1. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102469 by steve99 on December 23, 2007 at 12:49 am

I don't understand what the problem is finding evidence for God? If the skys are rent asunder with trumpet blasts and thunder and God appears and explains that the reason for the existence of the Universe is pretty much as the Christians have told us then I would have not choice but to believe. I wouldn't like it but I would have to believe.

Surely a far simpler explanation of that would be an alien civilization with technology way beyond our understanding that had sneaked a look at the bible and thought "we could have fun with this planet".

This would really be no different to aliens landing tomorrow and saying that on the galactic scale we are a completely inferior species and they are going to take most of us away to use as slaves.

Exactly. These aliens may appear as if they were Gods, but need not have any "supernatural" aspect.

A better term might be dogmatic atheist rather than fundamentalist atheist.

Yes. "Fundamentalist" has become such a vague term these days that it seems to mean "a particularly strong form of dogmatism".

But, that wouldn't make me a fundamentalist atheist, I'd be something else entirely.

As Hitchens would put it.. simply not willing to live under a Celestial Dictatorship.

2. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100426 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 3:34 pm

This interviewer has the eyes of a religous hysteric; southern baptist maybe, or jesuit. He'd looks like he'd be very happy with a rack and a big fork to teach "the truth".

I am just curious. Is there any point anyone posting anything on threads like these in order to influence what you post? Or do you simply leap on and put forward your views? Have you read anything that Bonzai and others have discussed, or was this just a knee-jerk post?

The idea of forums is that matters are discussed, and that people respond to the discussions. There have been detailed discussions about the position of the interviewer, their responsibility in these debates, and how they interact with the interviewer.

If someone is going to ignore all that, and simply respond with "This interviewer has the eyes of a religous hysteric" and phrases like "This nutjob interviewer" then I frankly dispair of the Richard Dawkins site as being a place that is a "Clear Thinking Oasis".

I think, unfortunately, that more moderation is needed at this site. I think it is in serious danger of becoming nothing more that an atheist rant site, a Dawkins groupie site. I had hoped that this site was better than the "fanboi" worship of the PZ Myers site. That it could be a place for the calm exchange of ideas.

3. This Week's Flea

Comment #100315 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I have to say that a critical response to Dawkins, Harris AND Hitchens sounds like it should be a rather substantial volume. Interestingly, Dennett seems to have been excluded.

The yellow cover puts it firmly in his flea-space.

Oh dear, some sort of horrible multi-coloured Venn Diagram comes to mind - the various dimensions of 'flea space'.

4. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100287 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Come on Steve, I'm sure you watch J Paxman and "Hard Talk" on the BBC.

You can be as forthcoming and as tough as you want to without resorting to misinformation and distracting interjections like Solomon did.

On the contrary, that was kind of what I was basing this on. (I am particularly a fan of "Hard Talk" - especially when Stephen Sackhur is on). Paxman can say "oh come off it" to someone, expressing a contrary point of view to someone, no matter their political orientation. That is his job.

I think Steve99's point is do with consequences what actually will convince the theists out there more? A high level chat where all parties are educated atheists or if the interviewer assumes the guise of (or actually is) a member of the lay church-going congregation.

Yes - that is exactly the point I am trying to make.

5. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100273 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 12:52 pm

This is not the public. This interviewer is supposed to be(in my opinion of CBC, SHOULD be) an educated, rational and unbiased journalist.

A very good point. Journalists should indeed be educated and rational, and unbiased. However, the way they seem in interviews need not be, even if they are meeting those criteria. The point of this interview was not to allow Dawkins point of view to be expressed unchallenged. It was surely to throw at him the views of members of the public who may have wanted to question Dawkins. In this context, the journalist would have not been doing his job if he had been balanced.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about the role of a journalist. It is rarely to sit comfortably alone in a chair and proclaim an objective unbalanced view. It often involves challenging people so as to allow them to express their points of view.

I have a worry now that there is real danger that this site really is going to be labelled by theists as not a place for clear thinking and calm discussion, but a place for Dawkins groupies (as Bonzai said) to gather. That would be a shame.

6. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100179 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 10:56 am

Sorry steve99, but i do not see how 'addressing such common questions' is productive.

I find this so self-evident, so I am not sure how to respond. Dawkins is a public educator, so dealing with common questions is what he excels at, and what he chooses to do.

I dont agree that the interviewer was asking 'blunt' questions, he was asking ill-informed and arrogant questions.

Of course, but that is to be expected. Most of the public is not well-informed about evolution and rational thinking, and most religion has a natural arrogance.

