1. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109522 by Coel on January 9, 2008 at 6:35 am

AndreG - My friend, you are missing the point I am trying to make. I will try once more: Majority of road users have no imput into the road rules.

Oh yes we do, by electing those who are in charge of making the rules. Ultimately, if the majority of road users wanted a rule change they could obtain it by lobbying or voting for law makers.

2. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109508 by Coel on January 9, 2008 at 6:21 am

Roger Stanyard writes:

Steve: "That is not a rule from the bible. That is the Golden Rule, and we see it in other animal species. It comes from evolution, not the bible." That's genetic determinism. I strongly dispute it.

Why do you dispute it Roger? It seems obvious to me that the Golden Rule is one product of our basic moral senses, and that our basic moral senses are the product of evolution, and thus are encoded in our genes.

As stated above, evolutionary processes such as reciprocal altruism are likely the underpinning of our sense of empathy for others, which leads to the Golden Rule.

3. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109430 by Coel on January 9, 2008 at 3:48 am

the way Dawkins discusses religion in TGD is not that much stronger than the tone he has used in the past in discussing the work of other scientists.

Quite right -- he certainly went for David Sloan Wilson in the New Scientist letters page a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, it would be good to read a Dawkins commentary/response to that DS/EO Wilson article on group selection, since it confused me and I need to be unconfused.

4. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88153 by Coel on November 15, 2007 at 1:54 am

My question is, what process is there in science to upgrade a "theory" to a "law"? My ignorance of how this happens is very real. Anyone with a history lesson to give some background?

In asking this question you are buying into the ``theory = unproven'' idea, which is not how science uses the word. In science, ``law'' is used for something that can be stated in one sentence or one equation.

A ``theory'' is grander, it is a set of interlocking ideas and explanations, often encompassing several laws. Thus the theory of classical mechanics includes Newton's laws of motion, and the theory of thermodynamics includes four thermodynamical laws. Thus, theories are never upgraded to laws (though a ``hypothesis'' might be).

I do see the point people are making, that the popular usage is different, and helps the creationists. The problem is that there is no easy change here, since the proposal to call evolution a ``law'' would be a marked departure from what science means by ``law''.

5. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #77068 by Coel on October 8, 2007 at 10:56 am

Wee flea writes:

Rather easily. I was just quoting RD himself – Where he says in River out of Eden "We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than throwaway survival machines". I am delighted that you disagree with RD – but please do not shoot me for quoting him on his own website.

Err, David, do you realise that that "nothing more than throwaway survival machines" is from the point of view of the genes and not from our point of view? It is not about how we do or should see ourselves or our fellow humans.

6. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #77066 by Coel on October 8, 2007 at 10:52 am

Quote from wee flea's book:

The only argument I have heard atheists use is that, well, really, Stalin was not an atheist because he behaved unreasonably and unreasonable people cannot be atheists!

And here is wee flea just above:

A version of it is that Stalin did not do what he did BECAUSE of his atheism . . .

Since that is quite clearly a different argument, not a mere version [Hint David: in one of those Stalin is an atheist, in the other he isn't, they are hardly the same], wee flea admits here that he HAD heard other arguments from atheists, and so must have been deliberately telling non-truths.

Ah well, what do we expect from someone who would fabricate a Dawkins quote in a letter to The Times, and not even have the integrity to admit it when caught red handed?

7. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #77063 by Coel on October 8, 2007 at 10:46 am

Wee flea writes:

How the hell do you know that? If an elephant lacks visibility, it might also lack touchability, feelability, smellability and audibility, might it not? (I mean, look, your god lacks all of those things, doesn't it?) You seem to be making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the properties of this invisible elephant. On what basis?

I see Coel. So you are changing the argument. Not only is the elephant invisible but there is no physical aspect to it at all.

David, I changed nothing. The physical, observable characteristics were simply not specified in Northern Bright's original claim about an "invisible elephant".

Its not grey, it does not have a trunk, its not elephant size – so in what sense is it an elephant at all? None.

It is an analogy to your claims about God, where you also fail utterly to provide any concrete information about its observability and testability, or indeed any evidence for it, yet still demand that atheists disprove it.

So the point of your argument is that just because you cannot prove there is not a nothing in your fridge you cannot prove God! And this is supposed to be a website for clear thinkers!

Idiot, it is not about proving God, it is about the reasonableness of asking for disproof of God, when the whole claim is vapid and disolves into nothing concrete when examined.

There is no evidence for either God or invisible elephants. But it isn't sense to believe in either just because they cannot be disproved. A leap of faith towards God is just as sensible as a leap of faith towards an invisible elephant.

8. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #77048 by Coel on October 8, 2007 at 9:39 am

Wee Flea writes

"Cornwell was simply totally misrepresenting things as RD's opinion (eg. Richard Dawkins thinks that any form of religion is the same as paedophilia)." That is not a misrepresentation. That is the impression that RD clearly gives in TGD and which any normal person reading it would get.

How would you know David, since you are not a normal person? Any normal person would see the difference between honesty and fabricating quotes about Dawkins in a letter to The Times, but you don't.

If you cannot see why that is a total misrepresentation that is your limitation; any normal person would see it quite easily. Hint, the only thing equated with paedophilia was the extreme doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell, not all forms of religion.

9. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75277 by Coel on October 2, 2007 at 8:18 am

Pete writes:

It seems true enough, but only if we also accept that there is no logical path from atheism to good deeds.

That is true, there is indeed no logical path that leads from not-believing in gods to good deeds. There is, however, a path from our humanity and our moral instincts towards good deeds. But those things are programmed into us by evolution, they are not predicated on "not believing in gods".

10. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74805 by Coel on September 30, 2007 at 3:09 pm

So Wee Flea FINALLY attempts his disproof of the the invisible elephant. And it is every bit as hopeless as we expected!

Ok. An elephant is a certain size. My fridge is not big enough – even for a baby elephant.

Err, well normal elephants are a certain size, certainly. But invisible elephants? How do you know what size they are? Have you, David, ever seen one? Thought not. So how do you know what size it is? Next!

If an invisible elephant were in my fridge you would still be able to touch, feel, smell and hear it.

How the hell do you know that? If an elephant lacks visibility, it might also lack touchability, feelability, smellability and audibility, might it not? (I mean, look, your god lacks all of those things, doesn't it?) You seem to be making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the properties of this invisible elephant. On what basis?

I mean, suppose I said, "A benevolent God would not let a child die of cancer"; you'd just invent a whole lot of excuses about why such a being might indeed let a child die of cancer. So, why can't we just invent a whole lot of excuses to protect the existence of our invisible, just like you religious folk do for your god?

