201. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73635 by alovrin on September 25, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Poor Old DG

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Talk about freudian slips this is a doozie hahahahah
But anyway I'll deconstruct your paragraph for you.

If you mean that the premise of the book is that naturalism is true, then you are right that I am unwilling to accept it.

Translation: Excuse me while I put this clothes peg on my nose and tell you why you are wrong, you you...atheist. While I make it look as if I am actually engaging in debate and speaking as if I am really smart and better informed than you, and I Yam also humble and right.

Neither should I accept it. If Dawkins wants to show that the there "almost certainly" is no God he must not use as premise that "almost certainly" naturalism is true.

Translation: I dont want to really understand what Dawkins argument was because he's an athiest yuk. But this is what I know, (and god will back me up on this) he meant. So I'll just put some words in his mouth to make my case.SOO much easier.

Because naturalism means precisely that there are no supernatural powers such as God, so if Dawkins does the above he is basically writing an entire book to sell the tautology that as there is almost certainly no God, there is almost certainly no God. Which is true, but also a trivially true argument that carries no weight whatsoever.

Translation: I'll just carry on putting words in Richard Dawkins mouth 'cause Im kindoflike god, omniscient, and I can actually see what he is trying to say without actually referrring to the words. So even if he's right its of no concern to me cause god visits me everytime I close my eyes.

A theist could equally well write a book arguing that as there almost certainly is a God, there almost certainly is a God. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Translation: So back to my favorite subject me and god. Now you may think that I think that just because I believe in god then god exists, but I've seen him in his underwear and MY BOOK, coming to bookstores near you soon, will have actual pictures of god...in his smalls... actually taken by me...{Or was that.. no.. no it WAS god} so there you... you atheist.
Im right, your wrong, naananaaaanayynaaaayyy.

DG, I know you want to be taken as seriously but you are so funny in your earnestness.

202. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73374 by alovrin on September 24, 2007 at 10:18 pm

That God created the species through something as smart and beautiful as natural evolution only makes me marvel even more at God's intelligence.

OH FFSAKE

203. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73311 by alovrin on September 24, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Look at those pecs!
And that square jaw?

Hey did these guys have some leftover World of Warcraft dolls?
Is this some cynical marketing ploy to move old stock?

I didnt like the look of that "spokesperson"

204. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73307 by alovrin on September 24, 2007 at 4:56 pm

DG

Hoyle is a Nobel level scientist you know

Argument from authority. This only works if the expert is right, in this instance. In this instance he's wrong.

And again.

I am here criticizing Dawkins's TGD; not defending my own ideas.

Is this some kind of plea? Dont shoot me I'm just the piano player?
Your reading of The God Delusion seems to be coloured by the fact you think, said god exists.... somewhere. So this would seem to invalidate a lot of your criticism, as you would be unwilling to accept the premise of the book.
So all you can do is resort to nitpicking. Which just ends up pissing people off.

205. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72808 by alovrin on September 23, 2007 at 2:47 am

First he misstates Hoyle's original 747 argument, writing on page 113: "Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747." In fact Hoyle did not estimate the probability of life origination on Earth but the probability of life originating in the universe.

Boy DG do you deliberately go out of your way to missunderstand everything? Or as Dr Benway said are you just another LIAR FOR JESUS.

" Hoyle's Boeing-747 is an anti-spontaneous-origin-of-life-argument. The argument uses logic and probability. Hoyle did not publish the argument in scientific journals. "

From http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm

So the data you quote is probably not peer reviewed so it's a guess at best.
As for the rest of your ravings, I suggest everyone take Richard Morgan's advice.

206. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72210 by alovrin on September 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Dr. Haidt believes that religion has played an important role in human evolution by strengthening and extending the cohesion provided by the moral systems. "If we didn't have religious minds we would not have stepped through the transition to groupishness," he said. "We'd still be just small bands roving around."

Not sure if that is the right conclusion. Interesting hypothesis.
Couldnt a "small roving band" be considered a group?

207. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71809 by alovrin on September 19, 2007 at 5:43 pm

blah blah blah ......And the above is just one example; I can think of many other ways for God to design the species in a way that science could not possibly detect.

