1. Comment #392541 by Enlightenme.. on June 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Chucking about pathetic labels such as 'scientism' 'nihilist' or 'materialist' marks the speaker out as some kind of wanking luddite from the off.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

2. Comment #392543 by Nails on June 30, 2009 at 5:11 pm

"It takes religion to make people believe something crazy like the earth is 6,000 years old"

Spot on PZ.

But I do get the feeling that you havn't debated many christian Darwinists...

Other Comments by Nails

3. Comment #392550 by Goldy on June 30, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Nails, sometimes it might depend on the religion... :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30monks.html?ref=world

Although Buddhist scriptures have their own explanations of nature, the mind and the physical world, students were unfazed about seeming contradictions between Buddhism and western science.

“There are contradictions within Buddhist philosophy itself,” pointed out Lobsang Gompo, a 27-year-old monk from Drepung monastery in south India. Tibetan Buddhists are already accustomed to analyzing multiple viewpoints, he said.

Other Comments by Goldy

4. Comment #392557 by StudioLegionXIIII on June 30, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Faith & Science = Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc. etc. etc.

Other Comments by StudioLegionXIIII

5. Comment #392561 by MarcCountry on June 30, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Science can't explain art... yet.

Other Comments by MarcCountry

6. Comment #392562 by black wolf on June 30, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Strange that the theistic evolutionist Denis apparently can't understand (or perhaps represses an understanding) that evolutionary survival well explains basic morality, and an increase in cognitive capacity naturally leads to more complex thinking leading to philosophical moral reasoning. Can he really not accept that?

Other Comments by black wolf

7. Comment #392563 by Goldy on June 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm

MarcCountry
Art....music....religion...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090624-bone-flute-oldest-instrument.html
Tenuous link, I know. But there is a scientific explanation tentatively given for music. That could, really, cover art. And from there, the reasons for religion?

Other Comments by Goldy

8. Comment #392564 by mordacious1 on June 30, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Nails, have you read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30muse.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

70 paleontologists visit the creation museum.

Other Comments by mordacious1

9. Comment #392566 by EvidenceOnly on June 30, 2009 at 7:09 pm

It is astonishing that Denis Alexander, or any religious scientist for that matter, does not get it. Scientists SHOULD know the difference between science and superstition.

The scientific process based on verifiable and falsifiable evidence eventually gets to the truth. Newton's theory of gravity works for what we are dealing with in our daily life but Einstein had to expand to cover the universe.

Superstition, of which religion is its most threatening flavor for the survival of humanity, cannot survive this process at all and therefore has nothing to do with any truth whatsoever.

There is no verifiable and falsifiable evidence for any god, for any "miracle", and when you take all of this out of the holy (as in "full of holes") books and also remove anything we now consider immoral, you are left with the golden rule that is perfectly explainable by the theory of evolution.

Like placebos, Santa Claus, tooth fairies, ..., religion may give comfort to some but comfort has nothing to do with truth and in science it is not comfort that matters but truth. Those who feel that a god answers everything should realize that anything that answers everything in reality answers nothing at all.

A lot of people then hide behind the fact that everything in their holy book is allegorical but that is a cop-out. It is fascination to see people claim that the bible is the word of god and that this god demands nothing less than unquestionable obedience and then pick and chose what they believe as fact and what they believe as allegoric. What a nonsense.

Denis Alexander is a biologist. He should know that evolution is NOT purpose driven and that the only purpose of life is what you - using the consciousness that evolution gave us - give to your own life.

I agree with PZ. People can believe any nonsense they want as long as they do not try to impose this on anyone or on society.

How can scientists like Denis Alexander be so open to superstition?

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

10. Comment #392567 by Goldy on June 30, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Mord - you made it sound like the start of a joke ;-)
I liked this line...

“Thus in one sentence they admit that evolution is real,” Dr. Bengtson said, “and that they have to invoke magic to explain how it works.”

Other Comments by Goldy

11. Comment #392573 by Quine on June 30, 2009 at 8:25 pm

I was not too happy hearing PZ call evolved beings "creatures" which they are not. However, he got back some by calling the Christian deity a "creature," which is true as it was created by people the same way Mickey Mouse is a true creature of Walt Disney.

As for that whole thing of "asking the bigger questions," there is no problem asking these questions; the problem is in accepting make believe answers with no connection to objective evidence.