Evidence of the elephant would be overwhelming.

Some of us feel that that should also be the case if any god did exist! ;-) But then come the whole host of excuses and get-out clauses, just as above. And at the end of them, the "observable signs" of God just happen to be identical to the signs if no god existed. Just like, at the end of this, the "observable signs" of the invisible elephant are going to end up a null set.

Unless of course you were the kind of person who did not accept evidence.

Well, you still haven't presented any evidence against this invisible elephant. All you've done is make a whole lot of unwarrented assumptions about the properties of this elephant.

I mean, David, as I explained to you earlier (and don't you ever read posts that are intended to be educative and helpful?), it is dead easy to produce a disproof if you're allowed to tag on extra properties. For example, I can easily disproove a benevolent-God-who-will-not-let-a-child-die-of-cancer.

Well David, you're not going to manage to disprove this elephant; and in the same way there is no disproof of your god; you believers have carefully arranged that with get-out clauses and excuses. But in the end your god is just as real as this invisible elephant! You've way underestimated the power of this invisible elephant, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, argument, haven't you David?

By the way, can I take your silence as a "No, I still haven't found the integrity to admit that I fabricated that Dawkins quote, and that I deliberately lied about Dawkins to a million readers of the The Times"?

11. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74510 by Coel on September 29, 2007 at 7:46 am

Wee flea writes:

but surely you can see the difference between proving whether there is an elephant in your fridge and the chocolate teapot

Err, no, we can't. So could you explain it to us?

It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge.

No it isn't, it is very easy. All you have to do is try. All you have to do is expound on your disproof of the fridge-bound invisible elephant in clear and logical steps. Can you do that? Are you here for debate, or just for insults and sneers?

Me: Oh, and exactly where did I attribute to you a quote that you hadn't said? Unlike you, I take such things seriously, and will retract and apologise if I've done so.

Wee flea: Try comment no. 63. I did not say nor use that one.

You are right, you did not say or use that argument. But then I never said you did! If you actually read my comment 63 I say only "I expect wee free might try that one"; I was merely speculating that you might try that argument.

So I didn't misquote you. However, you fabricated a quote about Dawkins in your letter in The Times, didn't you? And you don't even have the integrity to admit to it, despite being caught red handed. Why did you lie about Dawkins? In order to try to discredit him? Do you think that is an acceptable tactic for a Christian to use?

12. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73980 by Coel on September 27, 2007 at 1:50 am

Wee flea wrote

PS Coel - please don't attribute quotes to me that I did not use.

I'm gobsmacked at the sheer hypocrisy and cheek of this! David, have you yet found the integrity to admit that you fabricated a Dawkins quote in your letter to The Times? What was it again: "religion is a virus which needs to be eradicated". The second half of that is your fabrication to distort and sex-up the quote, thus misrepresenting Dawkins.

Oh, and exactly where did I attribute to you a quote that you hadn't said? Unlike you, I take such things seriously, and will retract and apologise if I've done so.

If you seriously cannot prove that there is not an invisible elephant in your fridge then yes, there is no way I could ever offer you proof that there is a God. I cannot deal with such irrationality.

I note, David, that you are being somewhat reticient about this no-elephant proof of yours . . . how about setting it out for us? Are you interested in serious discussion, or do you just prefer sneering?

13. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73846 by Coel on September 26, 2007 at 10:39 am

Probably, but I was more concerned with space limitations of your average household fridge

I expect wee free might try that one. But then Northern Bright never specified the size of this invisible elephant did she?

I mean, it is dead easy to refute a "Invisible Elephant-so-big-it-won't-fit-in-my-fridge in my fridge", just as it is dead easy to refute a "benevolent God that won't let a child die of cancer".

However, either just meets the predictable theist response "yes, but that's not my conception of my god/elephant". It is quite clear that wee flea hasn't thought about Northern Bright's question, otherwise he'd realise that he is serious trouble with his claim.

But it might be fun watching him try to refute an "invisible elephant in his fridge", and turning each of his methods against his god. ;-)

14. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73838 by Coel on September 26, 2007 at 10:04 am

Wee flea said:

I CAN prove there is not an invisible elephant in my fridge.

Go on then, do it. We'll be really interested to see how you do it. Careful, though, we might use your techniques against your god ;-).

15. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73734 by Coel on September 26, 2007 at 2:40 am

brother john wrote:

Coel, dear member of the human race. The only way you can find out whether theology is a cumulative science or not - is either to ask someone who is competent in the subject - or else study the stuff for yourself.

You misinterpret my question, which was, how does somebody who has studied theology and knows a lot about it distinguish whether a change is a "step forward" as oppose to a "step backwards" or "sideways"? What is the mechanism for determining whether the change makes it "more correct" or "less correct"? Is labelling something a "step forward" merely personal preference, amounting to "I like this version better? Or is there some objective way of verifying that theology is accumulating improvements?

That is the question relevant to Dawkins's suggestion that theology does not "progress" and is not really a subject at all, since it has no verifiable subject matter, nor any way of verifying any of its statements.

And how revealling that you ignore the question entirely and slew off into displaying your amusing fantasies about atheists.

16. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73561 by Coel on September 25, 2007 at 9:36 am

Brother john writes:

He, by the way, if anyone, could show Richard that theology too is cumulative. His booklet, quoted above. is an example of just such cumulative theology, that starts on the shoulders of so many past writers (and ages) and moves forward.

How, in theology, does one distinguish a movement forward from a movement sideways or a movement backwards? Personal preference? I think that that was Dawkins's point: that theology is not cumulative since there is no way of telling whether a change makes it "more correct" or "less correct".

17. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73079 by Coel on September 24, 2007 at 3:46 am

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:

Oh, come on. Dawkins discusses plenty of entirely spurious claims in TGD, and to good effect. If he thought that Hoyle's number is entirely spurious he would have demolished it. The fact that he didn't even mention the number, and much less tried to argue that it's fallacious, shows that Dawkins did not know how to do it. Hoyle is a Nobel level scientist you know, and here he is writing about a scientific matter. I think it's rather unlikely that his claim is "entirely spurious".

1) There are a vast number of spurious and dumb arguments that are not dealt with in TGD.

2) Hoyle may have made Nobel-level contributions to astrophysics, but his ideas on evolution are widely derided and not respected.

3) Estimating the probability of the first replicator by looking at a modern cell (a highly complex and evolved machine, even the simplest of them) is utterly spurious. Of course the first replicator would have had to have been far simpler! If you were ever under the naive and ludicrous misapprehension that the first replicator was as complicated as a whole, modern cell then please can you educate yourself on the issue before posting.

