201. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #193902 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 7:49 am

It's interesting how they think a work of fiction should be hindered in its production if it portrays a fabricated series of events. I suppose they think a work of fiction should actualy portray events as they actualy happened.

Or are they saying works of fiction should never be produced which have anything to do with Christian history. Perhapse they have first hand experience of a lot of people believing fiction to be fact. I wonder what that might be.....

202. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #193886 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 7:34 am

Amazing video's - very nicely explained.

203. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192533 by phatbat on June 13, 2008 at 10:08 am

I agree that the debates don't seem to sway many people but they are bloody good entertainment.

They are also very usefull as sources of ideas for debates of our own.

But the written format is by far the best if you are on the side of reason. All this talk of winning the debate is important though, winning should not always be a matter of opinion when the question being debated is a matter of logic or fact. The winner should be who's arguments stand up to strict logical analysis not consensus.

204. Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school

Comment #192098 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I think that if a holy book contains possible justifications for violence towards someone or something except in cases of self defence (or defence of others from phisical harm) then it is not a religion of peace.

If said book contains a lot of explicit justifications of violence then it is not a religion of peace.

If said book contains no possible justifications of violence what-so-ever except in self defence as stated above then it is a religion of peace.

205. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #192051 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 11:52 am

1998. Comment #192036 by rontimus

1999. Comment #192044 by Steve Zara

superb.

I hope he responds and tells us all how these brilliant arguments work.

206. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191872 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

133. Comment #191847 by Vaal

Guys, no point biting to David Robertson. It is a futile exercise. He just posts his paranoid drivel and waits for the reaction. He doesn't have anything new to say, and he doesn't bring anything to the debate.

I kind of agree but i think all that is needed is for everyone to just stop telling DR what we think of him and just concentrate on the actual fallacies he produces.

What people tend to do is bring him up on something valid and then add some insults on the end. Then what happens is he responds mainly to the insults and not to the real meat of the post.

Steve Z seems to be achieving this with good effect which produces an actual (if not still wrong) responces from DR. severalspeciesof also did it above.

I know it is so tempting to let rip but it is this letting rip which is giving him loads of excuses to avoid dealing with the real questions which are so valid.

If we can all make an agreement to stop with the insults and telling him what we think of him (no matter what he says) we will get shorter more focused responces from him which can then be highlighted for their lack of logic and abbundance of ill thought.

Worth a try?

207. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191696 by phatbat on June 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm

52. Comment #191669 by richard_dawkins

Oh dear we have a child let loose on a computer who is attracted to apes.

208. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191128 by phatbat on June 10, 2008 at 9:12 am

251. Comment #191103 by larhule

Stryer, I dig your Socratic fire. You obviously don't need it but consider this a handful of encouragement for pinning responders to their words! The shit you catch for 'attitude' is totally fruitless and only serves to preserve a cold slate for everyone to hold hands and engage in boring, mass eye rolls in response to another stupid religious treatise.

I don't really understand what this means.

209. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191030 by phatbat on June 10, 2008 at 6:10 am

amazingly bad article - 'Canada Free Press' - i hope this means nobody had to pay for it.

Styrer

- Why so angry about this misunderstanding? It's a pretty simple principle and one that's been discussed on here a few times before if i remember correctly. If it was just a case of posters using the word faith instead of belief on a couple of occassions couldn't you have just said 'i could understand what you mean if you said belief instead of faith.....' not to mention the fact that faith does actualy have more than one definition, and if you check the dictionary, faith can be interchanged with belief quite easily within the confines of the established definitions. But i would agree using the word belief in this instance would have possible saved some confusion.

If your disagreement is something other than this then you have yet to have put your point in a way that is easily understandable.

Are you saying that you don't think believers try and find evidence for their belief and think they have found it with very bad results like this article?

If you do think they do this then surely you are agreeing that for these people faith is not enough on it's own for them to believe, they feel the need to find evidence to back it up. Because their need to find evidence for their prior assumptions/faith is so great they suddenly have a very different idea of what constitutes evidence, and just accept nonsense like this article. The fact that they haven't actualy got any evidence is beside the point, it is the fact that they wanted that evidence, sought the evidence and then rested on it that is important. No one is saying (i'm pretty sure) that these people actualy have anything other than faith to justify their beliefs, but that they think they do, thus they are really rebelling against the principle of faith. No one is saying that their faith is reasonable or that there is any such thing, just that for a lot of people they THINK it is. If it's reasonable then it doesn't need faith, if it needs faith then it isn't resonable (unless you're talking about the more wishy washy definitions of faith just being the belief/trust in something or someone where evidence or reasonableness is not an issue)

It really does seem like you're missing something here styrer.

210. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #185258 by phatbat on May 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

63. Comment #184918 by Sh!fty

Here Here.

There is a big difference between people like bullet and clearmind.

I would have thought one of the best things this site might achieve is to win hearts and minds of those that might be indoctrinated elsewhere, especialy the young and curious.

Granted no-one knew he was 14 till after a few posts filled with 'you have all got it wrong' type posts. But we must expect this from just about everyone who has been indoctrinated from early childhood with the religion virus. I think that by restraining your annoyance at the arrogance we get subjected to and just keep plowing out the same polite answers will at least be witnessed by the many people that view this site.

A lot of these people are victims remember.

211. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183892 by phatbat on May 23, 2008 at 5:42 am

346. Comment #183888 by Steve Zara

hehe - i didn't really think it was you Steve - i went and checked out your blog too - very good.

212. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183883 by phatbat on May 23, 2008 at 5:11 am

342. Comment #183876 by Bonzai

It could be Steve Zara - he never seems to be about at the same time as clearmind. He said he was going to work on his own blog for a bit but that could be a cover, while he practices typing in clearmind speak.

But seriously, i don't believe that he's an actual idiot, the occasional clear typing demonstrates that.

Every one should just ignore his posts from now on.

213. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180251 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm

1. Comment #180245 by Solarium Solaris

If they just discovered this how do they have a 25 year old image of it? Just wondering.

Good point. I don't know either.

Also, if it's 28,000 light years away how could anyone have seen it so soon after the event. Surely the light would take 28000 years to get here, or am i being stupid?

214. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180021 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 5:46 am

294. Comment #179998 by jayalenik

Boy, you girls really know how to hurt someone.

I don't think they were trying to hurt you, looks to me they were telling you what you either are or come accross as.

Like it or not, bad or no punctuation makes writing slower to read and confuses meaning. Now this is a fact for most people. If you don't like this fact, you can either do nothing and carry on as you are or try and change it so that your posts are more easily read. It's obviously your choice, but if you go to the trouble of posting on a forum i presume it's because you want to take part in a discussion, or make your views known. People will start to ignore posts that don't read well, so if you're happy with that then carry on.

It's always interesting to see how someone reacts when their faults are pointed out, and it's funny that your reaction turned out to be that of petulant little child.

215. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179644 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm

17. Comment #179638 by annabanana

couldn't tell if this resulted from the author's having had knowledge of The Selfish Gene by RD or because he'd only read the title

I know, it seems like the author is very confused about what he thinks. He seems to contradict himself all over the place. I think he thinks he knows more than he knows.

216. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179625 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith.

And the theists still don't know they've lost.

Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Oh dear, I think someone needs to read a few books. A selfish gene does not mean we can't have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment. for goodness sake.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space).

Ok, uh-huh, thats seems reasonable

The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

Oh dear, now you've gone and spoilt things by going way over the top.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

No, god can best be conceived as the creater of the universe, there is no reasonable avenue to squeeze god into these experiences.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate.

...for Chris and Richard

The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.

How do you feel the existance of the sacred? I can't believe that's the best word you can think of to describe these feelings.

That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They're going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.

This is exactly what they have to do now, new discoveries aren't going to cause that to happen they may just make it even easier for us to win the debate.

217. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179356 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 6:52 am

229. Comment #179009 by Artful_Dodger

I'm not denying that it happens in some cases, but it contradicts the whole thrust of Scripture, which is respectful of the will of every human being to orient his or her life towards God or away from Him. When we choose the latter we are choosing our own destiny. God does not force a relationship with Him on anyone, either in this life or beyond.

Oh come on.

How can you call 'if you don't believe in this particular god you are going to go to hell and experience agony for all eternity' not forcing then just about nothing is forcing.

A man with his gun to your head saying he'll shoot you in the head if you don't hand over all your money, that's not force is it? because you can simply choose to just not give him your money, and if you do that he will kill you and everything will be fine because you made your bed, you chose not to hand over your cash and the gunman is very unhappy because he didn't want to kill you, he liked you really, but you spurned his kind intentions and chose to die.

