1. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206273 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 8:03 am

"Comment #206237 by ertu on July 8, 2008 at 7:32 am

There are billions of different protein molecules in milions of species. Even a single protein to come into being by coincidences is impossible mathetatically and statistically. That diprove the Evolution at the very basic level Now I will prove you this scientifically:"

Response:
Apparently you have been reading too much Willam Demski and Michael Behe and "Irreducible complexity".
You are committing the fallacy of teleological, or "a posterior" thinking, -in which you start with the finished product (a particular protein), and then try to calculate the back probability of producing it by chance;--whereas the correct approach is to note that polypeptide strings form randomly but selectively, to produce a product (the protein) which does a useful job, without any particular end- result in mind (do proteins have Minds?). Also, amino-acid substitutions can occur in the peptide chain without destroying it's third-order folding structure,-and therefoe its function,--so there is a lot of redundancy built in to it.
For an example of "A posterior" thinking: Consider,--a man who wins the lottery,-he say's "Wow",-out of all the billions of people who bought a lottery ticket,-I, and only I won it!--miracle! (obviously somebody had to win it).
Another example: suppose I go out of my house and see a car with the number plate (say) "NY 42"-- so you then say "Wow",-out of all the billions of number plates in the world, "NY 42" was the one I saw; - Miracle! --and on a Thursday too--another miracle!! Praise the Lord!

See what I mean? Do you really think scientists and philosophers the world over, have not already considered these logical points, before you came alongand thought you could demolish science and reason single-handedly? Why are Christians so arrogant?

2. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206097 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 5:14 am

"phatbat on July 8, 2008 at 4:55 am

Ertu, unityisfact and clearmind

Yeah i think the current theory of evolution is seriously lacking. I think that stuff still evolved but living things actualy chose to evolve to the next version when they reproduce or create sex cells. This gets rid of it being chance.

We may not have a mechanism for this but hey we don't need it do we. This saves us cunjuring up another entity. At least we know the living thing exists. "

Response:
Oh for Heaven's sake,-have you not read just a little bit on Genetics, and the mechanism of mutations? It's not new-it's been around since Gregor Mendel (the monk who worked on rearing peas), whixh showd how variants occur randomly; Natural selection , also random drift, works on thee variations to produce new forms. There probably were no such things as cultivated Peas say 10 thousand years ago.

3. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206091 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 5:04 am

""Fossils havent changed for millions of years. And they appear all of a sudden. That is admitted by Stephen Gould also:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. "

Response:
First,
--SJ Goud remained an evolutionist, and did not throw it all up and become a Creationist; He was talking about "Punctuated Equilibrium",-which is quite valid as a means of evolution as well as Gradualism.
Second:
There is more to evolutionary change than mere macroscopic morphology;-try looking a bit deeper, eg Turtles,--do they all have fully formed hard shells?-no,-they have a range of flexible leathery as well as thin and thicker shells. Similarly, all animals and plants have large scale variations.
Third:
How do you mean "limited and directionless"?--just examine the hugh variety of Life,--it goes off in all directions and forms limitless themes and variants.
Four:
What do you mean by "sudden"? -a change over 30 seconds?-or 30 years?-or 30 million years?
Five:
Sudden appearance and replacement does occur, when one different species or variant, occupies the territory of it's forebears; eg when white Americans "suddenly" replaced indigenous native Americans in a particular region;--no mystery really. Do try and overcome your prejudices.

4. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206084 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 4:51 am

""Darwin himself was aware of the lack of so called transitional forms which would be evidence for evolution:
"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them,well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me."

Response:
Yes, and since 1859 vast numbers of so-called intermediates have been discovered. Only last week World Science published a new intermediate called Ventastega, which bridges a gap from Acanthostega and Icthystega, to Tiktaalik,-which iself is a major transition from fishes to amphibia; try doing some research rather than arm-chair bible-reading.

5. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206078 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

""All the living creatures in the fossil record appear intact and in their perfect forms. For instance, before crocodiles and squirrels, there exist no fossils belonging to any strange creature partly resembling a crocodile, and in other parts to a squirrel or other living creatures. Squirrels have always remained squirrels, and crocodiles have always remained crocodiles. All these facts reveal that the claim of the theory of evolution, that "Living beings have gradually evolved over millions of years of time" is simply a product of imagination.""