You just crack me up..... this is what could have happened...Not that I believe it did happen...but ....just s'ppose... but there's no way we could know..... YA know that G...O...D

(or the invisible to us second tier of the two tiered reality we are in, that is the objective reality that drips feeds morality to us, here in subjective experiential reality and dishes out consciousness from behind the curtain to us where we must be good in order to complete its divine will and so on and so on and on & on & I will use the kitchen sink if I have to to make an argument)

wasnt at work here......once upon a time... but you scientist's won't be able to find out because your methodology is wrong...
cause you exclude G...O...D.... or Objective Reality


You're a regular comedian.

208. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71543 by alovrin on September 19, 2007 at 2:23 am

I didnt vomit, but I felt sick

209. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70105 by alovrin on September 14, 2007 at 4:51 am

So DG venturing out into the crowd OK then

a clear sense of belonging to a superior group of people, and, most alarmingly of all, a self-righteous sense of fighting against some great evil which only the group perceives and which threatens civilization. From where I stand it doesn't look pretty.

Now you know how it must feel to all those atheists/heretics/blasphemers thru history as they looked on at the religious running amok.

I miss the sophistication, thoughtfulness, tolerance, and cool-headedness of the "old atheist" school of the likes of Mackie and Martin.

Are you sure this is why you get all misty eyed. Might it be that they didnt speak out of turn, didnt get uppity. Demand more than just someones say so as evidence for the existence of a supernatural being who everyone must bow down too, accept as their creator, provider of their conciousness.

Not sure you are going to like it out here your views will be vigorously challenged. Sure you wouldnt feel safer rabbiting on about QM as evidence of god in some little corner all on your own.

210. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70040 by alovrin on September 13, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Well goodness me I never

Thinking about reality is a philosophical endeavor of first order of personal importance.

Yes thinking, have brain must think. Whatever importance this reality thinking occupies in ones life, not all such cogitation is of equal or informative value to everyone uniformly. And some think sometimes a person best keep such ruminations to oneself, lest they be too dense or obscure for ready consumption, or the basis for the thoughts be faulty. But then.... who's to say...

211. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69792 by alovrin on September 12, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Oh dear Fleabie

I don't know. I remember something Jesus said about casting your pearls before swine...If you really want to know what I believe - get the book.

Sorry not putting any money your way.
And while we (humans, including you DR) may be a few chromosomes away from swine. Your words are light years away from being literary pearls. And aligning yourself with an apparently fictious hebrew character of some 2000 year vintage does nothing to improve their reading. IMESHO.

212. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69773 by alovrin on September 12, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Goldy DG and any one else,,,,
This from Colin McGinn.. another way of regarding brains
McGinn quotes from scifi writer Terry Bisson..
The whole article is here
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mcginn-flame.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?" ...
"There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals
don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat."
"Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their lifespans, which didn't take too long. Do you have any idea of the life span of meat?"
"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
"Nope, we thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."
"No brain?"
"Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!"
"So.... what does the thinking?"
"You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat."
"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?"

213. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69367 by alovrin on September 11, 2007 at 2:23 am

Sounds wild, but, as we have been discussing there are now very good reasons to believe that a photon's dynamic properties do not in fact objectively exist, so whatever it is that we are objectively measuring it's not the photon's dynamic properties but something else.

DG yells again Helloooooo... echo hellloooooo
Hang on a minute... did I stick my head up my own arse...
or someone else's.
Whats that rumbling noise?..... OH Sh******t

214. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68602 by alovrin on September 7, 2007 at 7:47 pm

I am joking of course – and I really wonder sometimes how many (or how few) readers I am still boring with my tome-length posts. And I really don't think I will be able to keep up this level of participation here. But I find it remarkable how I keep learning.

Helloooo............ echo Heeelloooooo. There must be somebody here I can hear another voice.
Says Dianelos his head stuck firmly up his arse again.
Wow it really quite interesting up here kinda dark but look at those dangly bits over there I wonder what they are., pollops,, perhaps.
Now where was I.... Oh yes convincing myself Im right. There must be a god because no one has yet proven there isnt, especially that Richard Dawkins, and well whats the point if there isnt one.
And that whole jesus forgiveness thingy is just sooo cool because only a really idealistically minded god would have a son but not tell him till it was too late and he was hanging from a cross.
Which is what one would expect of a god who only seems to live in the incredibly small other dimensions, that we cant even see, except with incredibly expensive equipment and not even then. Otherwise known as quantsomething or other.
I am so right dont you think ???? Hmmm
Heeellloooo .....echo heeelllooo Is that all you have to say. I have just proven you exist god and all you can say it heeellloooo....echo heeelllloooo.
Aw shut up..... echo Aw shuuutt uuppp.
No you shut up.....noo you etc etc.

