301. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49359 by alovrin on June 11, 2007 at 3:43 pm

epeeist
shouldnt it be:-{)

302. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49235 by alovrin on June 11, 2007 at 5:31 am

I don't understand the question, could you rephrase it?

Shit I've only asked it three times.
Does the christainity you subscribe to have a group name like Christadelphians or Order of St jude of the Obscurians, or Trinitarians.

but I personally interpret that stance as the cognitive failure to notice the deeper order and perceive the greater beauty present in our life. But suppose I am wrong and atheism is right. Even then when my own temporarily structured dust permanently disintegrates and all I have been is lost like a tear that falls in the sea (to use a memorable phrase from Blade Runner), I will have lived a better life than my more realistic fellow beings.

Statements like this reinforce my summation of you as a person suffering from a horrendous, truly monstrous delusion.

303. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49182 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Ah, the 1980's, now dont get all touchey on me.
Cunning marketeers those Village People tapped right into the US male psyche and made their fortune, right under the noses of middle America
At least I hope they did.

304. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #49163 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 6:19 pm

about criticism

Silly me, I of course mean above criticism. Especially at this website.

305. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #49152 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 4:38 pm

God is the ultimate reducible answer.

Dont you mean irreducible?

I expect you to respect my right to believe in God and present my views on the issues of science and religion that are discussed on this website.

I will definely respect your rights, but a belief in a god is not a right that is about criticism, especially if your arguments for holding this belief are flawed, or the evidence, if you wish to present any, doesnt hold up under scrutiny. The same goes for your views on science.

306. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49148 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Only in America...
It all sounds kinda leather chaps and droopy moustaches gay..
Macho macho man
I wanna be a macho man

307. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49054 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 5:45 am

Well I never, DG actually responded to something I said, but not to the question I would like to have answered. Ah Well.

Well not wanting to engage in debate is obscurantism

You are perfectly welcome to engage in debate with those that want to and I would encourage it, but that is not with me and I think I have made that perfectly clear.
Communication would be fruitless as you post long justifications of your position which just make me want to laugh, induce in me scoffing, scathing sarcasm, and the desire to make, probably to you and others, infantile and facetious one line ripostes. And I dont think that is the style of communication you desire. Or that is suited to the spirit in which, as Steve99 said, this website was conceived. I have done it before and quite rightly was told to desist as it wasnt respectful to another point of view. So it would be totally pointless for you and I to go head to head.
What more do I have to say.
You believe in some form of christainity, which I just consider a delusional position. And you have written nothing that makes me wish to reconsider my position. But what is this form you adhere to. Are there others who believe as you or is this your own justification of your singular position. I dont want to know anything else does this position have a moniker or is it just a work in progress. To be named when fully formed?
If you do not wish to answer say so, and you can carry on the debate with those who wish to enter into debate with you.
I actually dont care I just wonder if you call it by some name are there certain christian philosophers you hold in more regard than others, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Bede. There is a host of them, can you name some?

308. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48968 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 6:42 pm

BAEOZ interesting read ta.
DG might have to do some deconstruction before it will resonate with him.
Using logic to show your logic is not subject to the rules of logic therefore your logic is a better form of logic...ow my head hurts.

309. We of little faith

Comment #48966 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm

krogercomplete on June 9, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Not sure what is so crazy about Sam's article.??

I agree. Maybe Smith could expand on why he thinks Sam Harris is crazy based on this article.
And "pro torture neo Zionist" ? I thought these misconceptions had been explained. Sorry Smith you are way off here.

310. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48944 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

HUH! Darwin2

The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

Are you at the right site?
Maybe you should be here http://www.discovery.org/csc/

311. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48935 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

As I read this old saying kept popping to mind, dont know its origins, probably christian because of the hell reference.

I suppose good on him for making an effort I doubt if any lasting benefit will come of it. I guess he, like many people, wonder where humanity is headed or if we have reached an impasse, the differences too great to overcome. And I dont mean religious differences, the differences of wealth, physical comfort, access to resources, the difference, say, between the way a few million people, and a few billion people interact with this planet, and the many physical differences that exist. What do these add up too? Maybe its because of this impasse and the searching for a solution, religion is gaining prominence. Tho' to me it seems incredibly wrongheaded.
I tried to look for the comments to see how it was received at Timesonline, its not obvious how too. Any clues anyone?

312. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48793 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 4:28 am

Dainelos
Could you please just answer the question, and I will leave you and steve99 and whoever else wishs to engage in debate with you to it.
You are obviously an intelligent person, but I have no desire to engage with you. As you abuse logic to show that logic doesnt apply to your illogical concepts.

So if you join with a community of fellower believers to sing songs, exchange pleasantries, do you have a way of viewing yourself as a group?
I only want to know so as to be able to stay out of your way and not cause you any upset as my presence just might. It's just self preservation mon ami.

313. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48474 by alovrin on June 8, 2007 at 5:13 am

so obviously I can only meaningfully discuss my Christian worldview with other Christians versed in these obscure concepts

Well its all rather obscurely convenient isnt it.

So this is it eh, Well DG you may continue to ignore me, consider me a rude boor, an uncultured naturalist, sarcastic, facetious, unable to form cogent thoughts to the depths you consider yourself and your ilk capable of.
But I can smell bullshit before I see it and I could see this steaming pile coming. You are unfortunately just the most recent example of how an otherwise educated person can suffer from a delusion of monumental proportions.
Other seem to want to engage in debate with you, me I just would like to know what brand of obscurantism you subscribe to so I stay out of your way in the future, and I'm sure you and your ilk wouldnt want to waste your precious god given consciousness and time on a lowly individual like myself.
So just fess up bud.

314. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48318 by alovrin on June 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I apologize to everyone who is not American for our idiotic leaders.

No apology necessary my friend, there are other countries leaders and would be leaders as woefully ignorant.
This impasse it seems was always going to arise. When morality stagnants, when education and healthcare has a price tag put on it, when profits rise and wages remain static, when sound criticism either falls on deaf ears or incites rage, when ego protection becomes more important than introspection and when our leaders worry about opinion polls rather than where we are headed Sheez I could go on, but you get my point I hope.

And of course religion and its minions are culprits in this as well.
Once standards start to fall its like a house of cards.
Sorry for gettting on my soapbox.

315. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #48305 by alovrin on June 7, 2007 at 11:25 am

Thank you C.S. Lewis.
Now about some of your other writing......

316. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48180 by alovrin on June 7, 2007 at 1:22 am

It is also true that no religious nation on earth, not even theocratic Shi'ite Iran, offends against basic human rights on the scale of officially atheist China.

China's history is very long and probably more complete than that of almost any other country in the world. Probably only India is the only other country continuously occupied by large populations for as long. Both have also had long long histories of mass poverty and heirachical(almost god like) power structures for most of that history. Maybe John Heard should take this into consideration before blithely laying all the blame for human's rights abuses on the latest power elite's communistic atheism, which is morphing into capitalism.
The problem of human rights in China are much deeper than Mr Heard seems to be able to comprehend. I would say it is virtually part of their culture, no matter what the politics at any time. How this problem is addressed I have no idea.

A side note to this is Tibet(now under Chinese rule) has the highest rate of cretinism in the world due to an iodine deficiency during pregnancy. This problem was in the past just put down to karma, I suppose by the ruling theocracy, the Lama's. Anyway the problem is being addressed by the Chinese administration by giving iodised salt to the Tibetans.

317. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48162 by alovrin on June 6, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Jerry Coyne is really beginning to hit his stride as a writer and advocate of science. This is the second article/talk I have seen by him it is clear and well argued. I look forward to hearing more.

318. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48157 by alovrin on June 6, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Examples of bad behaviour perpetrated by religious believers simply don't tell us anything definitive about religions themselves and certainly nothing necessarily negative about the gods they posit.

Here's a big problem the sectioning off of religion from people. So the cycle of religiously inspired violence is able to start again every few generations.. As C Hitchens has reiterated man made god not the other way round.

319. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48149 by alovrin on June 6, 2007 at 8:05 pm

I though the saying was,
guns dont kill people etc.

It could be hamburgers dont kill people, oh wait they do in excess

320. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48090 by alovrin on June 6, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Steve 99
I am sorry if I have upset you, I am probably more combative. than you.
There are now close to 300 posts still DG has not posted his hypothesis, if he has one.
So my apologies, I will take your advice and sit this one out for no other reason than I have upset you.

321. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48068 by alovrin on June 6, 2007 at 1:26 pm

the God hypothesis is necessary for explaining the whole of our experience - starting from the fact that we experience at all, i.e. that we are conscious beings.

So, in your opinion, is this true for everyone regardless, even babies and severely mentally retarded people?
Or does one have to accept the hypothesis before one can be considered an experiental conscious being?
Sorry which bible college did you go to?
BTW, That list of unanswered question and dubious statements is getting longer

322. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47961 by alovrin on June 6, 2007 at 6:26 am

Steve99

That is no argument one way or the other

Sorry it wasnt an argument, it was a statement of frustration.
This person is a flimflam, a phoney.
They have no intention of altering their postion one iota, there is some alterior motive at work here. I'll just wait for danni to slip up, cant be long now.
So which bible college did you go to diane?

323. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47925 by alovrin on June 6, 2007 at 4:04 am

Instead of just saying some people believe this, others think this, ad infinitum.
Why dont you state what you believe or is that too hard for you.
Obviously you think the Xtian god is somewhere in the mix, but where exactly in your "world view" is that?
Others have more patience, indulging your musings. So you only respond to them, showing typical christian cunning.

I find it transparent.

You would have been quite at home in the dark ages as a priest explaining the mysteries of god to the illiterate peasantry in the few spare hours away from their pitiless existence, and then you would have visited the local lord and sucked up to him.
So have you read TGD yet?
And as red doesnt actually exist, neither does your god.

324. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47861 by alovrin on June 5, 2007 at 7:37 pm

but is that any reason to try and discouraging him from posting

I wasnt discouraging him, he said he was finding it difficult, (time constraints) so I was only suggesting he could leave it and come back another time.
And I find his manner high handed in that he very rarely answers criticism, or questions posed, whether he raises valid points or not.
It is not just all about him littering his pet theories and musings all around the place and not entering into discussion around them.
Which you and others want to do, I would like to see it happen and I would probably withdraw to the sidelines and read, to see if he does have something to offer in the advancing of ideas and finer points of philosophy and religion.
So far, in my opinion, he has done very little in this regard. Also the stated fact that he hasnt read The God Delusion but instead has opted for critiques like Alvin P's, kinda counts against him. Maybe he could take time out and read the actual book, and a few others, it might advance the discussion in a more fruitful manner. But if you have other suggestions to offer be my guest.
If Dan just posts more unsupported assertions or utter nonsense as he is wont to do, I will continue to mock them, if thats OK with you.

Comment #47764 by Benjamin Michael

My apologies and hello, I just found his Vast Majority thing silly.
I wondered if thats what they teach in bible college. While we are expected to see his views as nuanced, it would appear his world view of atheism is limited. But I'd still like to know what brand of xtianity is most palatable to his sense's. If indeed it is xtian.

325. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47746 by alovrin on June 5, 2007 at 12:12 pm

So I should have qualified that according to *materialist* atheism the World consists of our physical universe and nothing else. This is the worldview entertained by the vast majority of actual atheists: that there is nothing beyond the physical world we observe and its natural laws as studied by science. So for the vast majority of actual atheistic worldviews my arguments stand.

Oh really, Thus an astonishing statement, for its hyperbole, its supposition, and the fact its an outright fabrication.
I doubt there is one person here who would subscribe to this "vast majority" world view. Talk about battling strawmen from your computer terminal. If I was thin skinned I might feel insulted, but Im not.
If there is an after life I would prefer it to be the one described by Hopi tradition. I find the christian one, you know the one that people knock on your door peddling, repulsive in the extreme.
But alas the evidence for any, and I mean any, kind of afterlife is regrettably scarce. Sorry I dont accept the bible as evidence.

So why dont you get down of that high steed you seem to think you are riding upon, answer a few questions, tell us which brand of christianity you subscribe to and leave it at that. Come back to another thread we'll remember you, dont you worry. Ciao

326. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47574 by alovrin on June 5, 2007 at 2:34 am

(Hey Peeps, I think it behoves us to engage with visitors, rather than to dismiss what they

My apologies, was I speaking to woughly to the chwistian?

My apologies to Monty Python too.

327. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47534 by alovrin on June 4, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Comment #47509 by USA_Limey on June 4, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Dianelos Georgoudis...
I've just read four pages of your crap; My fellow atheists pain me somewhat when they allow themselves to be sucked into "high brow" philosophical debate

HEAR HEAR come on Danny boy, cut the circumlocution, we can tell you like the sound of your own voice, the shininess of your towering intellect But so f*&king what.

How about we look at some of your wonderous prose HMmm

What I am saying that that many atheists don't think that such a larger World exists. Which atheists? Well, obviously, those who believe that the physical universe exhausts all reality and that there is nothing more there than the physical universe. So let me suggest something that clearly exists but that does not form part of the physical universe: the color red. To claim that the color red does not form part of the physical universe might sound surprising at first but consider this: According to science (or more precisely: according to scientific realism) there exists electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths, molecules that absorb or reflect some of these frequencies better than others, cone cells in the human eye that are especially sensitive to some particular electromagnetic frequencies, particular neural networks in the human brain connected to these cones, etc – but no matter how carefully you search in the physical universe as modeled by science you will not in fact find any part that is what we know as red.

Oh wow man, no red, what a bummer. Hey sound doesnt actually exist physically like, perhaps loud noises are gods talking to us.
OH thats right some people USED TO THINK THAT.

Oh I know, light doesnt actually exist either, and on this planet when the sun comes out we get light, so god must live in the sun, why dont we worship the sun.
Oh thats right, lots of people USED TO BELIEVE THAT.

And you have the gall to accuse RD of confused thinking.
When people start to posit other worlds and claim to have explanations of or an understanding about them. Their behaviour in this world usually degenerates on a sliding scale from laughable to utterly malevolent, and usually in correlation to the amount of power or influence they have in this world.
So at the moment you are at the laughable end of the scale, I just hope you stay there.

328. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47298 by alovrin on June 4, 2007 at 2:42 am

The argument from morality is indeed a very good point in favor of theism.

No it isnt, you just like to think it is based on your prejudice.

Now it turns out that atheistic worldviews have much difficulty dealing with the idea of objective ethical precepts.

Thats just your opinion, and the opinion of people who think like you, who abuse the word atheism and deliberately
misunderstand the meaning of the word.

You see atheism's intellectual toolkit is science, and you cannot use science or the scientific method to decide about ethical questions.

You are setting up a strawman here for you to knock down this is transparent nonsense.

In comparison theistic worldviews do not have this particular kind of problem because they affirm the existence of a deeper reality, God

This is utter drivel. You are making a connection yet you offer no proof, other than your say so. How do you know this "deeper reality" is your god? It might be Mazda, or Kali, or Shiva, or Horus or Set, or Nobody.

Im bored now, Danielos have you heard of the Courtiers Reply?
It would seem note as all your verbose ramblings are nothing more than gilding of a nonexistent lily. Im sure you think you have made an eloquent case for your nonexistent god, but still no proof, no proof!

We didnt get our morals from this nonexistent god person.
Unfortunately centuries of conditioning have given rise to this falsehood and also the falsehood that religion is above criticism.

329. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47117 by alovrin on June 3, 2007 at 3:50 am

RE Comment 114 Danielos

a religious person this does not imply that science can produce knowledge about all the World.

OK lets cut the bullshit. You are referring to such places as heaven and hell, places that exist on the other side of death I suppose.
All the World?... WTF.
And please dont waffle on about other dimensions.

330. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47082 by alovrin on June 3, 2007 at 1:47 am

Daneil Dennett (Now there a philosopher) said recently philosophy is useful when forming the question to be asked by a science.
So Danielos for all Alvin's philosophic posturing and proving the problem with the argument from evil is evidentiary not the logic When the question is asked, Is there a god?
The best he can come up with is that god is not impossible its just that it only....

decreases the probability that God exists?

Oh dear, the gap still seems to be shrinking.

Poor, james the doubter you are addicted to god it seems.
As your conversation reminds me of the junkiespeak as they attempt to justify their addiction all the while wondering how they can scam some bucks for their next hit. And maybe there will be some different brand of Harry the Horse available which will make that next hit even better, but maybe I should give up. Not just yet tho' one more hit, if the next hit doesnt work then maybe ....but if it does what then...

331. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47037 by alovrin on June 2, 2007 at 9:58 pm

I get the definite feeling Dianelos is pointing out the finery of the Emperors pantaloons, something which atheists have failed to notice, for example:

Contrary to what popular atheism dogmatically believes there are several good arguments for the existence of God, and knowledgeable atheist philosophers have to struggle long and hard to try to counter them.

Struggle, struggle, my word just look at the filigree work on those lapels struggle, struggle.

Now "faith" is a difficult word because it is used with many different meanings. In fact the original meaning of that word as used in the gospels is "trust in God". When atheists speak of "faith" they often mean "irrational belief".

Ah so faith has many meanings, My god it must have taken a dozen seamstress' months to complete the gold inlay in that design in the posterior of those britches. Where's my dictionary damn it.

The evidence that theism has in its favor is that atheism (or naturalism) is unable to deal in a satisfactory manner with fundamental questions such as the existence of consciousness or ethical truth. It even fails to account for such basic concepts as "meaning" or "value". It even fails to offer any objective means to decide how physical reality actually is (is there one universe or a huge number of them, is the universe deterministic or not, etc).

Will you just look at god in all his finery, what a magnificent spectacle, the masses must be happy after seeing that, their lifes filled with meaning at the mere thought that god is so beautifully attired, as he reigns over the wonderous dimensions.
Or was I just imagining it?

Some people just want to believe it seems.

332. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47007 by alovrin on June 2, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Take some credit for it. And dont think your mind, and the human mind in general, based as it is in those tiny electric pulses & firings of the brain, isnt amazing. Its an amazing accomplishment of evolution.

The experience validates God's existence for me because of the context: God-centered prayer, un-natural events, un-natural feeling, regaining consciousness with an un-natural awareness/sensitivity to God being right there, in and around me.

Theres your answer, the context in which it happened.

333. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46995 by alovrin on June 2, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Ah Mr Doubter you didnt appreciate my joke about a stampede.
Even if it was after the fact, according to the cognoscenti in such matters, there would still be a stampede of those unaware it was too late for them.
My point it is only on their say so which makes it untestable, and that should arouse your suspicions. Ah But of course your other point...

But how do I make sense of my "God-experience"?

Humanity is on the cusp of unravelling the Ghost in the Machine which is were such experiences come from. There is a lot if interesting work starting to be done in the neuroscience field, and it would have been a whole lot more advanced except for prohibitions into this kind of work back in the 1960's &70's.

Anyway to your experience you felt as if it happened?
So did you open your eyes and see it wasnt actually happening?
So how does this feeling as if something was pouring onto your head validate the existence of a god?
Of course it cant except in your mind, there is nothing supernatural about it. Although for you it must have felt like an exhilarating experience at the time. It was a product of your mind, not evidence of the the existence of a supernatural being reaching to you from another dimension and anointing you.
Sorry.
As humans we all experience such things and there will be those around us who will think they can explain it, always in line with their philosophy of course. And who will exploit it and that is where the danger comes into such experiences.
So dont fall into the trap of thinking this experience makes you in some way different, millions of people all around the world would have had the same or similar experience and maybe felt the same things as you, and it origin is in our neurology. MY suggestion would be to maybe contact a reputable science dept that is doing studies of the brain and maybe volunteer for ther program find out how your brain works, and assist all of humanity not just a particular sect with weird beliefs, or something, personal revelation is a very large hole in the ground.

334. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46852 by alovrin on June 2, 2007 at 1:04 am

if believers need to be open to the idea that faith is wrong and there is no god, unbelievers need to be open to the idea that faith is true and there is a god.

If jesus suddenly appeared in the clouds, me thinks it wouldn't just be atheists heading for the nearest church to get baptised. Every one of every other religious persuasion would join the stampede.
Anyway evangelicals reckon jesus will appear in the next 50 yrs, they have been saying it for about 10 yrs so only 40 yrs to wait if you want to to see if they are wrong. Mind you the same thing has been prophesied before and didnt eventuate, so going on that alone it seems highly improbable it will happen this time.

But any way you ask the wrong question. Maybe you should ask what evidence would a god have to present to convince everyone of its existence? A probable answer is it must be very concrete evidence like a physical appearance something very out if the ordinary, like a mile high defying gravity human might do it.
And thats highly likely.

335. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46786 by alovrin on June 1, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Again, Thanks to those at RD.net for posting this video.
It is useful to see a person as well as just read what they have to say or hear them. The first time I watched it I found McGraths mannerisms induced in me a feeling of revulsion and had to stop watching after 40mins. But reading comments here that the debate gets interesting from the 49min mark I had another look, it was worth it.

At one point RD realises there is no point pursuing a certain topic because AMG's answer is just so stupid. And at the end is an excellent answer to a question AMG puts to him about his perceived emotive response to religious influence.

When AMG asks if he can ask the question there is a physically different AMG, it's as if a different person inhabits his body for a few seconds, his physical posture changes, his voice is totally different. But then, as he turns back to face RD, he seamlessly
slips back into god defender mode again. It's a bizarre sight, worth seeing just for that.

336. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46672 by alovrin on June 1, 2007 at 3:53 am

Anyway I had better go.

Yes, you better had flea you have been utterly demolished.
But of course you are to blind to see it.

I wonder did you know in some tribal cultures some men were actually allowed to be raised as homosexual. It was considered a blessing to have such a person as a member of the family. What a contrast to the nasty alternative your brand of Xtianity offers.
Oh you can worship with us,,,
NO Thanks you little prick, as my queenly friends would say.

337. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #46310 by alovrin on May 30, 2007 at 10:05 pm

71. Comment #46177 by Duff on May 30, 2007 at 1:29 pm
How dare you people say this was a nothing article. The man said Dawkins makes all these good points and yet people continue to not believe. Game, set and match. A veritable slam dunk by the righteous against the evil, atheist scientist.
You dastardly scientists may have all the facts, but we religionists have stubborness, blind faith, obtuseness and down right simple, but righteous thinking on our side. And we is gonna win.

Hallelujah ...OHHHH Glooory Haalleluujah
Can, I get an ,,I sayah ... Can I get an AAAAAAAmen... brothers & sisters.
Lets turn now to in your hymn books....Hymn no. 564
Dont ya just love being religious
OOOHHHH Glory glory Glory..
Such entertainment value.. How can it ever be replaced.
Ah The Blind Boys of Alabama, what voices.
My guilty secret I luv black gospel.

338. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46286 by alovrin on May 30, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Steve99

I think some here have been far too harsh in their criticism, because your point of view is extremely widespread. To argue against such point of view requires thought and explanation.

I guess you might be referring to my comment about the flea's vid as hilarious, well I guess it could be seen as thoughtless. Just by way of justification for such thoughtlessness.
Flea took a post I had written as a compliment to the people who run this site, I think they do a fantastic job BTW, and did a hatchet job on it, so he earned my emnity for his actions. And it just went from bad to worse. Anyway it seems he has had his fill of making a nuisiance of himself here. While I may have just flamed him others have tried to engage, to no avail it seems.
Thats all...I hope you can accept my reasons it is after all just verbal stoushing.

339. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #46253 by alovrin on May 30, 2007 at 4:59 pm

All I can do is wish the blogger well in this difficult journey away from god and followers.
Interesting observations about the gossiping Pioneers and the Baptists and Catholics being the most spiteful.

340. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46049 by alovrin on May 30, 2007 at 4:30 am

Comment #46021 by The Wee Flea on May 30, 2007 at 3:01 am
At the risk of upsetting you - if you want to see the devil in action have a look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2r1GPGDWrI

Upsetting... I couldnt stop laughing. Its the funniest thing I seen since the old presbytarian minister who was baptising me sneezed and lost his false teeth, fucking hilarious.

And that little self righteous homily at the end about opening your eyes that had me in sitches,you say that yet you are so blind to yourself.

Thanks for the laugh, But I hope this is the last we see of you. Good luck in that eternal life, if I see you on the other side, so to speak, I hope you look the same cause just the sight of you will crack me up,.
But of course that isnt going to happen is it david. And you will realise that, as the blackness closes around you at your death, and the realisation will hit, that it is you that has been lying to yourself all this time.

341. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45916 by alovrin on May 29, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Boy Oh Boy this is a nothing article.
Its only purpose seemed to be as a set up so M. Kettle could take a swipe at Richard Dawkins. Because apparently, according to Squire Martin Kettle, Prof Dawkins "just doesn't get what makes people tick."

