1. Pell plans fidelity oath for principals

Comment #48710 by derwent on June 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm

...the churches are circling the wagons.

2. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43263 by derwent on May 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

The fighting in Israel today, for example, is not primarily about religion--Jews, Muslims and Christians have coexisted fairly peacefully in that area for most of the last 1,300 years. Until recently, the Holy Land fighting was mainly about land, and whom it's been promised to.

3. Statement of Concern about Impact of AIG's Creation 'Museum'

Comment #41207 by derwent on May 15, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Someone should build a science museum across the road, lol... put a big sign out the front: "REAL science, FREE entry". (Recover costs from sale of food, souvenirs and guided tours etc.)

Every exhibit could have a description: "Creationist claim: [insert relevant AiG nonsense]. Facts: [insert facts]."

4. One side can be wrong

Comment #40926 by derwent on May 15, 2007 at 8:05 am

"the gravitational hand of god theory"

I believe The Onion have refered to this as Intelligent Falling... Yep, here's the link:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

5. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #38963 by derwent on May 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm

So all believers get whisked off at the time of Rapture? And all non-believers get left behind? Without the believers?

Roll on Rapture!!!

6. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34300 by derwent on April 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Well... I'm not familiar with O'Rielly or his work, so from the comments on the other thread I was expecting the worst. However, I think that went REALLY well. Obviously some of you are disappointed, for various reasons, but I think Richard - and indeed all of us - should be very pleased with how this turned out.

O'Rielly was very calm and polite, he started the segment by mentioning some stats about non-belief in the U.S. and the significance of atheism in Europe, and he didn't give an opinion on this. He didn't say "Oh isn't this terrible that people don't believe," he just left the stats hanging and then gave a plug for Richard's book.

Complaining about the format or the shortness of the segment is pretty pointless - the show is what it is. Yes it is "sound bite media", but Richard did very well - Bill kept trying to have the final say but Richard always got the last word in (even if, in some cases, it was literally only a couple of words).

From (2), above:

"I understand you want to raise consciousness Richard, but doing it on a circus show is not going to do it."

"Please come up with something new next time you go on television, because frankly speaking, we're fed up of listening to the same old thing over and over again."

7. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30080 by derwent on April 6, 2007 at 11:41 pm

"What begins to emerge - and it lurked strongly behind the anti-religion side of the Intelligence Squared debate - is the idea that atheism is an elite state, a superior order of being, a plane of enlightenment denied to thickoes."

This is not the case at all. Being "clever", educated, intelligent etc. simply better defends a person against religious brainwashing. The more a person learns - especially if they study a scientific discipline - the better they understand the way the world (indeed the universe) really works, and the less need they have to appeal to superstition or the supernatural.

@Roland: While I'm sure many of us share your frustration, excessive swearing will just get you labeled an "angry atheist"! ;-)

8. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23994 by derwent on March 4, 2007 at 3:54 am

It seems that these critics hold several odd ideas, the first being that anyone attacking theology should actually know some.

Nevertheless, they pose the key questions and are right on target for the level of sophistication of most believers (and non-believers). The proof lies in the fact that these books are such best-sellers.

9. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21775 by derwent on February 11, 2007 at 4:16 am

religion, surely cannot be bad for crime rates as it preaches against crime.

10. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21774 by derwent on February 11, 2007 at 4:12 am

but it is fair to say crime is low because there is no religion?

11. False piety when Christianity claims the high moral ground

Comment #18352 by derwent on January 20, 2007 at 1:48 am

I just thank god (ha!) that we have compulsory voting in Australia. I don't think our politicians would ever become as overt in their religious bias as American politicians - partly because of the abovementioned embarrassment, but also because there's not as significant a political benefit to it (in terms of promoting voter turnout).

12. Conservative Atheists

Comment #17542 by derwent on January 14, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Regarding some of the political comments above: I don't understand how some people who so fervently reject religious dogma and indoctrination can apparently be equally keen to embrace political dogma - and blind to their own indoctrination into a particular political view / party. We complain about the black-and-white thinking of religionists, then make comments like this:

"It's about time that nonbelievers woke up, and realizied that liberalism is basically just another religion."

13. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17340 by derwent on January 13, 2007 at 1:32 am

...if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

14. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14028 by derwent on December 20, 2006 at 9:04 pm

> "take pride in my country's protection of the right to think weird things and assemble peacefully"

If that's ALL your country was doing, I don't think there'd be a problem. Besides, nobody wants to take away your right to "think weird things", but a line must be drawn where someone attempts to inflict their weird thoughts on others.

This knee-jerk patriotism and paranoid obsession with individual "liberties" at any cost is not healthy. Some people just don't seem to understand that, when taken to extremes, the rights of one individual inevitably encroach on the rights of other individuals.

The language you've used here is much like some theists would use to defend their indoctrination techniques - "You can't tell me how to raise my children! You can't tell me how to do ANYTHING because THIS IS AMERICA!" It's a selfish, petulant attitude and I think the teenager metaphor is quite apt.

15. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12578 by derwent on December 12, 2006 at 3:49 pm

> "I guess the irony is that people are finding it hard to tell the difference between parody and reality such is the weirdness and predictability of theist mindset."

Absolutely. I wasn't reading the names, and thought it was serious right to the end! Top 40 single, indeed...

I've been caught out a couple of times before, too.

16. God's Inbox

Comment #11898 by derwent on December 8, 2006 at 4:38 am

> "So what does the pope's email say? Does anybody know latin?"

Hmmm... with the help of an online translator, the closest I can get is something like:

"Give thanks to you on account of our large promotion"

:-)

17. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11861 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 7:22 pm

Having said that, I do find some of the petition wording a little ambiguous. A "broad stroke" as JonG puts it.

>"..children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching..."

To me there is an implicit "...in one specific religion..." at the end of this, but others may not interpret it that way. If a child spent alternate Sundays learning something about several different religions (e.g. Christianity / Islam / Judaism) would this still be classified as "indoctrination"? (Perhaps Christianity / Hinduism / Atheism would be a more balanced mix.)

And what is "regular"? I know they want to cast a wide net, and perhaps rightly so, but I think this wording is just... too open. Maybe just nit picking...

18. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11859 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 7:08 pm

> "To me it smacks of paranoid, restrictive, narrowmindedness"

I don't see how promoting choice and free will constitutes narrow-mindedness. Restrictive? Only on parents and religious leaders, in that it would restrict their brainwashing activities. Paranoid? Of course the theists will paint it that way and play the victim / persecution cards that they always play in order to get their own way. But no, the threat is very real. Enough is enough.

19. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11858 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 7:00 pm

> "On your rationale England would ban Soccer because some 'alleged' fans has taken to hooliganism!"

The idea is not to ban "soccer". The idea is to stop parents restricting their children's "sporting" activities. Children should be free to explore many sporting options and decide for themselves which one(s) they want to play - if any.

20. God's Inbox

Comment #11856 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 6:06 pm

My God does, anyway! ;-)

21. God's Inbox

Comment #11855 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 6:06 pm

Pft. OF COURSE God uses a Mac.

22. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11853 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 5:55 pm

Regarding your "room" metaphor:

1) "However, that doesn't make them true or right once we look outside the room"

It is not POSSIBLE to look outside the room. That is the whole POINT. We don't even know if there IS anything outside the room. We can speculate, but that's all it is - speculation.

2) "But in reality these theories are wrong."

According to you, who can not see outside the room any better than anyone else.

3) "They will never find the answer because they don't look outside the room, and there is a whole world outside the room that explains why we came to be there and who was responsible."

Again, it is not possible to look outside the room. You can not know, from within the confines of the room, that there is "a whole world out there". More pure speculation. You also ASSUME that the answer must necessarily be outside the room.

We may never discover how the room came to exist, we may not even fill in all the holes in our "theories" about how we came to exist within the room, but this doesn't mean you can just make up random "answers" and then present them as truth.

Some people claim that there is a book in the room that explains everything... Interesting... You have a book that tells you what's outside the room? And who made the room, and all of the inhabitants?

Well, it turns out that this book was written a very long time ago by previous inhabitants of the room, who also could not see outside. In fact these previous inhabitants couldn't even see INSIDE the room, because they hadn't invented the electric light. (I know, stretching the metaphor, my point is they knew less about the "room" than the current inhabitants.) So they made up some stories which some of the current inhabitants choose to interpret as fact and truth.

