151. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38745 by PrimeNumbers on May 9, 2007 at 5:16 am

She forgets that a lot of us were believers, perhaps conscripted into the CofE by well meaning parents. She forgets we remember all too well what it was like to be a believer in something untrue.

I remember how horrible it was that when I prayed and didn't get an answer or help. It's only when that lead me to the truth, that I could understand why my prayers were not answered, that I could face my problems and solve them myself.

Lies do not comfort people. Truth, understanding and being human do!

152. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37710 by PrimeNumbers on May 5, 2007 at 1:59 pm

He is so stupid he managed to offend the religious and the scientist!

153. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34766 by PrimeNumbers on April 25, 2007 at 7:06 am

Science is a great tool for understanding the world around us and has a great track record of producing real results. That's something surely to be proud of!!

Now lets look at Religion - understanding of the world - none, real results - none. To be proud of - no - you can't be proud of it either. Oh dear.....

154. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #32007 by PrimeNumbers on April 15, 2007 at 7:56 am

So Science leads to Atheism. Good. Perhaps televangelists will dith their atheistic televisions and cameras and go back to preaching direct from the pulpit, but only in daylight because electric lights are also products of atheistic science.

They typically want their cake and to eat it. Accept science and what it leads to, or throw away your computers and iPods and cars and all those products of science.

155. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30504 by PrimeNumbers on April 8, 2007 at 8:54 am

"For one thing, God gives objective definition to our ideas of right and wrong, crucial for civilization. Equally important, he provides meaning to life itself."

This is wrong in so many ways.

The god of the bible is amoral. He does so many nasty things, and brutally murders entire populations that his lack of morality is beyond doubt. If god provides objective morality to us, then to god himself that morality is subjective as he has no external source to define it. If morality is subjective to god, then it's no better than any subjective morallity that we can come up with ourselves.

God indeed removes meaning from life. If life is to have meaning, it cannot be applied externally, or else god has no meaning to it's life, and if god has no meaning, how can he give meaning to others?

The finiteness of life gives it meaning. Every day, every minute is special. We're here, and we may as well figure our own meaning, one that is important to us.

As to why the whole world shares, for the most part, some core moralities - well, they're the ones that work. It's very empirical. You pick a moral, you try it, and if it works, reduces suffering, helps people, it survives, or if it's bad, like prohibition, it gets repealed.

156. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28342 by PrimeNumbers on March 28, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Just as you don't need to be an expert in mathematics to know that 2+2 doesn't equal 5, you don't need to be an expert in religion to know that it's fundamentally wrong.

If Dawkins had attacked a subtle part of religion, I could understand the need for him to have a deep knowledge of it, but he attacks the core fundamentals of religion, and for that, only a modest knowledge is needed. Indeed his lack of knowledge of silly little trivialities of religion means he doesn't get bogged down in details that only matter to theologists, but instead he concentrates on the broad points that everyone can understand.

157. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #28033 by PrimeNumbers on March 27, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Sure, as long as they only teach the rude bits, the nonsense bits and bits where bears eat children. And we need a sticker in the front of the book saying it's all utter nonsense and anyone who believes these things actually happened in the Bible is a nutter.

158. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23744 by PrimeNumbers on March 2, 2007 at 11:40 am

Yet Plantinga falls for the age old theological problem of using known attributes of a deity (all knowing, all powerful etc.) in the proof of existance, yet until existance is proved, there can be no known qualities of the deity. I'm sorry, but to assert that a creator deity is "necessary" is the height of theological arrogance and deserves no respect. Instead of arguing about angels on the head of a pin, why, with the problem of evil, for instance, doesn't Plantinga be a good little Christian and just say "God moves in myserious ways", rather than trying to rationally justify the irrational. Can someone who goes to such tortuous word-wrangling nonsense really, in their heart of hearts truly believe in their creator deity?

That Dawkin's theology is simple is not a bad thing, but a good thing. That he simply shows that if an un-created universe is improbable, adding in an extra step of creator deity to make the universe doesn't make it less probably, but actually infinitely more improbable is an argument that Plantinga fails to address in any meaningful manner.

