1. Comment #56835 by sane1 on July 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm

I win.

Other Comments by sane1

2. Comment #56839 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Congratulations.

Other Comments by Rtambree

3. Comment #56858 by maton100 on July 17, 2007 at 2:05 pm

If there ever was an oxymoron, it would be theistic evolution. God created a slow, painful, arduous and mutated process? Bullshit evolves too.

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #56863 by NMcC on July 17, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Blimey, as a Northern Irish chap myself, (and now able to recognise the lilting stupidy of a certain professor), I thought I discerned the beginnings of an Alister McGrath 'streams of consciousness' flood.

Not the case! Excellent stuff.

Other Comments by NMcC

5. Comment #56872 by Wrought on July 17, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I caught it at the time and thought it could have been a lot better. I guess it was fairly well balanced, to be fair, but I've reached the point where it makes me turn red when I hear the words "and then I found God". Not anger, you understand, but embarrassment. What's wrong with these people? How has this crap existed for millenia?

To borrow from Scrubs: If you ever do wanna know my opinion, rest assured it will always be that you're an incredible pain and that every time I see your kew-pie-doll face, it just makes me wanna pick you up and shake you until all the hours of my life that you've wasted... fall out. Now laugh

Other Comments by Wrought

6. Comment #56874 by MorituriMax on July 17, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I love how they keep trotting out the "If the dictatorship or government killed a bunch of people while not recognizing our God, it was Atheism at work. See how bad Atheism is compared to Religion?"

Also, we're all aggressively militant because we show the same passion for our non-belief that they show for their belief but of course they're just compassionately religious. Glad they got called on that one at least. I mean, the Christian Churchgoers in some places in the American South never blink an eye when a 5 year old kid is on a street corner preaching that his mother is a whore and we're all sinners going to hell. Repent Now!

Other Comments by MorituriMax

7. Comment #56878 by automath on July 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Good old British fair play here - 3(4) against 1, despite that AC managed to address some of the usual myths put forward in support of religion and even pre-empted a couple, especially the point about philosophy and morality.

Apparently we'd lose the ability to think, communicate and negotiate without the aid of religion. Shameful to think these people actually head up departments in universities here in the UK. There is some extreme clouding of the grey matter going on with some of their suggestions, which came across as the usual statements of self-denial.

And there was me labouring under the impression that this programme was about atheism!

Other Comments by automath

8. Comment #56896 by ungodlystheist on July 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm

I loved the fact that Ernie Rea kept referring to 'militant and aggressive' atheism, when his atheist guess was AC.

AC is a staunch propontent of atheism, but to describe him as 'militant and aggressive' is to be a sandwich short of a picnic.

I wonder if Rea was aware of the irony.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

9. Comment #56905 by coretemprising on July 17, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Hey NMcC--
"lilting stupidy"--that made my day! LOL

Other Comments by coretemprising

10. Comment #56968 by Ian on July 18, 2007 at 2:13 am

I agree with Automath about 3(4) against one. For what is supposed to be a programme about atheism, there was an awful lot of talk about God.

Ernie Rae's repeated 'aggresive and militant' atheist jibe is typical of the cheap rhoetorical war the 'faithful' have waged against those who are less gullible.

Dr Grayling did magnificently, as he always does on radio. He is always clear and able to refine terms, pointing out errors or areas of loose definition. He should have a radio show of his own.

However, the person who suffers most in my estimation is Ken Miller. Previously I had not known why he believed, now I know it was a failure of integrity. His view of theistic evolution turns God into a torturer of inimaginable proportions; the sort of god deserving of nothing but defiance. It seems Miller chose religious platitudes over honest compassion.

Other Comments by Ian

11. Comment #56972 by CJ22 on July 18, 2007 at 2:27 am

Beyond Belief is a rather incestuous pro-religion programme (it's been running for years and they've only just got around to considering atheism as a belief issue??). This was always going to be an ambush. Under the cirumstances, AC did a great job. The audience for this programme were not atheists, but the middle-ground religious.

I had to laugh when the presenter asked what the Koran had to say on athiesm. "Not much" was the experts reply. "It says they must be killed, then suffer an eternity of the vilest torment" was mine.