4) Dawkins would have been 100% aware of the above when writing TGD. If he choose not to address the above issue in TGD it would have been only one of many decisions about what to address. For starters, only a very few of his audience would be aware of Hoyle's number. Indeed, Dawkins has previously dealt with abiogenesis elsewhere, such as in The Blind Watchmaker, where it is entirely explicit that he considers the first replicator to have been far simpler than a whole modern cell.

A replicating molecule by itself is not sufficient; you need a replicating organism that has the properties necessary for Darwinian evolution to take hold

What other property other than self-replication do you think is required?

Then how probable is its spontaneous appearance of RNA anywhere in the universe?

I honestly don't know, but it sure as hell is not Hoyle's number (which is not for one molecule but instead for the vast number of specific, interacting molecules in a highly complex, highly evolved modern cell).

If the probability of the RNA molecule is anything like 1/10^40000 then [. . .]

Agreed, but then it isn't! See reply just above.

The facts are that Hoyle has claimed the 1/10^40000 number based on some scientific thinking

Hoyle's number is based on the utterly unfounded idea that the first replicator had to be as complicated as a modern, highly evolved, highly complex cell, with thousands of molecules of hundreds of specific types, all neatly interlocking.

Well, duh, of course, if that was the case then abiogenesis is dead and Dawkins is stuffed. That is obvious. That is why ALL scientific discussion of abiogenesis has focussed on far simpler possible first replicators, such as one or a small handful of molecules. And nobody is hiding that fact! If Dawkins didn't address it in TGD, well, neither did he address all sorts of other things. It is, after all, a book about "the God delusion", and not primarily about evolution. In books primarily about evolution (such as The Blind Watchmaker) he has dealt with this explicitly.

18. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72823 by Coel on September 23, 2007 at 4:05 am

Dianelos Georgoudis writes:

Hoyle estimated that the probability for obtaining naturalistically the required set of enzymes for even the simples living cell (required for Darwinian evolution to start) was 1 in 10^40000. [. . .] Of course [Dawkins] never mentions how improbable that is supposed to be, I supposehe did not want to trouble his readers with estimates like 1/10^40000.

The reason he doesn't discuss Hoyle's number is that it is entirely spurious. Of course it is not the case that life started with the spontaneous assembly of something as complex and evolved as a modern cell, even the simplest of them! That is obvious to everyone who is not a creationist.

The initial replicator would have been far simpler than that. Why don't we such things today? Well, because of the competition; they'd be eaten by all those complex, highly-evolved (even the simplest ones!) cells.

[As an analogy, what is the least-capable car that it would be profitable to manufacture and sell on the market today? Now ask what is the least-capable car that one could profitably manufacture when cars were first invented.]

So of course the first replicator was not a whole cell; it was more likely just a molecule. Maybe it was a RNA polymerase ribozyme. See
http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/research/highlights_archive/ligase.html

There is no need to raise anthropic-principle smokescreens around; it's not serious.

Dawkins's use of the anthropic principle here is entirely sensible and valid. He is saying that, yes, even the spontaneous assembly of a self-replicating RNA molecule is very likely highly improbable. But so what? It being highly improbable is amply good enough. Even if it had such a low probability of occurring that it had only a 1-in-a-billion chance of occurring in a wait of 1 billion years in a `testube' the size of the Pacific Ocean, that is still probable enough because there are a billion planets with billions of years each available.

Now, yes, we haven't yet identified the first replicator (and if it really is highly improbable, then we would not expect it to be easy to identify). And if you really want to use that god-of-the-gaps argument to believe in your god then feel free (though god-of-the-gaps arguments usually end up looking feeble as science advances). But there is currently no reason to doubt a natural origin of the first replicator.

19. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72105 by Coel on September 20, 2007 at 10:46 am

Brother john wrote:

I have read Page 1 a couple of times in the past. I have just re-read it twice. Nowhere can I find anything that says what you claim. Did YOU re-read the page before you wrote the above reply?

Brother John, isn't it obvious that when Dawkins says "Page 1 of The God Delusion would suffice to demonstrate that I don't "caricature all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists"" he is not saying that on that page is writes a disclaimer stating that he won't caricature, but that by giving an actual example of a "decent liberal clergyman" who was a chaplain at Dawkins's school, he was demonstrating that he does not caricature all believers as "simple-minded fundamentalists", thus refuting Stanford's dumb little slur?

[Sorry, can't be bothered to read the rest of your post if you have trouble with something as easy as that.]

20. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71293 by Coel on September 18, 2007 at 9:53 am

J.J. Ramsey wrote:

He [Dawkins] is certainly trying to communicate that the Trinity is incoherent and presenting points meant to indicate that it is incoherent--which would certainly constitute an attempt at argument against the Trinity.

It doesn't read that way to me; again it seems to me that his intent there is trying to blur monotheism with polytheism. Where does he claim that the Trinity is incoherent? Yes, he calls it "theological close reasoning" and "opaque", but he is just using it as an example of a theological construct, nowhere does he claim it as incoherent. You are reading into him a claim he didn't make.

That defense would make a lot more sense if the quote from Jefferson in question were in the section where RD is explictly noting the secularism of the Founding Fathers, rather than in a section where the focus was on the Trinity.

But repeatedly including Jefferson anti-Christian quotes, as Dawkins does in several different sections, reinforces and emphasizes the point. It's a deliberate tactic.

21. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71245 by Coel on September 18, 2007 at 6:58 am

J.J. Ramsey says:

Me: "Once you pick out the nits in his [Dawkins'] treatment of the Trinity, there isn't anything left. [emphasis mine]"

I've read your web-page on Dawkins's treatment of the Trinity in the GD, but I think you mistake his intentions. He isn't really trying to refute or nit-pick the doctrine of the trinity. As he explicitly says, his main aim in that section is a quick diversion into polytheism just so he cannot be accused of ignoring it. He does this by trying to paint Catholicism as polytheistic (an amusing tactic, since many westerners are brought up to regard monotheism as superior to polytheism; Dawkins is mostly questioning that assumption).

Similarly, his quote of Jefferson is not an "appeal to authority" to dismiss the trinity, it is instead a tactic, repeated often in the GD, of demonstrating to American readers that one of their most revered founders was highly non-Christian.

So you're right, Dawkins didn't demolish the trinity or show it was contradictory, but then he didn't really aim to. To him it is just a theological construct that isn't really worth addressing, since there is no evidence for it.

