1. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111173 by bouwe on January 13, 2008 at 9:48 pm

A little book like that should be out in paperback straight away. It is the ideal book to have in every motel bedroom drawer right next to the ubiquitous and inevitable Gideon's Bible. Hits all the nails on the Christian coffin (crucifix?) on the head and straight to the point. Being brief, it is more likely to be actually read right through (in this age of short attention-span and the predominance of TV culture), and therefore possibly the best thing to hand to a fundy nutjob and actually get through to him/her.

From the sample paragraph, the new twenty-odd pages are a few more sharp nails to be hammered into the dying corpse (ouch!!)

Long live the Nail Gun of Logic.

2. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78785 by bouwe on October 14, 2007 at 11:35 pm

If you come to Oz Richard, remember to pack your Asbestos Armor of Reason to repel flames from Cardinal Pell's crackling fire. ("Put another atheist on the barbie!")

Actually, on second thoughts, his continual blunderings and idiotic pronouncements do more for our cause than anything else.

3. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78667 by bouwe on October 14, 2007 at 7:33 am

21. Comment #78591 by Teratornis

Oh, it just came back! Just as well...I am enjoying your posts Teratornis.

4. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78666 by bouwe on October 14, 2007 at 7:30 am

A few snippets from the aforementioned William Lane Craig article (for the benefit of those who may have found it -- understandably -- too painful to click the link and read it for themselves):

So the problem isn't that God ended the Canaanites' lives.  The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them.  Isn't that like commanding someone to commit murder?  No, it's not.  Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God's commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.  The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God's command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

And a little later in the same article:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites?  Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement.  Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.  So who is wronged?  Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves.  Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children?  The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

"...those who did so were national heroes"

Um.... that , Dr.Craig, is not what we find disturbing here, you pile of crawling scum.

BTW, comment 21 seems to have just disappeared.

5. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78427 by bouwe on October 12, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Tom Paine - the english atheist...

I thought Tom Paine was a deist. At least that was what I gathered from reading Age of Reason, though he may have self-identified as an atheist later on in his life. This was before Darwin, so a lot of freethinkers were deist as opposed to atheist because the argument from design still carried some weight (apparently). I vaguely recall Paine making disparaging comments on "atheists" in Age of Reason, which I found surprising at the time but which makes some sense in light of it being written before Darwin.

Pre-Darwinian Deist or atheist, not much difference in any case. Yeah, Paine is an absolute hero and I think it is a disgrace that he is not a household name for Americans in the same breath as, say, Benjamin Franklin.

I don't know if his works are a part of the syllabus in standard American History classes but they should be. Age of Reason should be on the "essential reading list" for American high school students.

Imagine the furore from fundies if their kids were required to read something like TGD -- I can't see the religious right allowing such a thing. However a text like "Age of Reason", as a part of "history class" would slip under the fundy radar and do a lot of good. "But daddy, I have to read it for my history class." Deluded Daddy: "Aw, I guess it is ok if it is History, considering our Great Christian Heritage and all," (appealing to his innate conservatism).

I think it would be a great thing if every high school student in America were taught about Tom Paine and were required to read Age of Reason. After all these years, still a necessary antidote for a young mind being force-fed the bible in his/her teenage years.

6. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75843 by bouwe on October 3, 2007 at 8:40 pm

It's as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

What a killer sentence!

7. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #70107 by bouwe on September 14, 2007 at 4:58 am

crumbledfingers, Larry Charles was a writer on Seinfeld. Larry David was co-creator(with Jerry Seinfeld) and head writer.

Damn csquared1 you just beat me to it. Yes, TWO Larrys on the same show - how confusing! I'm not sure of Larry DAVID's views on religion but I'd love to see something by that particular "Larry" re: religion -- I'm sure it would be HILARIOUS. "Curb Your Enthusiasm" is one of my favourite comedy shows EVER.

As for the Larry in question -- Mr.Charles -- it should be great considering his also-wonderful comic credentials.

8. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69683 by bouwe on September 12, 2007 at 7:25 am

Flagellant, you make a very valid point (4. Comment #69484) concerning how complex a process it is for the religious mindset to change.

A clever, cutting remark may make you feel good, but it will, in all probability, push an antagonist further into their (reactional) delusion.

This is undoubtedly true in many cases, but then further down the thread we find Duff (18. Comment #69533) who relates his personal experience in losing his belief and tells us:

Never under estimate the power of suggesting that religious people are not the brightest of the bright. That is what started me thinking I might be on the wrong side of the argument. As a Mormon missionary, i distinctly remember a very smart young person saying my beliefs were ridiculous. Such a simple statement, but it had an effect that caused me to begin a long process that has ended with a complete rejection of all supernatural beliefs.

Never under estimate the power of a simple comment of ridicule.

So I guess it all depends on who you're talking to. One would have to make an educated guess on which tact to take based on the type of person you might be speaking with.

If you are talking with a group of believers and there is one taking the lead and being particularly forthright (ahem...the most delusional one, the opinion-maker of the group), then I think one is best served to go with the latter strategy suggested by Duff. You make the opinion-maker look like the complete and utter duff (sorry Duff -- no offence, you chose the name!) that he is and then that might put the seed of doubt into minds of the quieter, more thoughtful ones in the group. As for the head-duffer, he's probably hardcore fundy and it will just make him (let's face it: it is usually a him in the leadership roles in a religious group) even more determined in his intransigence -- you were never going to convince him anyway.