215. 'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' Released on DVD

Comment #68338 by alovrin on September 6, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I cant remember if Philosopher Colin McGinn was interviewed by RD in Root of all Evil?
He was in Jonathan Millar's programme on Atheism.
Anyway he has a blog its interesting reading.
http://www.colinmcginnblog.com/index.php

216. The Atheist

Comment #68053 by alovrin on September 5, 2007 at 9:59 pm

I missed seeing this article, but I didnt join till 2006 thanks for bringing it back V.
Like you I am leaving I wont be missed as much as you. The next few years are going to be busy for me. Work family and securing my financial situation, thats a biggie.
Its been interesting, but I am pessimistic about a change in the Zeitgiest any time soon, despite what RD CH et al say, these things just dont go away on command. And mostly such topics as ones beliefs just dont come up for discussion in the course of everyday activity.
So my atheist activity will be limited to silently closing the door on JW door knockers as they start their speil. And binning the YOUR GOING TO HELL pamphlets that always seem to mysteriously turn up in the letter box a few days later.
Ciao

217. In God we doubt

Comment #67801 by alovrin on September 4, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Northern Bright

It comes down to basic sales skills, really - "people buy from people they like".

When it comes to beliefs this is an oversimplification. Have a listen to Carol Tavris on cognitive dissonance. Changing ones beliefs is often a painful and long process, and thats just one individual. En masse this makes for many years, probably centuries. And given the various levels of superstition around the world probably a few millenia before humanity as a whole might be able to exist without a belief that some form of supernatural agency is concerned with human development, our individual frailties and failings.
Do we have that sort of time frame? is an extinction event more likely? I dont know. So I'm with RB sort of, maybe its time to play a little rough and rude(in the nice sense of the word).
And any atheist hanky panky will get played out and reshaped at websites like this first.
But atheism cant be in the business of conversion...agreeing to disagree is always a good place to start.
my 2c's worth

218. In God we doubt

Comment #67758 by alovrin on September 4, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Steve99

The existence of God is a scientific question. The majority of people aren't scientists. I don't think debate will win the argument; I think religion will diminish with improved education, including a better understanding of science.

Hear Hear

Dr Benway

People can tolerate a LOT of cognitive dissonance. How do they do it?

For a really informative interview with Carol Tavris on cognitive dissonance ....
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=121

Also there is an interesting IV with Dr Francis Collins (Just look in the archive section). Interesting in that his naivete about such things as dissonance and mental states is on display. Which for me anyway shed light on why he become a Xtian.

219. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67215 by alovrin on September 2, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Only once we agree that reality is theistic does it make any sense to discuss whether Jesus of Nazareth was a human like any other or else enjoyed some special status.

Well if this is your basis for discussion you have just wasted all of our time. And you could have said so earlier, because in light of this all your wordage is just proselytising and nothing more - such agreement just isnt going to happen.

So any way DG last time I looked you didnt like my title suggestion for your book " too boring" I think you said and completely missed the point - hardly surprising - of my post.
You didnt even see the subtitle about finding god amongst the godless - and FU and your capitals.
Any book you get out of this will be entirely the result of the extremely high class of critic you have encountered on this website, who have countered your every idiotic assertion with considered criticism. (Not me, I just think your full of shit). You make put menial fingers to keyboard and tap out the crap ( it doesnt seem to hard for you - you must be able to do at least 140 wpm maybe 160 - 170 wpm when gods on your shoulder).
But others have done your thinking for you.
Best tell your publisher to cross the likes of me off your book buying demograph.

SOOOOO, Remember the guy who is interviewed at the head of this thread Alastair someoneorother, he's another windbag who only feels safe when his mouth is doing the talking. And has the ability quite unique amongst goddies to never, or only when it is convenient to his argument to actually listen to what the other person has said. You are the same.

God and Religion is a business and that is the end of it.

Why cant you deal with your own fear of death? Cause jebus aint gunna make it NOT happen. WOo crazy writngs there... chicka boom.
And all your mental gyrations is time down the dunny of life. And your book will be as dry and boring as your posts here.
Cause the one fact I know for sure is that laughter and relaxation, walks in the woods disappears in a world with too many gods and godyness imaginary, human or otherwise.