22. God Hates the World

Comment #53015 by Coel on June 29, 2007 at 2:25 am

To Wee flea (David Robertson)

Sorry Coel, you are right. They do not use the word atheist. However they do state that they are anti-religious and specifically anti the theistic religions, Islam, and especially Christianity and Judaism.

What they actually say is that they are against Judeo-Christianism and "their secular counterpart, humanism". What they favour is ". . . a new framework for belief, synthesized from our pre-Christian religions and . . .". So they seem to be just another religious cult opposed to yours· Despite your claims they don't appear to be atheists or anti-religion. If anything they are Satanists, worshippers of a different god than yours.

My point was, and is, that it would be grossly unfair to use the Church Arson website as an example of what anti-Christians (ant-theists or even atheists) do and are.

Well, they are anti-Christian, but not "anti-theists or atheists", and yes it would be entirely fair of you to point to it as an example of what SOME anti-Christians are like! But so what? Why on earth would you expect all non-Christians to be alike or take responsibility for each other, any more than all non-Buddhists or all non-Marxists?

Just as it is grossly unfair for RD and the majority of people posting here who imply or state that 'God hates the world' is Christian.

It is one sect, one form of Christianity, an extreme and minority one, yes. I do realise that you Christians split up into endless sects and can't even agree on the correct interpretation of the Bible, despite all praying to the same god for assistance.

"Atheism" is not an agreed set of doctrines, it is merely an absence of certain doctrines. There is no reason at all why I should agree with or feel responsible for some other atheist. "

I'm afraid that this 'we believe nothing' line is beginning to wear a bit thin. You do believe lots of things and have a great many presuppositions. Empiricism, materialism . . .

David, of course I believe in lots of things! But that is not part of or motivated by "atheism". "Atheism" just denotes an absence of certain doctrines. Sure, I then hold to many other doctrines (I'm a democrat, a scientist, a liberal, a humanist, etc).

But then I am motived by my beliefs (democracy, liberty, science, humanism) not by what I don't believe (lack of theism, lack of Marxism, lack of Zoroastrianism or whatever). Why do you theists fail to understand that atheism, per se, is not a belief, not a motivation.

. . . and like sheep you all fall for the 'ooh look how bad and evil the Phelps are, they are just where Christianity inevitably leads you'.

Come on David, why the strawman? No-one said "inevitably leads". The point is that Phelps is one example of religion that (it seems) we all agree to be child abuse. Good. From there it is just a matter of establishing where the line should be drawn.

I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that some non-religious people abuse their children. What I do dispute and what I strongly object to is RD posting this video here in defence of his views.

Why? What is so wrong about pointing to one clear example that supports the idea that SOME religious upbringing is child abuse?

No one ever claimed that the example of Phelps is typical, or that his example proves that all religion is child abuse. You seem to make wild exaggerations of Dawkins and then complain that the wild exaggerations aren't valid and are irresponsible. You're right about that, but who made them? You, not Dawkins.

23. God Hates the World

Comment #52494 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 6:17 am

To wea flea (David Robertson)

Personally, I am interested in the arguments and in the discussion

OK, I'll take this at face value and attempt a reasonable discussion.

It seems from your comments on Phelps that you agree that SOME forms of imposition of SOME forms of religion on children amount to child abuse.

Good, so it seems that both you and we agree that (1) some forms of religion amount to child abuse, and that (2) not all forms of religion amount to child abuse (nope, Dawkins has not claimed that all religion is child abuse). Agreed so far?

If so, we can then start discussing calmly what is acceptable and which lines should not be crossed. I'll await your OK before proceeding. . .

24. God Hates the World

Comment #52491 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 6:09 am

To wee flea:

By the way - churcharson.com are one version of atheism, you are another. You both think you are right...

Even if those guys are atheists (which you haven't yet given evidence for) so what? "Atheism" is not an agreed set of doctrines, it is merely an absence of certain doctrines. There is no reason at all why I should agree with or feel responsible for some other atheist.

25. God Hates the World

Comment #52489 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 6:00 am

To wee flea:

On the church arson site they claim to be atheist.

Can you point out where please? On a quick look there are "satanist" banners and "anti-humanism" banners, which doesn't sound like usual atheists.

26. God Hates the World

Comment #52486 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 5:50 am

Yet again another poor soul who does not have the intelligence or suss to see the difference between Phelps and Christianity. What can one do in the face of such ignorance and prejudice?

Phelps is one variant of Christianity, just like you are another. You think your version is the correct one; Phelps thinks his is the correct one; you think you are interpreting the Bible correctly; Phelps thinks he is interpreting the Bible correctly.

. . . surely you can grasp that this video was not posted here in order to demonstrate how evil and sick the Phelps are, but rather to show that religion leads to child abuse.

Nope, not "leads to child abuse" but "CAN AMOUNT TO child abuse". That is VERY different. If you agree with Dawkins etal that SOME versions of religion amount to child abuse then it is just a matter of where the line is drawn, so can we have a rational discussion of that without any of your hysteria about secular police raids taking children away from any home containing a Bible?

until one realizes that 'intelligent' means 'one who holds the atheist position because de facto the atheist postion is the reasonable and intelligent one, therefore if you do not hold it you cannot be intelligent or you must be hypocritical. You have it all sown up. And you wonder why I call you fundamentalist?

Sure, you call us fundamentalist as part of your need to misrepresent and strawman us, just like you did there.

27. God Hates the World

Comment #52480 by Coel on June 27, 2007 at 5:38 am

To wea flea (David Robertson)

I think I have two major concerns with this thread. 1) the level of rudeness

Yes, but don't you recognise that YOU are as bad? The first paragraph of your "Dawkins Letters" is rude and sneering (as well as false and misconceived), and the rest continues in the same vein. If you want to claim the moral high ground you need to stand on it yourself, rather than being rude and sneering and then complain when people are rude back.

Oh, and refraining from repeatedly misrepresenting what Dawkins and other atheists have said would help also; people do often react badly when you persistently misrepresent what they say.

Just maybe, if you tried posting without rudeness, sneering or misrepresentation, then people might be more polite in return.

and personal vitriol is quite astonishing for a site in which people claim that they are part of an oasis of clear and rational thinking.

There is no contradiction between clear, rational thinking and rudeness. A rude comment is not necessarily an irrational one.

28. God Hates the World

Comment #52042 by Coel on June 26, 2007 at 2:39 am

In response to Robert Maynard (101. Comment #52034 ).

Excellent post Robert, spot on! I think Wee Flea is just upset about Phelps and the Westboro Baptists because it is an example of people who take the Bible even more seriously than he does.