Response:
All of the above just means that the writer is either totally ignorant or totally biased.
It does not take much effort to Google "Evolution of"- Turtles, Crocodiles, Flying Squirrels, Bats etc
in order to discover the painstaking and dedicated work of field biologists and taxonomists; give it a try, you might learn something.

6. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206008 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 2:51 am

And a bit on Turtle Shell Evolution:

Evolutionary history
The first turtles are believed to have existed in the early Triassic Period of the Mesozoic era, about 200 million years ago. Their exact ancestry is disputed. It was believed that they are the only surviving branch of the ancient clade Anapsida, which includes groups such as procolophonids, millerettids, protorothyrids, and pareiasaurs. All anapsid skulls lack a temporal opening, while all other extant amniotes have temporal openings (although in mammals the hole has become the zygomatic arch). The millerettids, protorothyrids, and pareiasaurs became extinct in the late Permian period, and the procolophonoids during the Triassic.[7]

However, it was recently suggested that the anapsid-like turtle skull may be due to reversion rather than to anapsid descent. More recent phylogenetic studies with this in mind placed turtles firmly within diapsids, slightly closer to Squamata than to Archosauria.[8] All molecular studies have strongly upheld this new phylogeny, though some place turtles closer to Archosauria.[9] Reanalysis of prior phylogenies suggests that they classified turtles as anapsids both because they assumed this classification (most of them studying what sort of anapsid turtles are) and because they did not sample fossil and extant taxa broadly enough for constructing the cladogram. As of 2003, the consensus is that Testudines diverged from other diapsids between 200 and 279 million years ago.[10]

The earliest known turtle is proganochelys, though this species already had many advanced turtle traits, and thus probably had many millions of years of preceding "turtle" evolution and species in its ancestry. It did lack the ability to pull its head into its shell (and it had a long neck), and had a long, spiked tail ending in a club, implying an ancestry occupying a similar niche to the ankylosaurs (though only through parallel evolution).

7. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206002 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 2:47 am

And another Creationist lie; Flying squirrels have plenty of genetic diversity and evolutionary relationships:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/analogy_02

8. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206000 by Wadsworth on July 8, 2008 at 2:43 am

More Creationist liars:

See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0825_040825_crocodiles_fossils.html

9. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199793 by Wadsworth on June 26, 2008 at 11:08 am

"EDIT, I thought he meant Metaphysical. My bad. Feel free to blast me with well earned 'ignorant fuck' epitaths. :)"

This reminds me of when I had an argument with my mother, and she accused me of "hurling foul epitaphs" at her; ?"Rest in Peace"?-- I think she meant "epithets".

10. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198476 by Wadsworth on June 24, 2008 at 5:23 am

On Keith Ward: (Wikipedia)

"He has criticized modern day Christian fundamentalism, most notably in his 2004 book What the Bible Really Teaches: A Challenge for Fundamentalists. He believes that fundamentalists interpret the Bible in implausible manners and pick and choose which of its passages to emphasize in order to fit preexisting beliefs. Ward argues that the Bible must be taken seriously, but not always literally and he does not agree with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, saying that it is not found in the Bible."

O dear, so many cracks in the theological edifice so soon. How can he be taken seriously as an anti-Dawkins contender?

11. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198475 by Wadsworth on June 24, 2008 at 5:14 am

"Discover why atheism does not rest on rational foundations. Use a fascinating approach that helps you to weigh up Dawkins' beliefs â€" As you explore Dawkins' dilemmas â€" • The dilemma of a flawed world • The dilemma of humanity • The dilemma of atheism and probability • An intriguing chapter on: SETI â€" the search for meaning • The dilemma of the ultimate paradox And take a fresh look at the gospel of Christ."

Bollocks!

Richard has really got them rattled hasn't he?

12. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190128 by Wadsworth on June 8, 2008 at 12:27 pm

All right then, show us. I presume you are praying energetically for the poor to be fed?- so I expect to wake up to-morrow to find the whole world well-fed and happy; if not, will you be prepared to explain precisely why Jesus has not obliged? He has 12 hours.
You know what they say: "Put up, or shut up."

13. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175974 by Wadsworth on May 6, 2008 at 9:58 am

In ancient times, terrorists were dealt with by "punitive raids". Can anyone think of a better way to stop them infitrating our civilisation and taking it over?

14. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173642 by Wadsworth on May 1, 2008 at 3:02 am

The point is that although evil deeds are not exclusively the product of religion, but can also be committed by atheists,--yet religion is supposed to be perfect in its godliness, and to set a perfect example in Christ,- and therefore should not be the origin of any evil at all,--ever.

15. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169489 by Wadsworth on April 26, 2008 at 7:36 am

Perhaps neutron stars were involved somehow.

No,no,--it was quantum entanglement.

16. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169487 by Wadsworth on April 26, 2008 at 7:34 am

34. Comment #166224 by EvidenceOnly on April 23, 2008 at 2:45 am

Here is how you can ridicule Pascal's wager:

1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God: no problem
2. If you believe in God and there is no God: you wasted a good part of your life
3. If you don't believe in God and there is a God: you get rewarded for using your God-given ability to think critically and come to the sensible conclusion that there was evidence whatsoever for a God when you were alive
4. If you believe in God and there is a God: (a) you get punished for NOT using your God-given ability to think critically and instead used blind faith that a God existed even though there was absolutely no evidence for a God when you were alive, and (b) get punished again for inventing a God in your own image that could not possibly be anywhere close to the real thing

Following the evidence (or in this case the lack thereof) is the right thing to do!

PLUS

5. What if it is the wrong god?

6. Any God worth his omniscient salt will see through your little scheme for trying to get into Heaven by sucking up to him.

17. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #168313 by Wadsworth on April 25, 2008 at 2:14 am

Why should we be required to "take the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously",--when they apppear be devoted to irrational opposition to every human advance, and want to force us back to bronze-age biblical literalism? Even the Christians have a point when they say "love the sinner (believer), and hate the sin (irrational belief).
We are right to mock religious beliefs, while still trying to live in harmony with their supporters. I am disappointed that Lord Winston appears unable to break free of his pre-suppositionalist God and the primitive beliefs that go with it.

18. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168307 by Wadsworth on April 25, 2008 at 1:55 am

I am disappointed with Lord Winston's comments. One can admire Job as literature, as a good story, but we do not take it as a fact that a god, the God of Israel, appeared out of a whirlwind to make a few pithy comments in support of his own grandiosity, and in effect deny modern cosmology? Why is God always so ignorant about Science? Nor can we admire Eva Jablonka's disapproval of Dawkins's and most other modern biologists' support of well-confirmed Darwinian Evolutionary theory. Are we to take it that Lord Winston is a young-Earth Creationist/ Intelligent Designer, and therefore an enemy of modern secular enlightenment? Nor are we impressed by yet another airing of Pasal's Wager to try and terrify us back into Abraham's bosum.

19. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #129472 by Wadsworth on February 19, 2008 at 7:16 am

This article merely commits the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. All she is saying is that religion is fine, just so long as you don't actually believe it or practice in the way Jesus explicity instructs that one should. She is merely recommending a watered down Christian Humanism with a Jesus label attached,--which I agree is the only variant of Christianity which is at all tolerable.

20. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #128479 by Wadsworth on February 17, 2008 at 5:24 am

I am sure Hitch must have thought of this argument:

Mao, Pol Pot etc.

These leaders had a Buddhist background and were therefore “atheists� with respect to the Judeo-Christian God anyway,--quite irrespective of their behaviour.
They were no more “atheist� than the Dalai Lama,-who is usually regarded as a sort of enlightened Saint, although not a Christian.
So to claim that their behaviour as mass-murderers was due to their “atheism “is unacceptable.

21. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128477 by Wadsworth on February 17, 2008 at 5:19 am

This may be relevant when dealing with ignorant Evangelists:

Answering an Evangelist

You ask, is there something behind my strong opposition?---Yes

1. I do not believe in the supernatural; there is no evidence for it at all; as the Bible is mostly supernatural, I do not believe in most of the Bible.

2.. I like to make up my own mind about things, without being "pestered" continually by salesmen who will not take a simple "no" for an answer.

3. I do not like people calling at my house uninvited, delivering products I have made plain I do not want.

4. I do not like people trying to get a foot in the door, or insisting we meet personally to discuss things in which I have no belief or interest.

5. I do not like being asked questions, and when I try to answer them, having the standard rational answers ignored, ridiculed or airily dismissed.

