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

Comment #207552 by Boukeb on July 10, 2008 at 2:38 am

airmind:

Another try:
How could a loving, all-knowing god not share this valuable information? Is it because he's
1) too stupid to know for himself

Shall we start with Mr Dawkins?

How is he gonna prove that he is not stupid?

So you chose option 1 is it? And why should Dawkins prove that he is not stupid? No one stated without any evidence that he created the universe. How is gawd going to prove that he is not stupid?

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

Comment #207508 by Boukeb on July 10, 2008 at 1:05 am

I'm sorry but this is far too complicated for theists (especially the latest crop to post here) to understand.

You have to offer two choices only. They can then claim that because their holy book says one of them is wrong then the other one must be right

Oh darn, forgot about the theist worldview where alternatives are either false or true and can therefore not be more than two.

Another try:
How could a loving, all-knowing god not share this valuable information? Is it because he's
1) too stupid to know for himself
2) evil and sadistic
3) non-existing

Looking forward to theists responses

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

Comment #207470 by Boukeb on July 9, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Comment #207355 by Calilasseia.

Really impressive. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

As a side, when it comes to the bible or quran being divinely inspired books with great wisdom and truth bladibladibla. If this loving god of ours wrote a book, why didn't he bother to point out what Semmelweis only discovered in the 19the century namely to wash your hands when assisting in giving birth. It could easily have been a one-line addendum but somehow the divine being could not be bothered. Now this would really have been helpful in saving numerous livfs and consitute evidence that such a being knew stuff we could not yet know. How could a loving, all-knowing god not share this valuable information? Is it because he's
1) too stupid to know for himself
2) evil and sadistic
3) non-existing

Take a pick

4. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195265 by Boukeb on June 18, 2008 at 1:48 am

As for the lengthy tantrum from clearthinker; too much self-contradiction and whining to counter. Nice to see you reach your normal standard of delusion Robertson, keep it up. You and MrGrath should be proud though frustrated at the number of converts for rationality and reason that you are responsible for.

Good point. Every long and tiresome post that DR has submitted these past few months makes me very glad that I am not a xtian or a man of faith. All this going on and on about how atheists are themselves deluded or fundamentalist but never a logical essay on the existence of god and the xtian god in particular. I watched a youtube film featuring good ol' DR where he claims that you can see the evidence for god if you open your eyes for it. He also stated here once that he will stop believing in the resurrection of Jesus when he sees the non-resurrected body.
I'm so glad I am not on his side of the argument. Don't get me wrong, his posts are not a reason for not believing, just a great joy to a non-believer.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194549 by Boukeb on June 17, 2008 at 12:12 am

I agree totally. RtG, please elaborate on the case for the designer and his/her/its origins. We know you reject evolution (really we do) and life spontaneously arising but I have not seen any case for the designer other than negation of these two. Please provide the jury with some substiantial material for your case.

6. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191966 by Boukeb on June 12, 2008 at 7:45 am

In addition to al_rawandi's request for providing evidence I would also like to ask David Robertsons opinion on why god created everything. To paraphrase Nabokov: 'God cannot exist because if he is divine, holy and elevated and all that, then why would he want to play with little puppets?' Surely there must be some hint of why he constructed the universe and a small collection of little two-legged creatures in his image.

7. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170780 by Boukeb on April 28, 2008 at 1:56 am

Hurts to see someone like Stein. I really hated the chuckling of the interviewer ('good word, good word') when Stein makes his remark about mud and lightning. The naive part of me wants to believe that this expelled project is all a charade and that at one point they will go 'gotcha! Hey you suckers, did you buy that shit about Darwin and the Holocaust? Boy, you're a bunch of brainwashed retards.' '

8. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156579 by Boukeb on April 8, 2008 at 12:14 am

I also sent an email to the democratic party with the request to publicly distantiate from Davis' offensive tirade.

9. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150477 by Boukeb on March 27, 2008 at 1:27 am

Of course the blogosphere is part of or overlaps with the real world. The fact that the bozos behind Expelled themselves use the Internet and some blogs for communication purposes, is in my opinion a clear sign that it is to be taken seriously (the Internet and blogs that is, not the Darwin leads to holocaust shit movie).

10. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150470 by Boukeb on March 27, 2008 at 12:56 am

When it comes to danger of religious infected minds, these parents are in the major league. As has been stated here elsewhere, society is to blame for tolerating excuses for this sort of abuse. If the reason for not treating the poor child were based in astrology, voodoo or wicca (or intuition), the other siblings would probably be taken away to a safe place. But if religion is the excuse this results in horrifying statements as 'there were no signs of abuse'. Not treating a sick child should be condemned as harsh as possible, regardless of the reason.

