Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
by Wold Net Daily
Thanks to Carl H. Silverman for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59905
Editor's note: WorldNetDaily exclusive columnist Vox Day's new book, "The Irrational Atheist," scores a direct hit on atheism's most well-known practitioners. Using reason, science and historical documentation — not theology — Day argues the atheists into an inescapable corner.
WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah recently interviewed Day about the new book, which is available at WND's online store.
Joseph Farah: The title of "The Irrational Atheist" refers to the Unholy Trinity of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, while Dawkins.Net is advertising the Four Horsemen of Atheism, which includes Daniel Dennett. Given that you wrote a chapter about Dennett, why didn't you include him in with the other three?
Vox Day: Originally, I intended to do just that. But after reading four of his books, it became quite clear that for all his atheism, Dennett really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other three. Despite his occasional problems with logic, Dennett is a respectable intellectual. He is seriously interested in the scientific questions, and he is very willing to ask hard questions about his own assumptions and core beliefs too. This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.
Farah: Why have we seen this explosion of atheist titles?
Day: It's a bit strange because the so-called New Atheists are really not new at all. There is very little that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say that was not already said by Jean Meslier prior to his death in 1729. If Sam Harris didn't talk so much about Islam and make so many egregious errors, you'd think that he was Bertrand Russell's parrot. I suspect the reason is related to the current state of physics and the increasing uncertainty scientists feel about the universe based on the very, very low probability that the universe randomly happened to turn out the way it is now observed to be. Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation.
Farah: Are atheists becoming more militant? Extreme? Why?
Day: The outspoken ones are certainly becoming more desperate and shrill. Part of this is because they've got such terrible front-men. They've got these spokesmen who are demonstrably incapable of making a sober and rational case for atheism, so they have to make up for it by setting off rhetorical fireworks and making outlandish statements — for example, Dawkins's stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse. If I were an atheist, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have these clowns as the public face of my religious identification. I think the end result will be more atheists identifying themselves as agnostics, which is a much more reasonable perspective.
Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?
Day: There are none, because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own. As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we're already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it's not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.
Farah: Why do you refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Judas?
Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God. As Dawkins states in his own words, he's "a passionate anti-Darwinian" with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.
Farah: You compare Sam Harris to Michael Bellesiles, who was convicted of academic fraud and lost the Bancroft Prize awarded to him. Is that a fair comparison?
Day: It's probably not fair to Bellesiles. He may have made stuff up, but at least he can handle elementary school division. I also suspect he knows the difference between difficult concepts like "counties" and "states." Harris demonstrably does not.
Farah: What are the most common mistakes made by Christian apologists when dealing with atheism? How is "The Irrational Atheist" different?
Day: Too many Christians forget that their basic assumptions are not shared by the atheist with whom they're talking. Christians always want to quote the Bible to try to prove a point, but to the atheist, that's no more meaningful than reading Shakespeare at them. And Christians often want to talk about the way God makes them feel, forgetting that the atheist's feelings are equally relevant. My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter. "The Irrational Atheist" isn't a defense of God or Christianity; I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.
Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?
Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in the philosophical implications of biotechnology. Cross some of biotech's more questionable developments with globalism and post-Christian paganism, and it's not hard to see that we're looking at some crazy days ahead.
Farah: I've heard the book has gotten off to a great start. So why are you making the entire book available as a free download from your blog?
Day: Yeah, it's already on its second print-run ahead of the official release date. As for the download, my theory is that the main problem from which most books suffer is that too few potential readers have heard about them, so I figure that word of mouth from someone who's read the ebook is just as important as that from someone who's read the hardcover. Also, if people like a book that they've read, whether it's a download, a library book or just one they borrowed from a friend, they want to have it. I must have four or five copies of Eco's "The Name of the Rose" myself, not counting translations. But "The Irrational Atheist" ebook isn't a free download per se. It's a Radiohead-style pay-what-you want setup, which includes the option to pay nothing. Various formats including PDF, PDB and LIT will be available starting on the official publication date of Feb. 1.
Farah: Or they could buy it right here at WorldNetDaily today.
Day: That would be even better.
Farah: One last question, and it's an important one. When are you going to lose that ridiculous mohawk and grow a righteous mustache like mine?
Day: The hawk is gone, I'm sad to say. But I'm not sure I've got what it takes pull off the Magnum P.I. look.