While I'm about it 4 weeks holiday a year is not enough. It needs to be at least 3 months.
And where have all those old nuns been hiding in the - just recently released from communism - Eastern European countries?

220. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61068 by alovrin on August 3, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Dianelos

Have you seen the Harris - Hedges debate?

Yes and I gained a completely different impression(first person data) of that question that you. Who's right me or you? Hm

Atheism is becoming tribal.

You and other theist wish!
As for Hitler, why do you go to such lengths to say he wasnt religious? The evidence is there you draw your conclusion, I'll draw mine.
You are starting to sound very arrogant.

221. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60427 by alovrin on August 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm

It's not true that all good flows from God. All good flows from good persons, even though of course, as God is such a good and powerful person, a lot of good flows from Him/Her. On the other hand what you write above kind of sounds like a different argument, which goes like this: Goodness is defined by how God is; therefore anything else that is good is good because it's similar to how God is. Which I think is a correct argument. Look around you: Everything you experience that's beautiful or true or loving is such to the degree that it reflects or approaches God's beauty or truth or love

There ya go again tacking your god onto everything (Well the good bits cause god dont do bad) Soooo unnecessary.
I just know you are wanting to put all this in a book...well your bits.. Easy way to write a book and find the flaws in your argument. Also to find ways around any objection, no matter now reasonable. Go to a website where the people arent dummies yet opposed to your basic propostion and get them to pose the problems that need to be, oh so elegantly skirted or ignored, hey presto instant book.
I even know the title you will use.

Idealistic Theism (True Christianity Resurrected)
or subtitle: How I found God at Richarddawkins.net

Im outta here...

222. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60088 by alovrin on August 1, 2007 at 1:02 am

Down under, although I cant say it with any authority, life outside of living things is a phantom.
Anyway I was rattling on about a spark that could escalate into a global conflagration. It looks like some politicians, with our best interests at heart, or is that their heads up their own self-interest might be in the process of building a luverly little fire.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/31/drumming-up-a-new-cold-war/#more-1075

223. The Out Campaign

Comment #60084 by alovrin on July 31, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Flea had a holiday dropped by to say some silly and boring things and is now jetting to Bulgaria, to pollute the minds of people who just want to get into the ECC, anywhere... anywhere... anyhow, to make some bucks. If only they knew about Flea they'll turn up in, wherever it is he lurks, and will be bitterly disappointed.
So Flea heres something for you, alas I didnt write it Robert Heinlein did, I saw it on a very good website called onegoodmove.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful. —Robert A. Heinlein

224. The Out Campaign

Comment #59858 by alovrin on July 30, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Religious people are scary no doubt, all the best to those looking for a way to declare what they think, unafraid.
I always liked the idea of using the words Heretic or Blasphemer
as a big Fuck U somehow, but thats just me.
And also in memory of those killed. I know some heretics were just followers of another god sect. But maybe if they had been allowed to live, the world would have been a different place, this recurring monomania more dilute. Probably a vain hope tho'

225. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59634 by alovrin on July 30, 2007 at 2:38 am

"The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself.

It may not be Dianelos idealistic theism but he sounds like a theist to me. And he too tailored things to meet his worldview Hmmm.

226. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59584 by alovrin on July 29, 2007 at 8:09 pm

What I am saying is that the idea of religion that Dawkins, Harris, and fundamentalists all share is grossly wrong. ......................but that all anyone of us may say or write about God may be wrong.

It may be wrong but there are an awful lot of people who believe it.
And I guess you must have to include yourself in the wrong category, Hmmm.

If Hitchens is beyond seriousness, you sirrah are laughable.

227. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59342 by alovrin on July 28, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Well, Dawkins and Harris approve such a policy, don't they?

Its so fucking annoying when you are talking about your favourite subject, your philosophy, you go to absurd lengths to painstakingly define each and every word and put it in its context and if anyone misunderstands slightly you go off again reredefining.
Yet take about your least favourite topic someone else and you get incredibly lazy use any old word that vaguely fits so you can race back to your favourite subject. There is no atheist "policy" its the wrong word. If you even bothered to look at any other thread on just this site you will find a chorus of different voices, opinions, at variance with each other. Shit we're even fighting over a fucking T-shirt. But anyway WTF. You need to read C Hitchens on Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And Hitler was NOT an atheist.