The authors of the book received divine inspiration? How do you know that? Ah, it says so in the book!

If you choose to belive that this book of yours contains acurate, factual information about what is outisde the room, that is your choice. If you choose, in the process, to ignore all the other books with similar claims, again that is your choice. And if you also choose to ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests we DID in fact develop from inorganic specks on the seats, yep, your choice.

Even if all our "theories" about how we came to be in the room are COMPLETELY wrong, that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of your book. Disproving one does not prove the other.

If the only thing you have to support your beliefs is the book, and other people don't belive the book (because they quite simply have no reason to)... Guess what? Game over.

23. God's Inbox

Comment #11844 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 4:41 pm

Funny :-)

> "But why was baby Jesus on a kitchen floor?"

It's just a happy-snap, like a photo of their kid that anyone else might have of their on their computer desktop...

24. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11828 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 1:30 pm

The content of the Bible is really not relevant in a debate about the existence of god(s), and I don't understand why so many atheists allow themselves to get sucked in to arguing about it with Christians. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a collection of ancient documents - no more (or less) compelling or believable than any other historical documents. Christians only attach high value to their particular collection of documents because they've been instructed that they are the word of their god. (And, of course, they believe in God because of what's in the Bible - this circular reasoning in inescapable, no matter how much they try to hide it.)

Stop engaging with theists on their terms. Physical evidence, direct observation, logic and scientific inquiry outrank random ancient documents.

25. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11736 by derwent on December 7, 2006 at 1:21 am

(250): "Here, on the official Richard Dawkins web site, is ongoing debate between (a) people who agree with his atheistic views, and (b) those such as Tom B, Jon, Drew, Shaunyboy and others, who believe in a Creator, the God who is also the author of the Bible. Can this be the same Richard Dawkins who has publicly stated that he refuses to debate with creationists, because he wishes to deny them the "oxygen of publicity"? Or has he now changed his position on that?"

---------------

Mark,

You will probably find that Richard was refering to high-profile public debates(?). You will also find that he very rarely posts on these message boards.

RD has provided discussion features on this site for the benefit of like-minded people who wish to discuss his various books and the topics they cover. When theists seek out this site and post their views, why should we not respond? Would you prefer that all posts by "believers" were simply deleted? In the name of "consistency"?

You are certainly as welcome as anyone else to present your position - but you do so in the full knowledge that your position will be subjected to intense scutiny and critical review. Your audience here consists not only of random atheists who have read some of RD's work, but also scientists in many fields, scholars, university lecturers, students and ex-theists. We are generally a well-educated bunch, we are not sympathetic to your cause and we have heard a great deal of the "evidence for the truth of the Bible" coutless times before. If we occassionally stoop to personal insults then that is regretable, and certainly something to be discouraged, but it is also predictable considering the complete lack of originality that theists bring to the table when they come to a site like this and expect to convert us with their cliche-ridden rhetoric.

26. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11730 by derwent on December 6, 2006 at 11:56 pm

>"But where there are forums, there will be trolls."

Sadly that is true, but vigilant moderation combined with forced login at least make them easier to deal with.

Action has apparently been taken - hopefully we will hear no more from dear Troll David. (At least on *this* site!)

27. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11708 by derwent on December 6, 2006 at 5:17 pm

More here:

http://www.sciforums.com/A-Sympathetic-Look-at-Atheism-t-2139.html

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/06/topics_in_the_t_1.html

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/03/peakaboo.html

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=2372

28. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11707 by derwent on December 6, 2006 at 5:16 pm

Ah, how predictable. Everyone's favourite troll is now trying to play the victim card by comparing troll-labelling to witch-hunting.

Here's a gem from

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=28341

"Addressed to all Angry, Obscene & Offensive Atheists: I am David Mathews and have come here to provoke you to reveal your anger, your bitterness, your hate, your bigotry, your prejudice and every other flaw of your dismal and hopeless soul. The more obscene and offensive you are the better. Don't restrain yourself. Let go of your inhibitions!"

