1. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24153 by anon on March 5, 2007 at 4:08 am

The levels of panic and intellectual dishonesty spewing from the likes these authors are quite repulsive. And worse still, thousands of their readers who've never even been exposed to the other side are likely to fall for it.

We're being badly misrepresented here, and no other minority group puts up with it as much as we do.

2. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20932 by anon on February 7, 2007 at 3:35 am

All he has are straw-man attacks against Dawkins and atheists in general. Has he presented a single argument for the existence of God which hasn't already been debunked?

I can only imagine the terror he suppresses as he drums up yet more spurious arguments to protect his faith addiction. Slimy apologists like these offend me almost more than the psychotic fundies - who are at least bold enough to admit their unflinching irrationality.

3. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19657 by anon on January 29, 2007 at 6:01 am

I can only hope that all these youths who want sharia implemented in the UK and apostates murdered don't truly understand what they are saying, and that it's just a product of ignorance and mindless clan loyalty.

Are youths today so desperate for a sense of identity that they'll surrender their minds to the most passionate one that comes along? We really, really, REALLY need to start teaching critical thinking skills in school.

4. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #19448 by anon on January 27, 2007 at 9:16 am

If you look at some of the reviews The God Delusion tends to get, even from secular liberals, it's clear that many people will look for any excuse to discard the book as an intollerant rant, religion is that divisive.

If we're not careful the whole stunt could come off as an aggressive attack by 'militant atheists'; we'd end up worse of than we started. There should be standardized covering letters and we need to carefully dismantle the usual ignorant criticisms of the book and atheism in general.

5. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19296 by anon on January 26, 2007 at 6:17 am

Shermer does sometimes go too far to push a NOMA style view of religion and science, so that believers aren't scared away from skepticism. I think he'd rather avoid the conflict, but the conflict seems inevitable. Apart from that he's a great character and awesome ally of reason, and his approach should be complementary to Dawkins'.

He seems unfortunately to have fallen for the misconception that atheists think religion is the sole root of all evil. Dawkins himself makes it *explicitly* clear in the book that this is not the case.

6. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #19016 by anon on January 24, 2007 at 11:32 am

A very smart idea, count me in.

How is this going to work exactly? For the best impact they should all go out at the same time, but that'd be difficult to organize. How would the whole thing be co-ordinated?

7. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18101 by anon on January 18, 2007 at 10:16 am

Intelligent falling! Teach the controversy! Nature shows compelling evidence that falling things are guided by an intelligence, not just blind chance. Physics classes on gravity should be required to teach the legitimate scientific dissent over IF.

Now all i need is a DVD burner and the address of every secondary school in Britain ;)

8. Creationism Song

Comment #17631 by anon on January 15, 2007 at 8:11 am

Wow, that song has changed my life, i can finally see that evolution is all wrong and that we're all god's special creations! I've been saved!
[/sarcasm]

Seriously though, brainwashing kids... nice... If they were doing this in the name of the galactic lord Xenu instead of Jesus it would provoke a national outrage.

9. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16045 by anon on January 4, 2007 at 9:12 am

Actual security analysts are predicting a major US terrorist attack in 2007 based on actual information. It's pathetic that a major news network is wasting time on easy-sell stories like this.

10. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15874 by anon on January 3, 2007 at 12:30 pm

If some journalist had blindly labeled muslims or christians as militant they'd be receiving death threats by now.

He's too pessimistic about our chances, there aren't enough 'militant atheists' to account for the success of books like TGD, and many more secret doubters in the religious flocks than is ever acknowledged.

11. I love the commercialisation of Christmas

Comment #14105 by anon on December 21, 2006 at 6:34 am

Great article! Nice to see a shameless secularist who isn't afraid to say that we can have christmas without christ. This is of course the worst time of year for the wanton guilt-tripping by christian leaders to herd people into church.

12. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13356 by anon on December 17, 2006 at 7:59 am

No science doesn't tell us how to be good, but has this man honestly never heard of secular moral systems? He even conceded that Dawkins is moral without religion.

Apart from that, all he has to say is 'religious tradition is nice', the old cherry-picking 'believing in belief' routine.

Benn is a decent man, and it's a terrible shame to see decent people delude themselves so desperately.

13. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13257 by anon on December 16, 2006 at 1:02 pm

So for [3.] he's basically saying that god doesn't need to be complex (and thus improbable) to control the universe since he's just a magic soul and souls don't need to be complex. Nice. It is truly disturbing the extend to which people will delude themselves to hold on to their religious security blankets.

There's no souls, just brains, and brains - like gods - turn out to be at least as complex as the things they control. Even if we ignore the fact that we can explain our sense of self without a supernatural soul, and that the evidence shows free will suspect at best, he's basically just reducing god to a magical unobservable entity, just another orbiting teapot.

14. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13091 by anon on December 15, 2006 at 10:53 am

'beer-baked ham at a Saudi potluck', brilliant! Is it be un-PC of me to laugh at that?

Nice to see a balanced review from someone who wouldn't consider themselves 'on our side'. It's a shame such reasonable sentiment is so often drowned out by the petty venomous attacks.

15. Why there is no God

Comment #5553 by Anon on November 9, 2006 at 11:41 pm

Oh, I get it. God is #1, and we're the losers who worship him. zeros. God's nothing without us, because we need to be around to worship his whopping big ego. That's why he put us here in the first place, right? Cos he wanted some ass-kissin'.

A job fit for you, Asana.

16. Why there is no God

Comment #5552 by Anon on November 9, 2006 at 11:37 pm

Asana -

God is then nothing without zero. For tell me - what is 1 without zero? Would any number have meaning without zero?

So are you saying God is Zero?

17. Why there is no God

Comment #5521 by Anon on November 9, 2006 at 8:25 pm

You seem to have gotten my argument at first and then lost it.

I said, I cannot deny the existence of a God who is cruel, and who lets bad things happen. What I CAN DENY is the existence of a LOVING, KIND, OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT GOD AS IS DESCRIBED BY THE BIBLE (that is - those passages that make him out to be loving and kind, not the ones where he plagues countries).

"how are we to know that there is in fact " a lot" of suffering?"
40,000+ people killed in one island alone in the December tsunami. Millions of families destitute and homeless in its wake. Entire villages wiped out elsewhere. Erm... Since MAN was created in HIS image, I'd say it's safe to say that God should have his eye on humans. Plus, it is said that a sparrow does not fall that God does not know about, or some such thing. God creates natural disasters. If he's trying to control the population, all he has to do is restrict the number of kids born per family. I'm sure, with him being able to move tectonic plates, that's not too much of a problem to make a woman infertile after having two kids.

I also did not state that a religion being abused meant that a God did not exist. I'm merely saying two things:

1. That if a God exists, he is NOT the kindly God you read about in the Bible. He does not love his people. He doesn't give a rat's hind end if you live or die. Rather, if he can have you die painfully, it seems he'll be instrumental in it! I refute the idea of a loving and kindly God. Sorry, but such a God does not exist. If there IS a god, who is omniscient and omnipresent, the "magnitude" of suffering shouldn't matter. He'll be aware of it all, think you not?

2. If a God exists, he's a right ... He's evil. Such a God, who creates things and then watches them suffer - hell, even MAKES them suffer - is a tyrant and not worthy of worship or respect.

Also, you wanted to know how it was that your belief in God was irrational... How about telling me how it's rational?

18. Why there is no God

Comment #5505 by Anon on November 9, 2006 at 7:36 pm

Well, I for one cannot give you an argument against the existence of "A" God. I think I can show you how the God of the Bible does not exist, or that the Bible has grossly misrepresented. I fail to understand how a loving, kind, omnipotent, omniscient God can sit by and watch horrible things happen to animals and little children and the men and women he is supposed to love. Natural disasters are supposed to be the province of God. I fail to understand why a loving, kind, omnipotent and omniscient God would kill thousands and thousands of people and leave millions of others to suffer in the wake of some natural disaster or the other, when they are mostly harmless folk. I also fail to understand how so many bloody acts can be made in the name of God, and then be condoned - nay, even demanded, by this God himself.

So much for a loving, kind God. Also, it is unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that God exists simply because we don't know all the answers to everything around us. One thing Theists hit you with is "how did the universe come into being?" Just because we don't know the answer very well doesn't mean it may be deduced logically that a God exists!

