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

Comments by SRWB


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

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

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

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

152. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

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

Surly not equally divisive,

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

153. Church exhumes Padre Pio

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

Steve,

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

I'm afraid I will require more convincing.

154. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

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

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

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

155. Church exhumes Padre Pio

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

Quetz,

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

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

156. Fleabytes

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

al-rawandi,

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

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

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

157. Fleabytes

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

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

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

158. Fleabytes

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

but isn't that technically a simile?

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

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

159. Fleabytes

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

How long has metaphor been around.

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

160. Fleabytes

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

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

161. Fleabytes

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

Par for the course!

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

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

162. Fleabytes

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

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

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

163. Fleabytes

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

Dr B,

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

164. Fleabytes

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

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

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

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

165. Fleabytes

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

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

166. Fleabytes

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

Perhaps he could have used Miracle Grow(TM)

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

167. Fleabytes

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

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

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

168. Fleabytes

Comment #136536 by SRWB on March 1, 2008 at 11:27 am

Hello,

As a matter of interest, anyone know the relationship between the number of atheists and the number of theists who help out at soup kitchens?

I don't, but what does this prove? Are you attempting to show that Xians are better people because the donate time to help the less fortunate? Are you assuming that we nasty atheists don't do similar things. I do assist regularly in charitable events, and I tell you this not to blow my own horn but to put paid to your theory that we don't care for others.

169. Fleabytes

Comment #136526 by SRWB on March 1, 2008 at 11:05 am

We did not have the money and we knew the church did not. We felt a bit embarrassed about going to ask so instead we just prayed that the money would come in. When we left the bus I wrote the driver a cheque for £87.50 (money that we did not have). He told us just to make it a straight £80. As we left the bus some of the parents handed £30. Later that night someone put a cheque for £50 through the door. Now of course you can claim that it was just an enormous improbability.

A lovely story. Now here are a few more. Many years ago my kids and I were at a beach and my youngest one found $10 floating in the water. We didn't pray for that money, it just appeared. Does that prove that God answers prayers that weren't even said? Last year, many months after changing jobs I received a large sum in back pay that I wasn't expecting. Wow what a surprise, and again without me praying for it!

170. Fleabytes

Comment #135992 by SRWB on February 29, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Man, this thread is just humming along - leave for 45 mins and one falls well behind.

Not necessarily. God does not exclude people.

What about all those Moabites, Philistines, Elamites, Stalactites, Stalagmites, Rogerites, Buttites and sundry others that were wiped out by God's chosen people? Weren't they "excluded"?

171. Fleabytes

Comment #133700 by SRWB on February 26, 2008 at 2:47 pm

If I play my cards right and I'm lucky I have a "coming", let alone a second one, at least once a week! :-)

Say what you like, at least DR is legible if not coherent (to us) in his thoughts.

172. Fleabytes

Comment #132805 by SRWB on February 25, 2008 at 8:13 am

Quetz,

Of course Mark was willing to talk and he was very polite and reasonable (in so far as his Bible belief would let him); all good qualities. But so were the others on that thread. No one has the market cornered on politeness.

173. Fleabytes

Comment #132776 by SRWB on February 25, 2008 at 7:45 am

Billy,

I would not completely agree with your comments that Mark Taunton tried. His problem was that his faith and belief clouded his view of the physical evidence and in the end there was no way he would concede other points of view if they disagreed with his take on the Bible and the "prophecy" under discussion.

174. Fleabytes

Comment #132732 by SRWB on February 25, 2008 at 7:05 am

No - an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God(s) - a fundamental atheist is someone who really, really doesn't believe in God(s):-)

Silly argument isn't it?

175. Fleabytes

Comment #132706 by SRWB on February 25, 2008 at 6:36 am

Paula,

I suspect you're correct - but part of the reason is because "fundamentalist" has taken on a negative connotation, so to tar atheists with the same epithet is to even the field so to speak. So you see, apparently we're no better than he is, reminiscent of the schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" exchange.

176. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131901 by SRWB on February 23, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Shrommer,

Do you believe that we were created by God? The point of my question will be apparent shortly.

If so, please explain to us why unmarried pubescent teens feel sexual urges as early as they do. It is my understanding that children as young as 11-12 (in some cases even earlier) are fully capable of sexually reproducing without the benefit of matrimony. It always amazes me that so many Xians are under the mistaken impression that the whole act of sexual reproduction is in any way connected with the act of marriage, which is clearly a cultural and social construct. After all, animals and plants reproduce and as far as I know, they do so without the benefit of being wed!
So please explain to me why your God has designed us this way - why can my children reproduce at such an early age, and as it is so why is it in fact a sin?

Of course, if you are not a creationist, you can still answer the questions I have posed. See if you can do it without reference to your flawed Bible.

