1. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110171 by Annatar on January 10, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Well, this HAS been productive, hasn't it? :P

2. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110075 by Annatar on January 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I have a question for Steve, al-rwandi, and anyone else who's devoted time to arguing with ADH: does he made reasonable concessions when he loses arguments, or is he just stubborn?

3. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110071 by Annatar on January 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm

ADH: you refer to an "external yardstick." Apparently you think that this is the kind of thing that we need for real morality. I refer you to Prof. Dawkin's excellent "smelly people" argument -- what is your external yardstick for smelliness? How can you claim that your judgments about the relative levels of bad BO are true? If you're only relying on your brain and your olfactory senses, then how can you be sure that your judgments are sound? What if I claim that homeless people smell lovely? How can you contradict me if your sense of smell is merely physical? Mustn't there be some external, infinite standard of smelliness that we can refer to?

4. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110054 by Annatar on January 10, 2008 at 12:08 pm

ADH: "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind..."?

What does that have to with morality? What do the heart (a pump) and the soul (a fiction) have to do with morality? What does an exaggerated affection for imaginary entities (unicorns, Gods, fairies, etc.) have to do with morality?

You wonder how "physicalists" can believe that morality is a product of the brain. I wonder how morality could possible be a product of anything else -- you won't find it in a rock, you won't find it in a piece of wood, and you won't find it floating around the universe in the form of a deity. Morality is a type of behavior, and behavior is a product of the nervous system.

I'm sure you've heard this before, but it hasn't clicked for you. What the hell?

5. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97297 by Annatar on December 11, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Beautiful way to sum it up, Don_Quix.

D'Souza says "Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy. Only God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances."

Appropriate? Hardly.
It's like trying to bandage a bleeding wound with a steaming layer of shit.

6. Of Dickens and Darwin

Comment #95528 by Annatar on December 8, 2007 at 2:18 pm

The "cell doctrine"? Whaaa...?

7. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93207 by Annatar on December 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm

The "substance" of the person? What does that mean?

You clearly don't mean "physical material", so I can only imagine that you're referring to the genetic information (in which case the blueprint argument wins) or something spiritual (in which case... sigh).

Maybe you should begin by defining your terms.

8. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76086 by Annatar on October 4, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Wow, some of those comments at round table are revealing.

(http://www.aproundtable.org/LennoxDebate/comments.cfm)

""It's interesting how much of his life Richard Dawkins devotes to refuting creation. Why? If it really is a myth, why waste your time on people who are stupid enough to have been duped by the biggest lie of all time?"

"Throughout the debate, Mr. Dawkins kept referring to Darwinism as a given, a proven theory, not debatable. Excuse me? Where is the fossil evidence?"

"I truly believe that the discovery of DNA was the death nail into the heart of Darwinism and that God Himself is revealing His existance through the very avenue that Prof. Dawkins excels in."

"Thank you-I listened intently on Christian radio to every word. I felt, probably along with my favorite Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, that Darwinism was dealt yet another huge blow."

"This was the most amazing one hour and 1/2 that I have ever heard on a radio broadcast... Thank you for standing up to the biggest falsehood ever sold to mankind! Our country has been damaged by its' doctrine (Darwinism) and you exposed it to the core."

Apparently, many of the fundies who listened to the debate are under the impression that Dr. Lennox rejects the truth of Darwinism and that he was trying to refute it. Their faith in creationism has been strengthened by the "huge blow" that Lennox supposedly delivered to Charles Darwin's theory... which Mr. Lennox, in fact, accepts.

Do they seriously believe that they heard anything like that?
There is something strange and terrifying in this.