551. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77724 by steveroot on October 10, 2007 at 10:03 am

1649. Comment #77637 by Mark Taunton on October 10, 2007 at 12:50 am
Tyre had indeed existed for over 800 years by Ezekiel's time, but as my earlier comments illustrate (3 questions to stevencarrroot), the weight of evidence from Ezekiel alone is that he was referring to Tyre as a mainland city.

Mark, you're doing it again...

J.C. Samuelson: excellent work!
Steve ("Root" not "Carr")

552. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77703 by steveroot on October 10, 2007 at 8:25 am

17. Comment #77681 by antifaithstl on October 10, 2007 at 6:22 am
Everyone should be able to freely witness the absurdity of their condition...It doesn't directly affect anyone else.

I'm going to agree with this. Letting people express their religious preferences seems (to me) unlikely to cause any problems. I don't even mind christians wearing crucifixes, etc., (though I find that at *least* as annoying as the head scarf). The turban of the sikh is more of a curiosity (to me), and as someone commented earlier is almost more cultural than religious (besides, what do you do with all that hair?).

The point is that as long as the wearer/bearer of the religious ornament/symbol/device is *not* engaging in active proselytizing, these things seem (to me) to be nothing more than expressions of individuality. The stickier question is whether someone in authority, such as a teacher, should exhibit signs of religious preference. I doubt many people, even children, would get attracted to islam (e.g.) by seeing someone in a hijab (especially in a hot climate- whew!).

Of course, the full-coverage-except-for-the-eyes thing is right out. In most settings, particularly in education, one *must* be able to see the facial expression of the student to assess comprehension.

BTW, has anyone besides me noticed that the women in the full-coverage jobs almost invariably have their eyes made up to the nines? What is *that* about? I thought the whole presentation was aimed at "modesty" (women being responsible for the behavior of men and their "uncontrollable lust").
Steve

553. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #77437 by steveroot on October 9, 2007 at 9:56 am

51. Comment #77428 by skeptic of Skeptics on October 9, 2007 at 9:31 am
You have to ask God for forgiveness, in order to be forgiven...Doesn't matter who you are, how smart you are, how skeptical you are, or how famous you are. To think otherwise is the greatest delusion of all.

Well, OK then... I'm glad we got that straightened out.

Now let me see... which god shall I ask for forgiveness? There's Zeus, Quetz, Teapot... I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster feeds my soul's needs best. RaMen!
Steve

554. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77433 by steveroot on October 9, 2007 at 9:41 am

48. Comment #77422 by coretemprising on October 9, 2007 at 8:57 am
Now just to keep the arguing going, because that's what humans still do best:

Richard Morgan, get over yourself why don't you?

Oh-oh... looks like a containment breach is imminent! ;-)
Steve

555. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #77027 by steveroot on October 8, 2007 at 8:24 am

Thus It is Written:
"In my Father's Bowl are many Noodles"
So It shall be Served.
RaMen!
Steve

556. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76914 by steveroot on October 7, 2007 at 5:52 pm

1611. Comment #76901 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Unlike some who claim to be Christians, who think that it is impossible for them ever to lose their status as "saved", I am very clear, following the plain statements about this in the Bible, that it is all too easy to lose sight of the truth and wander away, giving up on the hope of eternal life. I hope and pray that I never do, but I know that I could.

Well, then, there's still hope for you! ;-)
Cheers!
Steve

557. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76898 by steveroot on October 7, 2007 at 4:31 pm

1608. Comment #76892 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Back for a short while.

Exd 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.

Well, the text also says "the angel...yada, yada...appeared unto him *IN* a flame... yada,yada..."
Not *AS* a flame, but *IN* a flame. So why haven't we heard a description of this god's appearance? Why didn't Moses try to save him by putting out the flames?

But, *seriously*... where's the evidence? Have we seen any other reports of bushes burning without being consumed or with lords standing and conversing in the flames? Give me a freakin' break. It was more likely static cling from Moses' robes in the dry desert air causing a glowing discharge... at least we could test that idea. The OT's version is ridiculous!

As for Tyre... puhlease!
Steve

558. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76868 by steveroot on October 7, 2007 at 2:04 pm

1602. Comment #76848 by Mark Taunton on October 7, 2007 at 1:16 pm
steveroot & stevencarrwork:

Oops - I did get your IDs mixed up! Sorry, it was late (no excuse, I know).

I forgive you. Over to you, Steven...