And besides, their opinions are usually transparently stupid and ridiculous anyway. Better to stick to the truth and call a spade a spade (or a shovel, if need be).

Having said that, I am still mindful of the first point so, as said, it is a matter of judgment.

Mind you, when it comes to talking with fundies, if one does come across a case where judgment compels one to go gently, gently, it is a matter of delicate skill to try to avoid making that fundy look stupid. I have found that it is often impossible because the simple act of applying cold hard logic to the fundamentalist's beliefs by necessity exposes those beliefs as ridiculous -- and then you've made them look/feel ridiculous. What to do? If you can somehow be intellectually uncompromising in dissecting their fundy-worldview and at the same time be kind and try to go out of your way not make the easy gratuitous and cutting asides that we wouldn't think twice to make at a site like this (and nor should we here -- it is our oasis), then I'm sure they would appreciate it.

However, if one finds oneself in a group context and you've got a religious loudmouth sounding off their reliospeak -- they need a good dose of logic and ridicule. Then, you never know, in a few years time, someone else in that group might end up talking to evolutionary middleman aka the Happy Hominid on his wonderful new project.

9. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69176 by bouwe on September 9, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Sorry, I was responding to 39. Comment #69153 by maton100, not the above article. Back to topic....

And yes, some people will just see this as simply equating all religions and all belief in god with fascism, and not get (or choose not to get) the subtleties pointed out by others already in this forum. Cornball and Bunkum will be rubbing their hands....

10. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69173 by bouwe on September 9, 2007 at 9:35 pm

I would love to read more of the curmudgeon, however the red text on grey background makes my eyes hurt. A simple change of format would make me a regular peruser of his posts. I would be wincing with laughter instead of wincing just to read it. Through strained eyes, it is truly hilarious.

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

11. The Mix Tape of the Gods

Comment #68397 by bouwe on September 7, 2007 at 4:13 am

Containing photographs, natural sounds of Earth and 90 minutes of music from all over our world...

I read somewhere once that it includes the Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction"!! I haven't been able to confirm it anywhere else since. It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of the music they put on the disk.

I also read once that it had a crude outline of a naked man and woman imprinted at the centre of the disk, but that may have been referring to yet another craft (although I'm pretty sure it was the Voyager, but happy to be corrected). They also had trouble convincing the NASA heavies to allow them to draw the male and female with genitals intact . (Maybe it was the same dumb-as-a-brick General who kicked up the fuss?)

Tim Ferris wrote "The Mind's Sky" which I read many years ago. Excellent book., from what I recall.

Back to the music list: I wonder what criteria they used? If I am right about "Satisfaction" -- why the hell did they pick that one?

...on further reflection, it does kind of sum up a common ailment in the human condition ;-)

12. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #62744 by bouwe on August 11, 2007 at 5:22 am

1813. Comment #62438 by PaulEmecz: asked:

By the way, why is child torture worse than adult torture?

You should be directing that question to DG if he were still here. One of the reasons DG came to this thread was to support his proposition that "the gratuitous torture of a child is objectively wrong" -- why a child and why he had to add "gratuitous", only he could answer. The extra caveats seem to me rather, um... gratuitous? I'm sure if he were still active on this thread he would be able to supply the comment number(s) where you can find his reasons. I didn't misunderstand his point, the only reason I made my post was to bait DG to come back (in which case he would be able to quote his post for you which attempt to explain his views on "objective morality"). He hasn't come back but it hooked you instead.

Naturally, if someone thinks a certain moral point is somehow "objectively true" they can still recognize that others don't agree with them and leave it to the conscience of the individual. Is that what you think I don't get? I was just trying to get a rise out of him and get him back into therapy with the good Dr.B.

But all ethical questions aren't decided by the individual, are they? Some are, as in the case of abortion in some countries. We don't stone adulterers to death anymore either (in most countries!!). But murder and child torture are ethical questions, no?* Society has laws which cover these ethical questions and (obviously) they are not left up to the individual. But really, to say that all ethical questions must be decided by the individual underlines the point that morality is not "objective," even though we would dearly like it to be so.

Those ethical precepts which are encoded by law in society -- even if they have been borrowed from or directly reflect certain precepts which can be found in scriptures from holy books -- are there because the majority of individuals of that society agreed that it was a good thing. Perhaps they reached an agreement because they have an understanding of the Golden Rule ? Then they probably pointed to the scriptures from the Holy Book and told each other that they were "objectively true" because "god says so" while at the same time they ignored the nasty things they didn't like that "god said so" in the same book.

Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if morality were objective. It just seems to me that it isn't the case. It certainly would make life a lot simpler if it were true. One thing I do think is that saying "God commands it" does not make it objective and neither does it become "objective" through introspection or intuition (which was what DG seems to have suggested in his posts way back).

Perhaps you are like Dianelos and also think that some moral propostions are objectively true? I would like it to be the case that "child torture is objectively wrong," but the fact that my own intuition tells me so doesn't really prove the case. Unfortunately there are people in the world right now who have a different intuition and act upon it.

I hasten to add however that just because morality doesn't seem (to me) to be objective does not mean that "anything goes" -- so long as we agree on the golden rule we can work out a decent humanistic morality. I suspect you might disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------
* I also suspect that when DG posed his questions in the rhetorical negative that quite a few of his readers were exclaiming "YES!" as in "Yes you are right in that no you are wrong," and replacing the question mark with an exclamation point as to render it with the --- NOT.

13. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #62227 by bouwe on August 9, 2007 at 1:55 am

Comment #61903 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

...must decide by themselves, as really all ethical questions must be decided.

But I thought child torture was supposed to be "OBJECTIVELY wrong"?

(That'll get him back, Dr.B -- B for Bowie, I see. You can zap his pants on fire with those laser beams.)

14. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #62221 by bouwe on August 9, 2007 at 12:55 am

Maybe it's just me but...the Behe beard and the Behe bald makes him look like he Behe Darwin? Perhaps even CULTivated to look that way?

Bizzaro Darwin, how ironic.

15. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62030 by bouwe on August 8, 2007 at 1:18 am

This, along with PZ Meyer's recent analysis of A.McGrath, are the two best things I've read on this site for a while. If our main (realistic) aim is to convince the fence-sitters, then (in my view) it is the battle with these slippery, misleading arguments which should be the focus of our attention.

16. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60870 by bouwe on August 3, 2007 at 3:11 am

Comment #60850 by Flagellant :

MAJOR FORTHCOMING BOOK: Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution ...
(Source: McG's website.)

Oh great, sounds like the flea has migrated from Dawkins to Dennett (but only ripping off the title, apparently).

It is apt that McGrath chose the title "The Dawkins Delusion", but not in the sense that he thinks. McGrath has a "Dawkins Delusion" to go along with his God Delusion, in that he really believes he "understands" Dawkins (and atheism in general for that matter), when he has in fact deceived himself into misunderstanding Dawkins and atheists in general.

If someone can be bothered, there is another book there. Just as McGrath wrote "Dawkins' God," someone should delve McGrath's peculiar delusions (ie. misunderstandings, misrepresentations) and call it "McGrath's Dawkins", except the writer won't have to resort to any distortions, just tell it like it is.

Phew. Hard to keep track of all the fleas.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #60724 by Dr Benway
Excellent summary of the Danielos Delusion, Dr.B....in a short-hand way, you get to the crux of the matter in the same way that PZ has done above with McGrath...maybe you should write the book!

17. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60514 by bouwe on August 2, 2007 at 5:42 am

And another thing, WeeFlea:

When are you going to learn to use blockquote <> to quote other people's posts? We've been waiting so long for you to get up to speed, but you never bother. Your posts look like one long dog's breakfast. It is always hard to discern where your comments end and your quotes begin. Your diatribes look the same as they were last time I bothered to look about three months ago. You don't seem to learn anything.

I'll check another one of your posts in another three months time, hopefully they will be more coherent. Good luck with your straw man diatribes and sermons. Amen.

18. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60508 by bouwe on August 2, 2007 at 5:25 am

14. Comment #60237 by The Wee Flea:

...my main aim was actually to write for atheists and agnostics.

Oh, that must be why you disrespect them by misrepresenting their questions and concerns. Why do you have to lie to yourself and to everyone else?

Any atheist who reads your or any other flea-type tripe can readily see that your main aim is to reassure your faithful sheep (see 24. Comment #60257 by Riley and others for an atheist's appraisal of your "piece of work"). Your target audience is, clearly, those poor sheep scared of the nasty atheist books and what's inside 'em. Your job is to "immunize" them from rational thinking by misrepresenting atheism and reinforcing their (and your) prejudices.

19. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59486 by bouwe on July 29, 2007 at 8:17 am

I agree with Robert Maynard and Spinoza (and others), the problem is the prominence of the website address. I don't think it should be there at all. The A is enough, but might be better smaller.

I can't understand the fuss. It is just a T-shirt that SOME might want to wear, and proceeds go to a good cause, so get over it you wankers.

Having said that, I personally wouldn't be caught dead wearing it, but that is just my taste. I have always had distaste for clothing with any symbols or writing whatsoever. This sort of thing will not appeal to the majority of atheists, because, hey, we're...well, you've heard the herding cats cliche already! But for those who wish to wear it, fine. Please stop making those people feel like they are doing something "religious" by simply choosing to wear it - it is petty and ridiculous. Agree with PZ, it is a consciousness-raising exercise and we need a many-pronged approach to suit the many different types of people who are atheists -- and that includes catering for those who wish to identify themselves as atheists by wearing the T-shirt . More power to 'em!

I might go for an A-emblem on a baseball cap.

20. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59225 by bouwe on July 28, 2007 at 12:04 pm

I too have read this thread since the beginning. I was even baited to respond at one stage over a relatively trivial point but have decided to give this guy a wide birth. DG's full-time job, it seems, is to post ad nauseum on a particular thread at RichardDawkins.net and how appropriate that he chose the Alistair McGrath debate. As some kind of McGrath cyber alter ego, I was waiting for him to write: "But what I would like to say is..." (However, the similarities are only in the extent of the waffle. The substance, as with all waffle-theists, differs from person to person).

SharonMcT is right about DG going off on a tangent. This thread only appears as a "debate" but is really an excuse for DG/GD to endlessly "riff" on his "worldview" which, at the end of the day, seems to be dependant on the first-person data of his own introspection. As I have said, "Jesus and Pals" are waiting in his gastrointestinal tract, if Downunder wants to inspect, SouthPark-style (without evidence, I suspect his LIFE concept is just another smelly fart -- and a silent-but-deadly one at that, the worst kind: where the farter himself doesn't recognize the whiff of theism until it is too late).

