2501. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157027 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Wow...

Lights out tonight, trouble in the heartland.
Got a head-on collision, smashin in my guts man.
Im caught in a crossfire that I dont understand.

--Bruce Springsteen aka The Boss

2502. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156968 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Rev.

I can't say I am too impressed with his claim to be leaving with no intention of returning. I have seen that claim made too often; and it is so very rarely honoured.

Maybe he wil be back with a different handle. Maybe he is already here..

I think this is a bit much (From RM's post on Robertson's site)

Well, here is the naughtiest confession of all: whenever I saw one of your long posts on the Fleabytes thread, answering Paula Kirby's "Review" of your book, I gleefully printed it out and went into the kitchen to (guiltily) read it with my coffee and ciggies. (The way some people will read News of the World when they think nobody is looking!)

OK, he might have experienced what Saul claimed he did on the way to Damasca, or as he said he was pissed off because of the Russian cult leader thread. But is this arse kissing to Robertson necessary? Richard is going to have swollen, smelly lips.

Well in the new round of promotions for "Dawkins' letter" you will probably find RM being quoted, not just some anonymous "atheist from RD.net".

2503. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156896 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 11:23 am

I think Al is right, it is the wrong reason to find a partner out of neediness.

I like the attitude that "if you like where I am going, hop on for a ride, but I am not gona change my destination because of my passengers. If you want to get off the next stop where the scene catches your fancy, that's cool too, Someone else may want to hop on.."

I was not a lone child, but I have been used to being a loner and like self imposed exiles from time to time. Whenever I am in a group you can always count on me to express a contrarian opinion (I am sure some here would notice that :)) So, I have always been sort of an outsider looking in and I like it that way.

I was meeting this friend I knew since highschool. He is a few years older than me but all successful.He is in a long time (15 years?) common law relationship with this really ugly woman who looks like twenty years his senior and she is boring too. He went on and on about how he is "getting old" (he is not even 40) and advised me that I should stop my carefree life style and find someone to settle down, get a 9-5 job and buy a house so that I won't be getting old alone.

The funny thing is he has been talking like that ever since I knew him, that was like 15 years ago. Mentally speaking he was older then than I am now.

He is only interested in making money, reading only work related books.She is the same way, and probably religious to boot. And yeah, they both seem to put on a lot of weight since they were together.

When I look at him I feel sad in a Chekhovian way, though he is probably happy to be assured that he is not alone.

2504. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156845 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 10:14 am

So steve, A or B?

2505. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156838 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 10:08 am

Al,

I know Duff man would choose A.

Podaar,

I understand where you are coming from I would probably choose B myself if I were married.

But why does "trust" have to involve revealing yourself like an open book? I am afraid I can't quite get that.

I think even people in relationships should retain their individuality, their self hood, and yes, even their secretes if they so choose to .

Individuality makes a person interesting (which has nothing to do with look or sex, btw Edit An "interesting" person can be very sexy and attractive, at least to me, even though he may be "ugly" by conventional standard.)

I am told that there are cat people and dog people. Those who like dogs value traits like loyalty and emotional bonding while the cat people like mystery and value independence. I think I am too much of a cat person.

2506. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156823 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 9:53 am

Steve,

Sorry mate, but it seems very shallow to me

I know. I am a shallow person.

But then I think it does mean something to say, "I want to get disgusting and gross with you!" So I will choose a disgusting you over everything else.

I am shallow in that I intend it as a mockery, but the marriage proposal itself is not.

When it works it is about a deep loving friendship that is far more valuable than romantic love or lust

C'mon now.

If it is just about a deep friendship why do you need to be exclusive and monogamous? Why do you need commitment? Why can't you have more than one best friends?

Let me ask all of you this question.

Would you feel more hurt and betrayed if you find your partner A) having sex with someone else but with no emotional attachment or B) having an intimate but Platonic friendship with someone else with whom your partner will divulge even things that he/she wouldn't tell you? For example, she may be heterosexual (so you are a male) but she has a very close girl friend.

Or do you not care either way?

Please explain why.

2507. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156811 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 9:33 am

Quetzalcoatl,

Wow, maybe Richard Morgan is here because he is going through his mother Theresa moments.