Perhapse you would prefer to use an analogy of an out of control car speeding towards you. Unless you jump out of the way the car will mow you down and kill you. The car isn't forcing you to jump out of the way, it is your free choice to make. You can choose to stand there and die. Or you can choose to jump out the way, but there is nothing forcing anyone. Just freewill.

In fact the only time you are ever forced to do anything is when someone is forcing you physically using either superior strength or physical restraints.

Are we agreed?

I suspect not, i'm sure you agree that those situations are infact examples of force being applied if the word has any meaning at all.

The problem is though that your free choice to reject god has a couple of factors involved which make your suggestion even more abhorrent.

1. I don't even know for sure i even have a choice. God didn't tell me directly, how do i know i'm not being conned. At least the gunman is telling me i have this choice, your bible god won't even bring himself to let me know i have this choice.

2. I simply am incapable of believing in your bible god, I do not have the free choice to believe it. I can say i believe, but it would not be true. If your god made me, he made me completely unable to believe any of it.

And then you have the audacity to say that you think the entity who has set this whole system up is so great and that you love and worship him.

If you want to believe in it then fine, but don't think you aren't doing something moraly abhorrent by telling us you think he is a great guy and loves me. At least admit he is a nasty character but you believe all the same and are actualy scared of him.

218. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178787 by phatbat on May 12, 2008 at 3:49 am

51. Comment #178467 by Identity-less

I'm choking up reading this article..
why? Cause i can relate, and her ending is something that haunts me in my dreams as MY potential ending.

I'm saddened to hear that, It must be awful to have no sanctuary in the one place you should have it, in your home with your family.

But thankfully you live in a western country where escape is possible. I see you have a job, are you able to afford to move out and get a place of your own? Would this act alone put you in danger, even if you told them where you were moving to?

219. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178547 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Al-rawandi

Although i agree this whole fuck the country attitude is over the top, it is not the fact that the guy did what he did - it is the attitude of the society around him that is so appaling. that, ithink is playing a part in people's reaction to treating the whole as if it were the man.

220. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178503 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Last week, his wife Fran said that he "left a job he could have done well if he had had support rather than attack. It is sad that a religion which has the commandment 'love your neighbour as yourself' at its heart is so often a poor example of a healthy supportive community."

Well it might be sad if it wasn't inevitable due to the fact that although that tenet is at the heart, it is surrounded by a lot of contradictory stories and stuff which somewhat detracts from the so called heart of the religion.

Oh and im sure a lot of people are very good at their job as long as they don't come under attack, like soldiers, managers, teachers, parents. Surely it's your performance under attack which is a big indicator of just how good at your job you are.

Every professional these days is more readily questioned, people are more prepared to challenge what they're being told and that can lead to conflict,"

Which a professional can usualy deal with if they actualy have any substance to their professional status with facts to back up what they are asserting. But when you're arguing over what kind of pasta makes up the noodly appendages of the flying spaghetti monster there tends not to be any kind of possible resolution to the argument.

This article makes me happy.

221. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178386 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

Absolutely disgusting.

Every culture will have people who are sick enough to kill their own daughter, but not many can lay claim to the friends, relatives, police, politicians, in-laws, neighbours and multitude or religious brothers and sisters of said sicko all agreeing that not only was it not a bad thing to do but that it was the right thing to do.

That, i'm not ashamed to say, is what puts people on this side of the issue on a much higher moral plain than the thousands (if not millions) on the other side.

Lets call a spade a spade people.

Lets see how many theists will come on here and try and point out how we've got that wrong.

I bet (or shall i say, i hope) not many.

222. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177108 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

So basically Christians don't really know what it is they believe in, but it's definately a something, but it's definately not knowable, but we think it hears our prayers, and we're pretty sure it sent it's son to earth, but it's definately beyond our comprehension.

So us silly atheists can't say we don't believe in god because they haven't even said what it is yet, and they never will.

Well we've been told.

223. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176813 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 5:36 am

71. Comment #176786 by MPhil

Agreed?

yes

I'm not saying religion will vanish completely - that reason "will win"... but it can get more foothold, and -as it does over and over again- get more people in its side.

Yeah - I think it's the whole social network playing a role in stopping reason breaking through. Most theists will feel a safety in numbers with regard to their unreasonable beliefs, which is understandable. If you take everyone else away and sperate them from the familiar i'm sure it would be an easier job to get them to be responsive to reason.

224. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176780 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 2:49 am

65. Comment #176775 by MPhil

I think then that we are agreeing - the santa clause example is not inate as you say, it is something that we were reasoned into by being told by your parents that santa will deliver presents in the night, and thus it happens. and there fore can be reasoned out of it by them telling you that they were making it all up all along.

I suppose you kind of arrive at the position of mind being something seperate to the body, but i think this is just because it does feel that way to most people and they haven't really thought about it much. Things like this just sneak in the back door un-noticed and it's only when you sit down and think about it and learn about the subject that reason sets you free.

Religious dogma does get specificaly taught to people in plain words and people just believe this stuff knowingly and consciously. It doesn't generaly sneak in the back door. It gets combined with a lot of emotional baggage that sometimes can't be seperated.

Some people however can be reasoned out of this stuff like a lot of people here i suppose. But it just depends on the individual's logical persuasion.

Maybe the phrase should be 'You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into unless you're very lucky'

225. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176771 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 2:04 am

55. Comment #176745 by MPhil

don't think that's a good phrase - because the answer isn't "you can't". For example, I did not come to the position that the mind is something other than the body or that there are objective moral values not through reason - but I abandoned them because of reason.
That's just one small demonstration - there are lots and lots more.

I see what you mean but I think you are talking about a different kind of position than that which that phrase is talking about.

I think what you are talking about are the assumptions that everyone makes without really either thinking about or even really acknowledging, like mind is something other than the body, etc. It is true that you can reason out of this position and many others. But i don't think that these are the positions the phrase is talking about.

When that phrase says '....weren't reasoned into' i think we just need to assume that it is a position that they actualy arrived at, having not had it before, as a result of something other than reason. I'm not sure you can say the same about mind as something other than the body, objective moral values, etc.

To say that homosexuals are all victims of paedophiles, as in the article, is not really in the same bracket as what you are talking about.

Although having said that i do think some people can be reasoned out of positions they weren't reasoned into, it is just not that many, and it's very very hard to do.

226. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174462 by phatbat on May 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm

17. Comment #174453 by Bizarro Dawkins

Yeah bizarro - it's different when god is getting brought up in a negative way isnt it.

It's just a sign of how sick a lot of people here are of all the piety that gets preached about god everytime anything really good/bad happens as if it's something to do with him. And what you see here is people bringing him up sarcasticly because you can bet your arse a theist will do the same to use it as an example of a miricle.

227. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174311 by phatbat on May 2, 2008 at 5:31 am

Re epeeist's link

Good god - that's unbelievable.

Do we take it from Ben stein now then that ID isn't really science after all? Since that would mean it could lead to murder just like all the rest of science.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard anyone say, shocking.

228. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174071 by phatbat on May 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Is there really such a thing as an atheist philosophy?

Is there enough in the definition to make a philosophy out of it?

229. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173304 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm

1820. Comment #173294 by TheTruthID

why not take a crack at dealing with this post i wrote to you the other day:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page32#170916

If we have direct evidence for some things evolving but just not every single link in the chain. are you suggesting that for just those gaps in the chain you think that somehow those individuals were just magic'd into existance in the manner mentioned in the above post?

230. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173265 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Thats good Carto, LOL.

I wish on these radio call-ins they would go back to the caller after the smack down, so we could hear them floundering. They'd probably come back with something like 'yeah...whatever....more like you are.....beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep'

next caller you're on....

231. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172923 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 7:08 am

351. Comment #172771 by clearmind Among others.

Wow - not one irony but 2.

Not only have you called yourself clearmind (which is ironic enough) but you go one better.

You seem to like saying that things that look designed always are. But your posts on this site have the appearance of not being designed while apparently actualy being designed by you.

Congratulations.

I have never read such a catalogue of posts by one person that i could believe could have just come about by chance.

Oh, and by the way, keep up the good work of making ID look bad. With you as an enemy, who needs friends. And the best thing is that the more you argue the better it is for us.

Oh and one more thing. Your acknowledgement or understanding of this is not a requirement for it to be effective.

Thanks again.

232. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172877 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 6:29 am

Anna,

Does that mean you and Al-rawandi are an item. I'm sorry if this is common knowledge.

Congrats if it is a new thing.

233. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172872 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am

Comment #172868 by seeker_of_truth

Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?

