201. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7342 by Steven on November 18, 2006 at 9:26 am

I don't believe that a god exists.

I agree with Sam Harris when he says that he doesn't see why he has to label himself atheist. I don't call myself an afairyist or aghostist or apsychist because I don't believe in fairies, ghosts and psychics.

202. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #6106 by Steven on November 12, 2006 at 4:42 pm

This disgusts me.

203. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6062 by Steven on November 12, 2006 at 11:34 am

"And of course you have stated that you do not discuss with 'fundamentalists' or those who would be stupid enough to disagree with you."

This isn't true. He doesn't debate with Intelligent Design believers or Creationists because he feels there is no scientific debate. The same way you wouldn't debate gravity with someone who doesn't believe it. He has throughout his tour discussed his book with people on radio who have had guessed who didn't agree with him. He talks questions from people at his readings and they aren't all atheists.

He doesn't say people who believe in the supernatural or god etc as unintelligent or stupid. He just think they are ignorant of the truth. The truth of evolution. The truth of the massive improbability of god.

Saying god did it is not an explanation for anything. It is a cop out, cowardly and insufficient.

204. Atheists top book charts by deconstructing God

Comment #3515 by Steven on October 29, 2006 at 6:36 pm

Informed me a few books to look out for next year :-D

205. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2809 by Steven on October 23, 2006 at 6:04 pm

Tim Slager NO!.

Just No.

206. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2523 by Steven on October 21, 2006 at 4:54 pm

this makes 142 responses to this article alone. Fantastic guys.

207. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1419 by SteveN on October 12, 2006 at 10:28 am

Sorry! I use the same name on the EvC forum so just kept it for continuity. Actually, Zaphod is a far superior name anyway - wish I'd thought of it myself. Hmmm, anyone named Slartibartfast yet, I wonder?

208. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1413 by Steven on October 12, 2006 at 9:00 am

We have free will as much as possible. I have the free will not to eat when I am hungry but eventually I will have to eat to survive.

209. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1391 by SteveN on October 12, 2006 at 12:06 am

(First of all, to avoid confusion I would like to point out that I am registered in the RDF forum as 'SteveN' and am not the 'Steven' who has already posted in this thread. Maybe I should have chosen a more unique nickname.)

Having listed to the 'debate' on the way to work this morning, I must say that I found it astonishing that someone as obviously intelligent and eloquent as Quinn can be so deluded as to make the so-called arguements he did. The guy seems to be truly incapable of rational thought. My irony meter almost exploded when he accused Richard of setting up a strawman view of religion and then proceeded to rehash common strawman arguments concerning Richards point of view. The classic (to paraphrase) 'you think that we are slaves to our genes and have no free will' is diametrically opposite to Richard's view as clearly stated in the closing paragraph of 'The Selfish Gene'.....

"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

This is clearly yet another case of a critic basing his arguments on the title and not the contents of a book.

He clearly didn't grasp the obvious difference between a person with a particular belief doing evil and a person doing evil because of their belief. The morality question and the origin question were all dealt with in 'The God Delusion' and yet Quinn presented them as some killer argument that Richard hadn't yet thought of. I really doubt that he had actually read the book.

As others have pointed out, Richard is sometimes too polite for his (our) own good, a trait I adimire but which is a clear disadvantage in an uncontrolled debate setting. I annoys me that Richard is generally believed, particularly in the USA, to be an arrogant and dogmatic person. I have read all of his books and most of his articles, listened or watched many of his interviews, heard him talk publicly and have spoken to him personally. I am unaware of any incident that could objectively be interpreted as 'arrogance'. Indeed, his talks are littered with phrases such as "better scientists than I have shown...." or "I am not expert enough to address this.." etc. In this interview he allowed himself to be constantly interrupted by a rude, ignorant and arrogant opponent and I think Tubridy should have controlled the situation better.

There may be a silver lining however. Moderate theists with an open mind and closet atheists may have seen what a fool Quinn made of himself compared to Richard and be inspired to read the book.

210. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1390 by SteveN on October 12, 2006 at 12:05 am

(First of all, to avoid confusion I would like to point out that I am registered in the RDF forum as 'SteveN' and am not the 'Steven' who has already posted in this thread. Maybe I should have chosen a more unique nickname.)