Reposted from:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59905
Editor's note: WorldNetDaily exclusive columnist Vox Day's new book, "The Irrational Atheist," scores a direct hit on atheism's most well-known practitioners. Using reason, science and historical documentation — not theology — Day argues the atheists into an inescapable corner.WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah recently interviewed Day about the new book, which is available at WND's online store.
Joseph Farah: The title of "The Irrational Atheist" refers to the Unholy Trinity of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, while Dawkins.Net is advertising the Four Horsemen of Atheism, which includes Daniel Dennett. Given that you wrote a chapter about Dennett, why didn't you include him in with the other three?
Vox Day: Originally, I intended to do just that. But after reading four of his books, it became quite clear that for all his atheism, Dennett really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other three. Despite his occasional problems with logic, Dennett is a respectable intellectual. He is seriously interested in the scientific questions, and he is very willing to ask hard questions about his own assumptions and core beliefs too. This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.
Farah: Why have we seen this explosion of atheist titles?
Day: It's a bit strange because the so-called New Atheists are really not new at all. There is very little that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say that was not already said by Jean Meslier prior to his death in 1729. If Sam Harris didn't talk so much about Islam and make so many egregious errors, you'd think that he was Bertrand Russell's parrot. I suspect the reason is related to the current state of physics and the increasing uncertainty scientists feel about the universe based on the very, very low probability that the universe randomly happened to turn out the way it is now observed to be. Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation.
Farah: Are atheists becoming more militant? Extreme? Why?
Day: The outspoken ones are certainly becoming more desperate and shrill. Part of this is because they've got such terrible front-men. They've got these spokesmen who are demonstrably incapable of making a sober and rational case for atheism, so they have to make up for it by setting off rhetorical fireworks and making outlandish statements — for example, Dawkins's stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse. If I were an atheist, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have these clowns as the public face of my religious identification. I think the end result will be more atheists identifying themselves as agnostics, which is a much more reasonable perspective.
Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?
Day: There are none, because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own. As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we're already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it's not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.
Farah: Why do you refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Judas?
Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God. As Dawkins states in his own words, he's "a passionate anti-Darwinian" with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.
Farah: You compare Sam Harris to Michael Bellesiles, who was convicted of academic fraud and lost the Bancroft Prize awarded to him. Is that a fair comparison?
Day: It's probably not fair to Bellesiles. He may have made stuff up, but at least he can handle elementary school division. I also suspect he knows the difference between difficult concepts like "counties" and "states." Harris demonstrably does not.
Farah: What are the most common mistakes made by Christian apologists when dealing with atheism? How is "The Irrational Atheist" different?
Day: Too many Christians forget that their basic assumptions are not shared by the atheist with whom they're talking. Christians always want to quote the Bible to try to prove a point, but to the atheist, that's no more meaningful than reading Shakespeare at them. And Christians often want to talk about the way God makes them feel, forgetting that the atheist's feelings are equally relevant. My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter. "The Irrational Atheist" isn't a defense of God or Christianity; I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.
Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?
Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in the philosophical implications of biotechnology. Cross some of biotech's more questionable developments with globalism and post-Christian paganism, and it's not hard to see that we're looking at some crazy days ahead.
Farah: I've heard the book has gotten off to a great start. So why are you making the entire book available as a free download from your blog?
Day: Yeah, it's already on its second print-run ahead of the official release date. As for the download, my theory is that the main problem from which most books suffer is that too few potential readers have heard about them, so I figure that word of mouth from someone who's read the ebook is just as important as that from someone who's read the hardcover. Also, if people like a book that they've read, whether it's a download, a library book or just one they borrowed from a friend, they want to have it. I must have four or five copies of Eco's "The Name of the Rose" myself, not counting translations. But "The Irrational Atheist" ebook isn't a free download per se. It's a Radiohead-style pay-what-you want setup, which includes the option to pay nothing. Various formats including PDF, PDB and LIT will be available starting on the official publication date of Feb. 1.
Farah: Or they could buy it right here at WorldNetDaily today.
Day: That would be even better.
Farah: One last question, and it's an important one. When are you going to lose that ridiculous mohawk and grow a righteous mustache like mine?