Other Comments by Quine

12. Comment #392574 by -ID62- on June 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Mr. Denis Alexander is ssoooooo cute. My 19 year old daughter would like to put him in the basket in her room next to Elmo, the Wiggles, and the 14 teddy bears. Warm and fuzzy people, warm..and...fuzzy.

Other Comments by -ID62-

13. Comment #392575 by commonhumanity on June 30, 2009 at 8:34 pm

"Science can't explain art... yet."

I'm a poet -- I've always been interested in the connections between things (what poetry mostly does), and I've trained myself over the years to get better at it. That's what scientists do also. Science CAN explain both scientists and artists: we use our brains to give our own interpretation to nature, and we work hard for years and years to get better and better at it.

What you may be wondering about is genius. That's different (though some of us may have brief flashes of it). But even that's natural-just an aberration of nature. Once every great while, someone is born with a brain capable of working to incredible heights with words (Shakespeare), music (Mozart), etc. We can explain that as well as we can understand the rest of the natural world, can't we? (not perfectly, but to a large extent). (I'm in over my head, of course!!)

Other Comments by commonhumanity

14. Comment #392576 by cyberguy on June 30, 2009 at 8:34 pm

Goldy wrote - "Mord - you made it sound like the start of a joke ;-)"

Ok - I just made up this one. Has anyone got any others...

=========================
70 paleontologists visit the creation museum.

They all walk up to the ticket desk, crowding around.

"We would like just one ticket to the museum, please" says one.

"But there are at least two coachloads of you guys!!!", says the woman behind the desk.

"But paying for one ticket for seventy people is still 10-thousand times more accurate than what your museum claims for the age of the Earth!", says the paleontologist.
=========================

Other Comments by cyberguy

15. Comment #392577 by cyberguy on June 30, 2009 at 8:59 pm

70 paleontologists visit the creation museum.

They all walk up to the ticket desk, crowding around.

"We would like seventy tickets to the museum, please" says one.

She hands seventy tickets to the man.

"That will be two cents please", says the woman.

Other Comments by cyberguy

16. Comment #392579 by mordacious1 on June 30, 2009 at 9:30 pm

70 paleontologists enter the creation museum. They are met by the museum's director, who says, "Well, what do you think?".

Pal. 1: "871 cc cranial capacity...".
Pal. 2: "Super-obital ridges...".
Pal. 3: "66 kg body mass...".
Pal. 4-70: "Homo Ergaster!!!! Some museum you have here!".

Other Comments by mordacious1

17. Comment #392581 by John James on June 30, 2009 at 10:00 pm

@EvidenceOnly
"How can scientists like Denis Alexander be so open to superstition? "

Just a bit of bounded IRrationality. As long as it stays bounded enough, no biggie. I don't mind guys like that telling people who want a bit of god in their life that they can accept evolution etc. They seem to know that when communicating science results (i.e. actual science research) to stick to the science, whilst maybe getting a little carried away when it comes to philosophy.

Life is full of contradictions, some hurt, some don't, but we can't really avoid them. Plus contradiction is not necessarily something to avoid in and of itself; sure its best to avoid them when trying to communicate results in the scientific community (but not always) and in other circumstances, but in life there is always the axioms to consider.

Other Comments by John James

18. Comment #392583 by cyberguy on June 30, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Mordacious1 - excellent joke! :-)

Other Comments by cyberguy

19. Comment #392589 by prolibertas on June 30, 2009 at 10:52 pm

Theistic evolutionists want to accept evolution, they just don't want to accept that it can actually explain anything. They want to keep that job for magic.

Other Comments by prolibertas

20. Comment #392591 by Sheol99 on June 30, 2009 at 11:15 pm

A new series of jokes:

"70 paleontologists visit the creation museum."

very funny ones here ... :D

Other Comments by Sheol99

21. Comment #392595 by Szymanowski on June 30, 2009 at 11:43 pm

PZ shouldn't do this kind of interview: a respected scientist's involvement makes the discussion itself appear respectable.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

22. Comment #392600 by Alexis Yourcenar on July 1, 2009 at 12:53 am

EvidenceOnly, you wrote:

"How can scientists like Denis Alexander be so open to superstition?"

It´s even worse than we can imagine.

As the recent exchange between Sam Harris and Philip Ball painfully shows, plenty of scientists -including, amazingly, unbelievably, prestigious science magazines like Nature- think that religion is not so bad after all. If you haven´t read this exchange, please do.