Maybe because ID proposes that life on earth was designed by someone/something and nearly everyone who subscribes to it believes that something is their personal god.

234. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172742 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 2:58 am

102. Comment #172730 by Christopher Davis

Often, when I tell someone I'm an atheist, they ask me essentially the same thing and then try to "repaint" me as an agnostic. I think it's because that way, in their minds, I'm not evil...only misguided. I also think it helps them dispel a certain amount of cognitive dissonance since I'm such a nice guy.

I know what you mean, I don't really think there is any difference between an agnostic and an atheist anyway. Granted there are some people who say they know there definitely is no god, but those people are few and far between. Someone i know descibed himself as an agnostic the other day, i asked him why he chose to call himself that rather than an atheist and he said 'because i don't know for sure there definitely is no god' I explained that this also applies to me and nearly every atheist on the planet. He was surprised at this presumed difference.

People seem to think that to be an atheist it means you think there definitely is no god and to be an agnostic is to not be certain.

Both an atheist and an agnostic share the position of no positive belief in god. They also share the position of not being certain that there definately is no god. So why differentiate oneself from an atheist?

If an agnostic says he thinks there might be a god but he's not sure, then he must be positively atheistic about all the other gods that could not be real if there turned out to be a god. He just doesn't know yet which god he is agnostic about and which ones he is atheist about.

An atheist is an agnostic is an atheist - and of course a theist is also an atheist about all the other gods.

This seems to be a successful line of conversation so far on the few people who've tagged themselves as agnostics, in getting them to realise how trivial the difference is between everyone.

235. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172733 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 2:28 am

Here's the same problem occuring again & agian.

Atheism isn't equal and opposite to belief in god. You can be an atheist and then add on to that any other ideology/desire/outlook/philosophy that you want provided it doesn't entail believing that there is a god. There are no tenets for you to contradict, no dogma to slavishly follow. There is nothing to stop you killing someone and nothing to promote you to kill someone, just you and whatever other ideology you subscribe to.

Now this is not the same with a religion. Yes you can add other ideologies to it too, you can be good or bad, but you then have these tenets that you subscribe to and dogma that needs to be followed. Your 'add-ons' cannot contradict a lot of stuff. So seemingly harmless dogma's can cause problematic situations to arise where good is not done purely because it would contradict this dogma eg. stem cell research, condoms, abortion. There are aspects that might stop you killing someone, and there are aspects that might motivate you to kill someone.

Atheism is not an ideology - It does not require anything of you above the lack of belief in god.

An atheist is not the opposite of a theist.

236. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172707 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 12:51 am

5795. Comment #172557 by MPhil :

Concerto de Aranjuez by Joaquin Rodrigo is perhaps the most beautiful piece of music I know, especially the second movement

I whole-heartedly agree. So under-rated. I was in Barcelona a couple of years ago and there was a recital of it somewhere in the gothic quarter while i was there but i missed it partly because the people i was with were philistines tbh.

That piece really can take you somewhere else.

237. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172419 by phatbat on April 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Styrer,

I kind of agree with you to a point and others from that point onwards.

There are broadly 2 different types of bible god theists who may come out with the fact that they believe and worship and love the entity that has set up the system for me and my family to go to hell for eternity for incredulity.

They both think that they are moraly on safe ground loving this entity. Sure they believe this and for now that can't be avoided. But it is to let them think they are really not doing anything repulsive by loving and respecting the entity that they think would do this that is the bit that gets me, styrer and al among others.

Now the 1st type of the 2 will be very polite like that melissa (i think that was her name) from a few days ago. I think she is the type of person that should be spoken to politely, but you can still explain that you think they are taking part in a moraly repulsive thought process in what they say, and tell them just how horrible you find it, in a polite non-aggressive way. It is this which i think is where i agree with others who have critisised you. You could have left in all the critisisms you made but in a less aggressive way.

The 2nd type of poster is more like dickdawkins who just spouts aggressive attacks and mentions something like finding it funny that we'll all eventualy roast in hell for eternity. If they express this extra nasty little trait then they can be taken down with both barrells if you like.

Although i would say mostly the same things to both of them, i would just add in words like sicko or evil little sicko to type 2.

I think if you can succeed in making an otherwise good person recognise just how nasty they are being by loving an entity like that then that may be one avenue to shake the veil of faith from their eyes. Although probably will not work with most.

238. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171370 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 1:07 pm

well done seeker of truth you almost admitted al-rawandi's point was valid but not quite.

Maybe next time you will manage this before you give up, or, now here's a novel idea, actualy explain why it isn't valid.

239. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171331 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I can't see Tom Hanks from here but i can kind of see a bit of Vince Vaughn in you though. I'm not saying which bit mind. ;)

240. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171324 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I propose Benways 3 strikes rule should have an official title. What about:

Benways Principle of Fora Efficiency

What do ya think.

Oh and Al-rawandi - I've just realised who you remind me of. It's the actor that plays Milo in the 6th series of 24. played by Eric Balfour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Pressman

Your face is a little meatier (meant in the nicest possible way) but i think from the size of picture in your avatar the resemblence is there.

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171034 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:57 am

5180. Comment #171030 by Kardashovel

I agree - all good points - i think we are just talking about 2 different issues.

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171029 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:52 am

5172. Comment #171011 by blackhawk089

the whole point of this movie was to let those in support of intelligent design SPEAK FORTH!!!!

Which they did.

Why is that so difficult?!?!

It isn't.

All you do is resort to name calling and say how unscientific it is and yet refuse to even listen to any scientific evience for intelligence!

That isn't ALL he did, he did some name calling and then went on to explain his position, which makes absolute sense. He and many others have been asking for some SCIENTIFIC evidence for ID and so far none has been offered. This is obviously a problem if their claim is that they should be allowed into the classroom.

Science is supposed to ask questions!

Science isn't supposed to do anything, it is the name we give to the pursuit of understanding by very strict methods, these methods are not employed by ID proponents - there-fore it is not science.

Is it sinking in yet?

243. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171010 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #171005 by Kardashovel

It is closer to the target to take them to task for thinking the bible is inerrant.

That is another good target but i was talking about another often missed target to try and take away that smug goodness that the theist in this example often feels about themselves.

To tell me quite inocently that they love and worship an entity that will be roasting me and my mum for eternity just for our inescapable incredulity, that is a nasty sentiment to hold to.

I compared it before to telling someone that i thought the man who raped, tortured and killed your mum was a great guy and very loving, he even loved your mum. This would be a horrible thing for anyone to say and i'm sure anyone would agree, but for some reason whenever someone takes up the 1st idea not many people bat an eyelid.

It is quite wrong i feel.

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171004 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:23 am

5157. Comment #170982 by DickDawkins

Lol, Dawkins got pwned, now he's crying butthurt and PZ Myers is permab& from theaters. Epic lulz. Win Ben Stein's pwnage. Burn in heck Satanists!11!

Fantastic!

It's made even better how well that sentence (if it can be called that) adds to your opposing side's case in the debate. A perfect example of the kind of no-think babytalk that paints a thousand words about you.

What's even better is that you acknowledging or understanding how bad you make yourself look is not required for it to be effective. Infact it's all the better for it.

Thanks again for your assistance in the fight against willful, proud ignorance.

245. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170994 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:13 am

MPhil

My Condolences. My grandmother died too 2 weeks ago and funeral was last week.

I found myself having those exact thoughts when i read remnant (or whichever theist it was) saying how he worshipped this bible god who would set up a system where incredulity will get you burned for all eternity.

To believe that the whole idea is true is one thing, but to then tell everyone that you worship this bible god and can go about telling people you are doing good by following his wishes is a very nasty idea that i think everyone has just got used to accepting as not bad at all.

It's something i think should be called foul on more, whenever a theist takes up the idea that their bible god is good and loving and worthy of worship.

246. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170950 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 7:08 am

Wow this thread has exploded in the last 3 days.

It's good to know that this thread will have probably been read by many theists who haven't posted here yet who will have witnessed their usual arguments taken apart from the regulars here, but without the problem of having their ego's hurt by actualy having to climb down in writing in public and admit they were wrong. They can just quietly change their views from the safety of their computer chair.

Or maybe the fact i'm writing this will anger them and cause them to come on and post.

who knows?

247. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170916 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 6:26 am

Hi Truthid

Glad to see you have had a change of heart.

Now here's something i have always wondered about. If you find it difficult to comprehend the evolution of the eye, how do you comprehend the alternative of all the different animals being designed and just put there.

I don't know if there is a standard ID response to this but if you say that all life didn't evolve from a single celled life form then you have to account for what it would have actualy looked like when each animal of each 'kind' first appeared.

