1. Against God

Comment #32069 by cheshirecat on April 15, 2007 at 12:34 pm

This week the preacher at the church I go to.


Why do you go to church?

2. Against God

Comment #32068 by cheshirecat on April 15, 2007 at 12:34 pm

This week the preacher at the church I go to.


Why do you go to church?

3. Against God

Comment #32064 by cheshirecat on April 15, 2007 at 12:15 pm

"Quite, reason doesn't always lead you to thoughts that make you feel good and apparently reason can't satisfy those who experience a 'yearning for something more'."


You would have it both ways. The terror of hell is too much for you yet you say the problem with religion is that it gives you comfort. Which is it?

4. Against God

Comment #32063 by cheshirecat on April 15, 2007 at 12:13 pm

"Quite, reason doesn't always lead you to thoughts that make you feel good and apparently reason can't satisfy those who experience a 'yearning for something more'."


You would have it both ways. The terror of hell is too much for you yet you say the problem with religion makes you feel good. Which is it?

5. Against God

Comment #32058 by cheshirecat on April 15, 2007 at 11:51 am

"Fear IS real. The obvious pilot of religion."

Is it not reasonable to fear. Why should we be protected from it always.

6. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31841 by cheshirecat on April 14, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Blair is one of the cleverest politicians around. If you think he is feeble minded I can only assume your judgement is clouded by hatred of him.

He gets criticised a lot but then if you could pick any other countries head of state which would it be. France and Italy are run by criminals. The president of Germany is a christian democrat (I doubt you'd aprove) and she supported the invasion of Iraq. George bush - the less said the better. John Howard - anti immigration stance popular. Who?

7. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31805 by cheshirecat on April 14, 2007 at 11:13 am

No there needs to be a balance. Not just freetrade but fairtrade. Thats why US protectionism against poor markets is inexcuseable. The EU do it to some extent too.

8. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31799 by cheshirecat on April 14, 2007 at 10:36 am

"Remove the richest 5% of Americans"

Is that not the same over here? you give no comparison. If you took away the 5% richest in the UK what would happen


If Americans want a welfare state they should vote for one. This has nothing to do with atheist Europe and religious America. They are simply two different social systems.

The soviet union was unsucessful because it pursued a planned economy. The fact it was an atheistic state was neither here nor there. Capitalism makes people rich not atheism. Social systems need to catch those who cannot help themselves not impede those who can. Such a thing would be natural in a christisn country one would have thought. Certainly the foundation of the welfare state was based upon christian socialism. (pensions acts 1911 etc etc)

Though I agree that American christianity can be a little less charitable than perhaps it might be under the circumstances. After all:

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

9. Then Call it God

Comment #31792 by cheshirecat on April 14, 2007 at 10:11 am

This is unintelligent anticlericalism.

10. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31788 by cheshirecat on April 14, 2007 at 10:06 am

What you say may be true but i'm sure it also has something to do with the respective social circles you mixed in. You get older move back home and join the borgeoise - suddenly you find all your friends are going skiing every year, making fesh pasta and voting liberal democrat. I don't know about you

However the GDP of America is higher than that of Britian and Ireland. There are some pretty rich people in the UK that sway the figures too. So its not good enough to equate religiousity with poverty

11. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31776 by cheshirecat on April 14, 2007 at 7:44 am

Thats crass. Trade is what brings prosperity and there is nothing stopping you from being a Godly merchant as many of the men from the italien companies in the middle ages were. Modern America is very religious and has a higher standard of living than Europe.

As for the assertion that liberals could help Africa by closing down all their churches and teaching them about science. This is plain insulting. Do you not think literacy is a higher priority than your hazy notion of 'science'. How would an understanding of acid base chemistry help a poor farmer. Do you not think that the many religious charities do more good by trying to promote farming and sustainable land management. Do you not think that the church is important a sense of community in poorer towns? In your mission to bring your enlightenment to Africa it appears you have not abandoned the idea of the 'white mans burden'. Believeing in God does not make people poor or indeed less well educated than you.

12. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31656 by cheshirecat on April 13, 2007 at 4:16 pm

The two are logically exclusive and yet many (most) theists think somehow they are not. If you accept the basic premise that an intelligent creator designed the universe and set in place evolution on planet Earth with the specific intention of designing human beings, then you are OBLIGED to accept that every decision we have ever made, and ever will, has been laid out for us. There is no counter-argument to this, it is a logical fact (if you accept the ludicrous proposition that a God intended humans to evolve).

What I meant was - It is possible not to believe in freewill (eg to be a calvinist predestinarian) and still believe in God.