Having listed to the 'debate' on the way to work this morning, I must say that I found it astonishing that someone as obviously intelligent and eloquent as Quinn can be so deluded as to make the so-called arguements he did. The guy seems to be truly incapable of rational thought. My irony meter almost exploded when he accused Richard of setting up a strawman view of religion and then proceeded to rehash common strawman arguments concerning Richards point of view. The classic (to paraphrase) 'you think that we are slaves to our genes and have no free will' is diametrically opposite to Richard's view as clearly stated in the closing paragraph of 'The Selfish Gene'.....

"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

This is clearly yet another case of a critic basing his arguments on the title and not the contents of a book.

He clearly didn't grasp the obvious difference between a person with a particular belief doing evil and a person doing evil because of their belief. The morality question and the origin question were all dealt with in 'The God Delusion' and yet Quinn presented them as some killer argument that Richard hadn't yet thought of. I really doubt that he had actually read the book.

As others have pointed out, Richard is sometimes too polite for his (our) own good, a trait I adimire but which is a clear disadvantage in an uncontrolled debate setting. I annoys me that Richard is generally believed, particularly in the USA, to be an arrogant and dogmatic person. I have read all of his books and most of his articles, listened or watched many of his interviews, heard him talk publicly and have spoken to him personally. I am unaware of any incident that could objectively be interpreted as 'arrogance'. Indeed, his talks are littered with phrases such as "better scientists than I have shown...." or "I am not expert enough to address this.." etc. In this interview he allowed himself to be constantly interrupted by a rude, ignorant and arrogant opponent and I think Tubridy should have controlled the situation better.

There may be a silver lining however. Moderate theists with an open mind and closet atheists may have seen what a fool Quinn made of himself compared to Richard and be inspired to read the book.

211. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1355 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 3:28 pm

Geoff wrote "You can't have moral laws without a law giver."

They don't have to come from a god. You can get your morals from your parents, teachers, people you look up to.

212. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1308 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 9:27 am

Hi Josh,

I love Brian Greenes stuff aswell. I am not 100% sure that string theory is the theory of the future but I like the implications of it. I have brian greens stuff on my hard drive and have his books Fabric of the cosmos and the elegant universe. Great books.

- Steven

213. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1261 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 4:01 am

Nice rebuttal to the review Michael. I agree with what you have written.

214. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1258 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 3:55 am

Although I disagree with Albert Mohler's opinion on the book I still would like to thank him for writing a good review. He didn't go out of his way to be over zealous in his views which alot of religious people may do in reviewing this book.

215. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1257 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 3:53 am

from the article "A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing."

He isn't certain that it is passing away. He feels in this day and age religion shouldn't be an issue but with so many people around the world still believing in it and fundamentalism on the increase in the middle east and america Dawkins feels he has to stand up for basic human dignity. I like Dawkins will not strap a bomb to my chest or send anthrax in the post because of my Atheistic beliefs (more of a non belief).

216. Richard Dawkins with Jeremy Vine

Comment #1243 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 9:11 pm

That link works for me. I just opened it with Real Player and it worked vine.

217. Richard Dawkins with Jeremy Vine

Comment #1239 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 8:16 pm

I did the same. Just used Firefox to find the location of the actual file and used real player to play it. That allowed me to fast forward.

218. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1237 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 8:08 pm

The very existence of matter proves god, what nonsense. What a total idiot David Quinn is. So if you don't understand something then it must be god. How cowardly. Given this you may aswell never know anything and just be content with saying its god. David Quinn is just a loud mouth moron. All he did was try and talk over Richard Dawkins when Richard was in mid sentence and wasn't allowing Richard to finish his sentences. I hate when people try to talk louder to prove their point. The host seemed a reasonable man but I feel he didn't restrain the mouth of Quinn enough. He has faith that god exists. No evidence exists for this, non at all. Just assumptions that he makes, like matters origin. He has no evidence for god just a lack of evidence for where matter came from. How is that proof?

Faith is believing without evidence.