A God may very well exist. But if He (or She! I like the idea of Lisa's Lulu) exists... well... I don't believe such a cruel and unreasonable being is worthy of any respect or worship, unless you're afraid you'll be broiled in hell for refusing to kiss butt...

19. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5504 by Anon on November 9, 2006 at 7:22 pm

Religion. Is. Evil.

The Bible hasn't changed from several hundred years ago - since when the Portugese put the new-born babies of families under their rule in Asia to death when their fathers refused to bring them up under God.

"Religion, what crimes are committed in your name..."

20. Why there is no God

Comment #4936 by Anon on November 7, 2006 at 12:44 am

Asana, Asana, Asana... I hate to force your eyes open... But logic is NOT one of your strong points. Let me show you what I said, and what you said!

Anon:
"P = God created Man
Q = I exist"

Asana (November 6, 2006 at 11:49 pm ):
"If I exist as a Man, P is true."

THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW LOGICALLY!!! For you see, P and Q are propositions... What you're saying is this:

1: I exist.
2: I am a Man.
3: Therefore God created Man.

Explain how you went from 2 to 3 WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT P IS JUST A PROPOSITION, WITH NO ASSIGNED TRUTH VALUE. The way I see it this is what has happened.

Statement 1's flow: IF God created Man, then Man exists. I am a Man. So I exist. (Which is a logically correct statement.) This is if P is true, then Q is true. P --> Q

Statement 2: IF I exist as a Man, Man exists. Therefore, God created Man. Once again, this is your argument, is it not? THAT IS IF Q IS TRUE, THEN P IS TRUE - OR IN THE NOTATION Q --> P. The thing is... The VALUE of what you said MAY be true. There MAY be a God that created Man. But can you confirm his presence logically because there exist creatures called men on this planet?... Nope...

You can't escape it... Twist is whatever way you like, that's what you're saying... Looks like YOU're the one who needs to brush up on your logic, old man! Sorry!

21. Why there is no God

Comment #4883 by Anon on November 6, 2006 at 6:01 pm

Good... grief...

First of all, I would like to apologize. I suppose I should have used "proposition" instead of "premise"... My bad... though I'm sure it won't make any difference to you.

But let me make this easier for you. Let's say

P = God created Man
Q = I exist

Let us take it for granted that if P is true, then Q is true - that means - if God created man, then I exist.

This does NOT mean that if Q is true, then P is true - that is, if I exist, then God created Man.

That's like saying "If I am in New York city, I am in the USA. If I am in the USA, I am in New York City." Which isn't true. Why? Because I could be in a THOUSAND other places in the States. So you see... Man can exist... but it doesn't necessarily mean that God created him.

Clear now? :P

Btw, Asana... I AM NOT BILLY SANDS! PLEASE LEAVE THE POOR GUY OUT OF THIS!!

22. Why there is no God

Comment #4877 by Anon on November 6, 2006 at 5:34 pm

PS:

<>

My dear fellow, no one needs to try and discredit you. You do a wonderful job of it yourself. Your blatant disregard for the rules of logic and the way you breeze past points you cannot counter prove that you are either a maniac fixed on God, or just plain stupid. I'm very sorry. But it's true.

23. Why there is no God

Comment #4876 by Anon on November 6, 2006 at 5:29 pm

Ohmigosh... what have I done? Now every time I post, Asana will claim he resurrected me :P

Anyway, Asana, seriously, jokes aside... I've noticed you really can't defend yourself, it's rather pathetic. I've noticed the theists who CAN defend themselves have disappeared...

Since we're nice people, we'll give you a sporting chance. Here is ONE basic rule in logic you should understand before you argue with atheists:

If p and q are premises, then "if p, then q" does NOT necessarily ALWAYS mean "if q, then p".

This means while you might be able to say "God created me, therefore I exist." you cannot go to "I exist, therefore God created me." That isn't logic.

Got it?

24. Why there is no God

Comment #4874 by Anon on November 6, 2006 at 5:14 pm

Sorry, Billy - it was I who "insulted" Asana. The reason I remain anonymous is because some freak theist decided to bomb my blog with pro-God comments. And Asana - jeez - didn't your Father tell you you were pinning it on the wrong guy? Sure made a fool of yourself there! *rolls over and dies laughing*

Resurrect me now, if you please and I'll be a believer.