Just maybe Wee Flea will one day come up with an anti-Dawkins argument that doesn't involve attributing to him something that he hasn't actually said.

29. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51674 by Coel on June 24, 2007 at 3:42 am

To IQIQ

If indeed this is true, and humanity NEEDED religion, then what convinces you lot that we have shed such a need by this stage in our evolution? What makes you think we will ever be rid of it?

The fact that in several European countries (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, France, UK) about half the population are not at all religious, and the fact that these countries are as good places to live as anywhere, suggests that humans do not "need" religion and can do without it.

Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

That is not a "simple fact", it is a highly dubious assertion. Even the less educated and less intelligent still have the same moral nature in their basic biology that the rest of us do.

30. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51588 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 3:03 pm

To wee flea (David Robertson)

As regards advising him to read Hitchins. Please! 'God is not Great' is a dreadful book compared with TGD. At least RD has his scientific ability to compensate for his lack of knowledge about theology. What does Hitchins have?

Umm, passion? But I agree, I prefer the likes of Dawkins & Dennett. Good read though, if you like polemics. Oh, and since so very little theology is based on evidence, why is lacking knowledge of it a disadvantage? If the debate is centered on evidence (as it should be), the theology is nearly all irrelevant.

31. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51587 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm

To wee flea (David Robertson)

Sure - but to save repetition have a look at my 'Dawkins Letters - challenging atheist myths' (unless of course you are one of the 'beleivers' who refuses to buy or read anything by heretics!).

Well I've read it (or at least the letters on your website). I didn't see anywhere a logical argument for the existence of God. It seemed to be along the lines of "Motherhood, apple pie, peanut-butter and jelly are all nice things that exist, that proves there is a God".

Never been one for the leap of faith argument - is that not what atheists do?

Nope.

32. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51538 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 10:10 am

baddiel says religion is nonsense, then likens it to a 'butterfly on a wheel' . . . er...i sense a slight conflict or two

Hi Poppy, note the words "can seem like" in what Baddiel said; when you read that whole paragraph properly there is no contradiction.

I think quite a few people here are reading Baddiel too superficially (though it does look like he doesn't understand memes).

33. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51536 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 9:55 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

You need to take a chill pill. He's actually on your side!

Yeah, but isn't one of your standard complaints that we're not critical enough of atheists?

After all he comes out with the biggest atheist myth of all - that belief in God is illogical!

Then maybe one day you'll come up with a logical argument for the existence of God. If you succeed you'll have managed something no theologian has done in thousands of years. The honest believers admit that it takes a leap of faith.

34. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #48448 by Coel on June 8, 2007 at 2:05 am

Too wee flea (David Robertson)

238. Comment #47358 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 8:22 am: I answered your question. I answered your challenge. And yet you still do not have the grace to acknowledge that.

My challenge was for you to point out where in your book you report Dawkins's views without misrepresenting and distorting them. You cited the topic of the Argument from Design. I responded with a long post detailing some of the many misrepresentations and distortions in that part of your book. You have not met my challenge; indeed you flunked it badly.

35. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47358 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 8:22 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

In response to my "I repeat my challenge: please point to ONE place in you book where your report Dawkins's views that is NOT a distortion." you say "p57. (on Dawkins arguments that someone must have designed the Designer)."

Well really David! You do realise that you entirely grant the whole of Dawkins's thrust in that passage, do you not?

The Argument from Design postulates that "complex, purposeful things can only have come from a superior designer".

Dawkins says, fine, if we grant that premise, then God must need a designer.

And you reply, with words to the effect of "We won't even attempt to provide an explanation for God, we'll just assert that God is. If the Argument from Design suggests that complex, purposeful things like God require a creator then we'll simply ignore the Argument from Design!".

You are, without any reason or justification, just saying "God is" followed by "we don't need to provide any reason or explanation for him".

In doing that you've abandoned the Argument from Design and any pretence that your stance is based on evidence of logic.

You say that "Who made God?" is a question you "would expect from a six year old". But this 6-yr-old's question causes you to abandon reason and leap straight into blind faith -- even the six year old is more insightful than you!

You say you are "genuinely surprised" to find Dawkins making an argument you find "banal". I could reply that I am surprised that a grown-up Christian should be so oblivious to the power of the question -- but I'm not; I have got used to the utter stupidity and cluelessness of preachers, unable to comprehend even at the level of a 6-yr-old!

[Apologies for the tone and ad-hom of the above, but since that's your style in your book I thought you'd appreciate it if I followed suit.]

You see, Dawkins is right to state that everything we actually know about the universe, all the actual evidence from the universe, tells us that more-complex, more-capable entities arise over time from simpler, less-capable entities.

Sure, you can then say "well God is an exception; we'll just postulate him as totally other than everything else". Fine, you can do that. But don't pretend you have evidence pointing to that; and don't pretend that the Argument from Design supports you; all you have is a leap of faith; the evidence points entirely the other way.

That was Dawkins's point. And you back him up, hook, line and sinker, by your dogmatic, evidence-free assertion that God is indeed like that, and postulated from faith, not evidence.

Oh, and here are some of the distortions of Dawkins in that passage of yours:

"Your argument goes like this. Evolution is true. Evolution explains the illusion of design. The design argument is the main argument for God. Therefore there is no God." -- Dawkins doesn't say that at all.

"I am genuinely surprised to find the world's most famous atheist . . . using it ["Who created God?" ] as THE intellectual foundation for his atheism." -- he doesn't; the foundation of his atheism is the lack of evidence for God.

"I realise for you that is a nonsense because the core of your creed is that evolution means that everything starts from the simple and becomes more complex" -- nope, Dawkins doesn't say that; there are plenty of things that stay simple and don't become more complex.

"Who says that everything, including God himself, has to come from something?" -- the Argument from Design does! Unless you add a special-pleading, get-out clause for God; is that what you want to do?

"When you state that you can disprove God because there can de facto never be anything that was uncreated you are engaging in a circular argument. " -- Dawkins never makes that argument. As usual you distort.

"Let us assume for the moment that evolution is true, why would that disprove God? [. . .] He [Miller] strongly disagrees with Behe and with the whole ID movement. By your logic he should then be an atheist." -- utter distortion again; Dawkins has never said that evolution disproves God, and his "logic" does not say that only an atheist can disagree with Behe/ID.

"you [Dawkins] argued that we don't know where matter came from but one day scientists will find out." -- Hmm, did he say will find out or might find out? Knowing you, I suspect it was the latter, and that, as usual, you distort.