GD/DG can't possibly be in gainful employment and be writing these posts 24/7 for the last month and a half. Having all that free time on his hands has allowed him to get to know "god" really really well and, as USA_LIMEY puts it, allowed him to build his intellectual Mott and Bailey. Anybody who enters into a "debate" will simply be used as a sounding-board for him to wax verbose on his ever-expanding, perfectly self-contained Worldview. He can never lose the "debate" because he will just ignore and move on to another subject-tangent of his Worldview. If, for example, Steve99 wants him to focus on certain claims he made regarding QM and mathematics, it is ignored. Eepist has a PhD in this area (and a lifetime of research - he mentioned he is retired) and, although he left the thread, seemed to express that he smelt a rat when it came to some of DG's musings in this area. I don't have any expertise in such matters, so I can't comment, but I do smell a rat (or is that just the waft of Downunder's LIFE concept? It all smells the same after a while).

I suspect that I am not the only reader at RD.net who has trawled through the reams of (so it appears to me) obtuse text and had the crap-o-meter alerts go off with bells and whistles from the Bullshit Detector Kit, but not had the chops to come out and call him on it. We are lucky that a few PhD-types have been dedicated enough to take their time out from their busy lives to carefully follow DG's endless posts and try to get somewhere with him. Trouble is, they eventually get frustrated and give up (or actually have to "move house", like eepist -- I'm not kidding).

Meanwhile DG, apparently unemployed and in his underpants 24/7 sitting at his computer, surrounded by a mott-and-bailey built-up with books on philosopy (his wife and kid surely must have given up trying to crawl over them to reach him by now), types on and on, endlessly riffing his worldview to any insect that happens to walk into his cyber Venus Atheist Trap (and on a thread at Richard Dawkins' own website, no less -- I guess that makes him some kind of theist "parasite" as well!)

He arranges his facts so skillfully to suit his worldview that one has to be very sharp and skillful to spot the blind spots and point them out, but that somebody has to be also unemployed and sitting at his/her computer 24/7 (not necessarily in their underpants) and willing to stay there for the next month-and-a-half getting increasingly frustrated until they give up....But DG will still be there, and people like Downunder will think that he is "winning" this "debate" because DG is all alone in his underpants, still at his computer, typing and posting to HIMSELF. (Your wife and kid need you DG, you will never give up your god-drug but you need to go cold turkey at RD.net for the sake of your own health -- and put some pants on!!!)

From what I can gather from the posts on this thread (surely it is a very thick rope by now!!), most, while giving his theism a wide birth, agree that he is a very intelligent and reasonable fellow. However, in the last few weeks he says he believes in the Holy Trinity (1+1+1= um....ONE -- not entirely reasonable, but relatively harmless. Perhaps he was an accountant, at least that would account for his apparent state of current unemployment), and then I came across his making a special case for Jesus appearing before his disciples after his death so as to cheer them up. The less said of that the better.

However, I would never EVER have DREAMED, going by previous posts, that he would come up with something as lame-assed stupid as this:

DG/GD wrote:

(snip)...the greatest crimes against humanity in the last 100 years have been committed by atheists, atheism has motivated or caused and is responsible for the greatest crimes against humanity (Hitler for the Holocaust 6 million dead....(snip)

Now I don't think many people here have allowed this to sink in....let it digest, slowly...yeah, that's right...are you getting a little indigestion? I mean, this is right up there with The Best of Weefree and Other Greatest Hits from the Theist Top 40 (days and nights?) of piss-weak straw men and misleading arguments. I mean, most who bothered to engage him in debate expressed, near the end, that the whole experience left them depressed and frustrated. (_J_ seemingly not included). But this latest tact leaves me in despair. Go ahead, read it in context, it is still idiotic. But no doubt, I am sure he has the endless qualifications and special definitions required to back it up with another months-worth of debate, even on this claim. If you want to get in the trenches, close the blinds, strip-down to your underpants (no one is going to see you for the next month so you may as well be comfortable), live off coffee and cheerios and hammer it out with him. "Just remember," warns the frog-with-the-torch-in-the-bowels-of-the-theist a-la SouthPark, "if you embark on this journey, you (most likely) do not have the means of support that DG has to be able to post ad infinitum at length to all and sundry at RD.net, so he will ALWAYS have the last word, because he will ALWAYS BE THERE, whereas you probably HAVE A LIFE!"

I have to repeat it, this is what he said: "..atheism has motivated or caused and is responsible for the greatest crimes against humanity (Hitler for the Holocaust 6 million dead..."

In the Old Testament the prophets always ripped their clothes off their backs in despair or grief...it is enough to make us all rip our clothes...but then he's won, hasn't he? We will then ALL be reduced to sitting in front of the computer in our jocks, furiously writing our responses.

--------------------------------------------------------------
note: Dianelos, do not bother responding to my post. This thread does not BELONG to you. People should be able to give their impressions and appraisals of the discussion without being drawn into your strange cyber vortex.

21. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58045 by bouwe on July 23, 2007 at 6:08 am

Thanks Philip1978 and Quetzalcoatl (so far -- by the time I post this there may be others).

If I change my mind about my favourite color in mid-sentence am I going to get thrown off into the Valley of What-ya-m-call-it? I am just adding to the post count, but I think we are cheating. You can never catch up to the DG marathon, especially if you go by word-count as opposed to posts. That DG is like McGrath's cyber alter ego, the word-count on his endless wafflling is truly astounding. Never has so many words been used to say so little. (Hey, a little like this post, right?)