I said - You can not believe in God and still believe in free will. Where as you took it as you cannot believe in God and yet believe in free will. I realise my mistake.

I just wondered if any of you believed in free will.

I think thats what dawkins really left out of his book. If it was going to be a proper arguement about belief it really should have an arguement about freewill and the whole physics of the thing.

13. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31506 by cheshirecat on April 13, 2007 at 3:14 am

Dawkins won't be remembered for his scientific achievement

14. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31444 by cheshirecat on April 12, 2007 at 5:33 pm

You can not believe in freewill and yet believe in God.

If you were to build a computer and somehow put it outside the universe and use it to map all of the atoms in it and their properties could you use it to predict the future? I thought that there were some laws of quantum mechanics that make this inherently impossible. I mean Einstien believed in a unifying theory.......so what am I talking about.

15. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31436 by cheshirecat on April 12, 2007 at 5:04 pm

If he'd been a hero he would be dead and its no good saying that the only man heroic enogh to be pope is dead.

16. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31432 by cheshirecat on April 12, 2007 at 4:37 pm

If the body differs only in complexity from clockwork, what of freewill? If one thing causes another how are we to do anything other than what we do? Where then is the law other than something that exists because it does exist? What of morality?

Alas alack I am undone.

17. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31426 by cheshirecat on April 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

No i'm saying this isn't child abuse. Why denigrate those who are really abused by saying it is.

Where do you stop. I think my mothers cooking was child abuse.

18. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31424 by cheshirecat on April 12, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I believe that the on one occasion some boy scouts did do an exchange with some Hitler youth but they had a rather right wing scout master. I believe they were rather impressed by their tortchlight processions.You have to remember though that most people joined the hitler youth becasue their mates did and they enjoyed camping etc rather than they actually liked Hitler. Many fathers would have ensured their children joined the Hitler youth if their job depended on the govenment for promotion.

Not everybody thinks through the implications of joining this or that organisation. Look at those people who joined the TA in 1938 for the cheap beer in the mess. They can't have been very politically aware.

19. Is God poison?

Comment #31233 by cheshirecat on April 11, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Postmodernism dosen't deserve all the knocks it gets. I've read some good postmodernist articles on the nature of history.

20. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31230 by cheshirecat on April 11, 2007 at 4:12 pm

The collective noun for swans is a 'game'.

I find this odd. But not as odd as swan upping on the Thames every spring. Everyone seems to think the queen of England owns all swans but I think the vintners company and some of the London guilds own them hence the upping of swans and marking them. I think swan upping is so odd its quite profound.

21. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31227 by cheshirecat on April 11, 2007 at 4:05 pm

There are plenty of things that are child abuse. While unpleasant I don't think this qualifies. The mother seemed even more upset than he did. not that her actions were excuseable but the incident may have done them both some emotional damage.

22. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31166 by cheshirecat on April 11, 2007 at 8:45 am

people like that would be fanaticks whatever movement they belongued to. Its when they start forming into herds that they really get dangerous. What is the collective noun for religious fanatics anyway?

I would have told her that i'd been reading some of Ian Paiselys books and that had convinced me that the pope was the antichrist and we are all living a lie. That would have been far more unpredictable.

23. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30772 by cheshirecat on April 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm

I don't know how the rapture differs from the second comming of christ.

Someone once said that if Jesus comes again people will invite him to dinner parties so they can make fun of him though I can't remember who it was.

24. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30769 by cheshirecat on April 9, 2007 at 6:13 pm

There is some arguement about how big heaven is though i don't know where they get this figure from. It does say my fathers house has many mansions or something though.

25. Sociable Darwinism

Comment #30748 by cheshirecat on April 9, 2007 at 4:21 pm

"Whatever is innate about religion can be brushed aside with a good science education."

Yes theres been many a time when I wanted to believe in God and thought - no but what about the periodic table and the a-typical nature berillium that I learnt about chemistry. Well that solves it.

You mean the application of Darwinism in a political manner which rightly has no part of science. Besides no christian I ever met believed did not believe in evolution.

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

Comment #30746 by cheshirecat on April 9, 2007 at 4:11 pm

I think it was the Johnstones that the Maxwells were at war with though. Check out child ballad 195. Lord maxwells last goodnight.

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

Comment #30744 by cheshirecat on April 9, 2007 at 4:08 pm

or perhaps it was James Clerk Maxwell you were related to...


The man who married the Godly daughter of a reverand 'united by their shared christain commitment' and elder' in the church of Scotland

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

Comment #30740 by cheshirecat on April 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm

or perhaps the Lord Maxwell that shot Sir James Johnstone.