11. Fleabytes

Comment #139613 by Boukeb on March 6, 2008 at 8:05 am

I'm nominating Paula's post 3696 for the "most eloquent and nail on the head hitting post". Shear brilliance!

Richard, I couldn't agree with you more. This IS what keeps Christianity going in most cases. All the attempts to portray it as logical, rational, even almost scientific, are really just attempts to shore it up and are, ultimately, irrelevant to the faith of the believers.

The thing is, humans are emotional as well as rational beings, and our emotions do need to be looked after. There is nothing wrong with this - quite the reverse, in fact. If religion JUST concentrated on taking care of people emotionally - offering love, forgiveness, acceptance, a sense of community etc - who would fight it? This is where it could be argued to have real potential value.

But it's not content to do this - to act as a sort of informal Social Services. It is intent on declaring certain either FALSE or UNKNOWABLE statements to be TRUE. And worse - on condemning those people who don't agree that those false or unknowable statements are true. It is also intent on portraying those who don't accept these false or unknowable claims as incapable of leading a full and moral life. And on imposing these false "truths" on young, impressionable minds, and on clinging to temporal power and even extending it, wherever it can. And, of course, it clings to the bizarre and entirely reprehensible story of hell, scarring minds for life with images of both the utmost horror and the utmost LUNACY.

This is actually quite tragic. Religion COULD perhaps do some good in the world, if it would just stop pretending that it's more than it is.

Christians will no doubt argue that the truth claims of religion are the source of the comfort provided to believers and that you couldn't have the one without the other. I'm actually not so sure this is true. There are other ways of making someone feel accepted, valued and loved without lying to them about being reunited with Auntie Mabel in the afterlife.

There's something else to consider too, and that is that many churches are actually very BAD at doing the things that I'm accepting that religion is sometimes good at. The more fundamentalist the church, the more you will hear its members make statements such as, "I'm a miserable wretch" and "I don't know what depravities I might be capable of if it weren't for my faith"; and the more you will hear its members roundly condemning one another for their alleged contraventions of the church's moral teachings, or asserting that someone's sufferings must have been the result of their sins. Taken literally, there is much in Christian teaching that actively works AGAINST our human emotional needs.

So I guess I'm accepting that religion can provide much-needed emotional support, and that, when it does, this is a good thing. But at the same time, I'm arguing that a) this is no excuse for the truth claims that go with it, b) that religion is not the only way of supplying this emotional support, and c) that religion isn't always as good at this as it likes to think.

12. Fleabytes

Comment #133915 by Boukeb on February 27, 2008 at 2:59 am

Clearthinker wrote:

"I love the chess analogy. I play chess and belong to a chess club and I think your analogy is apt. The trouble is that the boot is on the other foot. You atheists are the checkers players only recognizing one philosophy/reality. Us theists see the Universe and life as being a little more complex!"


I happen to play and study checkers/draughts for quite a while now and I also studied the chess game to an advanced extent. My experience is that checkers is more abstract (because all the pieces are equal) and by far not easier or less complex. In fact, some combinations in checkers can be deep, complex and in some cases highly esthetic.

Calling chess more complex than checkers to me is a clear case of prejudice and even ignorance. If the boot is on the other foot, you should know your left from right. Or is this too complex?

13. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133284 by Boukeb on February 26, 2008 at 3:02 am

What Campos does is a typical case of bad debate. He puts word in Dawkins' mouth and then criticizes them. He describes his presumed response to an angel appearing and argues that this response will prevent Dawkins from seeing it as evidence for god.

14. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125172 by Boukeb on February 11, 2008 at 3:26 am

The General Synod wants the bishop to quit. The Synod is currently having a five day meeting. Let's hope they fire this man who is the spiritual leader of 75 million Anglicans.

15. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

Comment #121738 by Boukeb on February 4, 2008 at 4:00 am

Great questions indeed. Good to see Allen Paulos team up in the league of people who prefer common sense above dictated dogma. I read his three books "Innumeracy", "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" and "Mathematics and Humour". All three very good. I will definitely read Irrelegion.

16. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116983 by Boukeb on January 28, 2008 at 12:52 am

Double Bass Atheist,
I like this Ernestine Rose quote. Do you now of more discussion on this topic? Is there any contemporary research or study of this matter (Rose is mid 19th century)?

17. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115853 by Boukeb on January 24, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Good to know I can keep in touch with my friends and family when I go to hell. Do they have cellulars there? Or msn?

18. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113892 by Boukeb on January 20, 2008 at 11:52 pm

To me, Wilders' criticism of islam is as irrational as islam itself. There would be a different response here in The Netherlands if he criticized all religions with islamic faith as the most irrational and thin-skinned one.