Of course he is referring to some metaphysical aspect or something ...um... in the human psyche, if I catch his drift?

Tho' the inference, not very subtly put, is that Squire Kettle, being the egalitarian popularist and "atheist" that he is, does have such an understanding.

Well bully for him....

342. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45739 by alovrin on May 29, 2007 at 5:23 am

From David Robertson's aka flea's Dawkins letters...

"there is only one book I would regard to be absolutely trustworthy, the Bible!"

?
Go Away."Get a life"

343. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45691 by alovrin on May 29, 2007 at 1:41 am

This really is drivel. You guys are small minded, petty and pathetic. The only reason I do not use my real name (David Robertson) is that it was banned as a Troll. Then I tried my church's name and it got banned (St Petes). Then because RD called people like myself a flea I used this one

. ..............blah blah blah.................................
, no advertising budget and no prospect of making any real money, write a response to TGD and you go all pompous, moralistic and self righteous. Could it ever cross your small fundamentalist mindsets that....................blah,blah,blah...................

It was done simply to engage with the discussion that RD had raised. One thing I have come to understand though, is that the last thing atheist fundamentalists want, is discussion. After all, there is nothing to discuss. You already know the truth. Therefore anyone who attempts to challenge you is stupid, ignorant. cowardly or just out to make money. Get a life!

David your "Dawkins Letters" bring nothing new to the debate, plus your sentence construction makes your writing insufferable, and your arguments are dull. You wrote the Letters as part of your gatekeeper duties for your flock, I imagine. To warn them away from this heathen book or some such high minded pastorly responsiblity nonsense, that you told yourself. And to shepherd them onto more suitable books such as Alastair MCGraths tome.

You have posted a link here to your writings, most people probably had the courtesy to follow it and read your writing, and it seems chose not to make any further comment. If you dont like that well tough, now be a good lad and go away.

344. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45684 by alovrin on May 29, 2007 at 1:20 am

Belief, like hope, is rooted in the unconscious, it would be very difficult to really question it. Some people are scared of questioning it because it makes everything crumble and people do not like to live in uncertainty. Even the so called scientists spend their whole lives hunting for certainty.
People like to live a lie. Spirituality in its pure form.Science may be the only way to unravel the secret of life. Meditation and silence can assist.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions here.
Is belief like hope? That is not a parallel I would make, and perhaps instead of just blithely saying it's rooted in the unconscious, maybe now is a good time to really start exploring this realm of the mind. Sure it may scare some people but is that a reason not to do something as important as this at this crucial time in human history? I dont think it is.

What uncertainty will crumble exactly? The notion that there is a being in the sky, or somewhere in another dimension hidden from our view perhaps, who has human interest uppermost in its mind before all else? Or that of a particular select group who follow a specific dogma? Maybe this notion is long overdue for revision.

"So called scientist's" dont spend there lives "hunting for certainty" some just do experiments or work for companies, there are others who search for the correct answer to a problem, the truth in a situation, perhaps. e.g. is the earth flat or round? Why doesnt everything on earth just float off into space?

Some people may like to live a lie, when it comes to "spirituality" this would seem to be the norm. But such a blanket statement is a copout. If you are going to make such statements you need to qualify it. Are you saying people who follow a particular religion like to live a lie? Are you saying spirituality is a lie?

I think science has already unravelled the "secret of life", I guess by that do you mean how there came to be life on this planet?
But please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

And by meditiation do you mean the negating of thought by the non judgemental observation of thoughts as the arise in ones mind which after many hours of practice one is able to still the flow of this chatter, this did I pay the power bill? what did so & so mean when they said such & such? or am I fat? Im tired, my feet hurt, my bum is getting sore. Whats that noise etc etc.
Or just finding a quiet place to sit for a while and count to 10 over & over.

And BTW I think RD's book should have been called THE GOD ADDICTION. As the religious resemble a heroin addict in ways that are uncanny. I may explain in more detail at another time. If I feel like it.

345. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45607 by alovrin on May 28, 2007 at 1:03 pm

My opinion of Robert Winston's reputation continues to decline.

I just dont get this Point of view "you cant say that cause it might hurt some peoples feelings and could stop a continuing dialogue"

Well hasnt the dialogue been stopped at the" you cant say that" part of the conversation?