Day: The hawk is gone, I'm sad to say. But I'm not sure I've got what it takes pull off the Magnum P.I. look.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1501 - 1550 of 1994 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers1502. Comment #120972 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Finally Steve, about your post number #120565... I do stand against sexism and homophobia. But that isn't really relevant to my comment, since I am not the one displaying a discriminatory attitude towards schizophrenics. I feel very bad for those people, not in small part because of the childish antics about mental illness that have been on display around here. Not that you we’re involved in any of that.But I was quite surprised that you think I am faking schizophrenia. How well does that square with me denying that I am schizophrenic, and denying that I suffer from any mental illness?
That idea anyone could attempt to imagine such voices and claim that they speak truth is ignorant and shameful.
That's quite a leap there Steve. I think you neglected to articulate a necessary logical step wherein you conclude that I am a liar. Don't worry though, because I've brought that out in the open now. But you see, whether you call me schizophrenic, or simply a liar, the same effect is achieved: Multiple parties on this thread, including yourself, have called for evidence. I provide first hand evidence of my own experience with God. Not only do you avoid any close examination of that evidence, but you leap from an e-diagnosis of my sanity, to calling me a liar. Congratulations! You sir, are the most professional amateur that I've met in this forum. You're desperado, Steve.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1503. Comment #120973 by MPhil on February 2, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Okay guys, don't bash me for this - but I have downloaded the free version to see if it indeed has any good arguments. Because it interested me most, I started with the chapter "defining science" - and just finished tje first part of it.
I really don't know whether to laugh or just shrug it off - but if this is all this Vox Day guy can come up with in terms of argumentation, reason, logic - then this book will be a colossal waste of time and nothing more.
Here are my notes on that chapter, for anyone who's interested:
(note: I don't quote this book literally, I summarize the statements)
-Footnote 6 - "Christianity is principally falsifiable, even if the existence of god isn't, therefore it's science"
A most blatant logical fallacy. If something is not falsifiable, it is not part of scientific inquiry - the converse does not have to be true. Not all falsifiable statements are part of proper scientific inquiry.
-"Divine Linguistics would be properly scientific" - wrong, depending on the definition of gods, they'd have to be inside the realm of the physical to have a language and be observed speaking. So long as gods are not defined as natural beings, this is non-falsifiable. ->using this false example, Vox concludes that there is a scientific Euthyphro dilemma, (science is supposedly defined as what scientists say it is), and that the falsifiability condition is useless. (He also calls the execution of Socrates "defensible".)
->From a single, wrong example that would be useless even if it were right, he makes a huge unwarranted conclusion.
-"Those who blaspheme against the profession will never be forgiven" [meaning the profession of science] What is the definition of "blasphemy" used here that make this statement investigable? I venture that this is not true under any reasonable definition.
-"Scientists do not fear, nor have to, for the body of knowledge of science (by ID, YEC)". But yes they do, for these people do negate without sufficient (or indeed any) evidence not only one or a few, but some very central elements in that body of knowledge.
-"ID and YEC make use of scientific methodology". -> No, not really. They have a conclusion first which they then attempt to substantiate using scientific methodology only where it befits them - not systematically or universally at all. So yes, science as a procedure has to fear from these movements. What they do is sloppy, ideologically motivated abuse of the scientific method by only employing it where it befits them and ignoring that it has to be applied universally to work at all. Furthermore, they reject findings made by scientific method where it does not befit their hypothesis. -> The shallowness of this chapter, the conclusion of which is that religion poses no real threat to science in any of its forms is remarkable. The conclusion is wrong.
_______________________________________
I'm a philosopher - I delight in argument, and in uncovering the weaknesses of arguments, the false or baseless assumptions, the logical fallacies. But when they are so blatant, so obvious, it's not even entertaining.
I hope the next part, "Science VS Religion" will be better, but I fear it won't.
Other Comments by MPhil
1504. Comment #120975 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I produce evidence, in the form of reporting an experience that happened to me.
That is not evidence. Please point us to an audio recording, or better yet a video recording, of your conversation with God.
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
1505. Comment #120976 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm
MPhil,I'm reading it too, albeit a little bit at a time. THIS is what all this fuss has been about? Amazing.
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
1506. Comment #120977 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Despite the fact that some of you will object, I would like to hang around dawkins.net for a while. I haven't just joined as some people like to think. Just been an occasional lurker. Had a worthwhile discussion here the other night.
