1. Ricky Gervais and The Archbishop Of Canterbury

Comment #264531 by Inferno on October 14, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Vinelectric said:

I like the "refusing to receive God's forgiveness".

I would refuse it. I'm still angry about all those people he killed in the OT (not to mention the blameless animals in the flood). He should be seeking MY forgiveness!

2. Why Evolution is True

Comment #264036 by Inferno on October 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Hmmm, I might pick this up. Been wanting a straight foward lay person guide to the evidence for evolution. Dawkins Ancestor's Tale was good, but the evidence was scattered among various (interesting) but side-tracking tales.

3. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261268 by Inferno on October 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm

On a Christian understanding, miracles are not random interventions of GOd..

They are instead actions that seem to obey a different set of laws, or operate in another dimension of reality that is not specifically accessible to scientific analysis or study, and which shows up in odd events in our own world. They will always therefore seem odd, inexplicable and disputable.

Even if god's interactions in the universe are through human agents, or "operate in another dimension of reality" (whatever that means), shouldn't we still be able to show more christians or god believers have nice things happen to them, than un-believers? You can't just wave your hand at that. Either more miracles (whether having a naturalistic or unknown explaination) happen to believers or they do not. Which is it?

Aquinas presents them (as do most other mainstream Christian theologians) as confirmations of faith rather than proofs of it

If something is a confirmation of something, then it is evidence for that something. This is quite simple. And it is perfectly reasonable to present arguments against that evidence or interpreation of that evidence.

Furthermore, this just undermines the chrisitan case even more. Now we don't even have poor proofs of god, we have poor confirmations of an assumption.

The Big Bang is of course one possible solution to this argument, but even that does not provide an answer because it still leaves open the question why there was something to go 'bang' in the first place?

Equally, why was there something to say "Let there be light" in the first place?

This is rather strange as he accuses Christians of basing their faith upon things that are not proven, and so it is a little bit rich to see him arguing so strongly for such an idea himself.

Dawkins quite clearly does not present memes or the "religion as a virus" idea as proof. Merely as evidence that religion could have other purposes or causes, completely apart from their truth value. He is very clear on this.

On causes of altruism....

How are we to take seriously an argument that has as little evidential basis as this?

Yep. That's right, it's a complete untested idea. No scientist has ever done any experiments on this, have they?..... Please keep those scientific journals away from me!

Although Dawkins ridicules the God of the Bible along these lines, he is strangely silent about Jesus, seeing him as some kind of exception to the ugly divine character he things he sees from the pages of the Bible.

So god was an arsehole until his son (who is himself) was born? So what are we to make of the OT? Is it relevant? Should we ignore the laws of the OT? Should WE forgive god for wiping out 99% of life on earth via the flood? Don't forget Jesus explicitly said he was enforcing the old laws.

Further, if there is no evidence for god, jesus' existence is really irrelevant. As has others have said, I know L Ron Hubbard existed but I'm not a scientologist!

In fact this insight points very clearly to a Christian understanding of human nature that is both gloriously optimistic and hugely pessimistic.

While atheism just says humans are responsible for their own lives and treatment of others. Much more optimistic to me than a god who can bea raving loon one minute and gentle giant when he fathers a son!

Nowhere does the Bible show any interest in the question 'Is there a God?'. The writers do not try to prove it, demonstrate it, or argue for it. They simply assume it.

Nail. Head. Hit.

4. Two new fleas are discovered!

Comment #261228 by Inferno on October 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

So apparently you can't disprove God with science. But you can prove his existence through "legal reasoning'?

5. Pope condemns 'pagan' love of money, power

Comment #247704 by Inferno on September 14, 2008 at 11:15 pm

The irony.... It burns!

6. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247620 by Inferno on September 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm

The muslim community takes another step backwards. Moderate muslims should be deeply worried about this development. It will only serve to create more of a divide between "us" and "them".

7. Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

Comment #247615 by Inferno on September 14, 2008 at 4:20 pm

So evolution is true in the eyes of the Church of England. So....Adam and Eve is not true then I take it. Really I wish the Church would put out an "official" Bible that clearly footnotes each Biblical story and tells us if it is literally true, only a metaphor/analogy, or heck I'll even let them have a "We're not too sure about this one."

8. Robert Winston criticises dangerous 'science delusion'

Comment #247610 by Inferno on September 14, 2008 at 4:16 pm

I really like Robert Winston. He's a great speaker. His talks on science, fertility, and the media representation of science are fascinating and very insightful.

I can understand his point of view. His desire for the softly-softly approach. But I agree with Dawkins, there is room for both approaches - the gentle let's talk approach, and the straight talking no-nonsense tell it like it is approach.