"Let us assume for the moment that evolution is true, why would that disprove God? [. . .] He [Miller] strongly disagrees with Behe and with the whole ID movement. By your logic he should then be an atheist." -- utter distortion again; Dawkins has never said that evolution disproves God, and his "logic" does not say that only an atheist can disagree with Behe/ID.

"you [Dawkins] argued that we don't know where matter came from but one day scientists will find out." -- Hmm, did he say will find out or might find out? Knowing you, I suspect it was the latter, and that, as usual, you distort.

"Why is there something rather than nothing? [. . .] That is not a question which you can just brush aside or express no interest in."

OK, so what's your answer then? Why is there a God rather than nothing at all? If your answer is "there just IS OK" then you are brushing the question aside.

"You like to suggest that your position is a logical one caused by the fact that Darwin has raised your own consciousness and you seem to think that those who do not agree with so are not so highly evolved (at least in consciousness)." -- this one really is a stupid misrepresentation. The idea that Dawkins would suggest that different members of the same species have evolved to different degrees is just clueless.

And just a final comment:

"In bringing up the argument of the origin of matter and of the universe you have in fact scored an enormous own goal. Instead of proving that there almost certainly is no God you have demonstrated that there almost certainly is."

David, in discussing the origin of matter/universe/God you have demonstrated your vacuousness. Saying that the origin of the universe is explained by "God did it" only begins to be an explanation of you explain why there is a God rather than nothing. Without that, simply starting with a God is no improvement on simply starting with a universe.

And asserting that God has-to-exist or has-always-existed or created-himself or whatever
is no improvment on just saying the universe has-to-exist or has-always-existed or created-itself or whatever -- none of those even begin to be an explanation.

As you rightly say, some 6-yr-olds can see that. Why can't you?

By the way, you avoided my question: If you considered that you could bring someone to the Christian faith by telling a lie, would you consider it acceptable and moral to do so?

36. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47357 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 8:18 am

I think a quick reminder is in order. It's not you, personally, that people don't respect. They just don't respect your beliefs [. . .]

Well I don't respect him. If what someone actually says is not what David wants it to be he simply fabricates a quote -- he is a Liar for Jesus with no integrity.

37. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47294 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 2:26 am

Of course all my remarks above will instantly be dismissed by most of you because anyone who does not agree with you, is clearly a self-deluded bigoted idiot whose brain has been so infected by the religion virus that they cannot possibly conceive the truth.

Well, that last phrase does sum you up quite well. However it is not because you "do not agree" with us that we conclude that about you, it is because your book and your posts contain nothing but distortions, misrepresentations, sneers and abuse; that sums up your book from its demonstrably-false first paragraph to its end.

Every time I have pointed out where you misrepresent Dawkins you have failed to provide an adequate response -- at one point your evidence that Dawkins had said something was . . . that Nicholas Humphries had said it!

I repeat my challenge: please point to ONE place in you book where your report Dawkins's views that is NOT a distortion. Can you do that?

And are you STILL unwilling to admit that you fabricated that Dawkins quote in your Times letter? Have you NO integrity?

Can I ask you a straight question? If you thought that by distorting the truth a little, by telling a lie, you could bring someone to the Christian faith, would you consider it acceptable and moral to tell that lie?

38. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46671 by Coel on June 1, 2007 at 3:50 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

thanks for giving me the instances of where you say I continually distort.
you have clearly not read the section that Dawkins writes on childhood abuse and the escape from religion. For example his citation of the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. [snip]

So let's see, your defence of your claim that Dawkins said something is that . . . Nicholas Humphrey said it!

Hmm, can't you tell the difference between Dawkins saying something and Dawkins quoting someone else?

And you still haven't admitted that you fabricated a quote of Dawkins in your Times letter. Have you no integrity? Can you really not see the difference between Dawkins saying something, and you paraphrasing him, putting it in quote marks, and claiming he did?

Do you think that that tactic is acceptable in honest debate?

39. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46385 by Coel on May 31, 2007 at 4:47 am

To wea flea (David Robertson)

No - I did not misrepresent Dawkins in saying that he argued that religion is a virus which needs to be eradicated. He clearly does argue that religion is a virus. He clearly does not argue that it is a benign virus. In fact he goes so far as to say that it is worse than child sexual abuse. It is quite clear that he wants the virus of religion to be removed. What is your problem with that?

First, my problem is that you put quote marks around something that he hadn't said, that is at best your paraphrase of him. Come on David, have some integrity, say "Yes, I should not have put quote marks around something that was a paraphrase not a quote".

Second, Dawkins has NOT said religious indoctrination of children is "worse than child sexual abuse". That is, again, one of your distortions. What he DID say is that SOME INSTANCES of religious indoctrination were or might be worse than SOME INSTANCES of sexual abuse. That is a very different statement, isn't it? Have some integrity David, why do you continually distort?

Third, your phrase "needs to be eradicated" is not something that Dawkins has said about religion. You see the word "eradicated" implies using force against peoples' consent. But Dawkins has talked only about peaceful persuasion. That is a very different concept, isn't it? By putting words he hasn't used into quotes you misrepresented what he'd said.

Again I do not see what your problem is here. If you're consciousness has been raised it is surely on a higher level. It does not get raised to a lower level. It is clear that Dawkins regards himself and others as having consciousness raised above the ignorance and stupidity of religion.

David, if you cannot see that the phrase "consciousness raising", which means only "awareness raising", has a very different meaning to "a higher plane of consciousness" then you are either being willfully perverse or you are very ignorant of English connotations.

He [Dawkins] is not prepared to debate with those who have the presuppositions and theology that he is so busy attacking.

Evidence for that? He has debated Richard Harries and Alister McGrath and others. Is your gripe here simply that he hasn't debated with you? Well, come on, there are hundreds of different Christian sects and thousands of self-important Christians. What makes you think that you deserve a turn?

Now could you please let me know what these misrepresentations and distortions are?

Copious. Please give ONE place where your book reports Dawkins's views that you think is NOT a distortion.

Here are some of the copious distortions:

First, your claim above that Dawkins thinks that religious indoctrination of children is "worse than child sexual abuse". Again, he said that SOME instances of it might be worse than SOME instances of sexual abuse.

But this leads you, in your book, to a whole false train of mis-logic and mis-representation.

"If the situation is as you say and religion is a virus then the logical thing is to protect children." -- doesn't follow; in meme theory all culture is a "virus" in this technical sense; it does not follow that Dawkins wants to prevent children encountering culture.

"I have taught and will continue to teach my children that the Bible is true and you are now accusing me of doing them more harm than if I sexually abused them." -- distortion, as explained above.