As for your woman friend and her beautiful cancer experience, so was it a miraculous cure or did, ya know, modern medicine have something to do with it. Or is how she was cured not really important? Just her overcoming her fear of death? and surrendering....Honestly I felt like puking with disgust.

As as for global conflict, well of course Saudi Arabia or Pakistan wont attack the US. Their targets are a lot closer to their borders. THINK ABOUT IT. And such local squabbles will total up to a global conflict. The treaty obligations and religious divides, which will guarantee an escalation should the right spark come along, are already in place. I just hope that spark never appears.

228. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59165 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 6:17 pm

. I think it's pretty clear that, say, President Truman's decision to drop the nuclear bomb on two Japanese cities was not caused to any significant degree by his particular religious beliefs. I am not sure that the same applies in the case of Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's crimes because communism is not only expressively atheist but aggressively anti-theist. Marx famously called religion the opium of the people, so successive communist regimes had the official policy to uproot religion, a policy that Dawkins and Harris approve of as far as I understand

Wow, do you realise you actually wrote that and posted it where people (intelligent and learned people at that) can, like, see it!

229. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #59160 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 5:03 pm

In this regard, it's disconcerting to see the two institutions that ought to have the greatest stake in ascertaining the truth -- academia and government -- often blinkered by morally tinged ideologies. One ideology is that humans are blank slates and that social problems can be handled only through government programs that especially redress the perfidy of European males. Its opposite number is that morality inheres in patriotism and Christian faith and that social problems may be handled only by government policies that punish the sins of individual evildoers. New ideas, nuanced ideas, hybrid ideas -- and sometimes dangerous ideas -- often have trouble getting a hearing against these group-bonding convictions.

I agree with this, all to often in recent times Govt policy and laws owe more to a kneejerk reaction than any discernable depth of research and collation of thoughts and ways of dealing with a problem. eg More crime=more police. Govts will put on a show of investigation( form a subcommittee) Expect people to turn up, but not bother to seek out advice or any research. Then just do what they were going to do anyway.

230. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59157 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm

OK pewkatchoo I wont prosecute you for persecuting me. Umm.
SHUGGY I thought Richard Morgan was having a go at humour, rather badly. But is he serious? He's joking right? He cant be serious.

231. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59024 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 2:26 am

Sorree pewkatshoe
from persecuted to prosecutor..

232. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58999 by alovrin on July 26, 2007 at 10:49 pm

This guy has set himself up as such an easy target. He is obviously barely literate and doesnt have a clue how to construct a decent argument. The only basis he has is some kind of dim perception of a imagined threat to something he believes as if his life depends on it. Yet I dont know how to feel towards him.
He really is a perfect example of the credulous who are exploited by the religious charlatans. Yet he is a danger to himself and others. He, and others like him, could go from feeling persecuted to a persecutor in a wink of an eye. And I blame religion again, but where will this lead?

233. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58740 by alovrin on July 26, 2007 at 2:56 am

I hope Barbara feels better after having got that diatribe out of her system.
She stuck an email address at the end, but I cant see any point in trying to engage her. Anyone else can if they want,BMG.

bkay@videotron.ca

234. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58713 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 11:50 pm

Incidentally all weapons of mass destruction have been developed by scientists who were not motivated by religious beliefs. The decision by the US to drop atomic bombs on two civilian population centers in Japan was not in any way motivated by religious beliefs either. Nor was the decision by Britain and the US to systematically firebomb German and Japanese cities motivated by religious beliefs. Nor was the decision of Germany to mass slaughter Jews in the Holocaust motivated by religious beliefs. Nor was the arms race towards the acquisition of nuclear arsenals of truly obscene destructive power motivated by religious belief. (How destructive? Both the US and Russia have weapons that in 7 millionths of a second can unleash over one point of the Earth more destructive power than all the bombs and ammunition – including the two atom bombs over Japan – used during the entire Second World War over three continents.) The world came close to nuclear annihilation at least once with the Cuban missile crisis, which again had absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs. So, religious beliefs are nowhere to be seen in all that madness, are they? Rather, to put it simply, religion has of late become the bugaboo that demagogues use to scare people into intolerance. Which is a time-tested method to switch off peoples' capacity for critical thinking; as when Bush's then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice argued before the invasion of Iraq that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Nothing more effective than a bugaboo with nuclear weapons I suppose.