Mr Ball sums up beautifully all the so-called arguments for the "hands-off religion" attitude. It goes without saying that the Templeton boys love this attitude, this misty-mystical-patronising open-mindedness to what they call "Big Questions".

Other Comments by Alexis Yourcenar

23. Comment #392602 by David A Robertson on July 1, 2009 at 1:14 am

"PZ shouldn't do this kind of interview: a respected scientist's involvement makes the discussion itself appear respectable."

Have you ever heard of anything more close minded? Don't discuss with people because it gives them respectability! The only respectable position is the atheist one. And you wonder why people use the term 'atheist fundamentalist'?

PZ shouldn't do this kind of interview because he took a hammering. He was unable to answer the basic question and was clearly struggling to move beyond his Dawkins paradigm 'evolution is true therefore there is no God'.

I am currently in Brighton where we had a great discussion last night with some intelligent atheists who were at least prepared to think about and discuss some of the issues involved. Using the ' we should not discuss because it only gives respectability is as pathetic as the great man who was asked at the American Atheists conference "" You have done debates all over the world. Have you ever had a clever or interesting argument from the other side". The answer, which was greeted with laughter and applause as though it were the witticism of the century rather than the arrogant fundamentalistic statement it was, was 'no'. Is it any wonder that you are losing the intellectual arguments? And it is no surprise that you do not want to debate when you seem to be losing almost every debate. Perhaps you should just retreat to your atheist blog comfort zone and continue to tell yourselves that the only respectable intelligent position is your own.

Other Comments by David A Robertson

24. Comment #392603 by martinjbaker on July 1, 2009 at 1:15 am

Can't believe I made it through to the end. It's amazingly dishonest for Denis to say that scientists also rely on text book evidence WITHOUT taking into account how that evidence came to be written in the first place!

It's a very warm and fuzzy show as you might expect. Make sure you listen in your favourite cardigan with a nice cup of tea and a slice of Mr Kiplings cake. :-)

Other Comments by martinjbaker

25. Comment #392607 by black wolf on July 1, 2009 at 1:23 am

I was going to comment about Szymanowski's and other posts that Alexander is a respected scientist too, but upon having looked up his cv, I'll have to qualify that. His current job is funded by Templeton, at the institute Polkinghorne and McGrath have also written for. Their job is tacking religion onto anything that doesn't get out of the way fast enough.
I think it was good that PZ was on, these people need to be confronted. But they need to be confronted more rigorously in a way that the call-in format was not suitable for.
Here Alexander was easily able to separate science from religion only to shoehorn religion back in via mysiticized gap teleology that he himself apparently thought reasonable in spite of denouncing gap theology earlier. They need to be called on that trick, even if they don't do it consciously.

Another thing, the discutants sadly missed the opportunity to point out that theistic evolution has a great problem with reconciling God's benevolence and intelligence. They're just heaping a cartload of more problems onto the unresolved theodicy problem. No, free will still doesn't solve it, and evolution makes it worse. That's another point I haven't heard a remotely satisfactory answer for.

Other Comments by black wolf

26. Comment #392608 by Mark Jones on July 1, 2009 at 1:24 am

Comment #392602 by David A Robertson

Have you ever had a clever or interesting argument from the other side?

What did you make of the Brighton atheists? To help us, what was it about their brand of atheism that made them *not* fundamental atheists? Or were they as well?

Other Comments by Mark Jones

27. Comment #392610 by AllanW on July 1, 2009 at 1:40 am

Comment #392602 by David A Robertson on July 1, 2009 at 1:14 am

Have you ever heard of anything more close minded?

Yes; people who ignore the facts of physical reality to claim that the Earth is not 4.6 billion years old but rather 10,000 years old. Or others who sign homophobic petitions solely on the basis that their imaginary sky daddy told them homosexuality is wrong.

The ‘don’t discuss reality with someone who refuses to accept facts’ idea is a political and practical argument exactly paralleled with the injunction not to feed a junkies habit.

Is it any wonder that you are losing the intellectual arguments?

Your increasingly desperate, tinny and shrill blaring of this canard is very revealing of the hollowness of your own position.

Why post this here? I have learned that we cannot expect any honesty whatsoever from you so I’ll provide the answer; shit-stirring. The last refuge of a denuded and intellectually discredited mythology that you represent with appropriately venal, demeaning and fearful mien.

Other Comments by AllanW

28. Comment #392612 by hungarianelephant on July 1, 2009 at 1:42 am

23. Comment #392602 by David A Robertson

And it is no surprise that you do not want to debate when you seem to be losing almost every debate. Perhaps you should just retreat to your atheist blog comfort zone and continue to tell yourselves that the only respectable intelligent position is your own.