And:

"I am not here to become angry at atheists, nor am I here to make atheists angry at me. But when I get an opportunity to press someone's buttons, I will do so."

Here's JUST A COUPLE of other links to some of his previous (and current) handy work. I agree that anyone who is actually interested should do their own search to get the "complete picture", but quite frankly I don't care about accusations of bias given the clear pattern shown in this collection...

http://blacksunjournal.typepad.com/bsj/2006/04/a_liberating_wo.html

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=37056

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=2544

29. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11612 by derwent on December 6, 2006 at 12:18 am

Hasn't the weed done enough damage already, Dave? You really should stay of it.

30. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11608 by derwent on December 5, 2006 at 11:26 pm

Trip trap trip trap...

Attention-seeking Troll David hijacks another thread. Ho hum.

31. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11479 by derwent on December 5, 2006 at 12:54 am

> "...where they are "adopted" by red ants (Myrmica sabuleti) attracted by a sugary substance secreted from a dorsal gland."

Looks like a symbiotic relationship, though it appears somewhat skewed in favour of the butterfly. "Here's some sugar, now I'm going to eat your children. Bwahahahahah!"

32. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11472 by derwent on December 4, 2006 at 11:11 pm

David seems to be using an odd definition of "straw man"...? Or am I the one not using the term correctly?

I use this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

and this:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1114.htm#STRAWMAN

My intended meaning was that David was deliberately misrepresenting the "amputee" argument...

33. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11466 by derwent on December 4, 2006 at 9:07 pm

Quote: "I am looking for some glimmer of thought among this group of atheists. If your idea of a rational argument takes the form:

1. If God existed He would heal amputees.

Then I would respond by saying that this is about the most absurd and ridiculous argument an atheist has ever formulated."

----------------------

Nice straw man, Troll David. I'm not gonna bite, but I'm sure someone else will...

34. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11465 by derwent on December 4, 2006 at 8:57 pm

Playing Devil's Advocate:

1) In the case of this particular butterfly, how is evolution any more believable than creation? How could such a delicate and fraglie system of interdependencehave come about without some sort of intervention? If evolution favours organisms / genes that are better suited to survival, why would a relationship like this have evolved at all?

2) Quote: "If I were to design such a silly system I'd at least choose the most abundant, hardy species of ant to host my caterpillars, and ensure that they could feed on other plants beside thyme, and at other stages than the bud."

The case could be put that this system worked quite well until humans interfered. It didn't matter that it was so fragile, until humans started messing around with the butterfly's environment.

I really don't feel that this article puts a "nail in the ID coffin" at all. I'm sure it had potential, but it failed in the execution, at least for me. Perhaps a word limit prevented the author from making a more thorough - and convincing - argument? I don't know... it just doesn't do it for me. I see too many holes for a creationist to drive their "this-doesn't-PROVE-anything" truck through.

35. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11437 by Derwent on December 4, 2006 at 3:49 pm

> "I have read your posts on this page and I have to say, you absolutely fascinate me."

Don't worry, baz - your fascination will be short-lived.

Getting back on topic (sort of): Has anyone seen any attempted counterarguments to the "God won't heal amputees" position? I'd be interested to see how creative the apologists are in their responses...

36. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11420 by Derwent on December 4, 2006 at 1:43 pm

Fantastic. Troll David has arrived - this thread is dead.

37. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11282 by Derwent on December 4, 2006 at 4:07 am

lmao @ Anonymous. Nice trolling. At least you do it with a sense of humour :-)

38. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11241 by Derwent on December 3, 2006 at 11:55 pm

> "As for wanting a world in which religion does not exist, that is the same as if some radical church group took over the government and forced you to go to church."

No, it is NOT the same. And nobody is trying to stop anyone going to church. You have, quite predictably, entirely missed the point.

39. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11212 by Derwent on December 3, 2006 at 7:19 pm

lol @ Anonymous (#11201)

Indeed, Jared, how adorable :-) These little Christian sheep think they are so clever! Aaaawwww...

40. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11209 by Derwent on December 3, 2006 at 6:46 pm

Next time my evangelical brother-in-law starts crapping on about the miracle of conception / pregnancy / birth, I plan to ask him why God needs 50+ million chances to fertilise one egg...