Lets say for bird 'kind':
Did an egg just appear on the ground? If so, then what? did it hatch and immediately fetch it's own food? or was there also a huge pile of live worms put next to the egg and somehow contained so that when the chick hatched it would have a constant supply of food? Or did it hatch out as a fully grown bird just this once?
Or did a fully grown bird just appear on the ground in one second and go about it's business?
Or maybe it grew from the feet upwards, first the feet and legs, then the body and then the wings and head? and if so, was it alive while it was appearing from the bottom up or was is static until the last feather was in place?

What about a mammal?

Did an embryo just sit on the ground all exposed to the elements and grow like that through first to childhood and then to adulthood all by itself with nothing to feed it and look after it? Or do you picture it just appearing all of a sudden like special effects on a film? or from the bottom up like in the bird example?

This is what you have to thinkn about if you think evolution didn't happen. However if you accept evolution then you never have this problem as everything always had a parent right back to single celled life.

I think i posed this to you before or maybe it was another IDist but i never saw a reply.

what are your thoughts?

248. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167765 by phatbat on April 24, 2008 at 10:08 am

Come on remnant - you're not answering the tough questions.

I asked you in post 3668 how then you can claim the robber with a gun is forcing and your bible god isnt. And also how we can be required to be both credulous and incredulous at the same time about different badly evidenced gods.

and then there is this:

3680. Comment #167667 by Remnant

Before the New Testament was available in completed form, men would ask the apostles and others for proof that the gospel was divine. To confirm the preaching, God bore witness with signs and wonders and various gifts of the Holy Spirit. Today we have the complete revelation of God's Word in the Old Testament and the need for signs and wonders in this sense have been supplanted with the confirmation of god's word in the Bible and fulfilled prophecy.

So you're saying that they found it hard to believe when these apostles were right in front of their face talking to them, so god wanted to give them evidence. But he doesn't want to give each of us evidence because some other humans compiled a set of small writings from people who lived a few thousand years ago and called it the bible, and we are just supposed to believe that what those same people said was in fact true all of a sudden.

You're still left with the issue that people back then weren't supposed to believe what the people said but we have to believe what they said now after thousands of years just because someone put it all together in a book.

The very fact that millions of people don't believe it shows that we obviously do need the evidence don't we.

What makes it so much more believable now but not then? Especialy when you consider the fact that a lot of the bible is apparently supposed to be interpreted as analogy but with no idea which bits.

249. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167642 by phatbat on April 24, 2008 at 8:29 am

3647. Comment #167576 by Remnant

Getting back to your robbery analogy, unlike the robber, God is not forcing anybody to do anything against their will. We have complete freedom to accept or reject His plan of salvation.

In that case then the robber is not forcing him either, he is free to choose to live or to die. The Robber is giving him that free choice to make, at least the Robber is letting him know he has the choice in the first place, and what is required of the victim is actualy something he has control over whether to do or not.

Once you have got over the initial issue that the robber is no worse than this god then we can move onto the next problem. Which is that the god doesn't tell each of us we have the choice in the first place (at least the robber does that). He requires us to demonstrate gullibility in order to just believe he is there even though there is no evidence of his existance and a lot of evidence against it. But, but, but it is only through NOT being gullible that we can shield ourselves from believing in other gods and generaly avoid being taken advantage of by conmen. And if we believe in the wrong god then we also go to hell. So we are required to not use the very faculty of incredulity that we have to use in order to get through life not being tricked.

Please do not confuse the 2 aspects to this point remnant. 1st point is that if your imaginary god is not forcing anyone then neither is the robber with a gun. The 2nd point is the arguement of requiring us to be both credulous and incredulous at the same time over many equaly bad god stories all of which having no evidence for them.

An please refrain from listing bible verses, they are not required to deal with this issue of reasoning.

250. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167230 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm

855. Comment #167224 by TheTruthID

How do you guys feel about Dawkins pretty much admitting to a creator in the movie, Expelled? Wasn't it great? Or do you think he got caught off guard, flustered and had a brain fart?

Any thoughts?

Why didn't it occur to respond to the points put to u before asking another question.

perhapse you could have said something like - I have read the argument which says ....... and here is why i disagree with it. But no, you have done exactly what one would expect had you never read any of the well established responses to your points or you have read them and you haven't got a response of your own.

Explain where i've gone wrong please.