And I don't see how this in any way makes us (non-believers or Canadians) appear insecure.

Because it makes it appear like we feel that our rational views are in any way in danger from such questions. Because it makes it appear like we don't think that Dawkins can stand up for himself. We may not think that, but there is a danger of appearing that way, I think.

I may be misreading things, but I have to say I have been really disappointed by many of the responses here.

Was Dawkins not eloquent? Did he not deal with all the issues with robustness? So what are some of us trying to do? To say that Dawkins should not be asked such common questions? That he should be isolated from them?

Seriously - I am prepared to have my mind changed - what does complaining about the questioner achieve?

7. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100158 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 10:19 am

I am referring specifically to Mr Solomons attempt to undermine RDs knowledge of evolution, even social evolution, his completely unoriginal questions ("You're not going to bring out Hitler and Stalin again are you?") and his complete failure to bring anything other than the 'religion does good for people/society' argument.

How can asking blunt questions "undermine RD's knowledge?". And his questions may not have been original, but as we have seen from video debates, and discussions on this site, they are the questions that the religious are actually asking.

I think this debate is a very useful reference, as it addresses such common questions, and I have been astonished at the attacks on the questioner, which, to be honest, makes us appear insecure in our views.

Most of the diatribes are irrational and not unlike the way groupies react when they think that their idol has been dissed.

I would not go so far as to say "irrational", but I agree with the sentiment.

8. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100141 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 9:44 am

Very embarrassing to be Canadian. I wrote CBC to comment on the interviewer, Mr Evan Solomon, and his embarrassing behavior.

I find this a rather extreme response, that may actually have a negative effect. We are supposed to have views that can stand robust debate. For goodness sake, what do we expect from an interviewer:

"Please, Professor Dawkins, may I humbly request that you honour us with your wisdom regarding religion? The studio is yours while I retire to make you some tea."

I have to go with Bonzai on this.

9. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100131 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 9:23 am

I'm not gonna be too hard on the interviewer though.

His questions were a combination of what the average person might ask, and his incredulity reactions are from that christianity is so used to dominating the cultural landscape, and going uncriticized, that it's in flabberghasted shock.

Absolutely. Those being hard on the interviewer misses the point: he represents the reality of mass Christian opinion, which is why this interview was so useful.

There is no way in which any reasonable person can claim anything more than a decent probability that MLK was inspired by religion.

They clearly could, as King was a Baptist minister, who helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It is clear that his philosophy was inspired by religion in general, even if it was non-specific. This is shown by his statement:

"In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation."

Its the bizarre yet familiar 'objective morality argument'.

10. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100100 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 8:37 am

This was actually rather good. The interviewer was blunt, but at least dealt directly with important issues, and gave Dawkins a chance to respond. Especially compared with the relative lack of engagement in other debates, this was useful. It was nice to see Dawkins being so forceful as well. People may mock the interviewer, but I would far rather see the direct posing of questions that most religious actually ask than the vagueness of, say, a McGrath.

11. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100032 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 5:38 am

I think it would be really good if they could capture the light which was emitted from the earth millions of years ago so that we can see evolution happening.

It would, but we do see some awesome things in the fossil record. One of the most amazing things, I think, is the discovery of feathers, skin and scales in dinosaur fossils. The film "Jurassic Park" if re-done would look quite different!

We can see real, substantial evolution happening right now (not just bacteria becoming resistant to drugs). If you want some examples, message me.

12. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100030 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 5:33 am

A very interesting discussion. I like hearing carols, as they remind me of the warm happy christmas feeling of childhood.

But, I honestly think I would feel awkward singing them. It is because of the implication that you believe there is something to them.

Regarding the article, I have to say, I am not surprised to read such tosh from Libby Purves. She has a reputation as a good journalist, but I have never thought her the brightest apple in the fruit bowl, if you get my meaning. She gives that "middlebrow but trying hard" impression. The statement that Dawkins considers religious education to be child abuse is typical of her "not quite getting it". She hosts a chat show called Midweek on BBC Radio4, and it is one of the most inane programs.

13. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #100021 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 5:00 am

Is it too young to expect conclusions on faith yet? (given that for many religious, faith is often accompanied by doubt)

My initial feeling is that it is too soon, but things are progressing fast.

I can see this as being useful for understanding how faith might work in the brain, but I have to say it worries me somewhat. Shouldn't we be allowed privacy in our own heads? I think what matters is reasoned argument. I would not like to think of scanning people's heads and telling them "you are fooling yourself".

14. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99840 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 4:58 pm

You know I did notice that. Maybe some of the good sense will rub off?