Other Comments by CJ22

12. Comment #56983 by quill on July 18, 2007 at 3:41 am

Wow. This is an awful lot like CNN's infamous "why do atheists incite so much hatred" panel, which took place without a single atheist onboard.

Other Comments by quill

13. Comment #56994 by sbooder on July 18, 2007 at 4:40 am

Francis Collins leapt from the Evidence of Science to god in one sentence...that is utter madness!

You can not have a half evidential view and a half belief in faith. This is dangerous as a scientist. If you go down that path, how long before you ignore evidence that does not fit your faith?

Please tell me, at what point you as a scientist, turn your back on evidence. Surly as a Scientist who accepts evidence you should be out there trying to prove the existence of god, if however you were confronted by your own mortality when surrounded by dying patients and you could not deal with it and needed a cense of ever lasting life, then please have the bottle to admit it.

Other Comments by sbooder

14. Comment #57003 by atheistperspective on July 18, 2007 at 5:59 am

Linda Woodhead:

"I believe that there's a richer and more wondrous dimension of existence, that contains truths and powers that aren't immediately obvious to us, but which become available through understandings and particularly through appropriate action"

Huh?

http://www.atheistperspective.com

Other Comments by atheistperspective

15. Comment #57008 by GodlessHeathen on July 18, 2007 at 6:28 am

5. Comment #56872 by Wrought on July 17, 2007 at 3:22 pm

---

I caught it at the time and thought it could have been a lot better. I guess it was fairly well balanced, to be fair, but I've reached the point where it makes me turn red when I hear the words "and then I found God". Not anger, you understand, but embarrassment. What's wrong with these people? How has this crap existed for millenia?

I still think it's fear borne of our instinct for self preservation combined with our ability to make predictions (in this case of our death and its inevitability) and guided by a ubiquitous meme about continued life after death and a super-being.

I've felt the tug myself, and have had the conversation with many who have also felt it.

Possibly there is also an overwhelm with the sheer complexity of the universe, and a need to break down that complexity into something more manageable, like "gawdidit!".

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

16. Comment #57014 by AdrianB on July 18, 2007 at 6:34 am

I caught this at the time since I always make a point to listen to the Beyond Belief programmes.

To be honest this depressed me more than anything else I have read or heard recently. I felt very down after listening to this because it finally brought home what sort of stupidity we are dealing with. So much so that I had to listen again just to remind myself. The reason it saddened me so much was because the panel was made up of intelligent and eloquent people, and yet they still managed to justify their fantasy with claims that there is plenty of evidence for god and a historical Jesus, and atheism is horrible and immoral. The impression was very much that they just want atheism to go away.

Obviously, there is just a large percentage of people that want to believe so much, that when confronted with evidence will just stick their fingers in their ears and go La La La! It makes me just want to throw in the towel.

But then I have to remind myself that the non-religious throwing in the towel, and just getting on with life, is precisely the reason why religions have survived so long. I also have to remind myself that this programme is basically a religious programme, so comes with a programmed bias.

If you think this episode is sad you should listen to the programme on circumcision, it will make you angry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/beyond_belief/beyond_20070108.ram

I would recommend you all give the link a listen, even if just for 10 mins, it will have you all sobbing with despair!

Other Comments by AdrianB

17. Comment #57038 by The Smart Patrol on July 18, 2007 at 7:43 am

"14. Comment #57003 by atheistperspective on July 18, 2007 at 5:59 am

Linda Woodhead:

"I believe that there's a richer and more wondrous dimension of existence, that contains truths and powers that aren't immediately obvious to us, but which become available through understandings and particularly through appropriate action"

Huh?"


Yes, that was quite possibly the biggest amount of absolute codswallop that I've ever had the misfortune to stumble across. Every bit as loony and unsubstantiated as traditional theistic faith.

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

18. Comment #57084 by atheistperspective on July 18, 2007 at 8:58 am

Yeh :) That women has degrees from Oxford and Cambridge and teaches theology. Perhaps it's beyond my understanding but what does that actually mean??