177. Fleabytes

Comment #131627 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 6:56 pm

That's the spirit. Let's give David Flea a nice hemp tie to finish the job he started. Gotta go to bed now - long day. :-)

Steve

178. Fleabytes

Comment #131625 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Diacanu,

Perhaps we're all just a little sensitive?! I'm no fan of David's, but even if he accused me of not caring about my loved ones losing children, or other drivel, it matters not one iota to me. At the end of the day I only have to worry about how I treat people, not what David thinks of me (us) - I don't really give two shits. The point I'm trying to make is that the way to come across as reasonable is to present oneself as such - that's all.

179. Fleabytes

Comment #131622 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Steve,

Then I may have misunderstood - slightly - and I think we agree - sort of. Either we should let David have his say, and let him (and others) do so in his way, or we should drop the pretense that we are open to a variety of viewpoints, no matter how controversial. Now we all know that some of the regular posters on this site, myself included, can be quite heated and insulting, with any variation of expletives and insults being used in most original and constructive ways. Some have been downright rude, sometimes disgustingly so. But that's OK, as long as we don't then become all defensive and high-and-mighty about how the theists are always insulting and rude, etc. We should also be secure enough in our opinions and beliefs to take such an assault, survive it and counter-attack effectively (one of your notable strengths by the way). And I certainly agree that we have achieved a site that does generate intelligent and passionate discussion in a civil manner (for the most part).

Steve

180. Fleabytes

Comment #131609 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Well, I agree, but the problem is that some people do take him seriously, and we are giving him the "oxygen of publicity", I am afraid.

What to do? That is one of the dilemmas of living in free societies such as ours. One could make the convincing argument that it is better to allow full exposure of such viewpoints and opinions to the light of day than to suppress them and let them smolder in the shadows. No?

181. Fleabytes

Comment #131577 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Steve,

You're correct that it's not about rights, permission, etc. But it does come with an on/off switch, so people can choose!

Steve

182. Fleabytes

Comment #131570 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm

It's like a car crash. You don't want to look but you just can't help yourself. I know most of you will look :-)

183. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131437 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 12:43 pm

what do you think the difference is?

How about this - there was a huge thread about Xmas carols, etc. where many of us stated that we actually were "cultural Christians" who listened to carols, ate turkey, exchanged gifts,etc. on 25 Dec. We did (do) all that without actually believing in the birth of a deity who later died to save mankind.
The importance is that we have adopted certain cultural affections because of our historical experiences and these simply make getting along a little easier. Besides, who doesn't like birthday parties?

184. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131428 by SRWB on February 22, 2008 at 12:34 pm

He can stay as long as he doesn't go all whiney on us about being banned like David Flea!

185. Fleabytes

Comment #130806 by SRWB on February 21, 2008 at 10:02 am

what are you scared of?

Not a thing
If my post are such self evident rubbish then you should be glad that they are posted.If they are easily argued against then you should be able to argue against them.

Some of us have as much as said so - give us your best shot and we'll probably play along some more.
At least Christians believe in free speech.

Sure, now they do because secular laws make it a crime to burn people at the stake or torture them merely for their beliefs.

186. Fleabytes

Comment #130723 by SRWB on February 21, 2008 at 7:40 am

Don't let the likes of David get you down. I for one would like to read his "rebuttal" to Paula's tome. He will undoubtedly again expose himself for what he is - a fundamentalist spouting bullshit from the pulpit in an effort to control the flock. He has to paint us all as fundies to distract the attention from himself. At very least his "rebuttal" should be amusing and entertaining.

187. Fleabytes

Comment #130713 by SRWB on February 21, 2008 at 7:26 am

Let the Flea back! I have always maintained an aversion to banning posters unless their presence here was extremely offensive. David's comments have not met this test, and to label them offensive is overkill. Besides I would rather read his opinions than those of Wooter or some others........

188. Fleabytes

Comment #130376 by SRWB on February 20, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Paula,

Coming late to the party, I must echo the comments of all the others. Simply excellent! As I have not read any of these flea books (suspecting that they were wishful thinking nonsense), I appreciate the time and effort you put into responding with such exquisite, well-constructed, detailed counterarguments.

Steve

189. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #129618 by SRWB on February 19, 2008 at 11:34 am

Here we go again - this is timely as there is currently a debate in Ontario, Canada in regards to the practice of reciting the Lord's prayer in the provincial legislature. The overwhelmingly Christian letter-writers are up in arms over the Premier, a Catholic, musing about catering to other religions and allowing other forms of prayer. This move is rightly seen as a cynical ploy to garner more ethnic/religious votes. Conversely, the Christians are bleating on about changing the way things have been for decades and why should we change to placate non-Christian immigrants, blah, blah. Some of us see it all as BS - after all does saying a prayer every day make Ontario a better place to live than anywhere else? Are we less screwed up than non-Christian or secular jurisdictions? Is prayer more effective at improving our lives than sacrificing sheep or chickens?

190. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #127457 by SRWB on February 15, 2008 at 10:06 am

What does "never buy crackling from a mohel" mean?