I can't speak for PZ, but as for debating, there are some open questions for you on the Lennox thread on the question of biblical interpretation.

Now I know that you have some concerns about being sent to the sin bin by over-zealous users of the Troll button feature. So I'll repeat my suggestion that you post your answers somewhere that you control, and anyone who wants to respond posts here.

As we seem to be losing almost every debate (did we win any?), this shouldn't present you with too many problems, should it?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

29. Comment #392613 by black wolf on July 1, 2009 at 1:43 am

It appears Alexander is saying that it is perfectly legitimate - even foundationally important - for scientists to ask the Big Why, but that it's bizarrely also not legitimate to try and actually answer it.

If it is true that early scientists and the development of the scientific method owe to a sort of 'theistic curiosity', which I'm not at all convinced of, then this search has evidently also not yet yielded a shred of a result in that regard. Simply, every result that is not magic is evidence that looking for magic is not a sensical enterprise. Just saying as Alexander does that all non-magic could well point to magic is pure nonsense. But that's what he's getting paid for.

Other Comments by black wolf

30. Comment #392616 by Vaal on July 1, 2009 at 1:53 am

23. Comment #392602 by David A Robertson

And it is no surprise that you do not want to debate when you seem to be losing almost every debate

Haven't seen a debate yet David, other than your skewed reporting of such debates, that hasn't portrayed religion in any guise other than credulous wishful thinking, with the evidence of God(s) still absolutely zero, no matter how much shrill pontificating and hot air from the religious quarter. Just the usual empty canards, in an endless groundhog day.

It would be nice if they bought something new to the table instead of bleating on about Stalin, Hitler, theology, pseudo-science and blatant falsehoods. That emperor must be freezing!

Other Comments by Vaal

31. Comment #392617 by scottishgeologist on July 1, 2009 at 1:54 am

David Robertson says:

Is it any wonder that you are losing the intellectual arguments£

There is no argument to lose.

Consider this.

The whole Christian faith is based on this idea of "sin" affecting all mankind because of the Fall. And the only way to redemption is through Christ. Sin enters through the first Adam and is dealt with through thr second Adam

Fine. Pauls letter to the Romans explains this.

Problem is, and this is the big one. The NT writers make it quite clear that Adam was a literal figure. Lukes genealogy even traces Jesus' descent from him

So there was a time when the only members of homo sapiens on the planet, where Adam and Eve, Adam made from dirt, Eve created from Adams rib. No death, no carnivores , no suffering. No earthquakes, no volcanoes and presumably lots of dinosaurs, trilobites and every other type of life that ever existed roaming around (because there was no death yet, its all perfect remember£

When did all this happen, presumably several thousand years ago if you believe Lukes genealogy

Then suddenly, Adam and Eve go munch and the entire tectonic framework of the planet changes. Lions then decide, hey so thats what the fangs are for, and go after a gazelle and eat it.

And so on. We havent even reached the blood lust of Joshua or the ridiculous Noahs Ark BS yet.

And christians are expeceted to swallow all this nonsense because their innerant inspired infallible "Word of God" tells them so£

And you accuse US of losing the intellectual argument£ If you believe that genesis BS, then the contents of your rectum and cranium have become reversed....

:-)
SG

David you might care to answer this one specific point: Earlier on, a few months ago I asked you about Adam and Eve and that rib business:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3754,-The-perfect-riposte-to-childhood-indoctrination,Catherine-Deveny,page4#368803

for details

Your reply was that you felt that Adam and Eve were "probably not " created the way the Bible says they were

So how were they created£ And dont say theistic evolution - thats just religious BS trying to claw back some ground lost to science. It simply doesnt work

The bottom line is: your bible which you claim to believe makes some pretty ridiculous statements about origins. Ludicrous in fact. Which you dont believe. You've stated it here on this forum

Collins gets round this one by trying to say that where bible accounts are not actual "eye witness " accounts then they should be treated as allegorical. I call BS on that one as well. The whole bible is supposedly the "word" of a perfect god. Besides it is just sheer intellectual dishonesty to use this Collins type approach.

Just think about it: "Whoops, it sounds retarded and doesnt fit in with science, better call it allegory..."