"Perhaps in the Brave New World of the Atheist State the religious thought police will be sent round to ensure that my children are being taught 'correct' thoughts." -- ludicrous strawman. Who has said that? And no, it doesn't follow from anything that Dawkins has said.

"If it is right for the State to take children away from parents who would sexually abuse them, and if you believe that bringing a child up in the Christian faith is more abusive, then logically you must believe that the State should have the right to remove children from such abusive situations." -- but then he hasn't said that, has he?

And even if one did regard religious indoctrination as abuse, it may still be regarded as a lesser abuse than removing them from their parents, or it may be that ensuring that they encounter contrary opinions at school is sufficient remedy.

A genuine education in which the children are taught about and taught to think about various viewpoints is what the atheists actually want, and is sufficient remedy to attempted indoctrination.

This contrasts with many religious parents totalitarian attitude of trying to ensure that the teachers are all of the same religious viewpoint as the parents -- it is that totalitarian attitude that is Dawkins's main target here.

"The results were all too clearly seen in the atheist Soviet Union. The philosophy and ideas you put forward in this chapter have been tried already and as already pointed out; they have been a spectacular failure."

Dawkins position: Children should be encouraged to examine ideas and seek truth, asking for evidence; they should be exposed to a range of ideas. Demanding loyalty to ideas for which there is no evidence is wrong. Children should be free to disagree with what they're told.

Soviet Union position: Children should unquestioningly absorb the dictats of the quasi-religious communist dogma, despite the lack of evidence for that dogma. And dissent or questioning of that dogma should be punished.

Now, come on David, isn't it obvious that Dawkins's stance is roughly the opposite of that which the Soviet's adopted?

Your whole fantastical edifice in that chapter, based on your misreading of Dawkins, is roughly the opposite of what Dawkins actually advocates.

"And you accuse me of being worse than a paedophile because I happily teach young children that God loves them, that they are important and have a purpose and a place in his world. Is it little wonder that people think that your logic is a bit twisted . . ." -- sheesh, David, the only thing that is twisted is your ludicrous misreading and misinterpretation.

40. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46098 by Coel on May 30, 2007 at 8:06 am

To wee flea (Daivd Robertson)

Please tell me where I have misrepresented and distorted what Dawkins has said.

Loads of places. For a start your letter to the Times where you fabricated a quotation "religion is a virus which needs to be eradicated". Isn't fabricating quotes dishonest in your book?

Then there was your claim that Dawkins regards atheists as on a "higher plane of consciousness". What he'd actually talked about is "consciousness raising". You don't really think those two phrases have the same meaning do you?

Then there is almost the whole of your "Dawkins Letters". Just in the first paragraph there are misrepresentations: "And of course you have stated that you do not discuss with 'fundamentalists' or those who would be stupid enough to disagree with you." and "Apparently you want 'intelligent' conversation and anyone who believes in revelation or supernaturalism is de facto non intelligent, therefore not worth discussing with."

Both of those statements are idiotic distortions, are they not?, and demonstably wrong to boot.

Tell you what, please quote me one place in your "Dawkins Letters" where you report Dawkins's views WITHOUT distorting them. I'll be impressed if you can. Bet you can't!

As for posting a serious critique I have done that and even written a book about it. What more do you want me to do?

No David, I said a serious critique, one using evidence and reason and based on what Dawkins has actually said.

41. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45742 by Coel on May 29, 2007 at 5:28 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

Angry - no. Bemused - yes. And astonished at how unwilling you are to engage with anybody. You all know the truth and anyone who dares challenge that is immediately dismissed. I have never come across a more fundamentalist mindset in my life. When do you ever let anyone debate or discuss?

The reason, David, that nobody thinks you're worth debating with is that all you do is distort and misrepresent Dawkins etal. Why don't you, for a change, post a serious critique of what they have actually said? That might be interesting.

We do know by now that you are seriously irritated and embittered by Dawkins, and by atheists in general, but if you actually want a serious debate you need to put some substance in your writings, not just endless distortion, whining and abuse.

42. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43614 by Coel on May 22, 2007 at 5:48 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

Coel okay, let me ask you a simple question. Is it ever right to kill people because of their beliefs?

You're asking me? Well, my answer would be that beliefs in themselves would not justify killing them. However, if the beliefs were a prelude to imminent action then pre-emptive killing might in some cases be ethically justified.

That, by the way, is more or less what Sam Harris said also. And the in-context statement including the "might" and "may be" is quite a bit different from your original claim about Sam.

As a Christian I cannot conceive of any circumstances where I would be justified in killing somebody because they had the wrong beliefs.

Oh good; that is an improvement from the days when Christians wanted to burn people at stakes for believing in the wrong version of Christianity.

It is also an improvement on those of your fellow believers who would want to kill anyone who stops believing in Islam.

43. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43554 by Coel on May 22, 2007 at 1:48 am

As for your question about negative reviews - what are you wanting to review? If you would like to review my own book or talk about other Christian books then you are very welcome to come on to the Free Church website and do so. www.freechurch.org

Would you be willing to post non-laudatory reviews of your Dawkins book on that site? I ask because it was previously changed because it "needed more moderation".

If you wish I'll happily give you a detailed reply to your book. Would you post it?

44. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43551 by Coel on May 22, 2007 at 1:40 am

Coel (34) – Keep trying to defend the indefensible. Sam did say that it could be ok to kill someone because of what they believed – not because of what they did but because of a thought they had. Go back and read what he says.

I have read it thanks. You misrepresented it, didn't you? What Sam Harris actually said, discussing terrorists who are trying to kill you, was:

"Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. [. . .] If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan [. . .]"

Now David, note the "may be". Did you see that bit? But you distorted it didn't you? You said "After all surely they cannot endores [Harris's] view that there are some people who should be killed for what they believe?"

You've changed a "may be" to a "should be". You've distorted, just as you did when you fabricated a Dawkins quote in your Times letter. Why do you feel the need to lie?

Are you really that desperate to agree with every word of your prophets that even something as disgusting and shocking as that is defended by you?

I wasn't either agreeing or disagreeing with him. I was pointing out that you misrepresented him. That is your standard tactic with atheists. Your "Dawkins letters" is falsehoods and sneers from beginning to end.

Does your religion allow you to Lie for Jesus? If not, do you have the integrity to admit that you misrepresented Sam Harris above, changing a "may be" to a "should be"?

45. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43384 by Coel on May 21, 2007 at 8:28 am

To wee flea:

Although given Sam's recent pronouncements perhaps its time that Dawkins and Hitchens rose up against Harris. After all surely they cannot endores his view that there are some people who should be killed for what they believe?