I am beginning to think it might be. Mike Goldthorpe is doing some absolutely outstanding work on that site. There is a degree of vague wishful thinking by some theists that I find hard to address. Whereas I would surely have gone off on long philosophical rants when confronted with phrases like "objective morality", Mike has dealt with these issues with calmness and clarity.

15. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #99762 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 1:53 pm

please read the works of intellectual giant ayn rand.

I would rather not, if you don't mind. Something of an anti-feminist and homophobe.

16. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99756 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 1:40 pm

what field?

Various. Computing, biochemistry, biology and chemistry. Specialising in simulation modelling.

17. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99749 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 1:28 pm

I've come to realise that Christmas is that special time of year when we remember the one who died, came back to life, and saved us all - Doctor Who.

Superb :)

18. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99748 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 1:26 pm

By the way, do you hold an academic post at a university?

Not currently, but used to.

19. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99744 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 1:20 pm

If he would just stop spinning his wheels on bronze age goobledygook, and read up on current cosmology and evolution, Neil would probably be a fairly sensible human being.

I am not so sure about that. He seems pretty hostile to new ideas, and really seems to have very little idea how to discuss rationally. He is also pretty hypocritical, demanding that others 'stop ad-hominem attacks' and 'get educated', which seems pretty ironic considering his reactions to even polite questions.

In the meantime lads, lets keep asking questions.

I'll leave you to it, I think. Once moderated off a site, I think that a point to give up.

It will be fun watching you persevere, and I am sure there will be other worthy targets in future.

20. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99734 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 1:03 pm

It's like a breath of fresh air having an open-minded believer like you on board!

Indeed, and I apologise if I sounded too stern earlier. I clearly misread your curiosity about evolution for something stronger.

21. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99722 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Perhaps we should conduct such "raiding parties" more often,

Interestingly, that Neil fellow appears to be reading this thread, as seen by edits to his blog entries. This suggests an odd fascination with a site that he considers so unworthy of attention.

22. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99716 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 11:51 am

Well, that is fair enough. I am happy to say that I am not sure what is going on. I'll have to keep reading.

Excellent.

23. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99709 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 11:35 am

Yes, of course I can.....and I agree with. I'm in the ignorant category, having to rely on what I read....and having to sort the truth from the rubbish. I'm not a trained scientist, but that doesn't stop me trying to come to my own understanding of what is what.

Fair enough, but don't you think it is more honest to say "I am not sure what is going on" than to claim that a major scientific principle, which provides the foundation of modern biology, is insecure?

24. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99706 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 11:16 am

I don't feel I have to.

Well I am afraid I feel you do. If someone were to consider our understanding of, say, General Relativity, insecure, then it is reasonable to wonder what their motivation is. They are either an expert physicist with phenomenal understanding of an awful lot of difficult theory, or they are a fraud, or have a deep misunderstanding of science. The suspicion of fraud would be raised even more if the person refused to state what problems they saw with this very well-established and tested theory.

The same applies to evolution by natural selection.

You are either a biologist of international reputation, who has a deep understanding of modern theory and data, and has some new ideas, or...

You are ignorant of biology and evolutionary theory (nothing wrong with this), or...

You are a fraud, pretending knowledge of a huge subject for suspect reasons.

Sorry, but I just can't see any other option.

You can reveal honest ignorance by indicating what you don't understand that is leading you to consider the theory suspect. However, simply stating that you consider something suspect, but refusing to discuss further could lead many to doubt the honesty of your motives.

Can't you see that?

25. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99698 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 10:39 am

I am concerned that it doesn't all seems as secure as is claimed by websites such as this one....

What reason do you feel you have to consider it insecure?

26. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99695 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 10:36 am

.....until I see the evidence for myself...... I have to say.... I am hoping that by the end of the book I will feel more convinced. So far, the writer has himself described the problems of making the theory fit the facts....rather than the other way round.

I am sure the theory they are trying to fit is not evolution by natural selection, but simply a certain idea of the shape of the human 'family tree'. That animals change over time is not questioned. That this by natural processes like selection is not questioned. The matter that is the subject of debate for human ancestry is the relationship between the fossils found.

Look at it this way... imagine you are researching the history of a modern-day family, and there is some confusion about who married whom, and the patterns of relationships. For example, it may be suspected that someone who acted in the role of mother for a child may actually have been an elder sister. This kind of confusion can occur, but it in no way challenges the mechanism of human reproduction! I mean, some confusion about ancestry would not lead anyone to propose that a particular person had miraculously appeared... that would be silly :)

27. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99689 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 10:17 am

I've read just over a third so far, and to be frank it seems to be the story of people desperate to find the link, and making guesses about what they have found and extrapolating from what seems to be the flimsiest of evidence. They know the theory and now they are trying to make the evidence fit!!!!

