1. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54786 by Feuerbach on July 9, 2007 at 1:11 am

Hannity is a fake of the highest order. A college dropout who is awarded an honorary degree from a fake university, now working for a fake news network, with what looks like fake hair colouring.

Faux news indeed.

2. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52117 by Feuerbach on June 26, 2007 at 7:43 am

Don't you people know that Tom Cruise has studied everything there is to know about psychology?

3. God Hates the World

Comment #52109 by Feuerbach on June 26, 2007 at 7:33 am

These people are best ignored.

4. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #48929 by Feuerbach on June 9, 2007 at 4:06 pm

American politics is like a Monty Python sketch.

Religion is a dead parrot, being made a great fuss over.

5. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48744 by Feuerbach on June 9, 2007 at 12:52 am

Dear Theo,

There is no god.

Really, there isn't.

Rgds,

Feuerbach

6. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47808 by Feuerbach on June 5, 2007 at 2:58 pm

So, McGrath had faith as a child, lost it, then regained it? Which proves nothing but the fact that his faith tends to wander.

Having faith proves nothing of the truth of that faith, and as we have all heard many times faith is a requirement for god, otherwise it would be provable science. It bemuses me that people simply want to believe, and take comfort in having faith more than the truth of the object of their faith.

The `stoopid` meme has a lot to answer for.

7. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36436 by Feuerbach on May 1, 2007 at 5:36 am

The story goes, hitchens wanted the book titled:

"God is a hoorible old bastid, ahh feck off will ya...PINT!"

but the publishers had to convince him of the folly of it in a rare sober moment.

8. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36429 by Feuerbach on May 1, 2007 at 5:15 am

@Suffolk Blue

all mine, ;)

9. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36101 by Feuerbach on April 30, 2007 at 7:48 am

Religion attaches itself to misery and poverty like a tick on a beaten dog. It would do well to wish the dog live long, but ultimately its primary concern is its own survival.

10. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34095 by Feuerbach on April 23, 2007 at 7:53 am

Baby in limbo overheard when speaking to a friend:

"Now we can all get some sleep".

11. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31917 by Feuerbach on April 15, 2007 at 12:25 am

I don't know how to say this politely, so I won't.

Matthew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney are a pair of God-bothering, clueless fucking muppets.

12. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31307 by Feuerbach on April 12, 2007 at 1:36 am

St Benedict, patron saint of:

against nettle rash; against poison; against witchcraft; agricultural workers; cavers; civil engineers; coppersmiths; dying people; erysipelas; Europe; farm workers; farmers; fever; gall stones; Heerdt, Germany; inflammatory diseases; Italian architects; kidney disease; monks; nettle rash; Norcia, Italy; people in religious orders; poison; schoolchildren; servants who have broken their master's belongings; speliologists; spelunkers; temptations; witchcraft;

I guess he sees biologists as witches.

13. Is God poison?

Comment #30833 by Feuerbach on April 10, 2007 at 3:27 am

Bethune knows nothing.

14. E.O. Wilson Accepts his 2007 TED Prize

Comment #30645 by Feuerbach on April 9, 2007 at 6:21 am

"Apparently TED stands for "Technology Entertainment and Design". For which of these did EOW get his prize?"

Intelligent DESIGN dummy.

15. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30644 by Feuerbach on April 9, 2007 at 6:08 am

Why do we expect rational argument from those accused of irrational belief? I get the feeling Mr Anderson is preaching to the choir. Literally.

"Silent blah blah blah
Holy blah blah blah
blah blah blah is calm"

We need a way of fast-tracking these articles for worthiness-to-read. Unfortunately I tend to waste a few minutes before concluding the horse is hitched to an imaginary post. Can someone PLEASE point me to a worthy response to Dawkins. The only ones I seem to come across is from those in the same camp who only tend to differ on how to deal with religion, not the final conclusion that there is no God.