The origin of the universe is perhaps the biggest question we have. Humans have a concept of time because of this we like to know when something starts and ends etc. We think the universe began approximately 13.6 billion years ago at the big bang but we don't know what caused this or why. If a why exists. The answer could be fundamentally more complex and reality warping than we can perceive at our current technological level and also the level of intelligence we currently have. We are limited by our technology and our capacity for learning. Perhaps human evolution has to increase much further before we will be able to get our heads around an idea that works as well as evolution works for life on earth.

Quantum Mechanics for example is facinating and confusing all at the same time. This is something that we can semi understand. Imagine that the origin of the big bang was 10000X more complex and strange than quantum mechanics. At current we may not be able to understand it scientifically and mathematically but most of all because it could differ from our reality to such an extreme.

Trying to think of 10 dimensional space for example is a mind boggling concept because we live in 3 dimensions (not including time).

219. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1224 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 5:51 pm

I have to say I am a great fan of Richard Dawkins. His books, opinions and attitude I totally agree with.

I feel that in writting his book and doing all these interviews he is being quite brave. I also feel that he must have magnificent patience. I say this because in a few interviews I have seen him doing people always phone in or e-mail with questions about chance and evolution. He always says evolution isn't chance and people who say this just don't understand evolution and show perhaps read about it from legitimate sources and not from creationist/intelligent design dogma. How annoyed must he be that people just don't get it. Read about evolution and don't misquote or misinterpret it.

I find it hard for anyone to beat him in a debate on this. If the debate is held rationally he can't possibly lose.

220. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #1051 by Steven on October 9, 2006 at 6:28 am

Comment #1035 by Jeff on October 9, 2006 at 2:40 am

Sinners lol. You actually believe in sin? If you went by the strictness of the bible even most religious people sin on a daily basis. If you can sin, then confess and be forgiven wtf is the point in confessing. Since your so called god already knows what you did.

lol

utter ridiculous

221. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #877 by Steven on October 7, 2006 at 8:00 am

Well said Laura :-D.

222. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #761 by Steven on October 6, 2006 at 6:30 pm

Mr Anonymous it is clear that if we provided evidence that god doesn't exist which is clearly beyond us but if we did do it you would still refute it. You are so sted fast and entrenched in your beliefs that no amount of debate, evidence or rationality will convince you otherwise. I pity you in this. When you die and don't go to heaven you won't know you where wrong because you are dead. So if it makes your happier to believe in something totally irrational so you can get by your day with some kind of coherence then you are welcome to it. I however prefer to know the truth and live my life like it isn't a rehersal. I would rather know the truth and be unhappy (which I'm not) than be blissfully ignorant and happy.

223. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #752 by Steven on October 6, 2006 at 4:50 pm

Jay you talk common sense and you talk straight.

Thank you for your opinion

224. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #751 by Steven on October 6, 2006 at 4:48 pm

Uh, How about the invasions of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, 1940? C'mon crack open a history book. How about Tibet? How about South Vietnam? South Korea? Laos? India?

Not because of atheism. Not because someone said I don't believe in god and you do therefore I will invade you.

You seriously talk of atheist programming when the title above is Surviving jesus camp lol.

Ok free will. We choose to do what we want yes. What about a Tsunami or volcanic eruption. The Asian Tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people. Who's free will was this?

Show me proof all those dictators you mention where atheists. Links to articles, references in books? Not just you spouting a few countries and 1940. Tell me to read that records these events and proves the truth of what you say and I will.

Al-Quaeda, Taliban just 2 of many religious terrorist organisations. What organisation thats dictum is atheism and that they do terrorist acts in the name of atheism?


The fact that I am an atheist is because of a lack of brain washing and programming that happens in some religious sects. I never had god thrusted down my throat as a child and made my own mind up.

That is free will.

How much free will can I person have if they have been bombarded with religious indoctrination since they could understand language.

If god gave us free will as you think, if god is all knowing as you think, if god is all powerful as you think. Then god knew giving us free will would turn out that we would kill each other through prejudice and intollerance. Since he knew this was going to happen and doesn't stop it with his omnipotence then that was a pretty dumb thing to give us and he is quite immoral not to do something about it.

225. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #747 by Steven on October 6, 2006 at 3:49 pm

Sorry I posted that twice. Accident. Some kind of error in the posting.

226. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #746 by Steven on October 6, 2006 at 3:48 pm

In reply to "Comment #686 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 8:19 am "


Slobodan Milosevic — a Serb — found in religion just the tool he needed. Milosevic used religion to mobilize Serb resentments against the non-Slavic majority in Kosovo and any of the Yugoslav republics that tried to escape Serbian control. He could identify Serbian with Orthodox as a way to inflame hostility to all that was not Orthodox — particularly Muslims, whom he associated with the conquering Turks who had humiliated Serbia centuries back. This also worked well against Catholics, who themselves responded in the same spirit. Thus the genocidal series of wars was launched.


After doing some limited research on pol pot on a few websites I never found the word atheist mentioned. He supported extremem Chauvinism which is a kind of insane national pride extreme.

Mao was a Chinese Marxist communist and because of his belief in this he did all the things he did. I never found in word atheist or atheism in any of the articles about him online.

Found no atheism references for Ho Chi Minh eithier.

I think Stalin and Lenin may have swayed toward atheism but this was not what drove them. It was their political views. Marxism, communism.

George W Bush - Christian
Osama Bin Laden - Islam
Hitler - Christian
Idi Amin - Islam

I could name many more religious people that have done things against another religion. Put individuals aside for a moment.

Athiests and Religious people alike will both have bad apples. People do terrible things.

By far more people have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of atheism (which isn't a religion, a-theism, against theism, as in not believing in religion or a god)

Most of the people you mentioned if they had been atheist did what they did for their politcal ideals or just in search of power and domination.

As for saying athiests have killed billions that is just nuts. Talk about a major factual error and just a huge exaggeration. If I had said religion has killed billions it to would be exaggeration. Its more in the millions.

Tell me an athiest regime or athiest government that has attacked a religious one. There must be one. Please tell me.

As I have said before I don't hate every religious person. I have friends who beleive in god. I have problems with fundamentalists who attack sky scrapers with planes or said anthrax is the mail. I have a problem with people trying to teach creationism as a science (seriously cmon). I hate people attack evolution in the name of their religion because they feel it is a threat to them.

The proof for evolution against the proof for a god is so swayed in favour of evolution it should be an issue. I speak my mind because somehow it is.

Allah, Yawweh, Zeus, Amon-Ra, Baal, Odin, Loki, Ganesh.

Many gods

What makes you so sure that you have the right one. What makes you so sure that any are right. Just because you believe. Islam believes they are right also and I firmly believe that non of you are. You both have an old book changed and translated so many times that it seems incomprehensible that you can possibly take it literally.

Finally i will say this Religion is scary. Some believe in it so much they are willing to KILL for it. I am only willing to kill to defend myself or perhaps another iregardless of faith or belief or athiesm.

Your irrational views boggle the mind. I am sometimes baffled that any adult of average intelligence thinks it is true.

Yours not faithfully
but rationally
Steven

227. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #745 by Steven on October 6, 2006 at 3:47 pm

In reply to "Comment #686 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 8:19 am "


Slobodan Milosevic — a Serb — found in religion just the tool he needed. Milosevic used religion to mobilize Serb resentments against the non-Slavic majority in Kosovo and any of the Yugoslav republics that tried to escape Serbian control. He could identify Serbian with Orthodox as a way to inflame hostility to all that was not Orthodox — particularly Muslims, whom he associated with the conquering Turks who had humiliated Serbia centuries back. This also worked well against Catholics, who themselves responded in the same spirit. Thus the genocidal series of wars was launched.


After doing some limited research on pol pot on a few websites I never found the word atheist mentioned. He supported extremem Chauvinism which is a kind of insane national pride extreme.

Mao was a Chinese Marxist communist and because of his belief in this he did all the things he did. I never found in word atheist or atheism in any of the articles about him online.

Found no atheism references for Ho Chi Minh eithier.

I think Stalin and Lenin may have swayed toward atheism but this was not what drove them. It was their political views. Marxism, communism.

George W Bush - Christian
Osama Bin Laden - Islam
Hitler - Christian
Idi Amin - Islam

I could name many more religious people that have done things against another religion. Put individuals aside for a moment.

Athiests and Religious people alike will both have bad apples. People do terrible things.