9. Michael Palin for President

Comment #244483 by Inferno on September 8, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Could have done "world traveller" and spliced together Palin announcing what country he is in from his many man travel shows.

10. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #221579 by Inferno on July 29, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Mohlerâ€"deemed "the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the US" by Time magazine

Did Time magazine mean that as a compliment?

11. Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

Comment #221422 by Inferno on July 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm

This is pretty disgusting. The Christian Taliban wins again. Religious "freedoms" are more important than basic human rights.

12. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214574 by Inferno on July 20, 2008 at 4:07 pm

His article, reproduced below, shows Professor Flew's key reasons for his belief in a Divine Intelligence.

It does? This is all he says...

I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology

That is the extent of his arguments for a god. Hardly justifies using the plural "reasons".

13. 'Condoms won't change HIV rates'

Comment #212119 by Inferno on July 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm

I hate this. People will listen to those false statistics spat out by the cardinal and think they're right. Absolutely digusting. Did Dateline correct them? Or hopefully will correct them next week?

14. An Original Confession

Comment #207391 by Inferno on July 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Got Origin on my 'too read' pile. Picked it for the historical interest, rather than learning anything new about evolution. I've read a few books that detail what beliefs were prior to Darwin. So I'm gonna try to read Origins with the mind set of a mid 19th century scientist.

15. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206821 by Inferno on July 8, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Lennox:

"I believe it because my life and my worldview depend on it being true."

Well, that explains that then.

16. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206817 by Inferno on July 8, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Scientific evidence per Lennox..

Fine tuning argument.
The universe is intelligible.

Old arguments that at best are circumstantial. As he says they are "consistent" with their being a god.

Historical evidence per Lennox...

For the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Really? Love to see it.

17. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198424 by Inferno on June 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I always thought McG had the charisma of a wet sock.

He had over an hour in the unedited interview for Root of All Evil to get his message across, but didn't say anything worth while.

18. Charles Darwin: 'Is man an ape or an angel?'

Comment #195612 by Inferno on June 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Yes, Szkeptik! The regular editor must be on holidays or something.

19. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192656 by Inferno on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I would have asked him about some of his actions in his past incarnations and whether he regretted any of his actions.

And then really got into the nitty gritty of his beliefs. The media gives this guy a free ride, and never question the ridiculousness of some of the things he says.

20. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192360 by Inferno on June 12, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Surely it takes take great intelligence to realise the whole god thing is bollocks?

21. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #183813 by Inferno on May 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm

cdesign proponentsists

lol, love it! This is how I'm going to refer to ID'ers from now on!

22. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183258 by Inferno on May 21, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Isn't the image of the head on the shroud out of proportion with the rest of the body? I heard it was larger than it should be, suggesting this was due to "exposing" (as in photography) the shroud to the head for longer than the body - most likely to bring out the detail of the face.

Why don't the researchers focus on that puzzle?

23. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177136 by Inferno on May 8, 2008 at 4:18 pm

'that religion is about truth and not social cohesion.'

Everybody remember that quote!

24. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175197 by Inferno on May 4, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Up to part 2. Agree the interviewer isn't very good. Words and sentences come out of her mouth, but I sometimes struggle to see where her question is!

Though at least she does give Dawkins sufficent time to respond. (Unlike alot of American interewiers who seem to think questions should be longer than the answers)

25. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175152 by Inferno on May 4, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Why is evolution (ie biology) always on the creationists school hit list?

If they want to question theories that go against creationism, then we must also question:

- Geography (plate techtonics is wrong)
- History (contrary to "science", the world did not exist prior to some 6000 years ago)
- Physics (well, it's all pretty much wrong taking a creationist view)
- Mathematics (same as above)
- Language studies (Bible gives a different account of development of different languages)
- Woodwork (apparently you can fit at least 2 of every species into a wooden boat - and it won't sink!)
- Computer Studies (computers rely on physics and mathematics, which we know are wrong from above)

26. Pope's Views on Science Invoke Spirited Debate

Comment #165533 by Inferno on April 21, 2008 at 3:34 pm

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine," Ratzinger quoted Feyerabend as saying.

Ah, this must be some new use of the word "reason" that I was previously unaware.

the pope suggested that techniques used in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and embryonic stem cell research have violated "the barrier that served to protect human dignity."

Silly me. I thought protecting human dignity would involve providing basic health care, education and equal rights to women and homosexuals.

27. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162907 by Inferno on April 17, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Is there just one stork or many storks? I heard that the ancient greeks believed in many storks all delivering different types of babies. But surely one stork is more logical.