Some of the stuff you mention might be worth checking out, but I find dealing with the Noah's Ark people just too ridiculous -- I'm over it. The DG brand of delusion is much more interesting and challanging. Did you know that the problem of consciousness is so intractable that science will never solve it? ("Yay!" says DG) and that saying "God did it!" makes the problem go away? Whoopeeee.. it all makes sesne!!! No more problems, just clap hands and sing praise to Jesus!!

Sound familiar? Maybe not so different after all.

22. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58043 by bouwe on July 23, 2007 at 5:46 am

The only thing getting a hammering has been DG's keyboard.

He is happily hammering away on the second floor of his Jesus-Jerry-built House of Faith, whistling so loud as to drown out the warnings of building inspectors Dr.Benway, Steve99 and _J_ ...something about the foundations being laid on sand.

The house has been creaking and cracking from the start, and all he has been doing is filling the gaps with his god-gap polyfiller.

23. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58039 by bouwe on July 23, 2007 at 4:57 am

This thread is almost as long as the McGrath-Dawkins DG marathon. Can anybody point me to a post which summarizes what's gone on so far, or tell me where it starts to get interesting? Or do I have to start at page one and plough through the posts only to give up before I get there?

24. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57888 by bouwe on July 22, 2007 at 1:35 am

Wishful thinking and/or willful ignorance is a choice, and certainly not a gift -- although parents pass it on to their kids as if it is exactly that. I'd send that present back for a refund if I were you.

Feel most sorry for that eskimo still clinging to his rosary beads.

25. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57877 by bouwe on July 21, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Steve99, I'm sure I'm not the only person to whom this thought has occurred, but when you misplaced the quote out of the <> ( in comment #57834) you may have unwittingly summed up Dialenos' evidence for his god:

Sound and fury signifying nothing indeed.


------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Benway: Of course you may visit, but you might have to travel to the other side of the earth. The wild cockatoos come here too (and in TWOs -- a lovely old couple), but I don't feed by hand or they'll nip my finger off. They even rooted each other in front of the window once, so they're pretty, um, what's the word? COCKY!!

26. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57817 by bouwe on July 21, 2007 at 9:07 am

I like your posts Dr.B, I'm learning a lot...although I do tire of looking at the arse-end of that bird, kinda reminds me of the journey we are on.

Incidently (and this might make you a little jealous), every day where I live, all I have to do is stick my hand out my window (a few sunflower seeds helps) and a King Parrot will fly from the tree and land on my arm. His wife is a little shy and stays on the branch.

They never show me their backsides and I haven't been pooped on once.

27. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57625 by bouwe on July 20, 2007 at 9:57 am

Comment #57610 by Elli:

Can I claim victory now?

Get in line behind Steve99 and the others. You'll be waiting until we all merge into the cosmic consciousness of the Mind of God. Dianelos is on a typing marathon and will get to you eventually. He is the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail and it is "barely a scratch", if he ever even concedes that much. He has a couple of "large projects" looming, but I don't know how the poor dear will fit it in with his full-time job of posting on a particular thread on the Richard Dawkins website.

From what I can gather, DG has found the McGrath-Dawkins discussion thread the, um, ideal "experiential environment" for optimising the personal virtue of his very idiosyncratic and impregnable beliefs, which he sums up as "Idealistic Theism".

It's only my opinion, but I think Dianelos has found "god" by sticking his big, well-read head firmly up his own arse. No one has joined him there yet, but of those who have posted here, I think "Downunder" might have contemplated a peek. I fear endoscopic philosophical analysis will entail the appearance of the torch-bearing Frog King, like in that episode of SouthPark where Paris Hilton embarks on a journey up the upper intestine of Mr.Slave, enticing you further and further until you're so far into it, you cannot escape.

You are embarking on a journey of which you may not wish to take. His reply will be long-winded, much like his upper intestine. Amongst the dense flow of words, there will be something which stands out, something that seems "not quite right" to your understanding and you will, naturally, wish to reply or ask for clarification. You will then be hooked, and with each post you will be more likely to respond, until you reach the point where it will become second-nature to you. Then, one day, you will realize you are trapped deep inside Dianelos' "Worldview", and asking yourself "WTF!??!!" Take a look at the previous 30 pages and you can see where this will go.

Fear not, child, for there are others here who can help you escape. Take the hand of good Sir Knight _J_ or Dr.Benway or Steve99, as they navigate a way for poor Dianelos to emerge back out of his own backside and back into the real world...um, er, sorry DG, I mean the experiential environment where we can optimize our virtue with the Mind of God, the overarching person of complete goodness -- OR SOME OTHER SIMILAR-SOUNDING CRAP LIKE THAT.

Ah, I see it hath come to pass, for Dianelos has posted his response before I press the submit button. Good luck with your journey.
------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry, just lightening things up a little. Not sure if the South Park reference is called for, but not everybody will know what the hell I'm on about with that anyway. Large project looming, so must go.

28. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56742 by bouwe on July 17, 2007 at 4:49 am

I wonder if it's an B&W oldie?

Apologies for this atrocious sentence, my old mac doesn't allow me to edit my posts on this website once they are "out there".

(I'm referring to the "an" by the way, the "it's is fine, apostrophe included).