Other Comments by atheistperspective

19. Comment #57092 by Dacoda83 on July 18, 2007 at 9:15 am

I agree. Theology? To teach faith? If it can be taught then clearly it is not faith. However since theist's think it can shouldn't this alone be obvious, in your face evidence that all this is a man-made institution that is not coming from some "richer and more wondrous dimension"? The amount of delusion needed to buy into this crap in todays world is astounding, and frankly makes me wonder how humans ever made it this far.

Other Comments by Dacoda83

20. Comment #57114 by Salvatore on July 18, 2007 at 9:59 am

The first half or so is worth a listen. A.C. Grayling is quite interesting. Once they start playing the testimony of the religious geneticist, you might as well hit stop or you're just going to get frustrated...

Other Comments by Salvatore

21. Comment #57119 by JemyM on July 18, 2007 at 10:08 am

Even from a religious mouth, the "Atheist Government" argument always strike me as EXTREMELY uneducated. It's as stupid as calling Irak a "non-anarchist government", or something like that.

Other Comments by JemyM

22. Comment #57158 by darwin2 on July 18, 2007 at 12:31 pm

The term "theistic evolution" describes the true nature of evolution. God the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes could have created our universe in 6 days if He so chose but Darwin clearly demonstrated and proved that He didn't use this method but rather used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms on our planet and probably throughout our universe and all other universes that may exist.

Other Comments by darwin2

23. Comment #57293 by Erik on July 18, 2007 at 7:40 pm

The idea articulated by the American geneticist that you can reach a belief in a god through a study of probabilities is really just fooling yourself. We establish the probability of something because we have evidence of the regularity or rarity of its occurrence. Without the slightest shred of reliable evidence for god, you cannot establish its probability. The poor man made a complete fool out of himself by further trumpeting the divinity of JC, thereby indicating just how little he actually employed reasoning and evidence in his conversion.

Other Comments by Erik

24. Comment #57423 by Broshiesq on July 19, 2007 at 9:41 am

maton100: If there ever was an oxymoron, it would be theistic evolution.

No doubt. I don't think I heard that one before. How about Tim Winter with his "...atheistic fundamentalism" That's a good one, too. But my all time favorite, which, unfortunately I don't think was uttered on this show: Religious Truth!

Other Comments by Broshiesq

25. Comment #57429 by heathen2 on July 19, 2007 at 10:06 am

I just watched the movie Fire (directed by Deepa Metha) which addresses a number of social issues in modern day India. Underlying these is the overwhelming religious repression (of women in particular but restricts the choices and freedom of men also).
This made me think that perhaps religion and belief in the supernatural may be like a bad side effect of a drug that is meant to help cure an ill. The drug (laws, rules) is meant to help maintain social order and justice, however when this goes too far and people impose their "morality" on others, the effect is detrimental.
I don't know, just thinking out loud. It's still hard for me to make sense of how otherwise intelligent people can believe such nonsense.

Other Comments by heathen2

26. Comment #57470 by ross on July 19, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Wow. I hadn't realized that Collins was that daft.
Once again, the argument that there are many intelligent people who believe and so maybe there's something to it, falls flat.

Where are these so-called intelligent believers? Haven't yet heard or seen one that can clearly see the arguments. How is it that they miss the point by such a wide margin?

Disclaimer: I mean, of course, Collins is an educated and necessarily intelligent being, but, like other educated and smart people, when religion enters the discussion, his critical thinking skills just seem to vanish. And C.S. Lewis? What incoherent rubbish!

heathen2
(Fire is indeed an excellent movie. Both Water and Earth are, too, imo).

Other Comments by ross

27. Comment #57690 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm

26. Comment #57470 by ross

>I hadn't realized that Collins was that daft.
Once again, the argument that there are many intelligent people who believe and so maybe there's something to it, falls flat.

Yes, it is amazing that some poorly educated toilet cleaner in Sydney's suburbs can be an atheist and have clearer thinking than a world-leading geneticist who went to all the top universities.