Lost the intellectual argument£ sorry, 1 out of 10, must try harder.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

32. Comment #392618 by alan baylis on July 1, 2009 at 1:55 am

PZ wrote this:

The interviewer also thinks Plantinga's arguments are good, which we didn't talk about at all, but which would have triggered some on-air gagging noises if they had come up.

I suppose he means this sort of thing:

Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways. "Unnatural science," "Creation Science," "Theistic Science"—call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by methodological naturalism.
Alvin Plantinga
From: http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html

Other Comments by alan baylis

33. Comment #392624 by cyberguy on July 1, 2009 at 2:31 am

Last one, I promise!

70 paleontologists were visiting the creation museum.

But as they are getting out of the coaches, there was a sudden rush of thunderclouds, a bright flash, and all the paleontologists were struck dead by lightning.

At the Pearly Gates, St Peter greets them with a sneer. "What are you doing here£ You paleontologists are the worst! You provided evidence to God's enemies, in order to ridicule Christians, and make them look foolish. Get to hell, where you belong!!! I hear Lucifer has something special in store for you!!!"

In hell they are met by the Prince of Darkness himself. "I've been waiting for you paleontologists. You guys are the worst! Come with me". He led them down to the lowest, most evil level of hell, where he pointed to a door.

"That's where you are going to spend the rest of eternity in perpetual torment! Look!", he said laughing, and pointing to the sign over the door. The sign read "Creation Museum"!

Other Comments by cyberguy

34. Comment #392625 by black wolf on July 1, 2009 at 2:38 am

alan, what nonsense Plantinga writes. How does he make the case that methodological naturalism is a restriction at all? By declaring that there are Truths outside of it. And then he gets even sillier by demanding that a 'broader' form of inquiry be found to examine those Truths. Why, Alvin, do you need to devise a new method to examine what you already know is True?
Plantinga should be honest and admit that the only result he hopes for is maintaining jobs for professional wafflers like himself.

Has anyone shown him the Dover trial transcript? The part where the interested waffler Behe admits that by his own definition - which looked like an exact match for Plantinga's outline - phrenology, astrology and witchcraft would become scientific subjects?

Other Comments by black wolf

35. Comment #392630 by Jos Gibbons on July 1, 2009 at 2:48 am

Comment #392625 by black wolf

If you think THAT'S rubbish, just wait until you see some of his other stuff! He refers to "basic beliefs" as those which we don't justify, so as to avoid an infinite regress. How he manages to squeeze "My god is real" into the "2 2=4" category he never explains. One critic compared it to a belief in the Cosmic Pumpkin - how do you know what's basic?

Then there's his attempt at the problem of evil, his "free will defence", in terms of "transworld depravity". His aim is only to show the logical possibility of an monipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god coexisting alongside evil, not to show its tenability. By the end of his argument, which commits several errors in modal logic, one is left wondering whether one can even achieve this very limited goal.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

36. Comment #392631 by epeeist on July 1, 2009 at 2:50 am

Comment #392618 by alan baylis:

but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways.

Thanks for that Alan.

Given that Plantinga is supposedly an excellent analytical philosopher and logician it is interesting to see him commit such an obvious petitio principii.

Other Comments by epeeist

37. Comment #392633 by mmurray on July 1, 2009 at 3:01 am

I guess this is it:

http://brightonbits.blogspot.com/2009/06/alert-call-for-brighton-atheists.html

Funny to see it sponsored by Borders Books. I was in there today and noticed that they have Atheism with Islam, Christianity etc under `Faith and Spirituality'. Just another religion I guess ...

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

38. Comment #392634 by black wolf on July 1, 2009 at 3:02 am

Jos, epeeist, why do you think anyone is paying the Plantingas of this world for what they do? More importantly, if they get any tax money, how can it be stopped? They are grossly incompetent. I mean, their job is not to finish a specific project in a given amount of time, but they aren't doing anything in any amount of time.

Other Comments by black wolf

39. Comment #392635 by black wolf on July 1, 2009 at 3:04 am

mmurray, your link is kaputt. A hyphen has gone AWOL.

Other Comments by black wolf

40. Comment #392637 by mmurray on July 1, 2009 at 3:15 am

mmurray, your link is kaputt. A hyphen has gone AWOL.

Oops. Fixed. Thanks black wolf. Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

41. Comment #392640 by cyberguy on July 1, 2009 at 3:23 am

Off topic paleontologist jokes continued on new thread:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php£f=1&t=86048

Other Comments by cyberguy

42. Comment #392642 by mmurray on July 1, 2009 at 3:23 am

but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways. "Unnatural science," "Creation Science," "Theistic Science"—call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view.