BTW, SCW, thanks for the list. I knew there had to be more!
Steve

559. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76790 by steveroot on October 7, 2007 at 9:27 am

44. Comment #76740 by Veronique on October 7, 2007 at 12:57 am
43. Comment #76736 by Zeratul
Love it:-) How exciting and visually interesting:-)
V

Well, doesn't every fifth (approximately) post here say religion is a load of crap? There's an example of whence it comes! ;-)
Steve

560. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76766 by steveroot on October 7, 2007 at 7:01 am

1578. Comment #76640 by Mark Taunton on October 6, 2007 at 2:40 pm
stevecarrroot: (is there an easier short name I could use? To call you just CARR, as you did yourself, seems a bit loud!)

Hmmm... Mark seems to have redacted your handle, Steve... maybe "root" is equivalent to "work" in ancient Hebrew. I'll have to ask my father-in-law, who reads that, as well as Aramaic and Cuneiform. I doubt it, though: he probably has us confused. I regret that, as I am aware that I am a complete lightweight compared to many posters here.

But what is this Tyresome (get it?) argument about a prophesy and whether it's been fulfilled or not? If the bible is true, shouldn't the status (if known) of EVERY prophesy be "true"? There must be more than this particular one. Any single "fulfilled" prophesy could be an accident, luck, or amphiboly. (Supposedly -I remember this from high school- a fortune teller predicted Abraham Lincoln's assassination: "You will go you will return not you will die"; depending on the punctuation of this sentence it could be interpreted either way.) But a single "proved false" prediction would mean...

Sorry. I just figured it out. Tyre me some more! :-)
Steve

PS- Oooooh! Nice round number post. Sounds like it belongs nailed to a tree on Pennsylvania Avenue. ;-)

561. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76714 by steveroot on October 6, 2007 at 9:44 pm

40. Comment #76707 by Richard Morgan on October 6, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Comment #76661 by kaiserkriss
Richard Morgan : LOVE your new Avatar!! jcw

Well, thank you, kaiserkriss.

Richard, are there hormone supplements involved here, or have some prayers been answered? ;-)
Steve

562. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76204 by steveroot on October 5, 2007 at 3:41 am

1549. Comment #76191 by BillySands on October 5, 2007 at 2:36 am

"eye for eye

"Unfortunately, prematurely born babies generally don't have teeth..."

Correct: "Natal" teeth are rare, seen in one of every 2,000 to 3,000 births, according to this reliable source:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003268.htm
Steve

563. A New Debate

Comment #75793 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 4:27 pm

40. Comment #75779 by Vendetta on October 3, 2007 at 3:55 pm
All Hummers aren't bad, as long as you're talking about the kind that Clinton received and not the vehicle :)

I saw a photo of a Hummer with the license plate: "GIVE ME A" :-)
See any image of the back of an H2 to visualize that!

BTW, you should say, "Not all Hummers are bad", rather than "All Hummers aren't bad" though, in the context of your remark, the latter works pretty well!
Steve

564. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75789 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 4:20 pm

1045. Comment #75766 by revcort on October 3, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Well, this is where we get into heaven and hell. Hell is eternal death. Heaven is eternal life. The Bible teaches that God will judge all people based on whether or not their sins have been atoned for...

Forgiveness must happen in this life though.

This sounds like the sinner doesn't have to fret about the punishment until after death. I'm good with that! Of course, some of the more primitive practitioners of one of the Abrahamic religions feel that they must do it themselves, as their god apparently isn't up to it. Interesting that the forgiveness bit has to happen in *this* life- almost as if god isn't involved. Hmmmmm...
Steve

565. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75765 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 3:19 pm

387. Comment #75759 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Steve99 (post 361, or #75257):
"...Joan Bakewell, distinguished journalist. Stephen Weinberg (who needs no introduction). Michael Frayn (novelist)..."

Authors of fiction and journalists, even if good ones, do not strike me as the kind of people knowledgeable in philosophy or science to authoritatively evaluate TGD's philosophical and scientific merit.

So, which do you think Weinberg is- a journalist or an author of fiction?
Steve

566. A New Debate

Comment #75736 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 2:15 pm

10. Comment #75549 by Steve Wrathall on October 3, 2007 at 1:35 am
The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism. Creationism has been successfully excluded from all modern state curricula in developed nations. The most extreme environmentalist propaganda (e.g. Al Gore's sci-fi horror movie) permeates education, including teacher education.

You like your Hummer, do you?
Steve

567. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75727 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 1:27 pm

146. Comment #75721 by _J_ on October 3, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I have never studied calculus. At all. (At least, not knowingly.)