Other Comments by Rtambree

28. Comment #57708 by ross on July 20, 2007 at 4:42 pm

That's it? One little insult?
Maybe more education and a move to Darwin will help me...and a new 'andle for me plunger.
I would have thought that calling the director of NHGRI "daft" on such a popular site as this would have generated a little more ire.
After once referring to Kent Hovind as an idiot after watching his Dinosaurs and the Bible presentation I thought my computer was going to explode from all the hostile comments and messages.

Other Comments by ross

29. Comment #57722 by Enlightenme.. on July 20, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Collins, how much is that Templeton prize again?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

30. Comment #58136 by dhweaver on July 23, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Templeton money? Heck he's going for the big time with his sermon of "theistic evolution". Sounds like a new sect of Christianity to me. Damn, that's all we need in the states is another mega-church formed around Collin's new idea.
I can see the new books now to "complement the bible". I can even hear the first sermon "Let us all turn to the first book Geneticisticuvus Chapter 2,373,230,213,401 verses 4,219,034,012,399. And then God killed the last of the heathen Spyronoids, for they mocked him with their inefficient photosynthesis."

Other Comments by dhweaver

31. Comment #58145 by Lauregon on July 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Darwin clearly demonstrated and proved that He didn't use this method but rather used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms on our planet and probably throughout our universe and all other universes that may exist. - darwin2

Darwin didn't prove that "God" used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms. Darwin demonstrated that life-forms evolve.

Other Comments by Lauregon

32. Comment #58197 by Wadsworth on July 24, 2007 at 2:17 am

22. Comment #57158 by darwin2 on July 18, 2007 at 12:31 pm

The term "theistic evolution" describes the true nature of evolution. God the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes could have created our universe in 6 days if He so chose but Darwin clearly demonstrated and proved that He didn't use this method but rather used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms on our planet and probably throughout our universe and all other universes that may exist.
My Response:

Theistic Evolution

1. Recent research demonstrates higher semen viscosity in primate species that have a high degree of female promiscuity. In such species there is more intense sperm competition between rival male's semen for the female's attention. Natural selection encourages the evolution of increased sperm viscosity as an aid to preventing successful fertilisation of the female by subsequent male lovers. This means that promiscuity is a driving force in primate Evolution. If there is a God in charge of Evolution, then he is therefore condoning immorality by encouraging promiscuity.

2. 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. If God is in charge of Evolution he is therefore either a monumental blunderer, or an evil sadist, or a squanderer of natural resources.

3. All animals, plants, and fungi live by murder and cannibalism,- ie- feeding off each other;- humans are not exempt either. Could God not do better then this?


4. Some animals exhibit deliberate blood-sports lust, by toying with prey, or by unnecessary overkill; eg cats, and foxes. Did God arrange this? New-born pups are carried off by Jackels, Hyenas , birds of prey etc.

5. The new species Homo floresiensis further blurs the boundaries between Man and animal. Is God confused?

6. Chimps have been discovered to have rudimentary culture and language, and tool use, and not to have any qualitatively different attributes from Humankind. They also commit deliberate murder on their fellows. Capuchin monkeys break open nuts with rocks.

7. The whole concept of the Natural selection of random variations ,ie. Darwinian Evolution is a cruel process, relying on violence, suffering, and enormous waste among living things,-including the obviously sentient and human-like "higher" social animals, eg Whales, Dolphins, cats, dogs, and of course primates. The Ichneumon fly lays its eggs in a live caterpillar, and its grubs devour the caterpillar from the inside out. There are nearly a million so far discovered different species of beetles,-Why?- There is the waste of unused sperms, seeds and fruits and massive infant mortality;--and then God condemns Onan for spilling his seed on the ground!

8. Theists try to suggest that there is a purpose, and that God created and guides Evolution. But as Evolution (the Natural Selection of random variations) is therefore a random process (proved by the 99% extinctions as above),-- and the changes in the natural environment which does the selecting are also random, eg solar flares, asteroid and comet strikes, earthquakes and volcanos, hurricanes etc which cause mass extinctions from time to time,- and which all have naturalistic causes,--how then can a God be said to guide such chaotic processes? It is a self-contradiction, and is made with the desperate hope of tacking "God" onto all aspects of Nature, because of the self-interest of the religious establishment. They ask the question "Why"? There is no "why?",- no purpose. Blind naturalistic Evolution demonstrates that fully.