Can someone also explain how this fits in with FSM?

28. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161742 by Inferno on April 15, 2008 at 3:21 pm

At my high school (public) the students organised the formal. (My FSM, this was over 10 years ago now!) Most people didn't even take a date, they just went in a group of friends. There wasn't that insane pressure to find "a date" like there seems to be in American schools (or at least so I gather from American teen movies).

The alcohol was flowing fast. I wonder if they'd still do that considering half of us were under 18.

29. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157876 by Inferno on April 9, 2008 at 4:46 pm

What? The church aided that atheist dictator? There's a please explain here.

30. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154852 by Inferno on April 3, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Mr Robertson said he could have written a better case for atheism and described most of the arguments as "sixth form schoolboy variety".

That's probably because even a sixth form schoolboy can see religion for the silliness it is.

31. Thy will be done

Comment #154216 by Inferno on April 2, 2008 at 10:25 pm

A rather British compromise has now been agreed. Prayers take place in the council chamber 10 minutes before the start of official proceedings.

I suppose this is a good compromise. As long as its not used as a chance for a gossip session: "Oh, look Mr Smith didn't turn up for prayer! Well, I'll have second thoughts about voting for that resolution he wants..."

32. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153713 by Inferno on April 1, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Eventhorizon-
I have thought about this question for a few years. I haven't found a good reason why, say, an abortion one day before birth is perfectly legal and accepted by the pro-choice crowd (myself included), but an "abortion" one day after birth (i.e., infanticide) is a capital offense which nearly all modern-day people find abhorrent.

That is where you are wrong. An abortion one day before birth is due is most certainly not legal and is not supported by the pro-choice members.

33. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #152875 by Inferno on March 31, 2008 at 4:58 pm

"It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said

Which probably makes a mockery of the whole "no condoms" thing the catholic elite keep pushing.

34. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146322 by Inferno on March 19, 2008 at 12:37 am

Rendevous with Rama is one of my all time favourite novels. That and Foundation re-ignited my love of science fiction which had flounded during my high school years.

35. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146005 by Inferno on March 18, 2008 at 1:17 pm

All I have to say about this is that "Rossvyazokhrankulutra" is a damn cool name for a screen name.

36. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144638 by Inferno on March 16, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I'll start taking creationism more seriously when it does two things:

1. Some respected atheist scientists agree with it.
2. It proposes that the "creator" is likely to be a highly advance alien, or a time traveller from the far future. Both of these being more likely than a superpowerful mystical spirit being called god.

37. The atheist delusion

Comment #144127 by Inferno on March 15, 2008 at 6:39 am

If you're gonna write against Dawkins' et al's view of religion, fine. But get your argument straight.

Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this

Having children is hard wired into the brain, but education seems to work pretty well at getting people to use contraception.

He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes.

Science reveals, or attempts to reveal, facts about the world. It does not tell you how to act in knowledge of those facts (or supposed facts). Religion on the other hand DOES tell you how to act. The very religious texts themselves promote violence, the supression of women and hatred of homosexuals.

It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions.

Far from it. Dawkins is in favour of religious education. He just doesn't think it should stop at the religion of the childs parents. Kids should learn about all the major religions in order to make an educated decision which one to join - if any.

With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs.

Sorry, who says this? Many atheists have an opptomistic view of humanity - that we are in charge of our own destiny and can make a better world if we chose too. But that is a far different thing from a predetermined goal!

it has been forgotten that most of the faith-based violence of the past century was secular in nature.

Bit unfair. What is secular? Everything other than religion. So he's arguing religion v every other cause out there. Bit like asking the question which movie has made more money, Ghostbusters or every other movie ever made.

Dawkins and Harris has never said religion is the only cause of war. In fact, they even admit it is probably not the major cause of war. But it one cause. And one cause that we can overcome!

He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism

Where did hitler get his hatred of jews and other non-christians? Hmmm? If his actions are a type of atheism (what the heck is a type of atheism? are there types of not collecting stamps?) then it is also a type of religion.

Ridden with conflicts and lacking the industrial base of communism and nazism, Islamism is nowhere near a danger of the magnitude of those that were faced down in the 20th century.

Maybe so, but does that mean we should wait until it is of that magnitude?

the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share.

What? Who? Please supply the name of this organisation and the number of members.

38. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143108 by Inferno on March 13, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Obviously there's some wiggle room as to what exactly qualifies as a mortal sin

Ah, my job as a lawyer is secure even after death!

39. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143107 by Inferno on March 13, 2008 at 1:06 pm

That does it! I'm reliquishing my faith....



....no wait. Damn.

40. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142561 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 6:18 pm

I'd take the money, but during my acceptance speech launch into a blistering attack on religion and christiainity in particular a la Chritopher Hitchens. =)

41. Two More Fleas

Comment #142447 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Maybe not a "proof", but damn if the evidence isn't against him!

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Ummm, yes? There's still alot of work to do, but we're working on it.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
The universe is not fine-tuned for life. If life cannot exist in 99% of the universe, how is this fine-tuned?

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
If there is sufficient and compelling evidence, then yes. When the evidence shows something is true I tend to agree with the evidence. What do you do?

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
But doing a better job than religion!

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
If you count secularism as conduct not motivated by religion - then yes! Raised education standards for ALL, ending enslavement of women (at least in the West), massive improvements in health care (eg elimination of small pox).....

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Sorry about that. We do get a bit picky about the demanding evidence thing.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Don't need a scientific experiment to tell me that an invisible man sitting in the sky controlling everything going on is a nutty idea.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
With of course applies to anyone who should dare stand up and say: "What a minute. This religion is all a bit silly, isn't it?"

42. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142430 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Maybe from now on when people ask "What religion are you?", I'll respond with "I'm a teapotist." And maybe add "And a fundamentalist one at that!"

43. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141492 by Inferno on March 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm

I like these questions:

[b]aquilacane[/b] wrote:

Must the child answer in their parents religion, or are they permitted to chose their own religion with which to answer the question?

Is a child permitted to change their religious views to suit the question?

Must the child's opinion be of an organized religion or is the child free to use any religious opinion including their own invented religion?

If I were a kid I'd be seaching the internet for obscure religions that would give me a "get out of exams free" card.

44. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141052 by Inferno on March 9, 2008 at 9:59 pm

You cannot make this stuff up. Can you? Please tell me you can!

45. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #137970 by Inferno on March 3, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Anyone else a little frightened of books promising "The End of Reason"? When did being reasonable become a horrible thing?

46. Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Comment #137750 by Inferno on March 3, 2008 at 12:38 pm

SeaLife said:

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I think bad, since a lot of us have always assumed that indoctrination from childhood caused nearly all religiosity. Dawkins said that "...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."

We may have to consider that ending childhood indoctrination is not enough to create a rational society

Remember facts are neither good nor bad. We must adjust our understanding in the light of new evidence.

As a previous poster said, I suspect the "change" is merely from one type of christianity to another. Probably for martial reasons - and then probably because the parents wanted it, rather than those getting married. I doubt most people in the west even know (or care) about the differences.

It's like how our McGrath keeps claiming he use to be atheist, but then realised that religion was right, but which religion? Just so happened to be the dominant religion in the country in which he lived.

Your last paragraph is a good point though. It does appear people can happily situation godly allegiances, but yet can't give up the whole thing altogether. Maybe its like smokers swapping for low tar cigarettes?

47. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132517 by Inferno on February 24, 2008 at 10:45 pm

These theists make the mistake of thinking that there could be one piece of evidence that would prove the case one way or the other.

Science rarely works like that. Science uncovers truth through evidence from many sources giving consistent data.

An appearance of angel might be waved away as mass hysteria (does that even exist?), but if that were combined with only christian prayers being answered, new discovers explaining all the contradictions in the bible; satisfying explainations for the bible failing to accord with other historical evidence; stigmata evidenced and tested under lab conditions.....etc etc

If just one of those happened I would take notice. If two happened I would have definitely wonder if the christ mob had got something right.

As it is.... I'm still waiting.

48. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126899 by Inferno on February 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Damn dinosaurs are cool!

49. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125088 by Inferno on February 11, 2008 at 12:06 am

Has Dr Williams publicly apologised yet? I don't think there's been such a big misjudgement of public opinion since the introduction of new Coke.

50. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117741 by Inferno on January 29, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them.

I look forward to seeing these latest scientific developments giving evidence for the gods. No doubt they will be published in a scientific peer reviewed journal.

Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything.

Are you serious? I've re-written my resposne to this drivel 3 or 4 times. It's almost impossible to respond to this complete lack of understanding of Darwinian evolution. Dawkin's uses the theory of evolution as evidence against a designer god. That is all. Dawkins really says nothing about how we should lead our lives. That's for society to determine. Geez, why are these christian nut jobs so afraid of admitting humans can make their own future?

My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter.

Excellent! I look forward to reading this evidence. This is exactly what we've been asking for. Interesting though he doesn't given even a hint of what this evidence is....