And Einstein refused to take part in the development of the nuclear bomb. Shit, Dianelos you paint in such broad strokes you render everything meaningless except the narrow mealy mouthed point you wish to make.
Swathes of people back then went to church every sunday, but I suppose they cant be considered religious. JFK was a devout catholic with a weakness for tail, so I suppose he cant be considered religious. People involved in the arms race also went religiously to church but I guess they arent religious.
Condi goes to church But I suppose she aint religious either.
What are you smoking?
And if there is another global conflict it will involve nuclear weapons on a very large scale. And the first spark will be utterly pathetic like a small dirty bomb. What started WWI? The assassination of an Archduke of a crumbling empire by a Balkan nationalist. Then the train timetables took over and there was no stopping it. And a bugaboo to you. Dont you have work to do.

235. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58700 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Consider that most of our current economic system is dedicated to the increase of happiness. In praxis this often works in detriment of the happiness of the majority or of the people in one's society or of other countries, but that's inconsequential: Imagine a just and universal society that seeks to maximize the happiness of all people alive: the same frivolous consumerism and implicit neglect of the future generations we now observe would be the norm. The generalized and idolized culture of greed that characterizes modern economies both East and West is an unstable and self-defeating state of affairs which, considering the intrinsic limits or our physical environment, cannot go on for ever but must end with some major catastrophe. It's also spiritually stultifying and ultimately dehumanizing state of affairs, not to mention is the most common reason for violent conflict on all levels (that's the root reason of violent conflict Mr Dawkins and Mr Harris – not religion). It seems to me that the only long-term solution of this problem is a cultural change away from greed and towards poverty and simplicity, something that all major religions teach is a major and fundamental virtue. And I believe only religion can help society achieve this crucial transformation, for I really don't see naturalistic ethics having the sufficient conceptual and experiential force for achieving that. So, far from being religion the major danger for the survival of humanity and civilization, I think religion is absolutely indispensable for their survival. Our task then is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but to throw out the bathwater and keep the baby.

This has to be the biggest and worst load of crap I've read in a very long time.

236. Face to faith

Comment #58642 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Harris's assertions about the de facto motivations of suicide bombers is one area that comes under particular criticism by Atran for lacking empirical evidence.

I think it was Harris who pointed out that such empirical data is somewhat had to come by, for the obvious reason.

nevertheless it does seem to have become something of a focal point for this 'new atheist movement' and this all-too-easy dismissal of dissenting voices strikes me as something of an oversight.

Its a focal point because it is a good website, well designed, loads of stuff etc. If Harris's website was half as good it might have more traffic.
And dissenting voices are always heard, yes maybe some are dismissed in a cavalier fashion by some but not by all. This is a clear distinction from theist groups who will often to a man or by decree dismiss dissent. Have and still do persecute dissenting voices, although they dont burn them at the stake. I think there are theists who would still like this option.

237. Face to faith

Comment #58499 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 3:51 am

Harris's bold claims.

Which claims do you refer to?

But you are right this Atran/Harris debate is not addressed on this website. Well it isnt Sam Harris' website so I wouldnt expect it to be. You could visit SH's site it might be addressed there. But Sam's site is something of a trial to navigate, not as good as this site. I may look into it further myself, by the by.

238. Face to faith

Comment #58467 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 1:39 am

a more nuanced approach to religion on this forum

There is a large amount of stuff on this website, and there is plenty of nuance to be found. So please look around Im sure you will find what you are looking for. This article is lightweight stuff, and so was Scott Atrans critique of Sam Harris and deserves a certain amount of derision. Maybe they(writers) will go away and come back with a better argument dripping with nuance.

239. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58187 by alovrin on July 24, 2007 at 12:25 am

I love this..
"I can think of no one in the scientific world working on conciousness who would think of submitting a paper that said.
Well I introspected under the following circumstances and these are the things I found."
And...
"We have had so many cases where people are just WRONG about the results of their own introspection. Its been a hugely misleading beacon over the centuries. People cannot prevent themselves from theorising when they think they are observing and their autopsychology theories are just BAD.

240. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58181 by alovrin on July 23, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I get his point about not being afraid to ask difficult questions.
But about 60% of these questions are just plain silly, and often badly worded.
My blood pressure doesnt go up, but my eyes roll in a derisive manner.