159. Faith

Comment #23085 by PrimeNumbers on February 26, 2007 at 7:28 am

Straw men, lies and pot calling the kettle black. To say Dawkins has no doubt, when he's the most doubting athiest I've ever seen - he's always pointing out the science and proof are never 100% certain - always - practically every interview with him I've seen.

But hate! I've never heard hate from Dawkins. Perhaps pity, definately some ridicule, but never hate and never violence.

It's interesting how religious people put their vices, their inadequacies into their opponents.

When you hear the religious say:

"Dawkins has no doubt" = "I doubt when I look at the problem of evil"

"Dawkins hates" = "I know I must love everyone as my neighbour, but hate keeps spilling into my mind"

"Dawkins is fundamentalist" = "I am fundamentalist, it's the easiest way for me to deal with my doubts"

160. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

Comment #22007 by PrimeNumbers on February 12, 2007 at 9:14 am

"No-one has ever seen a virus of the mind." - but I say "No-one has ever seen a god". End of argument McGrath. At least we can all observe the effects of the mind virus.

161. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21875 by PrimeNumbers on February 11, 2007 at 10:27 am

FortunaAdiuvatForte, my words don't just verge on the offensive, they ARE offensive.

The morals of the Bible amount to nothing more than the carrot and stick approach to doing good. Hell if you're bad, heaven if you're good. What about good for goodness sake? What about doing good just because it's right and proper, and nice to do good, without hope of reward or fear of punishment?

Religions claim that God is a source of moral absolutism, but it's not. If morals come from God, then they're either chosen by God arbitrarily, or they're chosen by reason. If they're chosen by reason, we too can appeal directly to reason and bypass any need for a God. If they're arbitrary, then they're no better than ourselves picking arbitrary morals.

162. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21843 by PrimeNumbers on February 11, 2007 at 7:43 am

Religion useful? Sure it is to those that control the religion, those that use their flock as a ready source of income.

Christianity is morally corrupt. The Bible is full of obnoxious things. How can that provide a moral framework that doesn't fall over at the first push as it's full of contradictions and stupidities. And because it's dogma, you can't just now go and pull out those nasty parts and replace them with nice bits, because once religion has been started, it stays pretty much constant with regards to it's Dogma. Sure, you get churches splitting on issues and the like, but even the relatively inoffensive CofE still uses the same Bible with the same nasty bits in it.

163. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21711 by PrimeNumbers on February 10, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Series of Tubes - Remeber, know thy enemy :-) McGrath is a hilarious, pompous twit. I'm fully enjoying his entertainment value.

164. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21709 by PrimeNumbers on February 10, 2007 at 6:00 pm

"There are few bridges that will survive the test of time better than religion." But that's not an answer to the question I posed. Typical for someone who thinks theology has any meaning in the real world. I commented about a bridge made by theology, not religion. I comment, in a satirical way, about a bridge built by that argument that is the height of arogance, the ontological argument, to point out the kind of nonsense that theologists come up with.

It seems to me that nice people, who tend to like the "nice" bits of religion are as horrified by it's nasty bits as that of Atheists, but instead of rejecting religion as a whole, they indulge in the mental masturbation that is theology, and become religious apologists, who use false argument, wiggle words, sophistry and semantic trickery to render their own heads innate moral obomination at the evils of religion to be nullified, and to render any thought that would contradict their chosen belief system to be compartmentalized from their rational thought centres.

165. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21694 by PrimeNumbers on February 10, 2007 at 4:35 pm

FortunaAdiuvatForte, to know whether a deed is truly good, one needs to look beyond the action to why it was performed. Mother Theresa was by all accounts a bad woman, who's only reason for the supposed good she did was to guarantee herself, selfishly, a place in heaven. Similarly any religous "good" is suspect as they do their deeds to promote their faith, to escape hell for themselves, to find themselves a place in heaven. To truly do good, you must do it without thought of recompense in this life (or if you believe in it, the next).

So to say religions do good, is a fiction, and so far from what doing good truly means as to be unbelievable.

As for theology - what good has it done? Ever seen a bridge built by theology - well, it's invisible, you've got to have faith that it's there. It's, of course, the best, most greatest brigde ever conceived, and hence must exist, because if it didn't, it wouldn't be the greatest.

I prefer to walk across bridged built by engineers. I'm much less likely to fall in the water that way.

166. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21630 by PrimeNumbers on February 10, 2007 at 7:57 am

God is not an explanation. It never has been and cannot be an explanation. It takes us nowhere. It doesn't advance our learning or understanding of the universe. Logic shows that even God knows some questions for which he has no answers. If morals come from God, is it because he chose them on a whim, or through a rational approach. If they're on a whim, we gain no understanding, and if they're rational, where does that rationality come from, because it isn't coming from God?

Even if the belief in God was rational, it take a leap of irrationality to go from a generic creator deity to the Christian God of the Bible and his mythology. That's where Alister shows his lack of intellectual muscle by not stopping at just a creator deity, but by attributing without proof, evidence, or even thought of the conclusions from such attributes, facts about his God.

What Alister really needs to learn is that when there's a question that's important and big, and really unknowable, the best answer could very well be "I don't know", rather than his childish and morally corrupt answer of "God of the Bible did it."

Maybe if Alister had studied more mathematics, and could see it's inherent beauty, order, randomness, pattern and majesty, and then think what his God must think when his God discovers mathematics, and does all the math that we do now, and his God is amazed at the inherent beauty, order, randomness, pattern and majesty of it all, and thinks to himself - I discovered this, but it's inherent from just simple axioms that anyone could postulate, and all this beauty just falls from that. Wow. That's amazing. I wonder where it came from :-) And his God doesn't know the answer to that one. Because the answer is, that's just the way it is.... And by giving God as the answer to everything, that's a beauty that Alister will never see, never appreciate and never know that the real mysteries transcend even what his God explanation is capable of "explaining."

167. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21519 by PrimeNumbers on February 9, 2007 at 5:20 pm

I don't think there's much choice in Atheists being what they are. Their brains are wired up so that they no longer need the scaffolds of religion. Their brains are geared for rational thought, not intollerance and bigotry. Everyone on this planet was born without knowledge of a deity. They're all Atheist by default.

Religion is a learned belief system. It doesn't grow from nothing, but from those who use it for power, social control or just because that's the way they were brought up. There's nothing special about it that says "you can't criticize me." There's nothing sacred about religion - it's just a bunch of words, like any other bunch of words.

168. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21510 by PrimeNumbers on February 9, 2007 at 3:35 pm

RE: #202: I watched the "offensive" Quran quotes. I do not believe I've seen such hateful language before. Why does hate crime legislation not force such words to be removed form the Quran, and stop them being spoken?

169. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21234 by PrimeNumbers on February 8, 2007 at 6:41 am

Yes, those books should have any element in them that incites hatred removed. The remaining Bible, being full of sex should therefore only be allowed to be sold in licenced sex shops.

170. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20831 by PrimeNumbers on February 6, 2007 at 5:59 pm

I've also just complained to CNN about their straw man approach to Atheism. Not only did the panelists not know about Atheists, they didn't have any knowledge of the Constitution or US history. They were rude and condescending.

171. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20829 by PrimeNumbers on February 6, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I can understand Alister beliving in god. That's fine, and his choice, but why the Christian god? Why that one in particular? He's a prof of historical theology so he must know that the Christian story is a mish-mash re-hash. If he wishes to be rational and think that because god cannot be disproved, then fine, but to extend that intially small amount rationality to embracing the whole Christian myth is not rational at all. It's just plain stupid.

172. Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures

Comment #20571 by PrimeNumbers on February 4, 2007 at 11:16 am

I don't see the government having much choice here - either they attempt to save the childrens' lives with whatever medial means necessary, or they allow the parents' to let the children die due to refusing appropriate medial treatment. At that point, the parents get arrested, tried and convicted of death by neglect and spend a long time in jail. Not much fun either way, but I'd think the first alternative is the better one.

173. God and gorillas

Comment #20252 by PrimeNumbers on February 1, 2007 at 9:38 am

Religious belief is an evolutionary scaffold that some of us no longer need. It really is as simple as that.

174. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #19837 by PrimeNumbers on January 30, 2007 at 7:29 am

A very sad, but interesting documentary. But hardly un-expected. There's something inherently wrong about making money from people in this way. The funny thing is, they seem to want to be defrauded by Hinn. If there ever was an easy example of the modern day harm caused directly by religion, this is it.