

183. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99252 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 16, 2007 at 5:42 am

Former faith heads, raise your hands!!

**Raises hand, shakes it yelling, sir, sir!!!**

Yeah, I'm in and I totally understand ADH. ADH, at the risk of trotting out tired (but valid) arguments, what you are basically suggesting is that if a majority of people believe "A" regardless of their education, intelligence and overall level of general knowledge, "A" must be true.

You must of course see that this argument is absolutely lethal.

A majority of Germans thought Hitler was a fine fellow, and continued to do so right up the point of discovering his crimes. Even then, just like with those invested in GWB, a minority continued to "worship" him, and do so even to this day.

A majority of humans thought the earth was flat, that the sun orbited the earth, that demons caused disease etc., etc. the list of intuitive, but hopelessly wrong headed nonsense is literally endless.

These beliefs have become minority opinons in those societies that are well informed, and they can be correlated with education. In africa of course, demons continue to be driven out, and witches to be burned. However in Sweden with the highest rates of literacy, education and atheism they are almost completely extinguished.

The bad news for you, is that theism, and even deism are going the same way. Increasingly the better educated, more intelligent and better informed members of the human race are leaving religion behind. Not quite in droves, but the stream is steady, and globally the trend is clearly away from religion.

I present myself and my wife as exhibit A. We were missionaries, we spent 4 years of our lives "serving the lord", and another 20 as active Christians. Yet, We've been convinced it's (mostly) total nonsense. How do you explain that?

184. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99080 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2007 at 1:00 pm

106. Comment #99075 by Styrer- on December 15, 2007 at 12:46 pm
As mentioned in previous posts, I love hearing the Hitch. But I suggest a certain 'compartmentalisation' of mind is evident here, with an extraordinary insight into the nature of religion but a blinkered one on Iraq.

Oh it is almost certain. At first I was annoyed by some of his snide sniping about the Iraq situation, he seemed to be violating a gentlemans agreement not to get into "all that".

The others had the courtesy not to be provoked, which made for a much more interesting and focused discussion on religion as a social problem.

The Hitch, he just can't help himself, can he:-)?

185. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99000 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2007 at 6:34 am

Excellent. A glowing reminder that we are in the very thick of Enlightenment 2.0.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, these conversations played out in muted tones among a tiny, tiny elite, the intellectual cream of the society of the time. These ideas percolated slowly, producing books, pamphlets and the occasional revolution, perhaps years even decades after the initial discussions.

These written works were read by a slightly expanded, but still vanishingly small miniority of the movers and shakers in the human race.

What we see today are those ideas now not simply impinging on the life of millions, but being considered, mulled over and understood by millions. Enlightenment 2.0 is not about new arguments (although there is certainly some of that), it's about widening the circle of inclusion, to confront millions, perhaps billions with radical and life altering ideas. It also about accelerating the pace by orders of magnitude.

I agree with Hitch, that we will never see the end of religion, but I do think the last 15 years have been it's last gasp as a significant political force. It is gradually being squeezed back into it's box.

The Iraq war, the jihadies, absurdities and brutal internal rivalries of Islam are having the same affect on global civilisation that the endless wars of the reformation had on the Europeans, and in no small measure resulted in the United States. It is also happening much, much faster. Everyone is simply sick to death of this shit, no matter what we believe, and the very dogmas themselves have been greviously discredited by the orgy of blood letting unleashed in their name.

The global conversation about how we live on this planet as a single nation is finally underway, and the voice of reason is being heard. In significant part, thanks to the contribution of these 4 guys. It's an exciting time to be alive:-)

186. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #97987 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 13, 2007 at 12:41 am

Very interesting debate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is such a critical personality.

187. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97759 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 3:39 pm

381. Comment #97751 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I believe you. It is hard. But if God is real, He will never give up on us.....and perhaps that is why it is so hard to leave it behind.

Here is a bit of sophistry on that score. If we give up on God, as I have done, who's fault is that? Who is to blame, the creator or the created? Free will is all very well, but God created me in full foreknowledge of the outcome of my life. In a sense predestination actually makes some chilling sense, if you accept all the primary assumptions.

.....but I suspect if you have never been part of that, it's difficult to understand what we are talking about.

Amen to that brother ... erm ... former ... brother? :-)

....and certainly I don't want to believe just because I want to believe....that would be ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as you might think. Stripping away the layers of rationalisation to expose genuine motivation is actually very, very hard.

You look at the world. You see almost limitless suffering, cruelty and horror. Some of it not even caused by evil in any traditional sense, just the indifference of a universe that doesn't care, that doesn't even know it doesn't care.