Most of us don't object. Stay, engage in other discussions, be a regular. Don't turn up and then vanish! :-)
I'm not sure I'll read VD's book. I only read TGD becasue it was in the airport as I was going to Melbourne. I'm here becasue of the book :-) Noting RD said made me change my views...I was born an athiest and I'll die one. VD may give an argument againts the so called "New Athiests". The papers will let me know if he scored any points. As it is, no one I know has even heard of VD (except for the obvious...which isn't anything to do with this thread) but RD is there. Christopher Hitchens may ring a bell, the others are as silent to all my mates as the Bible is.
Whatever we might think this is a silent battle among people with nothing much to do...
Other Comments by Goldy
1507. Comment #120978 by LorienRyan on February 2, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Representing electrical activity in the brain via markings of ink on a piece of dried tree pulp does not constitute evidence for anything accept just that. Other Comments by LorienRyan
1508. Comment #120979 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 8:39 pm
That is not evidence.I beg your pardon. Testimony is not evidence?
I was asked what persuaded me. I responded. It is my report of an experience that I had, and my understanding of it. It's not hearsay, and it is far from unprecedented.
Now, while it may not be evidence sufficient to satisfy your own needs, it worked out great for me. What is interesting is that this evidence was dismissed out of hand by everyone here, just like you would laugh off the latest report of a miracle in Reader's Digest. Thanks folks!
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1509. Comment #120981 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Wow, Goldy! You really came uncorked there. Nice work, in a Fox News sort of way. Do you wear a pith helmet?
Of course I was angry. I showed concern - you said you heard God speaking to you, not as, say, I might hear a deity, but as an actual voice. You said you wandered the streets talking aloud to God. That is not healthy. You then called me (and others) pathetic (or words to that effect). What did you expect?
And how do you know this voice is God. It sounds like you, it is in your head (no one else can hear it), you have a Christian upbringing (even if you prefess athiesm, I'll bet a pint of Bellringers at Galbraiths Christianity was the dominant religion around you). Even Jesus and Mo heard and spoke to the Devil - are you sure it wasn't Satan? Of the multitude of Hindu gods available, you picked (or you were picked by) the most familiar god - doesn't that make you wonder?
No idea about Fox news, I have never had the pleasure of seeing it. I'm more a radio man and the BBC World Service is my news. And online papers (Arab News, BBC, Independent, Telegraph, NY Times...).
Why on earth would I want to wear a pith helmet? This an American thing?
Other Comments by Goldy
1510. Comment #120982 by righton on February 2, 2008 at 8:48 pm
karadashovel,Go away, you are wasting everyones time.
Other Comments by righton
1511. Comment #120983 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I beg your pardon. Testimony is not evidence?
Er, no. It's testimony.
I was asked what persuaded me. I responded. It is my report of an experience that I had, and my understanding of it. It's not hearsay, and it is far from unprecedented.
Which means that you're happy to believe things without evidence, not that a hallucination represents evidence.
Now, while it may not be evidence sufficient to satisfy your own needs, it worked out great for me. What is interesting is that this evidence was dismissed out of hand by everyone here, just like you would laugh off the latest report of a miracle in Reader's Digest. Thanks folks!
Why should we respond to your experience any differently?
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
1512. Comment #120984 by MPhil on February 2, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Okay, the second part of the second chapter "Science vs Religion", claims to show that the view that religion was particularly in the dark ages opposed to science is wrong and was a myth created by the angry enlightenment guys who had basically nothing more in common than their disdain for christianity.The veracity of the historical claims can better be judged by someone like Cartomancer... but let me give you my twopence worth:
-What united the enlightenment philosophers was mainly their view that enlightenment is something good that should reach everyone. Using the brilliant definition by Immanuel Kant:
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity
is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another.
This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but
lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The
motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own
understanding!"
This is what the enlightenment was all about. And yes, the catholic church did oppress thinking that did not conform to their dogma - look at how they treated apostates and heretics, take a look at the history of the "index librorum prohibitorum" and at the scientific books that were on that index. If that wasn't cencorship of thought and opposition to free thinking and science, I don't know what is. Dogma is the opposite of free inquiry, taking the evidence and seeing to what conclusion it leads. And since dogma is at the center of the church and of (at least) abrahamic religion - Religion is opposed to science qua the procedural definition of it. QED
So, again we have a conclusion formed on a very selective view of history, with no historical evidence presented... a shame, really.
Other Comments by MPhil
1513. Comment #120985 by Diacanu on February 2, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Kardashovel-Now, while it may not be evidence sufficient to satisfy your own needs, it worked out great for me.
Well, sorry, no, your warm special feelings don't cut it.