And then he waffles on about god or "spirituality" being a very personal thing....yeah and? does that mean you cant explain it or talk about it.

God is my friend and anyone cant say horrid things to me about him? He might strike you with lightning? WHAT THE FUCK?

346. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #44291 by alovrin on May 24, 2007 at 6:07 am

02. Comment #43802 by alovrin - of course you must decline. Why should you bother thinking about anything that is not your own position? Is that not the essence of fundamentalism? And please feel free to flag me as a troll - you are only proving my point.

Boy you are an expert at twisting ones words to fit your agenda. I told you why I can find no point offering a critique, but you refuse to accept my reasons and feel the need to see my refusal through the lense of your prejudice. You obviously think you know everyones mind who is at this website better than they do.


So Mind Boy let me play that game on you. Why are you so bitter and angry? You put a lot of work into your "Dawkins Letters" And I guess as you sat typing feeling very pleased with yourself as you ticked off the points on your board. You in your diseased feverish state saw in your minds eye little ole you humbling the mighty Goliath of Richard Dawkins.


So you put your letters up and waited and waited and waited nothing. Then one day you stumbled on this website and looked and looked all these reviews from other christians but not yours, That must have been crushing for you, Goliath didnt even see you. You are to small and insignificant, so in a fit you started posting displaying your intellect for anyone to see. OH Dear.
You are a sad man. Your mighty work goes unnoticed, as it should because it is tortuous drivel.

Finally you fall into the classic theist trap, you mistake atheism or non belief for a belief, if you were able to see from anothers point of view you would see how stupid this is. So calling me or anyone else here a fundamentalism exposes the paucity of your intellect. Save your rhetoric for those poor souls who people your pews, it may impress them, it doesnt impress me. And you will remain ingnored it seems.

347. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #44221 by alovrin on May 23, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Dawkins accusing the evangelical pastor the Reverend Ted Haggard of running worship sessions in the way the Nazis ran their rallies.

Boy she got that wrong, Dawkins comment was only offered when asked for, and it certainly didnt have an accusatory tone to it. Anyway Buggery Boy Ted just laughed, the comparison went over his head. After that she just seems to get her knickers in a knot about all manner of minutae, and fell into hyperbole in an attempt to belittle people who are certainly smarter than her.

Even if she is considered one of the Top 50 intellectuals in Australia, as her web page boasts, it isnt evident here. I just get the impression she thinks of religion or "spirituality" as her turf and wont stand any damn evolutionary biologist, philosopher or any other "reasoned academic" trepassing thereon. She probably thinks they dont have a soul. RIP Rachael.

348. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #43972 by alovrin on May 23, 2007 at 5:31 am

Reposted from the other bustedhalo with the gringe worthy picture of the man who thinks there are spiritual laws to success Dr Deepak.

Sheeeesh.. this guy needs to take up masturbation, or something, 'cause writing book reviews and talking about "spirituality" are just not his forte, as his dick seems to get in the way....a lot.
No wonder his girlfriend left him, he probably spent more time talking about his member than using it

349. Busted Halo

Comment #43968 by alovrin on May 23, 2007 at 5:25 am

Ah.... Dr Deepak doesnt he look cute

350. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43802 by alovrin on May 22, 2007 at 5:31 pm

To David Robertson aka Wee scottish flea bite

"The Dawkins Letters - Challenging Atheist Myths". It is now available in both the United States and in the United Kingdom. Although it has sold out and is currently being reprinted. You can still get a copy off Amazon. If you prefer not to waste your money then most of the articles are on the Free Church website. If you click on that Today's Issues section then you can access them. Also if you click on The Forum then you can make whatever criticism you want.

Phew, You have really built yourself a castle in the air havent you. It is just impossible to attempt to have any kind of discussion with you, your sentence's are tortuous and your circular logic is the best I've seen yet, it's a fortress. Hope you feel safe in there as you watch the world slide into evil atheism HAHA.
Thanks for the invitation to offer a critique but I must decline, it would just be time I would feel robbed of. Actually I'd rather trim my toenails, or floss my teeth.
If I run into you again on this website and you start foaming at the mouth, as you seem to have a tendency to do. I'll just have to flag you as a troll.