If you find yourself thinking that there just HAS to be a loving God, that a world emerging from the darkness of an unfathomable infinity of time past and whirling out of control into an equally unknown future, just CAN'T be all there is, you may well be in simple denial.

Here is another helpful site : http://www.godisimaginary.com/

Personal question, feel free to ignore. Are you married, if yes, how does your wife feel about your faith, and your struggle to understand God?

188. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97741 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm

363. Comment #97725 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I;ve been doing that for some ten to fifteen years.

Well good. I guess:-/

You seem to be wrestling with some heavy stuff, and I don't envy you. My own deconversion took years, perhaps as much as a decade, but things really begin to accelerate in the final years and months. If you've been heavily indoctrinated as a child to believe in Hell, that is a real bitch to get over. Intellectually, I'm well over it, but emotionally .... every so often. *shudder*

About two years ago, my wife and I realised we just didn't believe it anymore, not only that, but we had somehow morphed into anti-theists!! Imagine that:-) Courtesy of GWB and the Iraq war primarily.

We worked for these guys for 4 years :
http://www.covenantplayers.org/

Honest to .... Honestly:-)

I wish I could wave a magic wand, and get you through the worst. Heck, sometimes I wish I could wave a magic wand and get me through the worst!!

Ignorance really is bliss, but it's too late for us:-)

189. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97717 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm

340. Comment #97686 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:15 pm

None of us. No man who sets himself up and claims to have the truth is telling the truth.

This is a good answer, but it is a dangerous path you have embarked on. You have begun to acknowledge reality, and are trying to square this with your faith. At the risk of coming across as a condescending prick, let me say the following.

As a christian, I came to this exact conclusion, and it's stood me in good stead, even after leaving my faith behind. Anyone that claims to have the absolute truth, is utterly full of shit. Religious or Secular. Yet this in principle is exactly what every denomination claims, but intelligent christians like yourself (and ahem me) eventually realise it's rubbish. Generally after a few disappointments.

I dare say you've burned through a few churches in your time? Been through a fundamentalist phase, and now you realise that absolute cart loads of christian leadership are chock full of shit to overflowing? Is any of this familiar?

If yes, here is a piece of advice. Just get away from it. For a year. Don't go to church, hang out with secular friends and get some distance. Read some serious church history, and a few books on comparative religions. This is a good start.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/about_the_holy_bible.html

Follow it up with this.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/homer1a.htm#TOC

I have no idea where the universe came from or why, but it seems to me that no one else does either, and all the absolute truth claims I've taken the time to examine are misguided at best, and frequently a determined attempt to hijack your mind at worst. Not terribly comforting, I know, but it'll have to do for now:-)

190. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97693 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm

338. Comment #97684 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm

It's clearly a short letter written to someone who would have known what John was talking about.

EXACTLY. How on earth could we possibly have the faintest clue what half of that rambling, repetitive pap means? It could mean any damn thing!!!

Thus your claim that this John endorses the deity of Jesus? Dude! Wild!! The christians didn't get closure on this until well into the 4th century, and the JW and the Mormons have basically reopened the discussion. Why?

Because the bible is a rambling, contradictory and politically edited hodge podge is why. Either that, or watching people scratch their heads, and each others eyes out over the placement of semi colons, just cracks God up. Why not? We're made in his image after all, and we enjoy Bum Fights, Jerry Springer and American Idol. Makes as much sense as anything else in the Bible.

No I'm not an ex JW. Ex-mainstream christian, sometime fundamentalist and current evangelical atheist. I guess I miss it, you know?:-)

191. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97683 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:07 pm

334. Comment #97675 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Even Jesus had discussions with the Jewish religious leaders of his day over interpretation of the OT.

But you are opening the floodgates here! Which one of the 30K+ Christian sects has the "truth"? Most of them claim that they have cracked the "code", and that some (if not all) of the others are going to be [insert euphimisim for eternal torment, or bald faced "you're off to burn forever" here].

192. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97676 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:02 pm

23. Comment #97667 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm

We need to target the crackpots and give the others an out. When they're liberalized then we'll hit them with "your religion's a piece of krap" again and again till they give.

I like it SilentMike, in fact I love it:-)

193. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97673 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:57 pm

326. Comment #97659 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 1:43 pm

This statement is made in the context of false teacher who are deliberately trying to mislead people.

There is nothing in MY bible to suggest that, on the contrary, plus the JW use this exact scripture to justify "Disfellowshipping". Maybe they have it right, and you have it wrong? How could you possible know? Either way, it's a nasty piece of outgrouping.

The whole epistle in context (it's a short one)

2 John

1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

194. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97666 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Which Christians?