As someone asked of you, and I never saw you answer, did this voice reveal to you ANYTHING you couldn't have already known yourself?
Seems to be a pattern.
You see it with mediums, and in those fruity "conversations with God", books.
There's never an answer to anything that the person didn't already know.
Always cutesy little evasions dressed up to sound like fortune cookie wisdom.
Other Comments by Diacanu
1514. Comment #120986 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 8:53 pm
It wasn't a hallucination, oh colorful but logically challenged one.And you should respond to my experience differently because I present you the opportunity to cross examine me.
And by the way, I do hate it when I have to refer someone to a dictionary, but testimony is most certainly evidence, Mr. Jennings.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1515. Comment #120987 by righton on February 2, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Karadashovel=blacknadGo away your contributing nothing, just trying to antagonize.
Other Comments by righton
1516. Comment #120989 by righton on February 2, 2008 at 8:57 pm
"And by the way, I do hate it when I have to refer someone to a dictionary, but testimony is most certainly evidence, Mr. Jennings."Wrong, I testify that you are schizophrenic. Hows that for evidence
Other Comments by righton
1517. Comment #120990 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Diacanu!You actually engaged me debate by asking a question. I'm touched.
You question is answered in my scatter-shot of posts above.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1518. Comment #120992 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Kardi, can I refer you back to the Monty Python sketch on why Arthur was King of the Britons.
Hearing voices in YOUR head does not good evidence make of God's existance. It works for you - I'm sure hearing Napoleon works for the Bonapartists too.
I showed concern - I still do. You can think what you like, but voices in your head is not a healthy sign. Hate me for worrying about you if you want. In the end, it doesn't matter to me. But concern is not a religious thing.
Incidently, testimony is cognate with the word used to describe your knackers - did you hold your balls when giving this testimony ;-)
Other Comments by Goldy
1519. Comment #120993 by peahix on February 2, 2008 at 8:58 pm
re: evidence and testimony in the contexts of science and law, some useful distinctions may be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic
Other Comments by peahix
1520. Comment #120994 by home8896 on February 2, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Wow, I don't even have time to read all these posts, let alone answer them, even when they are light and weren't requiring an answer, as was my last post. The fact that it got response is staggeringly amusing. No, not the content, just that it got a response. I won't even begin to anecdote my own life experience and my mom's about psychological well-being correlations to religious upbringing. It's totally not causal, though, even I know that much... Other Comments by home8896
1521. Comment #120995 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 9:00 pm
In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony.
Not really evidence, then. More someone's word for something. Hardly concrete...
Other Comments by Goldy
1522. Comment #120996 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Incidently, testimony is cognate with the word used to describe your knackers - did you hold your balls when giving this testimony ;-)Now. That was funny.
I can't swear that I held my balls during all of my posts. But I'd be willing to testify in a court of law, if it mattered.
BTW, I think that you read a little too much into my post about schizophrenia. I certainly did not mean to offend you to the point where you sounded like James Carville with his dick caught in a wringer! But props on the juicy rant.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1523. Comment #120997 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I testify that you are schizophrenic. Hows that for evidence
I too testify (and I shall hold my sack in my hands as I do) that you are schizophrenic.
That's 2 againts 1 - the odds looks poor for your "evidence"
Other Comments by Goldy
1524. Comment #120998 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:04 pm
It wasn't a hallucination
That's probably true; it's far more likely to be a garden variety lie.
And by the way, I do hate it when I have to refer someone to a dictionary, but testimony is most certainly evidence, Mr. Jennings.
Not in a scientific context it isn't. And that's the context we mean it when we ask about your reasons for believing in the great bearded skybully.
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
1525. Comment #121000 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 9:05 pm
But props on the juicy rant.
;-) One has to think long and hard to get teh right words. I am so disappointed that my vocabulary isn't bigger. How I wais I could write like Stephen Fry....ahh well. Maybe one day....
Other Comments by Goldy
1526. Comment #121001 by Diacanu on February 2, 2008 at 9:05 pm
This goes back to a point Dan Dennett made in the Four Horsemen talk.People who've had these numinous experiences get so flustered when that doesn't cut it as evidence.
It's like you're taking the greatest moment in their lives, and telling them it's crap.
Well, yes, it IS the greatest moment in your life, but why can't it JUST be the greatest moment in your life?