Anyway.... I really want to know what that film is called!!!

29. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56738 by bouwe on July 17, 2007 at 4:43 am

There's a film—I've never seen it—about a village atheist in America. At one point, there's some incredible thunderstorm or some other apocalyptic event that makes it seem as though the Second Coming really is about to happen. Everyone's incredibly impressed. And even he thinks it seems to be true. But he keeps muttering as these events unfold, "But where did Cain get his wife?

This is frustrating. WHICH FILM IS THAT? Not even a clue provided to give me a reasonable chance to find out. Anybody know what he's talking about?

I wonder if it's an B&W oldie? There was Elmer Gantry and Inheret the Wind, stuff like that. Maybe it is from that period?

Maybe it's like god....doesn't exist -- after all, Hitch himself admits hasn't even seen it!

30. The New New Atheism

Comment #56686 by bouwe on July 17, 2007 at 12:12 am

19. Comment #56650 by Lil_Xunzian (above)

This sounds appalling. I haven't heard of it. Could you give us a few more details?

31. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56335 by bouwe on July 15, 2007 at 6:12 am

Good ol' Catholic Zwartz...you should have seen his original review of TGD in the same paper...one long ad hominem attack, virtually labelling RD a "bigot".....yeah, sure Barney, why don't you look in the mirror? Doesn't even address the issues, doesn't even bother. Pathetic.

He has a blogsite at the same paper. About a month ago he posted a peurile "send up" video "The Dawkins Delusion" where an impersonator questions the existence of Dawkins...oh, I get it! ha ha. Really hard-hitting stuff (not).

I'd have some respect if he demostrated that he understands what RD is talking about. Instead he has the Double Delusion, the regular dose of God Delusion, plus the extra McGrath Delusion (27. Comment #56326 by Nefrubyr, good point).

I'm sure not all readers of the Age are dumb enough to put up with this sort of crap. Some would have read TGD and actually absorbed its contents , rather than Barney, skimming over it while mumbling "bigot" under his breath, then rushing to his precious McGrath to "frame" and filter what he has just read to maintain his delusion (and his livelihood, he's the religion reporter, after all). What utter drivel.

32. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55977 by bouwe on July 13, 2007 at 4:50 am

1356. Comment #55852 by USA_Limey:

I've read, (almost, 90+% I'd say), every word he's written

BMMcArdle popped his head through the door quite a few times and summed-up DG's arguments very succinctly and would have saved you some time.

I thought your first post (sorry no ### reference) called the DG BS a long time ago, only to become manifest TO ALL with his "special case" pleading for the magical appearance of Jesus to his disciples.

I don't have the training in science or philosophy to have unravelled the convoluted equivocations but my BS-ometer is finely attuned and the bells and whistles started going off straight away. The voluminous amounts of text and endless qualifications while simultaneously appealing to Occam's Razor strikes me as ironic on some level, somehow.

Many thanks to the persistance of the triumvirite Steve99, Dr.Benway, and _J_ (or is that the Holy Trinity? -- another little "idea" that DG finds essential and only pops up near the end there). Eepist too, of course, but he had to move house in the meantime!

Limey, you hammered the last nail:

His intelligence is bound up in delusion so that they are now one and the same. The delusion has dominance and his intelligence is slave to it, without freedom to go where evidence and free inquiry would take it.

DG is the GD personified. (Is it just a coincidence that his initials reversed are the same as the acronym for the God Delusion? Is it just a coincidence that the puddle finds itself in a hole that fits perfectly to its shape? You be the judge.)

33. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55479 by bouwe on July 11, 2007 at 8:36 am

_J_ is still hitting those nails square on the head. Thank g_d someone is putting up those support beams otherwise the roof will fall and DG will get all wet. Won't rain forever though...I can see the sunshine of reason slowly evapourating those god-shaped puddles.

34. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55198 by bouwe on July 10, 2007 at 8:34 am

1199. Comment #55168 by _J_ (on previous page)

Great post _J_ You are hitting the nail on the head. And you've hit it square on the head again, I just noticed -- ouch! Good stuff.

35. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55134 by bouwe on July 10, 2007 at 4:50 am

It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.

Then shouldn't there be a lot blonde eskimo women? Also, fair-hair is also common among scandinavian men as well, right?


Actually, in theory, I'm a big fan of evo. psych. in that it potentially has so much explanatory power. It is early days however.

36. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #54452 by bouwe on July 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

As for Archaeopteryx you really need to stop the wishful thinking. There is zero, zilch, nada evidence that it is more reptile than bird or that it is a transitional form between the same.

Ah, of course! You invoke Zero, Zilch and Nada, the Holy Trinity of Ignorance.

As 3X0=0 he hasn't added anything, but then again this would be a person who thinks 3X1=1 (because some guys in funny hats sitting around a table said so in the year 325CE or whatever).

Or perhaps it is a Magic Spell? You say it three times and the evidence disappears!

37. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54078 by bouwe on July 5, 2007 at 8:25 am

I agree with the above, this kid is great. What a shining example.

I had to go to a Christian school and I can't imagine what they would have done if they had found a student with an "atheist book". Mind you, that was over twenty years ago and out-and-out atheist books were hard to find back then.

The best I could find was a book "On Philosophy" at our (very inadequetely stocked) local library. My dad walked into my room and picked it up and said (I still remember his exact words) "Do you think a good christian boy should be reading things like this?"