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

Comment #30737 by cheshirecat on April 9, 2007 at 3:54 pm

or perhaps the Scottish theologian William Maxwell

"a higher pitch than all, his soul is mounted on the wings of contemplation … he soars with the eagle to attain those heavenly mysteries that God Himself hath revealed, and never leaves till he hath seated himself … in the high tribunal of that Holy of Holies"

30. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30553 by cheshirecat on April 8, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Deriving truths about death from children too young to understand it, is as productive as asking them where they came from.

Look, i'm not deriving truths about death from children. I'm deriving truths about children from children. You study a subject and the information that comes from it relates to the thing you are performing the test upon.

The Daily Telegraph has a readership who would proabbly enjoy this kind of bashing of academics and intellectuals.

What? Practically every other day there is a story about how university physics departments are closing down and that children aren't being taught languages and that standards are dropping. That the brighter children at public schools are taking chemistry because it looks better on university applications than media studies.
Steve Jones is on the books of the telegraph. He isn't actually afraid of doing some science once in a while.

Besides you are assuming that Charles Moore isn't a lover of hard science just as you are. I think if you asked him he would argue in favour of increased funding for it at universities. The telegraph is the paper for trade and industry. Look on the jobs page - its all for private sector finance or manufacturing management roles. None of that strange public service stuff that gets into the Gaurdian that has the word 'coordinator' in it. Charles moore is a lover of the sacri mysterii. So what?

31. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30334 by cheshirecat on April 7, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Firstly I think Richard Dawkins came accross as condescending and self-satisfied in his post. Charles More is a decent chap die hard tory though he is.


secondly


"Someone should remind Mr Moore that all children are born atheists"

They did a study where they told young children a stroy involving a mouse that was eaten by a crocodile. They asked the children if the dead mouse needed food and they said no - it did not still need to eat and drink. But most supposed that the mouse could still think and had feelings. They took this to mean that the children had a natural belief in an afterlife. Before you ask this propensity for belief in the afterlife of the mouse decreased as the children aged so they could assume it was not down to any conditioning or teaching.


I would say that people have a natural belief in the continuation of the soul or spirit of an individual. Even in religious cultures that have no God have some form of belief in the afterlife or ancestor worship. Just as you have to learn your own religious culture you have to consciously reject belief. It is not natural to belief that death is the end.

32. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30293 by cheshirecat on April 7, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Not believing in God makes me a rebel

Faith is intelectually lazy

33. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30292 by cheshirecat on April 7, 2007 at 12:21 pm

"Tell us some of our dogmas, please?"

Religion is always an evil influence on society.

We have a monopoly and truth because we believe in reason.

Reason is what separates us from the religious.

Critical thoughts are to be suspended when reading Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Not believing in God makes me more moral than those that do.

The religious must be stupid because they believe in God.

34. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30289 by cheshirecat on April 7, 2007 at 12:14 pm

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers."

Yeh, a real rebel!

35. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29713 by cheshirecat on April 4, 2007 at 10:43 am

"The bible, on the other hand, is clearly intended as an instruction manual for how people should behave"

No I don't think it is. It has more of a soteriological purpose than a moral one. In protestant theology justification is by faith alone. Certainly in the protestant eschatological scheme whether you get in to heaven is certainly not based upon your morality in life.

"He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

The idea of sin is that everyone sins to a greater or lesser extent but that sin damms all equally. Jesus does not say to the penitant thief 'you have not led a moral life - you will go to hell'. He says 'today shalt thou be with me in paradise'.

36. The Selfish Green

Comment #29683 by cheshirecat on April 4, 2007 at 4:40 am

And where is cold fusion when you need it?

The EU are building a power producing fusion reactor at cadarache in France.
http://www.niauk.org/news/latest-nuclear-news/new-fusion-reactor-deal-signed.html

It takes over from the experimental fusion reactor at Culham.

http://www.fusion.org.uk/culham/jet.html

37. The Selfish Green

Comment #29680 by cheshirecat on April 4, 2007 at 3:35 am

produces weapons grade material as a byproduct.

Surely you need a fast breeder reactor for that. You can't get fissile material from a PWR can you?

38. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29678 by cheshirecat on April 4, 2007 at 3:12 am

Billy Graham believes in free will. He is an 'Arminian' according to Phelps - after Jacobus Arminius the Dutch theologian. He believes that salvation is conditional upon continual belief ie that there is no 'elect' who are predestined for heaven. Phelps is a hard line Calvinist.

On the Hitler thing - 'a bastardization of the ideas put forth by Darwin' - Yes. But to say that Phelps is a christian is equivalent to saying that Hitler understood what Darwinism was. Phelps never mentions Jesus. I doubt he would know a parable if it hit him on the nose. I bet he hasn't read the new testament since he was a boy.

39. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29640 by cheshirecat on April 3, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Yes but then you could say Hitler was the only one who really understood Darwinism because he took it to the logical conclusion and to breed himself a master race of the biggest and blondest.

Remember that the teachings of Jesus Christ are usually of the pacifist left wing turn the other cheek variety.

Being wrong and being bad are two plain different things. Religion is always wrong it is not always bad.

40. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29627 by cheshirecat on April 3, 2007 at 4:43 pm

The main reference they use is leviticus as well. Don't they realise it also advocates goat sacrifice and the segregation of women after childbirth. I think louis could have picked them up on scripture a bit more. I wonder if they had ever actually heard of the bit in Paul or were just obsessed by the old testament references.

Goat sacrifice is very impractical. I speak from bitter experience.

41. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29624 by cheshirecat on April 3, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I don't know why they protest though if they don't believe in free will. If you do believe in double-predestination why would you go out and just be hateful to people.

42. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29623 by cheshirecat on April 3, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Have you heard of Jack Chick of www.chick.com

Hes been around so long that he gets into text books. I have a book called 'a history of heaven' and one of his work in it. I recomend his cartoons, they are delightfully crazy. He is a little more balanced in that he hates Catholics Muslims, homesexuals, anyone who uses non KJV bible varients etc etc...lots of stuff basically

43. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29383 by cheshirecat on April 2, 2007 at 5:53 pm

"Relax. Both my grandmothers are dead."

What did they die of? Exposure to sarcasm.

44. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29360 by cheshirecat on April 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm

"Well if that's the case the article is not only stupid but also unfunny"

Relax. Anyone would think she killed your grandmother. She just gave her opinion which was that the tone was a bit sarcastic. Which is true. Its a faultless description of Dawkins rhetoric. He is a bit sarcastic. I'm a bit alarmed it she was listening to it on tape and it took her a month to get through. She might have made the effort and actually read it. Maybe it was the way Dawkins reads it, that put her off. I don't know.

45. A History of Violence

Comment #29356 by cheshirecat on April 2, 2007 at 4:06 pm

"I can tell you that our entire society is split purely in terms of religion."

Which side are you on?

46. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29353 by cheshirecat on April 2, 2007 at 3:57 pm

I think the review has a certain wry tone. The bit about the swimmging pool was meant as a joke. Besides Dawkins can come across as terrible unlikeable in his book. Was there really a need to get so cross and sarcastic. It apparently just puts people off.

47. A History of Violence

Comment #28935 by cheshirecat on March 31, 2007 at 5:26 pm

The Human race likes to go around in tribes. Nationalism like any good ideaology satisfied the need for a communal identity. Part of this identity involved asserting oneself against other nations. Germany had to be culturaly economically and scientifically superior. This is why Hitler was interested in race, in roads and architecture and the taking of territory to assert German dominance in Europe. The thing is that these were largely popular moves.

48. A History of Violence

Comment #28931 by cheshirecat on March 31, 2007 at 4:50 pm

"I am not sure where chesire cat quite stands but I think thats is what he or she is getting at and I agree."

You know I'm not quite sure either when I re-read my comment. I think I may have lost the ability to write intelligible prose.

What I was trying to say is that most wars are fought for political or economic reasons. Religion is often dragged in afterwards if it is at all.

49. A History of Violence

Comment #28897 by cheshirecat on March 31, 2007 at 2:00 pm

There are numerous occasions when the religious have actually being trying to stop the violence. This 'religion causes all war' thing is getting tiresome especially when people apply it to the twentieth century. Every politics student that ever there was knows that the major cause of war and violence in the twentieth century was nationalism. Ideas of race were also very present. The Germans had their idea of Aryanism. The Americans demonised the blacks and in the WWII the Japanese. The British belittled everyone with the 'white mans burden'. Many believed in forms of social-Darwinism. Most of you fail to accept that Christianity can be misinterpreted and misused as the fundamentalists are the only true Christians. You seem to deny that Darwinist ideas can be mis-apropriated. If anyone said Hitler was the only one who took Darwinism to its logical conclusion you might be rightly offended. So when Christians tell you that they believe in a religion of peace and you say - but look at the fundamentalists who practice violence - I think you can see how they feel.

It is simply perverse to say that religion was a major cause of war in the twentieth century. Religion crosses national barriers it says that human beings are equal under God. As war is conducted between states is it not nationalist attitudes that are responsible for war? Too many people still think its got to be My country right or wrong?

50. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28877 by cheshirecat on March 31, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Thats right you get it out of your system. Feel better now?