1. Flea Circus!

Comment #33066 by marklennox on April 19, 2007 at 4:52 am

weefree sez: "I had thought that rationality and intelligence were bound up together and I would use the terms synonymously. "

hmm.

Rationality deals with point of view, subjectivity etc.

Intelligence deals with potential to learn, make connections etc.

For instance, people with high intelligence generally find it easier to learn a new language, do crossword puzzles. Even theists can speak several languages and some of them are even scientists!

A rational person uses the scientific method as a basis for accepting the truth of statements - using past experience, creativity and thought a rationalist can create a theory seemingly out of whole cloth - however the process doesn't stop there, the theory is not accepted until the logic that supports it can be verified.

Again, many theists can also be rationalists as there are quite a few scientists that are religious (I'm lumping them all as theists for the sake of argument here..) who would hopefully throw away a life's work at a scientific theory proven to be false. Yet, the same scien-theist (sorry for the punny neologism, couldn't resist!) would reject any argument against his belief and faith no matter how much contradiction to the real world this would introduce.

So no, the terms intelligence and rationality are not synonymous.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

It would be nice if you didnt submit us to your outrage every time you misunderstand when someone describes a statement from a theist as irrational or even supports an atheist's remark by describing it as rational.

Can you please let us know any other 'trigger' words or phrases - it would be useful for us all to sync up our vocabularies to avoid each offending the other with what they believe to be innocuous phrases

Thanks.

2. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #25085 by marklennox on March 10, 2007 at 3:25 am

mooslim said - "What classifies as NSFW? You're all atheists, right? There is no such thing as NSFW. Everything goes."

eh?

please tell me this was said (typed?) as 'tongue in cheek'?

otherwise please refrain from ad hominem attacks

3. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25072 by marklennox on March 10, 2007 at 2:45 am

was I the only one to hear him espousing humanism?

Didn't he say 'we have to humanise the people'

You guys heard him, he's a filthy apostate! Stone him!! ;)

4. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #23903 by marklennox on March 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm

"It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from simpler states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science is not equipped to answer. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently non-scientific, and so has no place in a science curriculum."

Nail on the head!! Brilliant :D

5. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12139 by marklennox on December 10, 2006 at 6:16 pm

Firstly as an Irish person I apologise for the poor showing in that 'debate'. However, Pat Kenny, and obvisouly his audience, are far from intellectual giants. Pat is known as 'the plank' in Ireland for good reason.

The 'ex-atheist' was a disgrace. He at least professed to be an intellectual but instead furthered his obvious agenda by appearing to agree with Dawkins on all important points before trying to smear him as at best intellectually dishonest or at worst a UFO conspiracy theorist nut with his little 'reading' from Richards book and insisting that 'quite probable' was a statement of fact - as Professor Dawkins said - 'Come on! You cant be serious!!'

The audince were terrible I'm afraid. The creationist, the biologist who was trying to force faith onto everything, the young woman who claimed her recovery was a 'miracle' (no praise for the doctors, friends and family then, it was just her and God I presume) and that strident, verbose, boor who insisted that Dawkins was a fundamentalist and compalined that his definition of proof was too limited.

A very poor showing - more the land of Saints than of scholars I'm afraid and as an Irishman it makes me sad on many levels - the paucity of intellectual debate and the fact that we are not as free from the thumb of the church as we supposed.

Some of us are fighting the good fight!