Man still remains the measure of all things,nd our greatest skepticism should be reserved for those who claim to have the measure of the unkown. It is unkown for a reason, if t'wasn't it would not be UN-known.

bla blah blah.

16. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29686 by Feuerbach on April 4, 2007 at 5:16 am

Surely this family is abusing its children?

17. The God Debate

Comment #29400 by Feuerbach on April 2, 2007 at 7:06 pm

This discussion really was like watching a debate between a modern rational man and a 2000 year old prophet. Talk about bad PR, these religious nuts need a new set of arguments, can they not see the old stadards have been discredited for hundreds of years?

It really is apparent how a religious mind settles into itself over a lifetime.

18. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29394 by Feuerbach on April 2, 2007 at 6:37 pm

I could almost forgive the article if Ms Rife was hot.

19. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27032 by Feuerbach on March 23, 2007 at 12:07 am

I would have thought that after writing a book in the most convincing way he has, that Richard must now be a professional Atheist. Making money from any profession does not make one brilliant, nor does being an amateur relegate you to automatic incredibility.

Orr likes straw men because he cannot match Dawkins.

20. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #26524 by Feuerbach on March 20, 2007 at 5:52 am

hers another:

http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2007/03/the_best_of_the.html

21. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Comment #26523 by Feuerbach on March 20, 2007 at 5:49 am

Never read it, never will. Whats the first sentence btw? (Im refering to The DaVC)

22. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #25994 by Feuerbach on March 16, 2007 at 1:53 am

related:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=527675D9-E7F2-99DF-3265F1A19B72042F&ref=rss

23. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25074 by Feuerbach on March 10, 2007 at 2:54 am

Kudos, Richard. Spoken like a true utilitarian.

24. You can't trust science!

Comment #24858 by Feuerbach on March 8, 2007 at 11:09 pm

I have been informationalised, thankyou.

25. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24489 by Feuerbach on March 6, 2007 at 9:56 pm

"Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."

Are their many "genuine" theists? Just how many of you so-called religious people actually follow your scripture to the letter? I would suggest fewer than those who don't believe at all.

26. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24348 by Feuerbach on March 6, 2007 at 5:43 am

Pantore = troll

27. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22711 by Feuerbach on February 21, 2007 at 4:47 am

Reza is an anti-intellectual buffoon.

28. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20399 by Feuerbach on February 2, 2007 at 7:48 am

That Charles McVety is one overblown boofhead. Completely lacking any ability to reason, his tactic is one of personal attacks, misepresentations, and appeals to pity. Absolute fool.

29. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #20217 by Feuerbach on February 1, 2007 at 5:35 am

<< Comment #20210 by NoLongerHaveBelief >>

The convenient argument a psychic gives is that he or she has a special power that cannot be disproved. Fair enough, but they must therefore deny any claim to having evidence of that power, for evidence is not objective, it requires ratification by at least one other person to have any right to be classified as evidence. (I'm not talking about another person holding the belief in the psychic, but a reasonable person who is convinced by scientific methods that ae repeatable). It is my contention, then, that without being able to provide evidence scientifically, that the psychic cannot be convinced in themselves of their power, therefore they are acting fraudulently. I realise I am claiming here to know another person's mind, which is another debate altogether, but their fraudulence is just as convincing to me as would be a failure to prove a claim that a person can run so fast, or jump so high - the claim is not enough and until the proof exists it is reasonable to say with high probability that their claim is false, and that they KNOW that it is just as well as I.

Ethics does not live in a vacuum - yet somehow there is a loophole in the law which allows these shonks to operate outside of the standards we set for interacting within a social and economic framework.

The people who fall for it are just as culpable in my mind, unfortunately there will always exist vultures in the world, and they will prey on the vulnerable. Then again, if someone is stupid enough to part with $700 for a 30 minute psychic session they don't deserve to keep it.

30. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #20185 by Feuerbach on January 31, 2007 at 10:14 pm

I am a software developer, and have my own business. The success of my business depends very much on the ability to do what I claim, and the reputation that develops over time, based on my history of successes. My claim is "I can build a software system that works and is testable according to the promises I make".