This is Hitchens' cleverly oblique reference to the mohel who supposedly made it habit to take the severed foreskins of babes in his mouth as part of the rite of circumcision. Apparently this was an accepted method of carrying out this bizarre practice.

191. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123648 by SRWB on February 7, 2008 at 12:47 pm

...it is far more common to take matters on faith and go with the program than it is to demand evidence of every claim

And right you are, in cases where there is existing evidence to begin with! For instance, I have faith that the sun will rise every day, even if I can't see it because of the clouds or snow, because it has done so as long as I have lived (I can't vouch for the time before 1962). I also have faith that the bus I take to work will arrive at roughly the same time five days a week, barring circumstances like inclement weather, traffic congestion, etc. The difference of course is that my faith in the sun and the bus is based on historical evidence and not just faith of a religious kind which is essentially just wishful thinking.

192. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123566 by SRWB on February 7, 2008 at 11:00 am

I think that God has been quite reliable, all factors considered.

Yes, what a great, loving, caring, god. He sure has been "reliable" - just ask those who've been killed, injured or otherwise personally affected by the dozens of tornadoes which have wreaked such destruction in the US this last day or so (just one of daily disasters which afflict this planet). Yet many of the survivors continue to profess their great faith for the almighty, and attribute their survival to his beneficence!

193. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123532 by SRWB on February 7, 2008 at 10:13 am

I bet the majority of believers in evolution are Christian... at least in America. And I think that most theists recognize that science works by adapting to new evidence.

And that too is a relatively new phenomenon. Up until the evidence of evolution became
common knowledge through education, etc., that was not the case. Clearly the constant intellectual pressure and knowledge of evolution over the last century or so has had a cumulative effect on people's beliefs. Even the most ardent faithhead can't deny the truth forever. Just a few more steps......
I would love to hear your evidence that God does not exist. Do you know any?

And again, we must ask where is your evidence that God exists? You have asserted his existence, so it is up to you to provide the evidence. If there is none, other than your faith and some old books, then we could conclude that you are wrong.

194. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122987 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 10:26 am

Have you studied your bible in its original Greek, Hebrew and Ancient Aramaic texts or in English?

Why? We're these ancient cultures incapable of writing fiction? :-)

195. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122843 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 8:07 am

Epinephrine,

Good questions. I didn't say such a decision would be easy! I guess it would also depend on how close my friend and I are and whether or not we share other beliefs. A reasonable approach would be to go with your option A above, and then decide further based on the response. The wearing of religious garb, in which I do not believe, is the same as other overt signs of faith like giving religious gifts, or singing carols in church as part of a religious ceremony.

Of course, another approach is to just wear the cap/clothes as it is just that, nothing more. It's not like a yarmulke, etc. are imbued with sacred qualities just because someone believes so! Right?

196. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122837 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 7:43 am

I nonetheless do respect the people - I'll wear a yarmulke at a wedding - it harms nobody to show that I can be respectful in that way, though I'll happily challenge religion on issues that matter

And this is perhaps the issue that causes me the most heartache. As a non-believer, I would feel torn to wear a yarmulke in a Jewish setting or a head covering in a Sikh ceremony, etc. To me, to do so is hypocritical and is a sell out of my beliefs. The way I see it is that I can still be respectful without setting aside my beliefs and falling in line with their ideas. I don't do so in my personal daily life so why should I do so simply to placate other deluded thinking. I will be respectful, but not submissively compliant.

Is that extreme?

197. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122807 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 6:00 am

Richard,

I understand your dilemma, having faced it too (all of us will if we haven't yet). What does one say to people who believe in something we don't? I find the best way is to be neutral and not to use that occasion to convince said person in the errors of their beliefs. I think one can remain respectful of their feelings and the memory of the deceased by being helpful and offering condolences without being overly cloying or dishonestly spiritual. Although I'm not sure I would have given an openly religious symbol - but that's me.

198. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119001 by SRWB on January 31, 2008 at 9:00 am

There are three possible outcomes of divine judgment as written in the Christian Bible.

You've missed the obvious fourth outcome of "divine judgment" - that it's all a bullshit idea created by humans to exert control over others. Besides how do you know that the Christian Bible is correct?

199. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118983 by SRWB on January 31, 2008 at 8:39 am

Enjoy a happy B'day and wishes for many more!

200. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117707 by SRWB on January 29, 2008 at 12:17 pm

"Furthermore, the benefits of science are hugely exaggerated... Most inventors are not scientists and most scientists are not inventors... From vulcanized rubber to the microwave oven, accidents combined with fortuitous observations by non-scientists have accounted for a surprising number of advances in human knowledge, advances to which the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation may claim no credit."

While some of what is in this statement on its face may be true, it is also irrelevant. The value of science is that we are able to study an "accident which has resulted in an advance in human knowledge" to determine how and why something works. The "scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation" certainly does allow us to dig deeper and determine answers beyond "God did it", even if it had no part to play in an initial discovery, accidental or otherwise.

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