And that was just a book that had "On Philosophy" on the cover!!! -- "Good christian boy" -- I was already agnostic-on-my-way-to-atheist at the time (aged about 16). What do you say to that?

Now I am in my forties and my dad -- who is a lovely man and we get along just swell, I love him lots and he loves me (at least I'm pretty sure he does) -- and nothing much has changed.

I have made my views quite clear at certain points in the past, but he just tells me about how they are praying for a sick baby in church and I don't know how to respond. I'd like to ask why his god has to wait for people to ask him before He heals sick babies and what about all the other babies that don't get prayed for, etc. etc. but it is obvious that he doesn't want to be asked that. So how am I supposed to respond? Does he want me to go along with his delusional beliefs even though deep down he knows that I don't share them? Is he in denial or does he just have a lack of respect for whatever viewpoint he suspects I might have, or both?

Obviously these are rhetorical questions to the internet ether, but I just thought I'd share them. (I shoud leave that stuff for my shrink -- if I had one).

I don't want to hurt his feelings so I just nod my head and say "Oh, good...how nice" like the "good christian boy" of his fantasies.

38. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53346 by bouwe on June 30, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Tax-free status for helping people to refuse to grow up in the universe. That's just great.

What about organisations that aid the teaching of (real) science? Does the Richard Dawkins Foundation have tax-free status, or is the teaching of real science seen as "proselytizing"? What about the NSCsomething (?) the main organization that stands up to the DI -- do they have tax-free status. Please tell me they do. PLEASE.

39. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53335 by bouwe on June 30, 2007 at 9:16 pm

One thing I learned from this article is that the Discovery Institute has TAX-FREE STATUS!!! I must be so naive, but this is making me feel SICK. Does Scientology also have tax-free status in the USA? You guys are SCREWED.

40. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #50961 by bouwe on June 20, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Comment #50735 by _J_
I'm in the middle of trying to respond to the latest response from David Robertson at the Free Church of Scotland website.

I commend you on your posts on the Freechurch website. Noting your polite manner, what a contrast to the swaggering rants we have come to expect from David Robinson when he trudges onto this forum to spray bullets!!

Do they actually moderate every post before it goes online? No wonder you have to be so "nice". How long can you maintain a plastic smile?

Any effort made on a forum like that is very much a better use of one's time than posting here. Having said that, this place is still invaluable as an outlet for atheists to talk without having to worry about looking over our shoulder.

41. The Great Mutator

Comment #49682 by bouwe on June 13, 2007 at 12:00 am

And why three components?

It's the "Triune" God, silly!!!

42. The Benny Hinn Report

Comment #49405 by bouwe on June 11, 2007 at 8:21 pm

This guy Benny has been doing his schtick for a hell of a long time. I'm pretty sure he came to Australia in the late seventies/early eighties, when I was a kid and I think I got dragged along to one of his "shows". (As a child, I had no choice!) I have watched his "performance" on TV recently, and he hasn't changed a bit: Benny Hinn, the same yesterday, today and forever.

43. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #49071 by bouwe on June 10, 2007 at 7:37 am

Comment #49067:

G'day folks, ( my first posting )

Welcome aboard appaZ virgin poster. In a less enlightened age, virgins were sacrificed to the volcano-god. However with people of Ms Allen's ilk we may soon be returning to a New Dark Age.

44. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #49060 by bouwe on June 10, 2007 at 6:52 am

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp
Hey RabbitDynamite, that sure is brilliant satire -- that guy is a genius!!!

Wait a minute......ummm, rrr.....oh Jesus, we're in deep shit!!!

45. We of little faith

Comment #48829 by bouwe on June 9, 2007 at 6:37 am

Comment #48777 by pewkatchoo
Bouwe, it was not zen buddhism which drove the kamikaze, it was militant shinto and emperor worship.

pewkatchoo, I was aware of that but didn't get around to mentioning it. You should really be addressing
Comment #48726 by MIND_REBEL ...I'm still trying to get my head around his Zen comments....he has taken his rebellion a little too far I think....

46. We of little faith

Comment #48742 by bouwe on June 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm

Comment #48726 by MIND_REBEL
I find it interesting that Mrs. Blackmore calls herself an athiest, yet is a follower of Zen Buddism, which is the same irrational faith that drove the kamikaze bombers and the Japanese rape of China.

Huh? Firstly, if Zen Buddhism does not postulate the existence of a deity, then it is consistent with being an atheist, so saying she "calls herself an atheist" as if she isn't due to an adherence to Zen Buddhism doesn't make sense.

Secondly, you haven't demonstrated that Zen Buddhism is the thing which "drove the kamikaze bombers and the Japanese rape of China." Just because some of them were adherents to Zen Buddhism doesn't follow that that is what caused their behaviour. Even if you make a strong case that Zen Buddhism is "irrational" it still doesn't prove the effect. Love is irrational, but does that mean that it is the cause of all the ills of the world?

Anyway, I thought it was the Cult of the Emperor and blind allegiance to the nationalist cause that was the main problem in this case, rather than too much Zen meditation.

47. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48737 by bouwe on June 8, 2007 at 9:59 pm

My faith in flying teapots forbids me from allowing children to do algebra. They told me I had to allow it. I have been persecuted for my religious beliefs!!!

All my immediate family are fundies. I thought my younger sister was the least conservative, almost "alternative" in her outlook. I thought there was some hope. Then one day her daughter casually mentioned that mummy doesn't allow her to read Harry Potter because it is evil. A sad state of affairs.