Well that's obviously rubbish let's try again:

a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that there are no gods and all sentient life is a cycle of rebirth struggling to free itself from negative karma. "Buddhist science," "Karmic Science," —call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Buddhist point of view.

That's better.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

43. Comment #392643 by Jos Gibbons on July 1, 2009 at 3:29 am

Comment #392634 by black wolf

Why are theologians getting paid? Hm, good question. Well, traditionally they were paid because of the religion-centred universities in the Middle ages. If you want to see what was wrong with mediaeval theories on pedagogy, look up the trivium and quadrivium, and see if it makes any sense. Since then, it is one of those traditions that has persisted, just as grace has persisted in colleges in Oxford. (As a Keblite I find this very annoying.)

More recently, groups like the Templeton Foundation try to save religion on the intellectual front. I think for them, it's sufficient justification that they're doing the best they can for their religion with the money ... which, of course, is nothing more than seeming worthwhile.

That's the best answer I can give. Maybe epeeist can say something that makes more sense of it.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

44. Comment #392645 by epeeist on July 1, 2009 at 3:39 am

Comment #392643 by Jos Gibbons:

That's the best answer I can give. Maybe epeeist can say something that makes more sense of it.

I can't do any better than you.

However, I would be careful about saying "this is useful, this isn't and we ought to get rid of it". We have (in the UK) already had an education secretary who only sees education in a very constrained utilitarian light - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2712833.stm

Other Comments by epeeist

45. Comment #392646 by keddaw on July 1, 2009 at 3:57 am

I love (hate, whatever) the unbelievable arrogance of these people. Not their claim that god is real, but their claim that their brand of god is the right one.

You get Christians putting forth all kinds of arguments against atheists, but never use similar arguments against other religions. Imagine a Christian saying to a Muslim "the idea that Mohammed flew bodily up to heaven on a horse is patently absurd." And the Muslim retorting "Jesus was a man and you eat of his body, you are cannibals." I would pay to see that debate.

Other Comments by keddaw

46. Comment #392650 by keddaw on July 1, 2009 at 4:07 am

Science: Verifiable. Independently discoverable across cultures, time and species.

Religion: Contradictory. Only discoverable through one book* which if you do not have access to, you're screwed.

*Okay, this is Abrahimic monotheism.

Other Comments by keddaw

47. Comment #392659 by stevencarrwork on July 1, 2009 at 4:59 am

I see David Robertson claims he is winning the intellectual argument.

But he still somehow refuses to post any evidence for his fervent belief that Jesus was God Incarnate and inspired a book which told of how Jesus informed his friends how to get free money by looking in the mouth of a fish.

Robertson claims he is winning the intellectual argument and his Holy Book has a story of the Creator of the Universe telling people how to get free money by looking in the mouth of a fish.

Sorry, David, but your Bible is childish nonsense of the kind that even Roald Dahl would reject as too childish.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

48. Comment #392699 by Mr DArcy on July 1, 2009 at 8:12 am

David Robertson asks:

Have you ever heard of anything more close minded?

How about the 1st Commandment;

"Thou shalt have no gods before me".

It seems pretty close minded to me. It's almost as if the almighty felt threatened by rival gangsters.

Will I fry in hell for that David? I'm really frightened about losing the debate, what with my eternal soul at stake!

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

49. Comment #392700 by irate_atheist on July 1, 2009 at 8:25 am

48. Comment #392699 by Mr DArcy -

I wonder who these other gods are. It appears that David Robertson's god believes in a pantheon of immortals, whereas he only believes in three, er, one. Or two. Depending how you count them.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

50. Comment #392701 by MarcCountry on July 1, 2009 at 8:32 am

The theistic scientist's rationale for religion:

We live in a finely tuned universe;
Therefore:
Yaweh did it. With magic.

Can't argue with that.

I wonder what such xian scientist's think about the circumstances of Mary's angelic artificial insemination, or, if Yahweh's sperm wasn't used, whether Jesus might have merely appeared male, but in reality had two X chromosomes (I've heard of similar cases).

Of course, if Yahweh didn't inseminate Mary with his own nut-babies, then referring to him as Jesus' "Father" is merely a metaphor, and he was no more a "father" to Jesus than he is a "father" to anyone else.

These, of course, are scientific questions, and I'd be interested to hear how this all works.

Other Comments by MarcCountry