2508. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156808 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 9:27 am

Hey here is a great romantic marriage proposal that I came up with when I was high (which I am naturally if I don't sleep for 24-48 hours)

Imagine you and your beloved in a romantic setting, like say, Niagara falls or the all you can eat buffet. Then you look deeply into his/her eyes and say,"Honey.. let's get ugly and gross together, so we will be so unattractive to others that we'll be stuck for the rest of our lives. I want to be ugly and gross with you, and you only.."

What da ya think? Clever?

2509. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156798 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 9:18 am

irate

It is a public statement of committment to someoene else.

I know.

In my mind it is like criminals in the old days being publicly paraded with their balls and chains and a big sign hanging on the neck "Will be in jail for life!".

Except people do this voluntarily.

I know I am very disturbed..

2510. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156793 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 9:07 am

AL

once you are locked in, they revoke the supply and use it as a bargaining tool.

Is that your first hand experience? :)

I wonder how that economical aspect figures in same sex marriage. If it doesn't exist is there still a point in getting married?

Of course nowadays women probably don't need marriage as a collective bargain tool. So I don't understand why do heteros who don't intend to have children want marriage in the first place, let alone gays who want to have a part of the action.

Steve,

I can have all the cakes and vacations by myself or with friends if I have the $. I don't much like sweet actually, so I'll pass the cake.

2511. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156784 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 8:53 am

AL

No one has figured out that "marriage" is a sinister plot by women.

I think anyone who reads Schopenhauer's rants on women should take them with a grain of salt.

Having said that I do have a theory of the economics of sex, Marriage is like some kind of collective bargain which in the old days primarily protected women because of their general unequal status. It explains why prostitution is frowned upon by "proper" women because sex workers are like "scabs" who flood the market with cheap labour, thus threatening the wages of those who are unionized.

2512. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156774 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 8:43 am

Yeah whenever I see newly weds with their funny wedding costumes and driving down the street in their cars full of flowers and what not, I think to myself, so you two are going to have sex tonight because you have just gotten a license. But is it necessary to announce it to the whole world? I had that thought ever since I was, well maybe 13 or 14. I may be crazy and cynical.

EDIT

"Love" makes my skin claw.Too corny and too much connotation of dependency. I like being free and independent. Have broken up with several guys who want live in. NO WAY.

2513. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156768 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 8:37 am

Philip

That's all very well young man but tell me this, in a gay marriage who gets to be the bride and who gets to be the groom? :) <\mock serious tone>

Personally I like to be the bride ^^)

I completely agree with you, marriage is marriage as far as I'm concerned and equal rights for everyone who does. Call it Civil (or if you are both that naughty, Uncivil!) Partnership or Marriage - a declaration of love should not be dictated to in the slightest, damn any one's trousers if they don't like it!

I am for equal rights and choice, though I often can't understand why some people make theirs. I never understand why gay men and lesbians want to get married in the first place. I support rights to same sex marriage because of equality, on the other hand I think it is a silly idea to copy heterosexual institutions. I always find it odd at weddings, gay or straight.

2514. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156761 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 8:28 am

I find the Puritans of "rationality" to be just as irritable as puritans of other stripes. The thing that units them all is a profound mistrust of people's judgments.

2515. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156756 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 8:25 am

"Reality" is sometimes over rated. There are times I would like to get stoned. You can take your "reality" and shove it.

2516. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156754 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 8:21 am

But the brain washing will surely only cause confusion at a later date when he realises that the dinosaurs are older than the earth as he's be led to believe.

I guess Flint Stone should come with a warning :" All events in this animation are purely fictional, and do not represent true historical events as supported by empirical evidence. Viewing this program may cause permanent damage to young minds and parental guidance is advised.

Message brought to you by the ministry of rationality."

2517. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156738 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 8:08 am

A seven year old may not be able to understand quantum mechanics

Who does?

ut they can learn how a simple electrical circuit with a battery an a bulb works and that electron's 'flow' around the closed circuit and their energy is used to light (and heat) the bulb.

Sorry to nitpick, but that is a lie, though a useful one for electricians, for example, who need some kind of mental picture to summarize information for their purposes. If electron indeed "flows" through a wire as a stream of particle then all its energy will be lost due to collision with the lattice of the wire pretty soon, in other words, the resistance of the wire would be infinite and no current can pass through without an infinite potential difference at both ends.

Do mythologies in general serve the same purpose provided that you don't insist on understanding them literally?

2518. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156659 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 5:45 am

How come one accidental flagging is enough to send Philip to the alternate universe but I have trolled "wooter" aka "clearmind" many times without any effect?