Why can't you have the confidence in yourself to believe it was a mirror to a transcendent part of yourself, and draw strength from that?
Why does it have to be all tied up in crummy bronze age mumbo jumbo for it to be valid to you?
It absolutely HAS to be that the creator of the universe spoke to you, and you alone.
THAT has to be the message?
Really?
The creator of the universe HAS to think you're special for you to feel good about yourself?
Can you see the ego there?
Other Comments by Diacanu
1527. Comment #121002 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Well Goldy, as I have already shown, your testimony would not stand up to cross examination.Nobody here is bothering to cross examine my testimony.
It's OK. I don't mind. But it was important for me to note the hypocrisy on display.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1528. Comment #121003 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 9:07 pm
James Carville - is he famous? Never heard of the cove.... Other Comments by Goldy
1529. Comment #121004 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Well Goldy, as I have already shown, your testimony would not stand up to cross examination.
And yours is valid? Ummmmm, bugger, hate to say this, but have I got news for you!
Other Comments by Goldy
1530. Comment #121005 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Not in a scientific context it isn't. And that's the context we mean it when we ask about your reasons for believing in the great bearded skybully.If you are going to ask me to describe the defining moment that changed me to a theist, I think I get to decide the context...
Calling me a liar just reveals your cowardice and prejudice. In any case, I spoke for myself, and noted from the beginning that it was not likely to be convince anyone but me.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1531. Comment #121007 by troyreynolds86 on February 2, 2008 at 9:14 pm
No, the book doesn't get any better. His arguments are weak, and as near as I can tell he isn't really arguing about anyone's arguments.Page 29, the Ad Hominen. Comparing Dawkins to Leary as if it were drugs that produced his wonder about science. Interesting comparison, as if something a person finds interesting and breathtaking in its scope and scale must be drug induced. Also, either Day fails to mention or notice, but Leary's experimentation with LSD produced in him a sense of god, where for RD reality inspired his awe just fine. Good comparison.
Page 34 "Some of history's greatest scientists are known to have been men of great Christian faith." I wonder what they would be had they been born in our world today? Pure speculation but I would suspect a great number of them would have dumped the god hypothesis. Immediately afterward, the da Vinci line. Did da Vinci really respect the Church, who was not his most prominent patron, and for whom he gladly produced two heretical Madonna on the Rocks before getting one his commissioners would accept. He, most likely, worked for the church on occasion because, like most people, he needed someone to pay him and they did have the cash to pony up.
His argument about the dark ages not being all that dark. Fine. Okay. Pointless when discussing science because there really wasn't much going on. The list of legitamate church grudges with science is short. Fine. Again, not much going on that would anger the church. Just imagine the church's outrage had Darwin published Origin during the time when it was the primary mover and shaker. By the Victorian age Catholicism had been nutted by the Reformation and that had been nutted by the Enlightenment. Had both of these not happened, just consider the longer list of scandals we could point at.
Well, enough, and far too long.
Other Comments by troyreynolds86
1532. Comment #121008 by LorienRyan on February 2, 2008 at 9:16 pm
K - "...from the beginning that it was not likely to be convince anyone but me."
got that right.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
1533. Comment #121009 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:21 pm
It absolutely HAS to be that the creator of the universe spoke to you, and you alone.No. I believe that many people have spoken with God. I would not say that it is a common occurrence, but it is hardly unique.
The creator of the universe HAS to think you're special for you to feel good about yourself?
Can you see the ego there?
I know it's cliche, Diacanu... but everyone is that special to God. Now I realize that not everyone claims to get a response, when they talk to God... but truth be told the conversations were not particularly ego-boosters for me.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1534. Comment #121010 by righton on February 2, 2008 at 9:25 pm
"but everyone is that special to God."Even the childern that get cancer and die, they must feel realy special.
Other Comments by righton
1535. Comment #121011 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:26 pm
If you are going to ask me to describe the defining moment that changed me to a theist, I think I get to decide the context...
Neither of us gets to decide the context, the context is what it is: a scientific one.
Are you really making the claim that the question of God's existence is a matter of law?
Calling me a liar just reveals your cowardice and prejudice.
I didn't call you a liar, I said it was most likely that you were lying.
When someone claims to have spoken with God, there are four possibilities I can think of:
a) They really did
b) They suffered a psychotic episode
c) They are lying to themselves
d) They are lying to me
"d" seems to me the most probable of the four.