By far more people have been killed in the name of religion than in the name of atheism (which isn't a religion, a-theism, against theism, as in not believing in religion or a god)

Most of the people you mentioned if they had been atheist did what they did for their politcal ideals or just in search of power and domination.

As for saying athiests have killed billions that is just nuts. Talk about a major factual error and just a huge exaggeration. If I had said religion has killed billions it to would be exaggeration. Its more in the millions.

Tell me an athiest regime or athiest government that has attacked a religious one. There must be one. Please tell me.

As I have said before I don't hate every religious person. I have friends who beleive in god. I have problems with fundamentalists who attack sky scrapers with planes or send anthrax is the mail. I have a problem with people trying to teach creationism as a science (seriously cmon). I hate people attacking evolution in the name of their religion because they feel it is a threat to them.

The proof for evolution against the proof for a god is so swayed in favour of evolution it should not be an issue. I speak my mind because somehow it is.

Allah, Yawweh, Zeus, Amon-Ra, Baal, Odin, Loki, Ganesh.

Many gods

What makes you so sure that you have the right one. What makes you so sure that any are right. Just because you believe. Islam believes they are right also and I firmly believe that non of you are. You both have an old book changed and translated so many times that it seems incomprehensible that you can possibly take it literally.

Finally i will say this, religion is scary. Some believe in it so much they are willing to KILL for it. I am only willing to kill to defend myself or perhaps another iregardless of faith or belief or athiesm.

Your irrational views boggle the mind. I am sometimes baffled that any adult of average intelligence thinks it is true.

Yours not faithfully
but rationally
Steven

228. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #672 by Steven on October 5, 2006 at 7:40 pm

Atheism is not a religion. I don't have a religion. If I did it would be rational thinking and perhaps science.

As for comment #658 when he said

"What you would have liked to write was "OUTLAWED" instead of outgrown."

You can't argue against what I actually wrote so you have the arrogance and effrontery to tell me what I actually meant. No sir. No. You just put words in my mouth and you are wrong.

What I wrote on this forum is my opinion. In the UK where I live we still have free speech even if it offends someone. I am sorry if anyone is hurt by anything I say but I am not sorry for saying it only sorry that they feel hurt.

If you can defend your religion with evidence please do so and I will listen.

Comment #658 also says
"Explain to me why does atheism, if it is just oh so benevolent like you pretend, has to constantly attack all theist beliefs? "

When did I say atheism is oh so benevolent? As for attacking theist beliefs I feel I have to voice my opinion because I feel these beliefs can cause people to do terrible things. I am not saying that all religious people are bad that would be nonsense I am just saying that a large population of the world believe in a god and are willing to die for him. Worse they are willing to kill for him.

I am an opinionated atheist and do feel strongly about this subject. However you will never see me strapping a bomb to my chest and killing innocent children because they have a different belief, opinion or thought.

229. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #656 by Steven on October 5, 2006 at 5:11 pm

"Dawkins, you atheist piece of trash. You will twist any truth into athesit propaganda. I am sure this is another distortion of the truth to satisfy your atheist agenda. You may think you are nothing more than just future wormfood but I have life everlasting thanks to the saving grace of Jesus Christ! "

Posted be franklin above.

I have nothing to say to this obviously hurt christian accept that perhaps he should try prozac. Stop the serotonin uptake now. Feel happier.

230. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #655 by Steven on October 5, 2006 at 5:07 pm

Terry I read your post and tried to understand your incoherent dribble.

Christians think they are right and people of the Islamic faith think they are right (both relgions came from the same source btw).

Atheists don't believe in any of this. We believe that this life is not a rehersal and are frankly offended by the accusation that you should be good just to get into heaven. I am an atheist and I choose to be good, not for an award from high above.

I rate the christian and islamic faith on the same level with the romans, greeks and norse religions. I don't believe zeus will hit me with a bolt of lightning anymore than I believe I will go to Valhalla or that prometheus gave fire to me.

The one god of Islam and Christianity is nothing more than a fairy tale to me. Less interesting that "The Lord of the Rings" By Tolkein or "Magician" By Raymond E. Feist. Also not as fun as Harry Potter.

Religion is an archaic concept that we should have outgrown long ago.

231. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #629 by Steven on October 5, 2006 at 5:49 am

How could would it be if comment 33/628 actually was Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report.