2519. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156404 by Bonzai on April 7, 2008 at 1:14 pm

So I will remove mine.

2520. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156390 by Bonzai on April 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Dr. Benway,

If stranded on a desert isle,..

A sock puppet would come in handy when you're all alone. :)

Back to the main theme of this site. God is a sock puppet for people who claim to speak for him. So in a way RM was showing us the true meaning of being a "Prophet" or "Apostle".

P.S. How did you know that whoever was RM's alter ego? I wouldn't have guessed.

2521. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156058 by Bonzai on April 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Hey, not everyone here is straight.

Well, you don't need to be straight to find some people of the opposite sex very hot. In the same way it is possible that a straight person may think that someone of the same gender is very attractive. My friend is straight (or so he says) but every now and then he would say so and so (male) is really hot. I think he means to say he can imagine a girl would find so and so very sexy.

I know that was meant to be humour, I am not trying to start an argument. :)

2522. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156048 by Bonzai on April 6, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I did the same thing as Steve.

2523. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156039 by Bonzai on April 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I just put an end italics code. You said you have tried it, I don't know why it didn't work.

2524. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156035 by Bonzai on April 6, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Italics killed.

2525. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155985 by Bonzai on April 6, 2008 at 1:08 pm

I am just trying to liven up the discussion when the topic is so grim. I know the physics is safe.

2526. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155980 by Bonzai on April 6, 2008 at 1:03 pm

So is it morally superior if you choose the "rational" way of massacre by shooting a missile from afar instead of blowing up yourself in the process? I think it is off the mark to fixate on the means to kill. The issue is how one picks his target, Men in uniform shooting into civilians are not in any way morally superior to suicide bombers who blow themselves up among them.

2527. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155968 by Bonzai on April 6, 2008 at 12:51 pm

My roommate told me he saw something on the internet which claims that there is a chance that scientists may accidentally create a black hole with their new super collider and bring an end to us all, and probably the solar system as well. If that happens at least we can say we go out with a (big) bang literally.. Imagine we meet our demise not because of WWIII, climate change or a gigantic meteorite but a black hole that we create. Science will have the last word, literally..Way to go.

2528. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155722 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 11:30 am

The Pascal wager argument is so stupid that I can't believe there are people who actually take it seriously.

If God cannot look into people's hearts and he rewards them just for making the right bet without any sincerity, he is an idiot of a God and doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

If he can look in people's hearts but still rewards the opportunists who made the right bet while punish the sincere unbelievers, he is an arsehole and a bully, also doesn't deserve to be worshiped.

Next time when a believer brings up the Pascal wager remember to ask him whether he worships an idiot or arsehole.

2529. Fleabytes

Comment #155696 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 9:22 am

Not sure what I would use. I recently received a Periodic Table mug as a birthday present. I guess that could represent rationality. Perhaps if I waved "The Extended Phenotype" at them as well...

Or you can strangle them with a Mobius strip and smash them over the head with a Klein bottle.

EDIT Even better you can invite them for tea along with missionaries from the Mormons, a few Born Again Christians and some militant Muslims and just watch them fight...

2530. Beware the Believers

Comment #155649 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 6:31 am

Yeah I too notice there is a hint of passive aggressiveness about Kard behind the seemingly reasonable facade..

2531. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155638 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 6:02 am

Darwin Award Honourable Mention...

Hmm..Does not qualify I am afraid. You have to kill yourself , or more happily, sterilize yourself accidentally to be nominated.

2532. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155634 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 5:54 am

Carto

I think the dissent on this thread over humour stems from a fairly simple division between the participants - a division between those who feel that laughing at the misfortunes of another is, de facto and necessarily, cruel or immoral, and those who feel it is not.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding. I am not condemning others who may find this funny, you can't help it if you want to laugh, anymore than you can hold in not to piss. I was only responding to Steve's post because it reminded me of certain things I used to feel. I make no accusation against others, only try to express my own thought,

2533. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155631 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 5:47 am

When I mentioned this to my husband, he said that one laughs for a second or two at first, as the image (hitting the head with a block of wood) is cartoon like.

A bit. But actually it reminds me of a Dostoevsky novel. His characters are always deformed and pathetic, his themes are heavy, but there are cartoonish moments from time to time, which only highlights the depravity or insanity of the characters, whatever the case may be.

2534. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155624 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 5:35 am

Death and carnage are only funny in cartoons. The man may be a goof but I can't laugh..