Actually, the evidence for human evolution is very strong. It may sound silly to extrapolate from a few teeth, but those teeth can tell you a phenomenal amount. Bones are in a way like holograms - you can tell much about the whole from small parts.

I hope the book gets better with more convincing evidence.

What evidence would you need?

I'm not saying that evolution did not happen....but this evidence is pretty thin, so far

The evidence is stronger than in most areas of science. Just name me one thing you require evidence of, and I will describe such evidence.

28. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99685 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 10:09 am

not all......

http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-the-human-brain-faq.htm

Posting such embarrassing nonsense does not help your case. Just to pick one example:

"Evolving the brain after the eye means that the eye's function is not immediately usable, and so cannot be an advantage."

Any zoologist would be able to point to real-life examples of creatures that have eyes, but no brains, such as box jellyfish.

The problem with such articles is that they insist that things must be a certain way when even a little understanding of the subject reveals that this is just nonsense.

29. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99683 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 10:03 am

...and many of highly educated scientists believe in the existence of God!

But most don't, and that is rather a strong indication of the consequences of a detailed knowledge of science.

30. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99659 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 9:06 am

Even though most of the fun would be winding the theists up, there may be a few who get something positive out of a bit of rationality.

Being the big softy that I am, I am not sure that 'deluging' is quite the right approach. I like the idea of some gentle but persistent questioning, with us seeming as the calm and rational people supplying enough reason and science to bewilder (or, doubtfully, educate) the blogger. Perhaps an alternative to deluge is the persistent trickle of new debaters as people get moderated away....

Then, if the blog owner gets irate, it will illustrate the hypocrisy of the supposedly calm, reasonable and moderate religious.

It could also sent out a message... post irrational unscientific nonsense and you will be found out and publicly embarassed.

31. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99577 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 5:16 am

Perhaps we should conduct such "raiding parties" more often, the internet is infested with these smug self righteous blogs. Even if the authors remain unconvinced, no harm in their audience hearing a few alternate arguments?

Yes, I think that is a neat idea. We could make use of my irritating politeness. That really seemed to get on that chap's nerves.

Ironically, he send me an e-mail to tell me he was not talking to me any more.

32. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99501 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Brian, methinks old Neil suspects something...

Does not seem that happy to debate, does he? He has a strange definition of the word "hostile", meaning almost anyone who puts forward any serious challenges.

33. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99441 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Then why don't you Brits institute separation of church and state? (Hint: it's tradition)

Perhaps our Churches are reasonably contained within a state framework, even though they may still occasionally be an annoyance. I think I would rather have than than the free-market unrestricted businesses of the Churches in the USA.

34. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99437 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Sorry, but the CoE already attempts to undermine science. And it has done so for centuries.

I am not sure what you mean by this. However, if it does, it does it within its churches of ever-declining attendance. And, it does not support creationism.

35. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99432 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 4:45 pm

The weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth displayed in these comments is hilarious. Why shouldn't Christian's have a theme park? Is the UK a free country or not?

This is not about Christianity. This is about Creationism. It is about an attempt to undermine science. Happily, almost all UK Christian leaders oppose creationism.

36. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99422 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Hitchens motor mouthing, with his ears obviously completely plugged, may impress you. May impress a bunch of bums on a street corner. But i am not impressed. Simple as that.

I am impressed by someone clearly more literate, and educated, and experienced than me.

But perhaps you have the literacy, education, or experience not to be impressed.

37. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99383 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Oh dear, Brian. You have got several of us at it there now.... what have you started?

38. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99363 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Three horsemen and one venomous bug hitching a ride.

Yet another just-joined troll.

You won't find posts like this welcome on this site. Ad-hominem attacks don't carry much weight here. If you have some particular points to argue, then go ahead.

39. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99360 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 12:42 pm

II am afraid I have not really reacted as I should to this story. I am not sure I can actually cope with creationism. I don't have the words to describe it. I guess I try and filter it out, because it is so jaw-droppingly unbelievably crazy that I just can't mentally process it. It as if someone believed the books of Tolkien to be a documentary, and declared that we need to find the elves because Sauron is about to attack the UK. It is as if someone declared all true wardobes a route to Narnia. Perhaps I have been too polite and passive towards religion, and I need to realise the danger, which I thought was safely isolated in the USA.

40. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99309 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 9:43 am

Cool, knew we had some on board for sure.

Me too! *raises hand*

I remember as a teenager thinking that John Lennon's "Imagine" was such a wicked song...

It was my interest in science that did it for me. I was taught to reason and to need evidence. It was a painful process, but the world I discovered through science was infinitely more awesome and amazing...

41. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99288 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 9:01 am

Northern Bright:

Very good point. Let them go try and fail spectacularly.

[Oh, and completely off (this) topic, but I have finished reading "Northern Lights", and rather liked it. Sorry]

42. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99282 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 8:48 am

Some on this blog have said they don't care if Bush and Blair lied to get us in to Iraq.

It's very easy to say someone lied. I don't know about Bush, but I really don't believe Blair lied; I think he trusted information sources that turned out to be incompetent and wrong. But that is naivety, perhaps even foolishness, but not lying. That does not mean he was not responsible, after all the buck has to stop somewhere.

I was ambivalent about the war when it started, as I strongly support the removal of murdering, torturing despots whenever practicable. However, bad decisions were undoubtedly made afterwards, perhaps the worst being the removal of the existing security infrastructure. Who knows how it may have gone if that had not been done?

Hitchens seems to know so much about the Iraq situation, and the Middle East in general, that I feel he really should be listened to carefully, even if one then disagrees with his conclusions. I think part of rational debate is to accept that others may have profoundly different views from the same facts, and that these views may be honestly held, and not the results of some form of 'cognitive dissonance' or 'blind spot'.

43. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99240 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 3:18 am

4. They have still not answered why billions vote with their feet while there are hardly any for atheists.

Lack of good education in the sciences.

44. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99237 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 2:59 am

Funny, Sam had that whole thing about how christians convince themselves that so many people believing it without evidence is evidence in itself, and how that's the very essence of illogic, yet ADH essentially went and USED it for his argument.

Indeed.

ADH - you understand what Sam is going on about with this?

45. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99230 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 2:06 am

They sit their scratching their heads in the early afternoon sun, unable to understand how these people, many of them intelligent scientists during the rest of the week, can be so entrapped in such sinister superstitions

Does that make these beliefs true? Of course it doesn't.

Some apparently intelligence people believe in alien abduction. Does this make that true? Or does it simply illustrate the complexity of the human mind?

The point is, my dear fellow, that anyone who has tasted the glory of God, who has entered the presence of God, who has had their life completely turned around by the grace of God, is going to be convinced even to the slightest degree by so-called evidence of God's non-existence,

The problem, as you well know, is that we are entitled to ask "which God"? Considering people are making precisely the same kind of claims for the Hindu Gods, or for Buddists, no god at all.

So as we know that the "life turned around by spiritual feeling" experience does not depend on what God you believe in, or whether you believe in any, then this should lead anyone rational to realise that this is no evidence for a God at all.

Needless to say, their is a kind of religion that is delusional, and even destructive.

Any kind of religion that encourages people to believe things based on no testable or objective evidence is delusional by definition. And any belief system that encourages supression of reason, in favour of introspection as a way of finding truth is potentially dangerous, as not everyone finds nice things inside.

Sooner or later the kind of reasonably polite questioning that Dawkins and others insist on is going to have to lead people like you to be more honest with yourselves. A warm fuzzy feeling inside is not evidence for anything other than a warm fuzzy feeling. (If you had any more substantial evidence, like hearing voices, then it is time to see the doctor).

If you are going to keep insisting there is a God, and don't want to be chided, you had better come up with some hard evidence.

46. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99148 by steve99 on December 15, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Hitchens is more a theatrical entertainer, rather than an intellectual.

I have to disagree. You need only look at the list of books he has authored.

47. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99142 by steve99 on December 15, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Atheism is not a philosophy. It can be the consequence of a philosophy.

And, there is no such thing as an atheist precept. A precept is a commandment or rule. There is also no such thing as a 'theist' precept.

Atheism and theism are simply statements of belief, or lack of belief. There is nothing intrinsic in these statements that leads to rules of action.

You can only talk about precepts when you are talking about some frameworks that include or lead to that belief state, such as Christianity.

48. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99124 by steve99 on December 15, 2007 at 4:55 pm

We seem to have a mild case of the trolls.

49. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99079 by steve99 on December 15, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Pity he's so off course on this one

Hitch has phenomenal knowledge of the situation in Iraq. It is entirely fair to disgree with him, but I am not sure it is fair to call him 'blinkered'.

50. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98987 by steve99 on December 15, 2007 at 5:38 am

Good setting, and nice editing.