If I am required to back up my claims with evidence, then surely it is encumbent on a medium, mystic, or faith healer to do the same. I cannot go out and say to a client, "well, I have this power to develop software, but it doesn't always work, and if it doesn't I can't be responsible as I am not god but you still have to pay me." This is complete insanity.

These people who claim to speak with the dead are absolute phoneys. There has NEVER been one ounce of proof that a channel to another world exists, and it falls back on the reliable "matter of faith" argument. I hope Randi sticks it to these shonks and shows them up for the fake parasites they are.

If you make an outrageous claim such as speaking with dead people, and you rely on people to believe in you, then you must yourself be convinced of the evidence. If you yourself are convinced of evidence it is surely not a great stretch to convince others in a laboratory setting. Claiming it is a "special power" that only you can access is not acceptable. Once that special power reaches you it must be able to be proved by you to exist.

I find it amazing what gullible people will buy into.

31. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20183 by Feuerbach on January 31, 2007 at 9:43 pm

cheshirecat, your arguments are nothing short of banal. What one would expect of a fundamentalist zealot - matters of mere convenience to prop up your intractable viewpoint. Entering into a debate with your kind is like shouting at a log.

32. He Calls Himself God

Comment #19820 by Feuerbach on January 30, 2007 at 4:40 am

I think people like this guy, Hinn, and all the other religious charlatans, who are getting tax breaks for their efforts no less, are symptomatic of the insular American mindset.

Bush has a large enough portion of the population just where he wants them - ignorant and deluded.

33. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #19758 by Feuerbach on January 29, 2007 at 7:50 pm

What a fruit loop.

How anyone can place any "faith" in this man, whilst handing over wads of cash for the privilege of being fleeced, is simply beyond my comprehension.

Bible Belt? More like Gullibility Girder.

34. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19667 by Feuerbach on January 29, 2007 at 7:18 am

Eternal damnation. Or a DVD?

Hmmm, tough choice.


Fox news is the mouthpiece for the conservative ruling class in America who relies on the dumb conservative vote to keep them in power - who seem to be a very easy crowd to sell this kind of "news" to.

It's such a shame the majority of simple Americans cannot see they are being hoodwinked and bamboozled. Rather too easily in my view.

God bless ignorance.

35. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19597 by Feuerbach on January 28, 2007 at 7:10 pm

The role of Henry the VIII in the reformation is only valid at face value. The departure from Papal authority was a wind of change that found a voice in the philosophy of Locke - the love of truth is essential, whereas the love of some doctrine simply entertains claims with "greater assurance that the proofs it is built upon will warrant" [1].

Protestantism flourished when the new mercantile classes of England and Holland began to move towards the individual aspirations of property and commerce, and the Catholic Church began to be seen as not being a perpetual source of divine revelation - liberalists began to argue the Bible is the only source of revelation, and is open to interpretation - by each person to make of it a truth for themselves.

It is odd now that the Church of England finds itself in the same position as the Catholic Church did during the reformation - having to fight for it's relevance. And the only way a dogmatic institution knows how to do this is to cling ever more tightly to the dogma.

[1] B.Russell, "History of Western Philosophy". p.587.

36. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18258 by Feuerbach on January 19, 2007 at 7:02 am

Can someone in the know please email those panelists this thread. I wonder if that show has an online feedback forum.

37. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Comment #18257 by Feuerbach on January 19, 2007 at 6:53 am

Am I the only one who thought that fella looks like Arnold from Diffrent Strokes???

38. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Comment #18219 by Feuerbach on January 19, 2007 at 4:04 am

Isn't that Arnold from Diffrent Strokes?

39. Radical cleric sparks fury in Australia

Comment #18217 by Feuerbach on January 19, 2007 at 3:40 am

[quote]"We are the most humiliated nation on earth"[/quote]

Islam humiliates itself by its radical conduct. These Islamists demand respect but fail to realise it must be earned. The first step is to become secular and then maybe those nations with majority muslim populations might be taken seriously.

40. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18197 by Feuerbach on January 19, 2007 at 12:58 am

Here is a snippet from that TinySaint site:

------------------------------------------------------
Today, I want to focus on commitment. To understand the awesome power of

god's love, we have to understand his level of commitment.

For example:

Revelations 2:22-23

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

This speaks volumes about God's ability to love humankind. He loves this particular woman so much, that if she does not return his love, and correct her ways, he will kill her children. That is right, God does not lie. He will kill her children.

That my friends is what we call commitment.
------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now apart from the obvious horror of such a thing (I thought the site was a parody at first, which I am still not sure it is not) let's consider what the point is that is being made.

1. God loves us.
2. God feels he needs to show us his love through proving his commitment.
3. He will do this by killing children to prove to you his love.

This is absurd on so many levels. Here are just a few:

1. To a sane, reasonable person, love is not equated with killing, in fact we lock up (or execute in revenge) those who would do us harm. Who would want to be associated with such a psychotic?

2. Why does God need to prove his commitment? To what is he committed? Himself? It seems God is being attributed with human values, I would have thought God need not prove his commitment to anything, let alone the people on Earth who have trouble showing commitment to themselves. I would have thought God would be above having to show off his power, doesn't seem very humble does it? And this whole "cruel to be kind" business is laughable - but of course he works in mysterious ways, so mysterious that ANYTHING can be justified in his name by anyone who claims to have faith in him.

3. The argument is no less ridiculous than me wanting to kill my brother because he does not support my football team. It is exactly as (un)reasonable, and all I have to say is my faith is such that to show my commitment I will kill my brother for it. Easy!

Faith is a shortcut to ignorance.

41. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18195 by Feuerbach on January 19, 2007 at 12:32 am

"I provided all the necessary evidence in my first post."

I doubt you understand the idea of sufficient evidence. Of course God does not need it as we mere mortals cannot understand his ways. If that is true then claiming to represent him is a rather arrogant claim.

Believing in something does not make it true. What constitutes truth is a self-evident proposition. The fact that many millions of people do not believe as you do should suggest your hypothesis is weak and you lot need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a God that's a little more palatable.

Religion is no longer necessary as we have have no further use for him, and in fact have far exceeded the kind of knowledge and "truth" claimed in the bible. And as Nietzsche famously said:

"God is dead".

42. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18183 by Feuerbach on January 18, 2007 at 10:16 pm

"The truth will set you free:"

Indeed. However belief in god requires no truth as it in non-falsifiable.

Religion <> lack of evidence of any truth.

Regarding that quote, many people assign it to Jesus, however he was parroting words that were spoken by many others before him, and not just in a religious context. A lot of what Jesus said can be traced to prior sources, and in fact the Jesus "story" is not even original and was plagiarised from pagan religion.

"Or else hell awaits you."

That is a bold claim, please provide evidence that is repeatable and testable (circular biblical arguments don't count). Surely a statement like that is worth scrutinising, and if true there should be some proof available. Until I see verifiable evidence of a Hell, I will regard it as a fairy tale and not waste time concerning myself over it as there are many ways of being more productive.

I always wonder, if God is so great why does he need anyone to defend him? Not only that, surely if God was all loving, there would be no need to threaten people with damnation if they speak against him, kind words can be just as convincing, if not more so, than harsh ones. (God must think we are children, but then again the child mind is where the brainwashing is most successful - and don't the zealots know that).

It would be a rather simple matter for God to come out of the clouds, point his finger, throw a few bolts, have a few words and prove he exists. Voila! Immediate wholesale conversion without the need for any form of violence.

Why is this too difficult for God to do? (Arguments like 'he exists in a different dimension' don't pass muster I'm afraid, because if that were so we would have no concept of him either and to claim you "know" he exists would be fatuous).

43. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18178 by Feuerbach on January 18, 2007 at 8:59 pm

"Religion is a danger to humans that's obvious but it isn't as dangerous as the tornado of greed that's roaming around on this planet triggered by capitalist-extremists."

It's ironic then that it is capital and money that is propping up religion. Televangelists are simply money-grabbers, cloaked in the mask of religion. All in the name of an all mighty, all knowing, all powerful, all masterful God. Yet for all his power he still needs money.

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

Comment #18049 by Feuerbach on January 18, 2007 at 4:24 am

Christian "scientists" are about as convincing as Christian rockers. Stick to bible bashing and let the proper science work get on with its job. IDiots who want to teach kids creationism should be happy enough to do so in classes designated as religious studies, and parents should choose whether their kids should attend.

I recall having "scripture" classes in school (separate denominations and all that) and all I can recall about it is being totally BORED, but at least not as boring as church, where all I recall is looking at the clock and getting totally annoyed if the Father went over time. As a kid, who wants dull, backward, irrelevant teachings from boring old religious bastards when there was a whole REAL world to go out and explore?

Needless to say my "faith" has now lapsed. Thank God!

;)

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

Comment #18045 by Feuerbach on January 18, 2007 at 4:03 am

"Wow - even when it is clearly posted at the top that this is a joke, the atheist fundies still manage to write in and express outrage at how stupid the Christian fundies are! The irony is delicious. "Had me fooled" - I guess it does not take much to fool some atheists...And this is meant to be an oasis of clear thinking?"

Just so you know, those of us who found the item in a news reader did not see the "this is a joke" line in the news reader nor even the fact it was from the onion, just the title and a part of the main body appeared.

However, even if some were "fooled" it's quite a reasonable thing to expect from the Christian right to do a thing such as this.

46. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18010 by Feuerbach on January 18, 2007 at 12:15 am

I just wanted to add, as the more I consider this episode the more angry I get at the ABC. Surely it is incumbent on them to invite panelists who are actually capable of addressing the expansive issues that RD deals with in TGD. Not only is it an insult to RD, but an insult to the viewers - many of whom were exposed to these ideas for the first time, no doubt, and were left with not only naive, but FALSE information regarding its contents.

It is appalling to think that a book of this kind, which could well become another classic, comparable to "A Brief History Of The Universe" (I say this genuinely, however Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is probably more important, not only for the arguments he makes, but for the fact the complexity of the subject was so wonderfully expressed to make it even more accessible than Hawking's work) is simply given the most banal of critiques, by an old rag-wearing vampire, a dull pseudo-intellectual, a poster-child, and a light-headed cleric! None of whom properly read the book!

ABC what were you thinking? And to the panelists, I suggest you review the comments you each made, read the book PROPERLY and wake up to your own ignorance. Or shut up if you are out of your depth!

End of rant.

47. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #17987 by Feuerbach on January 17, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Hi all,

We should not forget this is a book club, panelists discuss all sorts of books over a series of programs, it's very "light" high culture. The panelists were a bunch of nobodies really, I am Australian and these people (apart from that viper Greer) are unfamiliar to most of us, let alone having a reputation as distinguished minds. It is a panel of half-baked critics, more or less.

Having said that, it was obvious none of them (apart from the host Jennfier Byrne) had a real grasp of the ideas in the book, and in particular the "agnostic" who totally failed to back his criticisms, and as with with Greer, accused RD of failing to cover certain issues that he has quite clearly covered in the book!

This was an embarrassing show to watch as an Aussie, but remember it is just a weekly TV show that is supposed to criticise the value of a book - not just the issues it raises but also the literary prowess (or lack of) and the prose within it. In this case they failed to do their jobs.

I would love for RD to have been there and showed them up for the complete nonce's they are. (Apart from Byrne who is a babe - but I wish she took it to the religious guy a bit more - he obviously did not read the book as he was probably too busy fiddling with kids).