2535. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155619 by Bonzai on April 5, 2008 at 5:27 am

Steve

I can't even watch a film like Star Wars without feeling a twinge of regret every time a stormtrooper was killed - "what about his wife and kids?" I thought (I also wondered why that armour was so useless).

Hmm..Interesting. I had exactly the same thought when I watched action flicks as a kid. In cheesy Kung Fu movies you always have a bunch of masked guys who would attack the hero only to be killed like flies, but for some reasons they just keep coming, as if they have never learned a thing from their failure.

I always thought to myself, these people might be lousy Kung Fu fighters but they had parents, kids and friends too..Then I thought probably they were the true heroes, because that seem to be the roles most of us play in life anyway.. To the world most of us are just a bunch of extras without an identity, no one cares if we die or suffer, except to those who are close to us.

One time I actually cried uncontrollably, oh I was probably 15 or so,I thought I was just too sentimental, probably some kind of hormonal fuck up..

P.S. I always wonder why these people have to cover their faces, as if anyone would care about their identities.

2536. Expelled Overview

Comment #155538 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Jon,

I haven't seen those studies regarding race and IQ, but based on your discription it is probably based on some kind of multiple regression methods. Do you know what is the r^2, how is it comparing to other contributing factors? Correlation can be significant yet practically makes no difference after other factors are tallied for. To say that a certain correlation is significant simply means that it has a good chance of not being zero and nothing more. It doesn't say whether it is a strong or weak correlation.

2537. Beware the Believers

Comment #155468 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Teapot

Given that almost non of us believe in absolute morality here. Unlike our religous wingnuts.

Depending on what you mean by "absolute". I am not convinced that full blown moral relativism is the necessary consequence of rejecting God. Burning widows on a funeral pyre is still wrong, provided we accept a few minimal axioms about ethics.

2538. Beware the Believers

Comment #155456 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm

K

But once we have a viable embryo, it is immoral to kill it, in my opinion.

Why?

To say that it is immoral to "kill" a potential baby (actually terminating the process which may lead to a baby) you are saying that there is in some sense a moral duty to allow the potential of life to unfold. Why is that?

It may be desirable in some circumtstances to carry a pregnancy to terms, but why is it mandated by morality? Who is being hurt if I abort an embryo which may, but hasn't developed into a "person"?

If you want to claim a viable embryo is a person, you should explain why.

2539. Beware the Believers

Comment #155449 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Steve,

What do you think of the viability argument? By viable I mean it can grow into a baby with "minimal" technological intervention outside the womb. So I would disagree with K's definition of viability. To assert that the fetus is a "life" seperated from the mother it has to be viable outside of the womb.

To be clear about what I don't mean, you can probably remove a one month old "fetus" from the womb and keep it "alive" in a jar, but it will not develop into a baby. It will remain just a partially developed clump of cells for as long as the life support is on.

It is concievable that technology in the future may be able to grow a zygote in a test tube into a baby, but this is about what technology is capable of in bring forth a potentiality, not that the potentiality is actually the end product.

It is a bit convoluted admittedly, hope I have stated it clearly enough.

2540. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155423 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I believe that the Evolution vs. Creation debate is 'unbalanced' in the same way as the helio-centric vs. geo-centric solar system theries are unbalanced.

Not quite the correct comparison. The geo-centric solar system model is not technically wrong, it is just a lot more complicated. The helio centric model provides great conceptual and technical simplifications.

On the other hand, creationism is not only wrong whenever it makes factual assertions, it is not even a model because it provides no account of how God (or the intelligent designer) created anything.

2541. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #155409 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Comment #154858 by sent2null

Excellent post as usual!

2542. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155359 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 11:52 am

Sorry, but I don't get the point of this statement. Do we not discuss it because it may not be widely believed?

I was expressing my surprise that Artful would try something so crude.

2543. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155356 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 11:49 am

Steve

Yes they did. James Hutton's "Theory of the Earth" (1785) discussed matters such as erosion and mountain building being slow processes

Yes, but that would have been considered wrong by 19th century physics. Thompson calculated the temperature of the earth and found that if it had been existed for as long as the geologists claimed it should be a lot colder due to cooling. The 19th century geologists (and Darwin) would not have been able to stand up against Thompson because he was right, given what they knew about physics then.

It turns out the earth's temperature is sustained by nuclear reaction in the core. This discovery of 20th century physics was what it took to vindicate the geologists. No one would have foreseen that in the 19th century, so based on the understanding of the time Thompson was absolutely correct in declaring the geologists wrong.