41. The godless guru

Comment #11208 by Derwent on December 3, 2006 at 6:38 pm

> "Wish it did help the atheist cause, but fundies just twist its meaning and sy that even dawkin's says the bible is a well written book."

Fundies twist the meaning of everything, regardless of what is said. No point trying to censor oursleves for fear of giving them more ammunition - when they lack ammunition they just make it up.

Accept this, move on, and keep promoting atheism as effectively, thoroughly and positively as possible - that's my stance. We must not let them scare us from being honest.

42. O Come All Ye Unfaithful

Comment #11188 by Derwent on December 3, 2006 at 3:35 pm

(re my comment #3 above) I should point out that I don't think you are *generally* a grump, Richard :-) You are simply human. I guess it is just a bit of a shock to hear someone speak with raw honesty, instead of the usual plastic smiles and artificial "politeness" that we are used to getting from well-rehearsed evangelists, politicians and "don't tread on any sponsors' toes" media.

43. O Come All Ye Unfaithful

Comment #11071 by Derwent on December 3, 2006 at 3:32 am

I actually quite like this article. It doesn't pretend to be anything it's not - it's just a fluffy "interest" piece.

To me is says: "I met Dawkins, and he was a bit of a grump. (But you should have seen him light up when he saw this box of fossils.)"

No harm there, as I tend to agree that he *can* be a grump, and yes even rude. This certainly doesn't detract from the strength of his arguments, however, and the author doesn't claim that it does.

My favourite quotes:

"He strolls over to the questioner, listens intently, nods amiably and ambles back to his lectern. And then proceeds to rip the questioner a new intellectual asshole."

And

"If critics find him cold, hostile and rude, that's because he is - deliberately so."

I for one can absolutely realte to Richard's frustration. There's only so many times you can hear utter crap like "Oh, so it all happened by CHANCE, did it?" or "God just make more sense," or "But how do you KNOW God doesn't exist" before you start to go just a *little* bit insane.

44. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10618 by Derwent on November 28, 2006 at 3:21 pm

PLEASE people - do you not know what a "troll" is? Please stop encouraging David. He has nothing useful to contribute. You WILL NOT WIN with him - that is the nature of the troll...

45. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10613 by Derwent on November 28, 2006 at 2:47 pm

Hi Tom (#10513),

Well written, and I agree with many of your comments. Some people posting on this site seem to think "the battle" has already been won - "I'm an atheist, you're an idiot, I win, just let me pat myself on the back..."

You are right that something more than just flaming theists on an atheist messageboard needs to be done. Mobilisation is an important first step - let's take the discussion to the forum (away from Troll David and his band of willing victims) to talk about "what's next"...

46. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10376 by Derwent on November 28, 2006 at 1:27 am

David Mathews, I'm beginning to feel like you're not actually being serious.

Whether or not he is serious is irrellevant. He is a troll. Don't feed the troll. Correspondence with him is pointless.

47. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10374 by Derwent on November 28, 2006 at 1:20 am

"live and let live, couldn't care less" approach to pro-active atheism was initiated by the unquenchable thirst, of the religous right, for political power and social control.

Agreed.

(That, and my wife's brother has started Bible-bashing us every chance he gets.)

48. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10372 by Derwent on November 28, 2006 at 1:14 am

It's circular reasoning.

It is NOT circular reasoning, because the circumstances you describe are unrealistic (not to mention incredibly ambiguous).

First define what you mean by "miracle", then explain why "science" would dismiss such a thing without any investigation.

49. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10333 by Derwent on November 27, 2006 at 9:26 pm

Please stop feeding the troll. He is just trying to distract everyone's attention thereby smothering critque of the article.

50. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10318 by Derwent on November 27, 2006 at 8:50 pm

A quote from David Mathews' web site:

Why are humans so unhappy? It's a mystery to me, but an affliction which I have experienced numerous times throughout my life.
Here's a remedy, a photograph of a baby elephant looking absolutely adorable.

You are right about one thing, Dave: the baby elephant is adorable. How very cute!

But then this:

The baby elephant is happy because it is not a human. Maybe that should tell us something?

lmfao! Not only is David prescient, but he reads the minds of elephants!