9. If God set up Evolution then he knew what he was doing. If he set it up, and continues to "guide" it,-he has exhibited blood lust and lack of compassion for his creation. If he set it up then walked away and washed his hands of it,- then he just shows cruel indifference and irresponsibility.

10. Nearly a million known different species of beetles have been documented. This is compatible with Evolution, but totally absurd if created by a God. One would have to ask him-Why?. Christians would no doubt assert that it is a demonstration of his power and love. So should I follow his example and tip a skip-full of live Cockroaches onto our living-room floor, and explain to my wife that I did it as an act of love?

A successful scientific theory is something that explains and predicts by itself,-it is self-sufficient. A theory which needs to be created and sustained and guided is not a theory at all; it is a contradiction.

Christians like to have their cake and eat it . For the reasons given above, Evolution implies Atheism, so Christians have to choose; they can either have Theism or Evolution, but not Theistic Evolution,- it is a nonsense.

Other Comments by Wadsworth

33. Comment #58307 by Darwin's badger on July 24, 2007 at 11:04 am

A doffed cap to Wadsworth - top post, sir.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

34. Comment #58351 by Wadsworth on July 24, 2007 at 3:09 pm

re: #58307 Darwin's badger

Thanks very much.

Other Comments by Wadsworth

35. Comment #59966 by pewkatchoo on July 31, 2007 at 8:49 am

Wadsworth
Excellent post. I hope that will keep darwin2 quiet for a while.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

36. Comment #59977 by kkant on July 31, 2007 at 10:02 am

Wadsworth in Comment 58197:

Excellent post!! :)

I just want to (partially) correct you at one point:

There is the waste of unused sperms, seeds and fruits and massive infant mortality;--and then God condemns Onan for spilling his seed on the ground!

This is a misunderstanding of the text which is used by faithheads to justify the "immorality" of masturbation and other alternative sex acts. In fact, God did not condemn Onan for spilling his seed; he condemns him for *not* impregnating his brother's widow. Far from being an "ethical" teaching for us to follow, this verse is yet another demonstration (as if we needed more) of the incredible *immorality* of the sayings and actions of the supposed God and his supposedly perfect and divine books.

Other Comments by kkant

37. Comment #59979 by kkant on July 31, 2007 at 10:05 am

maton100 writes:
Bullshit evolves too.

That's exactly right. Well said. :D

Other Comments by kkant

38. Comment #59992 by heathen2 on July 31, 2007 at 11:31 am

A few months back, I heard Dawkins and Collins on NPR. Dawkins talked about TGD then the next day they aired the "other viewpoint" I suppose, by Collins entitled The Language of god".

Collins apparently grew up in a liberal household without religion. He was an atheist (like McGrath) and explains how he came to religion as a doctor (that was his starting point at least). It does not make sense. It is even hard to listen to, because it is painful to hear a man of science and education submit himself to such simple mindedness and degradation. And his religion is degrading to the human spirit.

Professor Dawkins, on the other hand, gave a wonderful interview that was clear, eloquent, responsive to the callers. What a huge difference from the views Collins explicated.

Other Comments by heathen2

39. Comment #62955 by edwaltthespisactor on August 12, 2007 at 1:03 pm

The female theism lecturer seemed to be justifying her job/career.

And then vouched for the benefits of religion 'IN WHICH BELIEF IS NOT THE CENTRAL AND PRIMARY FOCUS.... '

I'm left speechless.

Maybe she should give lecturing on God and promote people's engagement in book groups.

Just something to get you out of the house, have a cup of coffee and a chat about the way things are...

I think collins has been drawn too close to his direct project to stand back and really think about the bigger questions.

I could accept his deism, or his self developed viewpoint of a God, that he figured out in his trekking days of 27 years old.

But to say he found Jesus Christ, and that the historicity was good?

All respect for his powers of enquiry, down the loo.

Other Comments by edwaltthespisactor