6. I do not like the same tedious message relentlessly repeated over and over again, when I have made it clear I do not accept it.

7. I do not like to waste time and effort being drawn into this argumentative trap.

8. I do not like pushy, deluded, arrogant know-all Christians who think God has spoken "Truth" to them, and so do not have to learn anything else.

9. I do not like the blood-soaked history of Christianity and its intolerance of all who disagree with it.

10. I do not like its insidious infiltration of Science, schools, and politics.



-------I do like nice round numbers.

If you continue to persist in this manner, I shall be forced to curb my usual good manners, and ignore or block any further messages.

22. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #121795 by Wadsworth on February 4, 2008 at 7:14 am

I can claim to be a Very Important Person, because Prof McGrath mentions me personally by name (Reginald Le Sueur)on page 272 of his optimistically entitled book "The Twilight of Atheism". In it I made a comment contrasting the truth but dullness of Humanism with the extravagant glitzy claims of Christianity. The Prof managed to misconstrue my thesis,which is that the main attraction of Christianity consists merely in it's entertainment value, like Panto and theater-- who needs Truth? Just go to Church at Easter and Christmas for a good party!

23. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121152 by Wadsworth on February 3, 2008 at 2:58 am

In whose image was Eve made?

Astoreth,--Yahweh's female friend.

24. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120781 by Wadsworth on February 2, 2008 at 1:52 pm

It seems Simmons did not bother to research the matter of the Ductus Arteriosus, (heart valve flap), which he thinks is so finely tuned as to require divine explanation (sorry, I mean, it was designed,-period). The reason it appears finely tuned to the infant's birth is because when the infant takes it's first breath, the resulting sudden increase in oxygen tension sets off a biochemical chain which clamps down on the Ductus. Quite often it does not work, and the Ductus has to be tied off surgically (rotten design). So it is oxygen not God that is responsible.

25. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #111192 by Wadsworth on January 14, 2008 at 1:13 am

"My question is, who do atheists shake their fists against?"

Religious fundamentalists.

26. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #111190 by Wadsworth on January 14, 2008 at 1:11 am

"You don't believe me? Just watch this woman talking about Dawkins!"

Atheists are entitled to their heros. A hero is not a god, we don't kill people in Dawkins' name!

27. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105291 by Wadsworth on December 31, 2007 at 6:02 am

What Prof Dick Joyce may have been looking for is a mathematically defined probability for God's existence. This has already been tried using Bayesian Theorem,-by a certain Stephen Unwin I believe. He calculated the probability of God existing as 67% precisely. The trouble is, Bayes theorem uses "evidence" as one of the parameters in the calculation,-and of course "evidence" is highly subjective,there being no universal objective facts available. Therefore "evidence", for a Christian at least, comes down to "Look at that Rose (Tree, Boeing 747 etc etc,--therefore God exists. So the formula is a useless waste of time; or maybe we should just accept it and worship 67% of a God.

28. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104653 by Wadsworth on December 29, 2007 at 4:36 am

Don't be seduced and taken in; the Archbishop is merely trying to neutralise Dawkins and other atheists, as a prelude to taking them over for Jesus;--rather like the way they stole our Winter Solstice festival;-happens all the time.
Incidentally I also like singing, including Carols, though some of the words make me throw up; but it is nice to be wanted as a singer by local choirs to boost their numbers. I ignore the prayers and just do my duty and think of England.

29. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #103845 by Wadsworth on December 27, 2007 at 4:04 am

#76150
Yes,-- just to add to the above comments; I run a Philosophy group; after 10 years of attending, there is one (Christian) lady who still cannot tell the difference between the Big Bang and the Cambrian "explosion". It is depressing.

30. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #98167 by Wadsworth on December 13, 2007 at 7:12 am

I expect most of you have seen, and are bored by my piece on the subject,--but perhaps not Rev Dowd; so here it is again:

Theistic Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Theists try to suggest that there is a purpose, and that God created and guides Evolution. But as Evolution (the Natural Selection of random variations) is therefore a random process (proved by the 99% extinctions as above),-- and the changes in the natural environment which does the selecting are also random, eg solar flares, asteroid and comet strikes, earthquakes and volcanos, hurricanes etc which cause mass extinctions from time to time,- and which all have naturalistic causes,--how then can a God be said to guide such chaotic processes? It is a self-contradiction, and is made with the desperate hope of tacking "God" onto all aspects of Nature, because of the self-interest of the religious establishment. I always thought God was supposed to have created order out of chaos,-not chaos out of order. They ask the question "Why"? There is no "why?",- no purpose. Blind naturalistic Evolution demonstrates that fully. "Why" questions are semantic trickery that can usually be resolved as part of "How "questions. If turns creation stories upon their heads to say in effect that God created chaos out of Order(his own self) so as to re-create order,- when the Bible states clearly that it was the other way round,--order came out of chaos.

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Wads4 : November 13, 2004 at 08:21 AM.

31. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97422 by Wadsworth on December 12, 2007 at 4:12 am

Father Jon,
You at least confirm that atheists can be moral too,- however not many radical Christians realise this; my question to them would be,- that seeing as how I too am a total atheist,--how many people do they think I have so far exterminated to-day?

Another point: One could say that ( having refuted that Hitler was an atheist), that just leaves Communism;-therefore instead of listing the small handful of Communist mass killers like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,-one should logically cite just Communist ideology alone, -which was all about establishing an economic and political Utopia, of which institutional Atheism was a mere part.
Compared with this, we have many different violent religions, especially different Christian major branches, all calling for each others blood and for the blood of atheists.
Next point:
You compare the "small" number of Christian atrocities with the millions of Communism's victims,--but, the Inquistion etc did not have 20th century weapons. Can you seriously doubt that if they could, the Inquistion and the Crusaders, and the perpetrators of the Albigensian massacres,-would have use nuclear weapons, gas attacks, carpet bombing etc to do "God's Work"?

Finally: Christianity is supposed to be perfect and pure, and not to indulge in mass killing at all,- ever; therefore at the very least, Communist atrocities were no worse than Christian ones.

32. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #83407 by Wadsworth on October 30, 2007 at 12:24 am

I find religious moderates only remain moderates so long as you do not question or criticise their faith,-then they become extremists. They virtually never re-consider their beliefs, but instead resort to attacking atheists and secular science.

33. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82644 by Wadsworth on October 27, 2007 at 4:29 am

"Another annoying point that keeps coming up: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Because "Nothing" cannot logically exist. To say "Nothing" exists is meaningless nonsense. Immanuel Kant said "Existence is not a predicate",--ie "existence cannot be said to exist,-similarly "Nothing" cannot be said to exist; conversely, "Something" must necessarily exist; - The Universe.

Or else,, ask them to explain God's own existence, and do not accept Special Pleading, that he has always existed, (and so therefore has the Universe).

34. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82642 by Wadsworth on October 27, 2007 at 4:23 am

"I know god exists because he speaks to me personally".

So what exactly does he say? What information has he given you? Does it corroborate with what he has told other people? Why does he not speak to us all collectively?

35. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82639 by Wadsworth on October 27, 2007 at 4:20 am

"Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, every argument employed by the atheist is, according to his own assertions, incoherent and meaningless. Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being."

I would counter this by claiming that Rationality" is an emergent evolved property, which had to be learned by early humans. Also an analogy is with Quantum mechanics, which is random, chaotic and non-rational,--yet the rational world has emerged out of it.

36. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82636 by Wadsworth on October 27, 2007 at 4:13 am

Another argument is "Jesus must be your God and Saviour , else how would you be able to get up in the mornng to go to work, or have any purpose in life at all?"

37. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81061 by Wadsworth on October 24, 2007 at 1:52 am

The Stalin/Pol Pot etc argument also bothers me: Some possible solutions:

1. Atheists are also Primates (to quote Hitchens). Human primates do vicious things because of their Evolution. Has Christianity restrained its followers from similar crimes?--no, historically not.

2.Should we not expect Christianity to have restrained vicious behaviour?--of course; it should produce perfect behaviour, but historically it has not. Therefore it is no better than atheism.

3. Has atheism really killed more people than Christianity? possibly ,--but that is because of
modern techniques--eg Gas chambers. It was probably not possible for pre-technological Christians to kill so many people so quickly; obviously they have tried (Albigensian massacres), New World genocide.

4. Is atheism a religion? The Soviets turned it in to one,-but basically it is just a default and denial. Atheism as such does not exterminate opponents, but Christ recommended that very thing,-so Christianity is murderous at source.

