151. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #151283 by alovrin on March 28, 2008 at 11:36 am

Hmm No Wooters... no surprise

Belated birthday wishes to you

152. Two More Fleas

Comment #149561 by alovrin on March 25, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Then watch Bee movie

Was Tom Hanks voice talent in that too Wooter?

153. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148354 by alovrin on March 22, 2008 at 5:46 pm

This from the DI page:

...Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, et al. From what I already have seen, they really expose themselves as the anti-intellectual, bullying poseurs they are -- small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.

Sounds to me exactly like "the pot calling the kettle black".
To use yet another old saying. Sayings which just readily leap to mind whenever one of these chumps commits anything to the record, or just open their mouths.

154. EXPELLED!

Comment #147530 by alovrin on March 20, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Guess they must have known PZ would be coming..
perhaps god told them.
But god forgot to tell them about the Britisher.
nahha *points finger*

155. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #134107 by alovrin on February 27, 2008 at 9:06 am

But part of the appeal of spectator sports is seeing freaks of nature who can do things we know we could never do.

Sounds Romanesque, and not something I would get any pleasure from.
Hmm, now which would come first reconstructing a human body down to the molecular level, or the disappearance of the human species from this planet. Thats a tuffy.

What was this thread about again?

156. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133220 by alovrin on February 25, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Matthew and Luke, were lying -- intentionally trying to deceive people?

Or they could have been trying to conceal something from the Romans.
For a different take on the whole sorry saga of JTC- born of a virgin, risen from the grave etc etc...

This person an interesting take
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/

157. Fleabytes

Comment #131361 by alovrin on February 22, 2008 at 10:35 am

Now I have to go as I have a job to do - a sermon to prepare for Sunday.

Weeflee reminds me of the backwoods preacher in the recent film "There will be Blood". Which has Daniel Day Lewis in a truly amazing performance. I would recommend this movie as a must see.
There is a brilliant scene where the preacher goes to tell Lewis's character how he wants to be introduced to the crowd at a gathering. Lewis listens patiently to his demands, then politely dismiss's him. Come the day his request is ignored/ or forgotten as he stands looking somewhat sheepish (haha)
with his tiny flock of followers in the crowd.
Brilliant acting and filmmaking.
David is as offensive and sanctimonious as the character in the film. Only happy when they are feeling "the power of the lord moving within them" and we lesser mortals are supposed to quiver with whatever awe/fear I dont know.
DR relies on personal revelation which is unverifiable to support
his claims about some type of divinity somewhere/everywhere.
This is no longer enough.

158. Fleabytes

Comment #131131 by alovrin on February 22, 2008 at 2:07 am

Wee flea

I apologise for any offence caused and hope that one day you will all find the One who is the way

This in itself, is an offensive statement.

159. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #127606 by alovrin on February 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

To form an actual real-world society on the open source model is not yet practical, because only a small percentage of people have the ability to master the still rather arcane tools.

Its amazing how words can make this massive problem facing humanity, seem somehow inconsequential.
Computers are arcane to many ..hmmm..

160. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126293 by alovrin on February 12, 2008 at 10:18 pm

a conspiracy theory

What? I dont care if it was written with RD in mind. He is a good model for future holders of the chair.

Strong Dawkinsthropic Principle.

Your a funny guy Teratornis

I'm wondering when and how we'll get through to the unwashed masses as effectively as the religious charlatan industry

When there are science schools on every block? Religion has percolated down to the bottom of societies. Remember it used to be the domain of kings and elites.
There are a lot, and I mean A LOT of people around the world who still live surrounded by stone age beliefs who know no better. It will take many decades, does humanity have the time?
You tell me.

161. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125725 by alovrin on February 11, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Charles Simonyi's fine brief sounds as if it was written with Richard Dawkins in mind. How fortuitous it was indeed, given what has happened in recent years that such a suitable person occupied this chair.
I hope the person selected to replace Richard can further the cause of truth in their field as Richard has done in the field of evolutionary biology, and on into related fields.

162. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121630 by alovrin on February 3, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Excellent videos, the content was enthralling.
And compliments to PZ Myers, he fielded the many questions answering them all with the utmost sincerity and to the limits of his expansive knowledge. And acknowledged the limits of what is known.

163. The New Theology

Comment #113513 by alovrin on January 19, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Similar thoughts, as those expressed in this long winded article, occurred to me once or maybe it was three - four times.
I was at the time, at the very least drunk, which gave me an out - 'it seemed profound at the time' or (not that I actually let these words pass my lips 'you had to be there'.

But to see these idle thoughts (its what they are) presented in a kind of ??? apologist rhetorical flourish - in a ever so 'umble way of course.
Maybe g---d is " a glimpse so subtle........."

I need a .....a beer....a fag.....anything

164. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99473 by alovrin on December 16, 2007 at 6:10 pm

It is really hard to put one's self in such an artificial situation, as this obviously was and not end up sounding like a pratt.
These four did so 95% of the time (manage to not look like pratts).

95 - 97% of the time fantastic, not perfect, but who is?
Besides you know who.
Nice setting, could have edged the four away from camera a bit into the sunlight from the window so the contrast between Hitch/Harris in the FG and Dennett/ Dawkins BG wasnt so great. But nice use of the natural lighting, Hitch would have looked wicked with a bit of soft back light. And if the sun hurt Sam's eyes maybe a 1/2 or full stop net.

Anyway congrats to all involved and really good content
Merry solstice

165. Highway to hysteria

Comment #94525 by alovrin on December 5, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Mysturji very funny, took me a couple of secs to work out the tune.
Now I must go look up the chords and have singalongs.

166. AAI 07

Comment #83598 by alovrin on October 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Maybe those arguing should take a look at this.
The rich are not blameless in this weird USstate of affairs.
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/10/below-the-fold-.html

167. AAI 07

Comment #83594 by alovrin on October 30, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Oh Shit NSB

Stress can easily lead to illness, nothing fallacious there. Various illnesses can lead to cancer so...

The words used was "resentment" and "letting GO" not stress leads to illness and various illnesses lead to cancer. Feeling of resentment are not stress.

Its the happy thoughts only meme which is being touted,-a fallacy- why by scooter I have no idea,

168. AAI 07

Comment #83473 by alovrin on October 30, 2007 at 5:49 am

Scooter in New Yawk

BTW - harboring resentments is another form of being a victim, it's really good to let that stuff go, it's the type of thing that can create cancer or illness.

This is a new age fallacy, I think championed by Louise Hay. Methinks you lost your cool dude.
Funny coincidence that both Ayn and Matt were/are screen writers.
Me, I prefer Matthew's outlook to Ayn's tho'

169. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83138 by alovrin on October 29, 2007 at 3:56 am

Dear, DrB
I wish you a speedy recovery.
And will toast your good health, post op of course.

170. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83049 by alovrin on October 28, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Dianelosity

idealistic theism is free of paradoxes, especially in comparison with scientific realism.)

Thats right I temporarily forgot about your new improved doctrine, you mini jesus.

took the expression from something Dawkins said

So you could twist it to suit yourself.

..... "nihilists". But I wonder, do you really believe that your life has no meaning?

Oh so Im a nihilist now. However the question is still meaningless when it is posed purely to say I have the answer, (which you do rather a lot) as in god.
Maybe getting to a state of consensus on more basis questions like how has life arisen? should have priority, before we tackle this meaningthingy.
Underneath your liberal christian waffle you are such a Luddite.
You still think god is the first cause, s/he/it stuck the finger in the pie and made self replicating cells, doled out conciousness and morality, you elevate JC into the realms of these events, and supernatural beliefs gives your life meaning. So maybe you are the paradox, which could be why you have formed a theory supposedly free from contradictions, in your mind. FingWeird.

171. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82540 by alovrin on October 26, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Here we have a worldview that is full of paradoxes and ever-increasing gaps and does not really explain anything of our condition (not to mention paints a hideous picture of reality and is conducive to immoral behavior to boot), and there we have a worldview that is coherent and free of paradoxes and explains our condition very well (not to mention makes our life better and is ethically empowering) - but - the former worldview is more reasonable because we like mystery in our lives

You really have mastered being a condescending a/hole havent you Dianelost. This whole paragraph is a web of lies and if you had the slightest inkling of commonsense you would see it. But you dont.

Point 1. Lets just look at where these "ever increasing gaps" are appearing shall we. The sciences are just racing along into subatomic worlds, into theories of the cosmos. Which only 150yrs ago humanity didnt know much about and enmasse didnt know they existed. If you want to insert the supernatural into these "gaps" go ahead, me I think I'd prefer if more research was funded, education was improved, and people encouraged to seek a career in these fields.

Point 2. "Our condition" WTF is that, living, dying, eating shitting, working, thinking, feeling. Oh but why are we here? What is the meaning of life?
This has to be the most pointless question ever asked. I know your answer, well whatever floats your boat. But injecting a god into this "gap" , is like sticking your finger in a hole in the dyke wall. Your stuck for life with your finger in a hole which you cant leave lest you are overwhelmed.

Point 3. A "hideous picture of reality" sez you dyke boy.

Point 4. Ah, but god is so much nicer on the eye. How do you know? Your sitting with your finger in a hole in a dyke to worried to take it out 'cause if you do your life will be rendered meaningless, and all you'll want to do is run out and kill your neighbours.

Point 5. religions "free of paradox's" since when? "explains our condition very well" If you accept religions explanation of our "condition". Heard of the Stockholm Syndrome, this is a classic example.


And here you are trying to say religion is reasonable and what Philip1978 said promotes mystery.
I am sure now it's not your finger you have in that hole but your head. FWTP!

172. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81221 by alovrin on October 24, 2007 at 12:54 pm

D'Souza's opening statement, goes something like this
Im going to use the atheist's tools of reason logic and evidence to outsmart the atheist's.

..Well I suppose that's easier than using them to prove god exists.

173. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80805 by alovrin on October 23, 2007 at 5:00 am

. the worldview of most atheists in the West, objective reality has nothing good or evil in it [1], so atheists cannot but deny the existence of objective morality. According to theism on the other hand, objective reality consists of or is centered in a person who is perfectly good (namely "God"), and thus theism allows for the existence of objective morality on that basis.

Talk about lie thru your teeth while appearing to look like Mr Dianelosity Rationality. Whats this "Objective Reality" BS, and conflating it with some wishy washy relativism. And then "Good" comes from god, only in worldviews like your's mate.
WTF are you still hanging around this website, Are you so enamoured with your verbosity that masquerades as intelligence that you cant see a lot of people have had enough of your circular arguments and deaf ears to anything but yourself.
I'm beginning to think your sit at your computer in your jocks, dribbling out your godnonsense at any opportunity.

174. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80533 by alovrin on October 22, 2007 at 4:51 am

I sometimes have this funny feeling people are not reading my posts, but somebody else's :-)

Yeah, and I get a sinking feeling something else is doing the writing.

175. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80271 by alovrin on October 21, 2007 at 4:05 am

Dianelost

It's true that philosophers often challenge people to explain both what exactly they mean and how they justify even commonplace propositions.

Nietzsche

There is nothing so reprehensible and unimportant in nature that it would not immediately swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff of this power of knowing. And just as every porter wants to have an admirer, so even the proudest of men, the philosopher, supposes that he sees on all sides the eyes of the universe telescopically focused upon his action and thought.

176. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80121 by alovrin on October 20, 2007 at 4:58 am

t's not like theism = naturalism + God. Rather theism is an alternative description of reality

O' reilly that's nice...

(Oh Shit he's away again.....quick everyone look the other way.)

177. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80069 by alovrin on October 19, 2007 at 8:14 pm

It's good to hear Hitchens expound a liitle more on his views about Iran and the looming conflict with the Muslim world. I guess time will tell if he's correct. As lazy as that sounds.
I am curious about the background to Saddams rise to power, was he aided by the west at some stage and just went bad. If anyone knows where there is a backgrounder please let me know. I havent read Robert Fisk's book but if it gives details and anyone has read it LMK.

And again there is the annoyance of varying audio quality. I suppose the speakers are radio mic'd, but no feed from the PA for the questions just relying on a camera mic to pick them up. And did the mic's batteries go flat at one stage. These are all problems which are easily solved. Is it just an availablity of equipment issue? Admin If you want advice just ask.
But its good to see this website get rightly deserved praise from RD and Dan Dennett elsewhere on the AAI07 posts.

178. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79925 by alovrin on October 19, 2007 at 5:03 am

I think that if humanity is to survive the fundamental ideas of both Christianity and Marxism are here to stay.

If in your mind they are so interchangeable/ interconnected I'll just call you a Christian/Marxist/Anything that comes to mind from now on.

I could say I had a fried egg for breakfast and you'd quarrel with me for making such a preposterous claim.

It's true that philosophers often challenge people to explain both what exactly they mean and how they justify even commonplace propositions

Here's one "philosopher" who likes the look of his own words.
Vanity thy name shirley is Dianelost

179. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79886 by alovrin on October 19, 2007 at 12:46 am

In fact the beauty of Christian ethics may be an important factor in the explanation of why Christianity grew so quickly in the first centuries CE

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Now, me if I try to imagine myself back then What would have been attractive about this doctrine, Well a guarantee of eternal life after death, all I had to do was have faith, Easy peesy.

By the By did you happen to look at Andy Thomsons talk at AAI 07. Apparently one of the Glasgow bombers had burns to every part of his body except his genitals because they had been wrapped in preparation for those 70? virgins that were waiting for him in heaven after death, Weird Huh!

Anyway dont know if I would have given a fig about ethics, if I was a peasant circa 100AD just would have liked to know those arseholes who made my life a misery wouldnt get any joy in the afterlife whereas I would. But you're free to imagine that everyone, at all times gives a shit about ethics.
But then I'm not sure that you have a firm grip on reality.

180. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79654 by alovrin on October 18, 2007 at 4:53 am

A Scotland debate is no HaHaHa

Well It certainly would be if flea was the opponent.

181. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79626 by alovrin on October 18, 2007 at 1:32 am

It's war. Let him come to Scotland and we will give him a run for his money!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

182. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79592 by alovrin on October 17, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Now compare this to another ethical ideology, Marxism. As Lennox notes in his debate with Dawkins, materialism and atheism are not peripheral or tangential in Marxism, but rather are essential parts of its worldview. And Marxism teaches materialistic utilitarianism and that violence is ethically justified to achieve this end. And it's a historical fact that Marxists have done huge crimes based on that ideology. (snip)........ etc etc

Interesting that you use Marx and his writings as a comparison to your buddy Jeez. Marx died in poverty unknown. In 19th century Europe. He was considerably affected by the extremes of wealth & poverty he saw around him. His sympathies lay with the poor. And he wrote of ways to change this imbalance. I dont know if he advocated violence personally. But I guess he realised the rich wouldnt give up what they had without a fight.
Are we to blame Marx for what people did with his writings after his death?
Whats good for the goose....!

Maybe your point just illustrates that Marxism is a failed doctrine as much as Christianity is.

183. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79579 by alovrin on October 17, 2007 at 8:45 pm

bluejway

Since you have already made your minds up on the question of God

Is that like your've made up your mind about us collectively?

I would have thought the general position here would be the evidence for a god is not compelling enough believe there is one.
But if that changes..... let us know. But then I guess if god did put in an appearance we'd all know anyway.

184. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79552 by alovrin on October 17, 2007 at 4:45 pm

BAEOZ

He was Julius Caesar's nephew, I believe.

I thought he meant this Caesar Augustus and the Milvian Bridge battle. As Christians like to relive the glory days.
http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm

I was wrong thought it wasnt the Rubicon but the Tiber river Apologies. Still a bad metaphor IMO

185. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79305 by alovrin on October 16, 2007 at 8:24 pm

McGrath has certainly improved on his act, from when he was confronted by RD's withering gaze in the IV for Root of all Evil?

Still his arguments/statements (call them what you will) mostly seem to be of the "I agree with you BUT..." variety. They add nothing to the debate, just apologism in full flight.

And his tortured Rubicon metaphor. SHeez he mangled history as well as the metaphor.
Caesar Augustus didnt cross the Rubicon till after the battle was won. His opponent foolishly decided crossed the narrow bridge and was slaughtered by Ceasar's numerically inferior force in this bottleneck. I dont know, it seems some will read anything into whatever, if they are desparate enough.

186. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79056 by alovrin on October 16, 2007 at 2:06 am

Just having watched and listened to Dan Dennett and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I just have to say how lucid they are compared to the tortuous godbelieving justification scribblings of Dianelost.

God's territory is not coming more clearly into focus as liberal christians of the Dianelost ilk are wont to claim, it is being steadily eroded by scepticism. Thanks DD.

187. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79004 by alovrin on October 15, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Dianelost

So you happen to belong to one more group that was discriminated against in the past for many reasons that are fairly unrelated to religion.

It's amazing how some people can just gloss over the past (shall we call them indiscretions?) of their favorite deity and s/he/it's following gaggle of humanoids

"reasons that are fairly unrelated"
WTF

188. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78607 by alovrin on October 13, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Oops missed out a word in that last sentence. No, the reason you are angry, but play nice cause jesus told you to, is we understand you too well.

but not really a lot of understanding of theism. And there is good and bad theism

Is that it?
Good/bad!
Which side of the line are you?
Am I to presume good? But what if its bad?
You could be yet not know it!
You could be ethically empowering your badness.
But wont know until its too late!
Till then, are we just supposed to take your word for it that you represent good theist?
But isnt being wilfully ignorant bad?

189. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78584 by alovrin on October 13, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Dianelos Georgoudis on October 12, 2007 at 3:35 am
Alovrin (post 583, or #78166):

What can I say, your post evidences a lot of anger, but not really a lot of understanding of theism. And there is good and bad theism you know, as there is good and bad science, good and bad music, good and bad arguments, and so on.

And I am sorry to see how books like TGD fan atheists' anger by justifying and defending it. But anger is always a bad thing; it does not conduce to clear thinking and it's the very opposite of ethically empowering. It seems to me that anger explains better and is more the motivating factor behind the violent actions of terrorists than their religious or political beliefs. And quite possibly anger explains better the US invasion of Iraq, or the firebombing of cities in WWII, or the Jewish Holocaust than any of the many other reasons that have been put forward. It's a terrible thing, anger. It's worse than a mental virus; it can ultimately convert human minds into zombies

I was wondering when the pop psychologist Dianelost came on shift. The weekend worrier has arrived it seems. Being abrupt in a post does not correlate to anger. You are an extremely silly person, and you take yourself far too seriously. And I think you have some manner of phallic shaped vegetable inserted in your nether regions, as you seem to have a back up of fecal manner all the way to your brain.
And your post makes no sense whatsoever. The US invasion? Jeewish Holocaust? Firebombing? All down to anger I would have thought fear would be a better all encompassing word.
But then I guess you are just angry we dont understand you.

190. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78166 by alovrin on October 12, 2007 at 3:06 am

I kind of was implying that it would be a good idea if naturalists too tried to understand how theists think. To ridicule or demonize those who disagree and to refuse to seriously consider their thoughts is not conducive to understanding

And you are so blind and stupid as to not realise that probably 90% of the people who are members of this site were in past lives, theists or had some belief in some supernatural agency of some kind at some stage. (But maybe not your special kind of whatever)
Why dont they now? Well anyone of them could probably give very cogent reasons as to how it happened. Again you play the misunderstood, the -in some way- persecuted.
Understanding, F#@K, theism and particularly your brand has had 2000yrs, it sits at the top of the pile. So understanding is pretty pervasive I would think.
What isnt understood, but what you have highlighted, is the lengths to which people will go to, to hang onto a dead POV.
I dont care if all the theists in the world disagree, There may be deities, but all the Abrahamic religions way of describing god in all its mind numbing multiplicities of which your's is just one are false.
How do I know that, the problem is, because your god is unknowable all it does, is lead to a plethora of imaginings of what god may be. It could be as many as there are people. But people like to feel part of a group so they will often settle for someone else's imaginings. Or be forced into it on way or another.

WTF am I bothering, I'd rather just throw shit at you.

191. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77885 by alovrin on October 11, 2007 at 2:34 am

As I mentioned before, I am here to learn (including to learn how naturalists think),

HAHAHAHAHA, So we are all guinea pigs in a gigantic experiment by Dianelost in the name of god the father, the son and that other thing.
Dianelost poses a problem, the naturalists respond.
Dianelost scribbles in his notebook, scratch's chin "HMMM Interesting."
Its times like this I wish I was a monkey in a cage, my nether regions in easy reach and the observer sitting, absentmindedly, close to the cage.
I feel a motion, I reach around and......Well the sheer unihibited joy at the look of horror as the missile finds its target. I swing through the ropes ecstatic, and maybe fornicate just for the hell of it. If only...

And if there is one thing I dislike more than the bad reasoning in TGD is the general idea it projects that the issues are settled and that further study is not necessary and may even be a ridiculous thing to do.

Talk about bad reasoning this gem fair reeks of it.

192. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77854 by alovrin on October 10, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Lauregon (post 509, or #77609):

I am not sure what the relevance was, but this video was interesting nonetheless. Actually it was quite amazing. I suppose that's the lunatic religious right in the US. What can I say? This is one more example of the failure of education.

Priceless, that one went straight over your studious little head didnt it Dianelost ! Woooooosh.
Talk about the failure of education, where did you go to school?

193. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76474 by alovrin on October 6, 2007 at 1:04 am

So the flea has returned when he thinks he has something to crow about. You are so transparent.

Surely it was a format that RD agreed to?

Only RD can answer that question, but his protests throughout the debate would suggest he didnt know of this format till the night.
As for the rest of you post replying only seems to encourage more mouthfoaming by you. You seem to think Lennox was the winner, shows what you know of true debate.
Dont you have some unanswered questions to deal with on a lot of other threads on this site.

194. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76194 by alovrin on October 5, 2007 at 2:53 am

of course I made it up. That's what a hypothesis is: something one makes up. There are no hypotheses that are not made up you know. The trick is then to show that the hypothesis if true has explanatory power, or offers other advantages.

Well then you've failed.

195. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76192 by alovrin on October 5, 2007 at 2:36 am

Bottom line: people can be incredibly stupid. It's so normal that it hardly rates a comment.

Meaning the thing that will have the most impact on a lot of the xtians listening will be the two nattering ninnies who wrapped up this programme.
The format was hopelessly flawed, it favoured Lennox and the broadcasters. RD kept on mentioning it much to his credit, but what can you do. Next time ask for the show's format, before commiting to a debate.

Hey look, first cause is a god gap as well as the first appearance of self replicating organisms, and to a lesser extent conciousness.
And god botherers are going to go at these for all they are worth. As well as Stalin etc. Sam Harris has already said this.
So the rebuttals have to be concise and cogent. Hitchens could have dealt with the old "atheist are mass murderers" BS. I kind of wish he was there just for that.