241. PZ Myers on Blogging Heads

Comment #57943 by alovrin on July 22, 2007 at 2:27 pm

It is always surprising to see people, who are very clear and incisive in print, such as RD,DD,SH and PZ, they are such softies. It's neat.
The I/Ver tends to the verbose, maybe he should have prepared his questions beforehand. But well done for getting this together.

242. Face to faith

Comment #57867 by alovrin on July 21, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Might I refer Bonzai and dvespertilio to the William Lobdell article. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1442,Religion-beat-became-a-test-of-faith,William-Lobdell-LA-Times

243. Face to faith

Comment #57735 by alovrin on July 20, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Christ's what's he whining about, I spent 20 yrs and $327.71 getting a degree in Fairyology. Then that bloody Richard Dawkins comes along and lumps fairies in with that meglomaniac bastard god, and my career is kaput.
Luckily I found this online degree in free energy technology and they are offering a discount, so Im going to be a scientist. Wo hey.

244. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57723 by alovrin on July 20, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Apologies to Douglas Adams and fans in advance for this story.

Once upon a time a little boy called Dianelos woke up with an interesting theory in his head and the name fell instantly to his lips.
"I will call it Idealistic Theism" he bravely announced to no one in particular, and I will go out into the world to test it.
'This is an interesting theory I find myself in Dianelos mused as he roved looking for somewhere to test his theory - an interesting theory indeed -it fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
This is such a powerful idea it held Dianelos in its sway completely enthralled, beguiled, hypnotised etc etc...

By and by he came across Richarddawkins.netland where one of his heroes was being torn to shreds in a small corner of Richarddawkins.netland by the motley crew assembled there.

Dianelos strode into the fracas, but his motley adversaries were more than a match for him and as the dialogue progressed he lost many metaphorical limbs. In fact more limbs than he actually possessed, as his arguments were countered time and time and time again. He ducked and dodged, weaved and pirouetted, the air became heated and gradually, the idealistic theism that so suited him grew smaller and smaller.
He still frantically hung on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this idealistic theism was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he is disembodied catches him rather by surprise.
And still he struggles on.
"Come back you cowards, I've still got my lips and a keyboard just like Steven Hawking. I can still be incredible verbose, I mean articulate, my idealistic theism is a fine theory, prove it isnt!"
What is left of the crowd tiredly says "They have already" and wanders off.
The End.

245. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57578 by alovrin on July 20, 2007 at 1:33 am

Because we are built in the image of God, and God is what's objectively good in reality.

!sigh!

246. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57346 by alovrin on July 19, 2007 at 2:01 am

Indeed I am a great believer in the power of the example.

Which prompts the query What example do you consider you are setting? Obviously you see your example as exemplary in some way. Is that where it stops?
What if someone else considers you as a setting a bad example?
Is the first person data(you) given more credence than the second or even third, fourth, of fifth party as to the value of your example?
You have concocted this idealistic theism and attempt to live by it, so it helps you, but this philosophy will most likely die with you. So it will have no lasting effect unless you bottle it (in a manner of speaking and sell it). It seems a lot of trouble to go to when the rewards are dubious at best, and probably non existent except to you in your afterlife. And, well from my point of view, so what!
I need a beer.

247. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57337 by alovrin on July 19, 2007 at 1:14 am

Poor Tyrone just cant shut up. Next it will be the anti anti evangelising.
Me, Im glad to see spokepeople for unbelief in the public forum who dont need to fear being burned at the stake for expressing their opinion.
I wonder if this was a page filler for some mag or website. But its just another poorly considered opinion piece.
Maybe Tyrone will get over himself eventually

248. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56945 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Which reminds me of the tale of the tailless fox who wished all foxes were tailless

Which reminds me of the tale of the six blind men each touching a different part of an elephant, thinking they had a grasp of the whole thing. Funny tho' the sex of the elephant is never mentioned, or if one of the blind men was grasping its unsheathed member.
I feel a bevvie coming on.

249. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56932 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 9:55 pm

I like that she says, criticism of policy influenced by religious belief, (in reference to Islam) is fair.
And it shows just how happy she is to be living in the US.

250. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56901 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Yes, well done the good beverage loving Doctor.
A contribution to the ongoing reading/listening list perhaps?
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=115