In comparison to 19th century physics, 19th century geology was a very crude science. Data were messy and ambiguous and there was no accurate way of dating (radioactive dating was developed way into the 20th century). It would make a lot of sense for a scientifically educated person in the 19th century to side with the physicists against the geologists.

So, going back to my original point. Even if Darwin wrote the origin of species at Newton's time , Newton would have been able to crush him like Thompson did.

Moreover, as the Fancis Collins prove, accepting evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism. Why do you think it would have been different for Newton?

I also don't see why you think that the apparently tedious biological theory advanced by Darwin, which had no mechanism for transmitting traits (Darwin knew nothing about genes) and invoked 'selection' in a rather ad hoc fashion would hold more sway to Newton than the far more elegant, precise and powerful physical theory that he himself came up with, which, in a certain crucial way, has already rendered God superfluous as Laplace insisted.

2544. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155291 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:57 am

I don't know if a lot of theists actually use Pascal's wager as a serious argument.

2545. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155286 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:53 am

I disagree. There was plenty of evidence that Thompson was wrong in other areas, such as geology.

Only in hindsight. Geologists in the 19th century had no way to stand up to Thompson scientifically,

He was right in rejecting Darwin based on what they knew in 19th century physics. Darwin himself conceded but held on to his ideas because of well, "gut feelings" which he developed over extensive field work.

We only found out Thompson was wrong in the 20th century, after both Thompson and Darwin were dead.

2546. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155272 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:43 am

Steve

Newton's theological interest was enabled because theology was not particularly challenged by science at that time.

I disagree. Whether science posted a serious enough challenge to theology would depend on who you talk to. Laplace thought that Newtonian mechanics was enough to put an end to an interventionist God. Newton himself obviously didn't see it that way.

On the other hand, as I said in my previous post, Darwin himself was demolished by Thomson, successfully, even in the 19th century and Thompson was exactly correct given the state of science then. Had it not because of the discovery of nuclear reaction scientists simply could not accept the old earth theory. So yes, I think Newton would have rejected Darwin easily, even on scientific ground alone.

2547. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155239 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:07 am

Artful

I don't think you can attribute Newton's passion for theology only to the fact that Darwin was not around yet to remind him of the fact that it was not actually intellectually respectable any longer to study such a non-subject.

I have to agree with that. There is not the slightest evidence that Newton would have been an atheist if Darwin was around in his time. In fact, the distinguished physicist Thomson (Lord Kelvin) dismissed Darwin because his calculations indicated a young earth and there wasn't enough time for evolution to take place (Kelvin's calculation was entirely correct based on 19th century physics, it was the discovery of nuclear reaction at the earth's core in the 20th century that invalided Thomson's calculation and saved evolution)

But then who says Newton was always rational and all his beliefs are correct?

Great scientists are creative people, they often have very eccentric views and the tendencies to create their own reality and give in to flights of fancy, They look at things from unconventional angles, that's why they are often able to see things that others don't. They are creators of grand ideas. But grand ideas are also often wrong, that's why the relatively dull process of verification of the scientific process comes in, to separate the correct ideas from the wrong ones.

There is often just a fine line between the crackpot and the genius, Newton was both. We should be careful to separate his science from his personal beliefs, many of which are very strange,--that is an understatement.

2548. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154985 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:33 am

It is quite a leap to go from "the possibility that there exists that which is not susceptible to empirical, scientific investigation then in principle you cannot rule out the possibility of this Transcendent Entity" to believing in the very specific accounts of the Bible.

Even if we acknowledge the possibility that "transcendent entities" may exist, it is no evidence for the Bible's authenticity."May be" is not a good reason to commit to believing in anything. This is at most an argument for agnosticism.

For anyone who understands how stories and myths are produced in civilizations the Bible can be ruled out simply on the ground that it was obviously created by men like all other tribal myths. There is nothing special about the Bible, in terms of narrative, stories and message.

Even if there is a God, you would expect him to have better taste and higher wisdom to reveal himself in such a stupid book.

2549. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154969 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:15 am

If Robertson is not a creationist, then it is even more unethical for him to join the creationist chorus to demand "balance", because he is asking for equal time for what even he himself considers lies.

2550. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154960 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:09 am

Well while atheists "come out", Robertson was outed as a creationist. Got to ask him next time..