"Hansel and Gretel" is presumably okay because the witch gets burnt in the end. Good moral instruction for god-fearing Christians (or should that be witch-fearing?)

48. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #48735 by bouwe on June 8, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Dr Benway:
Falwell's law: parody fundamentalism and someone will believe it's not a parody.

lol, good one, doc!!

Actually, a dose of this stuff every now and then is necessary -- a reality check on other people's unreality. Sometimes I think "Nah, millions of Americans don't really think like that...then I watch Kenneth Copeland's half hour and get a rude reminder.

Last week he was talking about how the U.S. Naval Academy took a model of Noah's Ark and ran it through a ocean weather simulator (whatever that is??!!) and they "couldn't sink it" thus proving it was true!!!

I'd like to know if U.S. tax dollars were actually spent on this and when. These people are a bit of a worry.

49. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48415 by bouwe on June 7, 2007 at 8:11 pm

An article like this needs to be published in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, etc. and in circulation throughout the major papers -- instead, it appears in the Hattiesburg American! Instead, the N.Y. Times publishes the insane views of someone like Brownback.

People seem to be hard-wired to think in a way which is the opposite to logical thinking. You have to repeat the definition of atheism over and over again...and people still can't quite grasp it. The lack of a belief is still interpreted as a "belief". It is simply a ground-clearing operation, enabling more fruitful beliefs to take root. I repeat this to those closest to me and they say "I understand -- don't go on about it -- I get it!!" Then the next time it comes up, they say something which demonstrates that they in fact do NOT "get it" and continue to misunderstand. It is very frustrating. If those closest to me can't get their heads around it, then it is no wonder the rest of the world doesn't either. Human beings are, as Bigjohn says, inured with a belief in belief .

50. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48024 by bouwe on June 6, 2007 at 10:30 am

254. Comment #47911 by Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:

I have argued elsewhere (in post 148 in this forum) that the "lack of belief" definition of atheism is a bad one because it implies strangely sounding propositions such as that all newborn babies are atheists, that all severely mentally retarded people are atheists, and so on.

But not as strange a proposition as changing the simple definition of a word so you can somehow alter the playing field to your favour. Atheism is, simply, a lack of a belief in a god or gods. Newborn babies are, by definition atheist. To believe anything at all requires the development of language -- does a dog "believe" stuff? You might say in some sense the dog "believes" that his master is going to walk through the door tonight because it has happened every other night. Perhaps the word "belief" shouldn't be applied here as it may be more just a case of pavlovian conditioning. I just did a quick google: define: belief and these were the first three definitions:

* any cognitive content held as true
* impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
* Belief is assent to a proposition.

It seems pretty clear that you have to have language to form concepts before you can start believing them. It seems it might involve a basic grasp of propositional logic as well, however I suspect that can't be right because many god-believers assert their belief by faith. Nevertheless you still need language to form the concepts in your own mind in order to believe in them. Naturally, to the god-believer, god is real and therefore not "just a concept", however to relay this (as they maintain) "ineffable reality" they, in practical terms, use language to conceptualize it. It may even be the case that people are hard-wired to believe in a god-concept (in the sense that babies may be hard-wired to believe whatever their god-like parents tell them), along with an apparent hard-wiring for language (as Chomsky first speculated and now many (neuro-?)linguists believe). Whether this is true or not, it doesn't alter the fact that babies don't come out of the womb saying "praise Jesus" (although they do speak in tongues, don't they!), and they aren't born with "a belief in god."

Considering the standard definitions of "atheist" and "belief", then clearly, as you say, " all newborn babies.....all severely mentally retarded people are atheists." So what? This is undeniable. I don't see why we should change the definition of a word because, when in certain contexts, it "sounds strange" to you. Considering the strict definitions of the words in question, it is perfectly logical. It only sounds strange because it is being applied in a context we would not normally consider appropriate, or would not bother with (because, dare I say, it is an axiomatic corollary to the point of being silly).

It seems to me that you are doing what most god-believers do: trying to define not-collecting-stamps as a hobby and making a categorical error; seeing "a lack of a belief" as a "belief"! Actually, to be fair, of course you already know all of the above, you are just saying "Hey guys, why don't we just change this definition here so I can make my case more convincing.." I think I have referred to this phenomenon in a previous thread as the Humpty-Dumpty Syndrome. To you, of course, it is making things more "clear".

Similarly, if Buddhists do not hold a belief in any god or gods then, to that extent, they are atheists as well. Ditto a belief in life after death; god is not necessary for such a belief. Personally I think such an idea to be irrational, but an atheist may have become an atheist through an irrational process. An atheist may be an atheist and not be aware of it: the baby and the severely retarded person, as you mentioned...but I would also add that some who label themselves as "agnostics" would also fall under this category, ie. they are atheists but they don't realize it yet. Hell, if you want to get really silly, the aforementioned dog and my pet hamster are atheists, along with rocks, my maton guitar and the ham sandwich I'm eating. I know it is a "strange sounding proposition" but it is actually literally logically true: does my guitar or my dog or a baby have "a belief in a god or gods"? Of course not! Sound strange? Of course it does!

Let us maintain the integrity of the definition of "atheism" at all times in this or any other debate. Otherwise it gets moved about and eventually we don't know what the person is talking about. We can leave that to the theists with their ever-shifting definition of "god".