But John Lennox what an arsehole, I bet he is the one who wrapped Alastair McGrath into the twit he is. He sounded very practiced in his arguments, frighteningly so.
He'd let jesus fuck him, if he hasnt already. In a manner of speaking.

196. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75884 by alovrin on October 4, 2007 at 12:16 am

with people accusing me that I simply made up my hypothesis in such a way that everything would fit in the end :-)

Oh So you didnt just make it up then? Funny I havent seen this "hypothesis" anywhere else. Except of course as propounded from the pulpit.
You are all sinners in a sinful world the only way to salvation is thru jebus. I paraphrase of course.
So your conversion experience? Did you see flashing lights?
Have a realistic "experience" of jebus being close to you?

197. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75791 by alovrin on October 3, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Dianelos

the similarities are too strong to go unnoticed: The superficiality of thinking, the focus on one source as the only permissible explanatory ground for everything (the Bible here, science there), the exclusivity of outlook (e.g. either God or else natural evolution – a point where both sides agree), the mental inflexibility to understand opposing ideas and the unwillingness to seriously study them, the demonizing of those of different ontological beliefs, the disdain for those who disagree, the sense of forming some kind of illuminated group of people fighting against some terrible threat for humanity that only they perceive, the quest for political power, the self-congratulatory tribalism, the modern marketing and PR resources, the super-stars and the admiring audiences,

You forgot to mention pissed off at your interminable postings.(Your like our very own door knocking Mormon)
So how does it feel to be a martyr for the cause?
Fighting the good fight?
Do you share your experiences with your fundamentalist friends? Do they just say why do you bother with those agents of satan?

So tell us about your conversion experience/ If you pray everynight before you go to sleep? Does god talk to you?
Cause all your sciencey wrangling is getting boring.
I'm all ears..

198. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75504 by alovrin on October 2, 2007 at 9:11 pm

What I claimed is that the evidence I have makes it probable that the closest disciples of Jesus of Nazareth did have some realistic experiences of the risen Jesus, which is a completely different matter.

So which evidence would that be then?
The statement under oath of the disciples eyewitness account of jesus' shoes reanimating, doing a little jig, maybe a tapdance. A voice booming out of the sky ITS MMMMEEEEEEEE.

For example the theistic claim that prayer to God is efficacious for curing illness is a scientific claim that can be tested, and I understand has been falsified by science.

Right

The theistic claim that believers in God are on average more altruistic people is another scientific hypothesis, and I understand it has been confirmed by science.

Wrong

but in a formal argument

Dianelos's argument. The answer is GOD, so lets just works backwards from that.

Dianelos the magician "Hey presto look I can make everything fit"

The audience looking at the loose ends hanging everywhere.

"No you cant"

Dianelos the Magician. " Oh yes I can"

Audience "NO you cant"

Dianelos the Magician. "OH YES I can. Let me unpack the box and show you again"

Audience. *Loud collective groan*

199. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75444 by alovrin on October 2, 2007 at 4:30 pm

This just in from Sam Harris
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

200. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74817 by alovrin on September 30, 2007 at 4:11 pm

rely on being fed by their fellow countrymen and women.

And this is one of the factors that have lead to this uprising.
Briefly the circumstances of Burma are a country rich in resources(some considered it the jewel of the British Empire). Rangoon anyone? But a country kept in a feudal stae for approx the last 40yrs by a superstitious ruling elite. A recent price rise in petrol seems to have been more that the already poverty stricken locals could cope with. So charitable donations to such as monks became a luxury, thus the monks livelihood is affected.
And this "straw" of a small rise in petrol prices seems to have "broken the camels back" And the monks who have nothing to lose protest, and now others are following suit. So it may look as if religion is a force for good, but this is just a crude-agenda based-observation by someone who knows nothing of the internal problems of the country, such as Mr Buruma.

But whatever I support this uprising and hope it leads somewhere positive for the country. But there is going to be bloodshed and a lot of unnecessary loss of live.