5. Can atheists be moral? Of course. morality is derived from our social evolution, including Riciprocal Altruism, and Kin Selection and tribal and eventually inter-tribal cooperation. Atheism is irrelevent to it.

6. Belief in God can sanction any immoral act, and often has done.

38. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64390 by Wadsworth on August 20, 2007 at 12:32 am

A recent study indicates that regular church goers are more charitable than non-church goers.

39. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64006 by Wadsworth on August 17, 2007 at 8:55 am

darwin2 "Would a scientist conclude that the Space Shuttle, one of the most complicated aircrafts in existence, was made by natural selection. The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high"

Have you not heard of "Paley's watch"? Your argument is the same-antiquated and discredited.

40. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #63168 by Wadsworth on August 13, 2007 at 10:42 am

, "our history reveals the unmistakable footprints of something greater than man."

41. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #63164 by Wadsworth on August 13, 2007 at 10:35 am

Oh, for the days when one could safely stroll into a bookstore without tripping over the latest atheist title. Ironically, by writing their tracts, in the long run atheists might boost belief.

42. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62646 by Wadsworth on August 10, 2007 at 2:45 pm

"Comment #62429 by toddaa on August 9, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Who's the guy between Darwin and Marx? "

Thomas Huxley. "Darwin's Bull-dog"

43. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62604 by Wadsworth on August 10, 2007 at 10:03 am

"What also amazes me about Atheists is that they attack beliefs without ever properly studying them; how many have ever read the Bible with an open mind? - Dianalake"

How open does your mind have to be before your brain falls out? Not everything is possible. Nature has constraints upon what can happen, and it does not include resurrections, walking on water etc.

44. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62118 by Wadsworth on August 8, 2007 at 8:21 am

If you think of science during the renaissance a lot of it was produced in spite of religion and the assumption of the authority of the ancients (such as Aristotle). And of course, the Greeks were hardly monotheistic.

45. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62013 by Wadsworth on August 8, 2007 at 12:16 am

Phillips argues that evolution is "merely a theory." She writes that it "does not explain the irreduceable complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together".

46. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61807 by Wadsworth on August 7, 2007 at 1:30 am

Correction: In my article above, I meant "Pasteur",--not "Pascal".

47. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61801 by Wadsworth on August 7, 2007 at 12:43 am

There is so much wrong with Melanie Phillipos article; one long Argument from Ignorance in fact. Chesterton was wrong; religious beliefs themselves are so multifarious as to constitute "belief in anything". So-called J-Christian reason is just a closed logical loop of false conclusions derived from false dogmatic premises. Does she actually believe that the Big Bang and the Origin of Life are not scientific questions,--or that the Cambrian "explosion" was an overnight miracle, rather than a 10 million year gradual process which was caused by thoroughly naturalistic environmental processess? Has she not heard of the pre-Cambrian era, or primitive Archaea organisms? Apart from using the insulting term "scientism" to dismiss real science does she actually believe in "spontaneous generation" of life,-disproved long ago by Pascal? She does no better on the philosophical front either; scientists are not relativists, but realists, they assume the existence of a real world of truthful facts (apart perhaps from quantum uncertainty),--otherwise science would be impossible. Nor are atheist scientists moral relativists either , in the sense she means. Universal moral principles can be derived from human society, and does not require a fairy in the sky who has to be specially invented so as to "explain" everything. Phillips says "she does not know"; therefore the best approach would be to avoid making dogmatic ,arrogant anti-science and anti-rational statements in her article.

48. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61233 by Wadsworth on August 4, 2007 at 9:31 am

"Afterall, what are the chances that they contain any new arguments, let alone a single strand of evidence, for the existence of God?"

The only admissable new evidence would be the Second Coming itself--with all the trimmings.

49. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60578 by Wadsworth on August 2, 2007 at 9:50 am

"The reason there is such vitriol spewed against Wee Flea is because he is too close to the bone- because atheists are getting exposed. Finally!!

I thought we were all exposing ourselves--(sorry)

50. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60576 by Wadsworth on August 2, 2007 at 9:45 am

Come on then all you good Christians, never mind the middle-men. Why don't you get the Holy Spirit Himself to squash all us atheists,-or isn't He up to it?