Oh come on. Lets not play silly buggers.

195. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97665 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I would have thought these were self-evident. Can you list for me some ways in which they are different for different denominations?

Fred Phelps. Jim Jones. Joseph Smith. Pat Robinson.

Ask each one of these guys what it means, twice and 5 years apart.

I guarantee you eight different answers.

196. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97651 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm

312. Comment #97629 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 12:57 pm

"He has shown you, O man, what is good,
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

Contrast that with this, NT quote :

2 John

1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

and they say the Koran is nasty:-)

Your quote comes from the OT, which forms part of the jewish faith, a dogma that christians reject. Many christians think that jews are going to hell, even if they make a good faith attempt to behave as this vacuous piece of fluff suggests. That is a problem for theists.

197. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97626 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 12:45 pm

301. Comment #97609 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 12:24 pm

God is not like a child playing with her dollies. He wants you to make right choices.

This is fine applied to a finite being (like my Dad), with a limited overview of the future, past and what is currently going on in my head.

However, it is pure nonsense in the context of an infinitley powerful being aware of the influence, position and chain of casuality inherent in every atom, in the entire universe, both backwards and forwards as far as time goes. This is surely self evident?

Epicuris is 'da man. No one has ever said it better.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

198. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97617 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Frankly, this is one thing I'm unreservedly in favour of. Although insulting a specific individual is something I would personally reject, we do need muslims to be saturated with general critique and ridicule of the Koran, ala Pat Condell. I'm betting we will see, along with some regretable violence, more of the kind of liberal defence we heard from Zainab al-Touraihi. Bascially the muslim version of "Thats not MY God". Alone what she said in this interview was a great leap forward, plus she is a woman!

She said she supported Wilders' right to make the movie, though she said she was certain it would be skewed and harmful to both Dutch Muslims and the Netherlands as a whole.

"He would like to see that every Muslim woman is in prayers and held at home and that they have no rights, but he's not looking at Muslims these days," she said. "The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."

Al-Touraihi's group has long had a standing invitation to Wilders to speak to its members or take part in a debate. And Wilders has always ignored it, she said.

"If he really believed in these things, he would go out and sit with us and talk about issues, but he's never responded, so it's a one-man show and a one-way show," al-Touraihi said. "As a member of parliament, he can get every camera in front of him and say whatever he wants, but he never goes out for debates because I think he knows that he would lose voters."

That is the jackpot as far as I am concerned, and while she may be right that the guy is a racist dork, he is nonetheless forcing her to take a very public, nuanced and liberal position on Islam as Ideology, not race. Pure ... fucking ... gold.

199. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96993 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 8:16 am

143. Comment #96980 by AtheistJon on December 11, 2007 at 7:42 am

Haven't you heard the hippy adulation to "Love your Brother Man..."?

OK. I've got a much better idea of where you are coming from. Sure. The "love your fellow man idea" is related to the hippies, but it's primary vehicle for promotion has been christianity. It's an absurd and useless injunction, no one (that isn't mentally ill) loves anyone even as much as themselves that isn't directly related to them by blood. This is just the basic human operating system. So I think we agree on this.

But I draw different conclusions. I consider law, agreed by a majority of those subject to it (or their representatives) as a critical component for societal stability, and that requires protection for minorities, be they racial or religious.

I certainly don't see how laws emerging from a broad consensus can be considered immoral by either of us, as we've agreed that in principle, morality is simply what we collectively say it is, in the context of some agreed system to process and codify those opinions.

Now of course there is some danger here, because sometimes even large, well informed groups of people do come to dubious conclusions about what is moral. Hence witch trials, or the invasion of Iraq. However, these misfirings of our moral grammer are generally due to faulty inputs (witches are killing the babies), rather than a problem with the basic system.

So I temper the rather absolute view I've outlined here with the idea that morality should flow from the "do unto others" concept, and that specific information, case by case is a crucial ingredient to moral behaviour. It seems to mesh with our moral intuitions and it does a good job of protecting minorities, while slotting into almost any ethical framework, including a society comfortable with cannibalism and smearing themselves in excrement.

This doesn't require you to love them, merely to leave them alone, as long as they leave you alone.

That said, progressive legal systems do seem to be approaching an application of law, which is close to the "do unto others" ideal. The rejection of capital punishment, the prevention of child or spousal abuse and the elimination of debtors prison seem to me all to be informed by that idea, and very, very welcome. The trick will be to get some kind of global application of our most positive norms.

In summary, if we had global binding law as regards basic behaviour, some essential social services, and everyone minded their own damn business, we'd have utopia. Religion with it's built in drive to badger and bother is a real fly in that ointment.