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
1536. Comment #121012 by Diacanu on February 2, 2008 at 9:28 pm
righton-Even the childern that get cancer and die, they must feel realy special.
Oh, God loved them and wanted them back in heaven so bad, he hastened their demise.
Why he didn't just keep them in his bosom, must have been something they had to learn on earth.
Maybe that cancer sucks?
Well...DUH.
Other Comments by Diacanu
1537. Comment #121013 by LorienRyan on February 2, 2008 at 9:29 pm
K - "but truth be told the conversations were not particularly ego-boosters for me."
No, because the religious paradigm you allow your mind to be subjected to wants you to believe you are a piece of worthless dirt - and only god can save you from the mire.
Can't you see the one-two punch?
Other Comments by LorienRyan
1538. Comment #121014 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Even the childern that get cancer and die, they must feel realy special.Spoken like you believe in God and you are angry at Him...
Those unfortunate children are at rest now, and someday they will arise and be with their families again.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1539. Comment #121015 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I didn't call you a liar, I said it was most likely that you were lying.I don't want to call you an asshole, but you are certainly acting like one.
I'll tell you what. It sounds like you should ignore what I write, and I should ignore you.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1540. Comment #121016 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I'll tell you what. It sound like you should ignore what I write, and I should ignore you.
Run away! Run away!
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
1541. Comment #121017 by Radesq on February 2, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Do you age in heaven, or if you die as a baby do you remain a baby for eternity? Can you pick what age you want to be 22-23 was a good year for me. Most people die old I suppose...do they remain old in heaven? What if you were adopted, which family do you hang with in the ever after? Other Comments by Radesq
1542. Comment #121018 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Here I am! Here I am!By all means let's continue this pedantic conversation. What more do you need to get off your chest now that you have decided that I am lying?
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1543. Comment #121019 by Diacanu on February 2, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Kardashovel-Spoken like you believe in God and you are angry at Him...
That's such a sad raggedy tired old argument.
No, we're angry at the nasty piece of fiction written by bronze age dead old men being taken seriously in the 21st century.
If you lived in a world where people killed in the name of Santa, would you be pissed at Santa, or the myth of Santa?
Other Comments by Diacanu
1544. Comment #121020 by righton on February 2, 2008 at 9:38 pm
"Those unfortunate children are at rest now, and someday they will arise and be with their families again. "Dont count on it.
Other Comments by righton
1545. Comment #121021 by LorienRyan on February 2, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Ben,
I think 'c' is the answer which in effect causes 'd'.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
1546. Comment #121022 by Ben Jennings on February 2, 2008 at 9:39 pm
What more do you need to get off your chest now that you have decided that I am lying?
I've decided no such thing. It's just the most likely scenario.
I've got nothing to get off my chest. We've already established that your claims about your own experiences don't constitute evidence for god's existence. So what else you got?
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
1547. Comment #121023 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:39 pm
No, because the religious paradigm you allow your mind to be subjected to wants you to believe you are a piece of worthless dirt - and only god can save you from the mire.Can't you see the one-two punch?
It's comments like this that convince me that you don't really read my posts, LorienRyan.
God loves you very much. You are already saved. You told me so in our first exchange.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
1548. Comment #121024 by Radesq on February 2, 2008 at 9:41 pm
OK Kardashovel...those questions probably aren't fair as you presumably have not been to heaven how would you know? But if God has spoken to you what does his voice sound like? George Burns? James Earl Jones? Vox Day? Or does he sound like you...in which case if it sounds like a duck (you know the rest). Other Comments by Radesq
1549. Comment #121025 by LorienRyan on February 2, 2008 at 9:43 pm
K,
I think you are mistaking me for someone else, check the posts.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
1550. Comment #121026 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:43 pm
We've already established that your claims about your own experiences don't constitute evidence for god's existence.No, scooter. I would accept that I have no scientific evidence, but what we established is that you don't know what evidence means and that you only play as the home team.
So what else you got?
Lack of respect for your ability to reason.
Other Comments by Kardashovel
More Comments: First | Previous | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 | Next | Last
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1501. Comment #120971 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I know :-) Mind you, most of the blokes that said y'all were...well, not quite a full shilling. And Kardy said it, so mine was a bit of a repetition.
Just for the record, Yorkshiremen can be generous and good listeners and copper wire was NOT invented by 2 Scotsmen fighting over a penny ;-) Heheheheheheh!
Other Comments by Goldy