But then he didn't say that. He was exploring ideas, discussing whether it might be acceptable to kill people for what they believe (specifically, if they believed that they should kill you, it might be permissible self defence to kill them first).

As has become routine for you, you distort peoples' views and statements in order to attack them. Does that mean you can't find fault with what they actually say?

46. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40795 by Coel on May 15, 2007 at 2:32 am

To weeflea (David Robertson)

"I think there is a fundamentalist mindset within some sections of atheism which would seek to suppress freedom of expression."

However, that is almost exactly the opposite of what atheists in the Western world say! Most of them are strong supporters of freedom of expression (in the face of attempts at censorship such as the Danish cartoon saga). And yes, that includes the freedom to express religion.

"Once you regard religion as a virus then you are on the way to wanting to eradicate that virus."

No you aren't. The "virus" is a technical meaning of propogating for its own purposes. To regard culture as largely meme-driven is NOT to be "on the way" to wanting culture eradicated. You are simply wrong on your interpretation.

Re: "The Times". It seems to me that The Times publishes roughly equal amounts of pro-religion and anti-religion sentiment on its letters and columns pages. If you include the "faith/credo" pages then the balance is heavily pro-religion.

For example, in the last week we have a Dawkins interview written by a religious believer (Ruth Gledhill), which was overall near neutral. Then there was Dawkins's column. Then yesterday there was the pro-religion Rees-Mogg with equal space replying to Dawkins, and today there were 4 letters which were 3-to-1 pro-religion. I don't see evidence to support your claim that your side is unfairly treated.

OK, so it may not be your choice of flavour of religion, but having columnists simply witnessing their religion on the basis of no evidence would be a bit pointless. They want to publish things that are worth reading.

"Don't gamble. I would be more than happy to do so but I doubt I will get an oppenant."

I'm sure plenty of atheists would be happy to debate you purely on the evidence.

"Remember we are too stupid to even discuss with . . . "

Strawman; no-one has said that, have they.

"Yes I accept you are right about debating with Collins and McGarth – but these are clearly the exceptions."

Exceptions to what? Even of this site alone you can find information on 7 or 8 Dawkins v Christians debates. How many do you want?

"Having experienced a little of that intolerance, and knowing the history of atheistic societies,"

Back to your "atheism is like communism" slurs. You would do better to realise that the communism they practiced was quasi-religious in demanding allegience and belief in the complete absence of evidence that communism was a good system.

It was that quasi-religious attitude that lead to their totalitarian flaws, and it is that attitude that western atheists utterly reject.

If you really want to maintain that Dawkins etal are part of some intolerant movement, please give some actual examples of intolerance from Dawkins et al. That is actual words or actions, not things you "read into" them.

"you ask me to demonstrate that Robertson, Falwell, Haggard, Bin Laden or Khomeini do not represent the majority of believers. Gladly."

But again, you misrepresent the claim. That claim was not that they follow those particular gentlemen, the claim was that their sort of simplistic, dogmatic faith was more common than "subtle, nuanced, understated" religion.

I would put most of the Islamic world, much of Africa (now the largest grouping of Christians?), much of Latin America and Catholicism worldwide, and a good half of Americans in the "simplistic, dogmatic" camp. You haven't yet shown that the claim (as actually claimed!) is wrong.

47. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40477 by Coel on May 14, 2007 at 10:31 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

"he even implies that Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians. The fact that this claim is demonstrably false does not seem to prevent him making it – why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?"

Well, what he actually said was "The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini".

In other words, most believers in God "echo" the simplistic, severe, dogmatic faith exemplified by those gentlemen, rather than "decent, understated religion".

If you think this "demonstrably false", please demonstrate its falsity.

By the way, you do see the difference between Dawkins's claim, and your distortion of it, that "Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians" don't you? -- but then "why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?".

Here's some advice David, if you really want the Times to print more than the odd letter of yours you need to get your facts a bit more accurate, avoid the distortions, and say something worthwhile rather than just pouting about the fact that you're upset that someone doesn't respect your faith.

48. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40464 by Coel on May 14, 2007 at 10:15 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

"The following is an article I sent to the Times in response. [. . .] I can guarantee it will not be published."

You're right, it is not nearly up to the quality they desire. However, at least you didn't resort to manufacturing any Dawkins quotes this times. Well done!

> It's strange - The Times will publish articles about Christians and about the
> 'faithheads' that Dawkins is attacking but it will be a cold day in Hell
> before it ever lets anyone reply!

Umm, didn't William Rees-Mogg reply this very day? Times, May 14th
"William Rees-Mogg replies to Professor Richard Dawkins".

"Secondly like all fundamentalists, Dawkins exaggerates the point he is trying to make and allows no discussion of any alternative."

You mean Dawkins goes around censoring the world's media, preventing people discussing alternatives? You really are a hoot!

"would it be too cynical to suggest that the current round of articles, interviews etc has anything to do with the paperback edition coming out next week?"

Duh, of course it has! That Times article is indeed the new preface to the paperback. Of course it is related!

"Again like all fundamentalists, Dawkins defends ignorance by claiming that it is not necessary to know something in order to criticise it. [. . .] Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot."

Well, he is right! Arguments predicated on the existence of God ARE largely irrelevant to the issue of whether God exists.

You see, believers' fanciful theological constructs about God are not usually based on evidence, and thus don't contribute to the issue of whether God exists; Dawkins is right to treat them as such.

"Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence."

Yeah, sure. Bet you're unwilling to actually discuss this evidence in a reason-based debate.

"If it cannot be proved by a chemical equation then it cannot exist."

Strawman!

"He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness."

Where on earth do you get that from??

"He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion with those whom he is railing against and yet still manages to demonise his opponents."

Err, so discussions and debates with McGrath, Francis Collins, the Bishop of Oxford, etc are not "meaningful"?

"The most dangerous thing about the New Atheism is that it does not realise just how intolerant, oppressive and fundamentalist it is."

But then it isn't, is it?, except in your rather fanciful and deluded view.

49. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37024 by Coel on May 3, 2007 at 7:10 am

To John Phillips

"Coel: Actually if you look at the user name displayed it is obviously someone having some fun at weefree's expense as the user name is wefree, notice the missing 'e'."

Yep, I noticed that, but do you think that that sort of "fun" is acceptable?

50. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37005 by Coel on May 3, 2007 at 5:31 am

I have reported the above post, Comment #36977, which is presumably an impersonation, to the forum.