Then you are not qualified to discuss "stoning". ;-)
Or oral hygiene. ______////
Steve

568. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75723 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 1:15 pm

1027. Comment #75708 by revcort on October 3, 2007 at 11:57 am

4 they *said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

This, if true, is evidence for extraordinary skill in defusing difficult situations; it does not support the existence of any god, however.

Here are a couple of points...

1. He did not say that the death penalty was not deserved.

Truly, the original law said that an adulteress should be put to death. Jesus did not say that she was not deserving of death. This is clear. She was deserving of death.
...
By the way, the death penalty is still the punishment for this sin.

Could any sane person actually think that death is an appropriate punishment for this particular transgression? I doubt it.
Steve

569. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75491 by steveroot on October 2, 2007 at 7:54 pm

1005. Comment #75439 by walk on October 2, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Nice singin' steveroot!

Yeah, I can carry a tune... in a bucket!
(Actually was in a church choir for grades 4 through 8; the highlight was being a "pickled boy" in the Benjamin Britten cantata, "Saint Nicholas" in 1963.)

BTW, I finally had a physics-defying experience. While reading your Jesus Project post I leaned toward the computer screen and believe-it-or-not smelled fear!

Well, when you pick up that cool million from James Randi, I hope you will send some of it to the Dawkins Foundation! ;-)
Steve

570. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75432 by steveroot on October 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

1001. Comment #75426 by revcort on October 2, 2007 at 3:51 pm
More clear support for the position I have taken in regard to Jesus not making changes to the law. Here are some commentators who know more than all of us.

(Cue music)

Workin' in the quote mine
Goin' on down, down
Workin' in a quote mine
Oops, about to slip down...

Words and Music by Allen Toussaint (with apologies)
;-)
Steve

571. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75358 by steveroot on October 2, 2007 at 11:51 am

27. Comment #75332 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 11:06 am
Though shalt not have fun with anything made of plastic

I Don't remember exactly which gospel that's from.

So *that's* what they mean by "Plastic Jesus"! :-)

Or was that "Plastic...(pant, pant)... JESUS!"?
Steve

572. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75109 by steveroot on October 1, 2007 at 8:53 pm

331. Comment #75099 by Robert Maynard on October 1, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Dianelos,Please come up with a different example...

*Sigh* Don't worry... he will. :-(
Steve

573. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75037 by steveroot on October 1, 2007 at 12:24 pm

953. Comment #75029 by revcort on October 1, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Dr. Benway said:

"Ah, now I recognize you Brother John. You're a universalist. Universalists live right next door to the atheists. Good neighbors.

"If ever you need a cup of sugar, just give my door a knock. Mind, I'd rather talk about backyard bird feeders than Jesus. Hope that's not a problem for you."

Yada, yada...

And, if he's right, what do we need to do? Absolutely nothin'.

Of *course* he's right! Haven't you figured that out yet?
Steve

574. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75034 by steveroot on October 1, 2007 at 12:20 pm

326. Comment #74977 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 9:07 am

No. Deism is a very boring win for your team. Not even worth "good job!" or "I'm proud of you!" or a single fridge magnet.

I guess I have to turn in my "Jesus loves you" refrigerator magnet now. :-(

Dr. B., I admire your economy of words. As opposed to the next post, comprising over 1,200 words in over 100 lines, yet not signifying much.
Steve

575. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74228 by steveroot on September 27, 2007 at 8:35 pm

78. Comment #74227 by Yaweh on September 27, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Is this Benway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benway

The link didn't work; my question remains unanswered:
"What's a Benway?"
Answer: about 180 pounds (blind guess). :-)
Steve

576. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74203 by steveroot on September 27, 2007 at 4:40 pm

833. Comment #74182 by revcort on September 27, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I have difficulty justifying spending money (which is in short supply with 4 kids), on books that aren't directly related to faith. So, there you go.

Please forgive me if I missed this in another's post, but what about ...
the Public Library?
Some of them *do* have the books you might be interested in but don't feel you can afford. School libraries also may have them. Just not at Liberty University (maybe).
Steve

577. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74005 by steveroot on September 27, 2007 at 4:18 am

769. Comment #73997 by Robert Maynard on September 27, 2007 at 3:34 am
Are you guys going to, y'know, be doing this all the time?
These pretend-religion bits?
Really?

I find they answer...y'know... some sort of basic *need*! :-)
Steve

578. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73952 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 8:32 pm

27. Comment #73950 by Goldy on September 26, 2007 at 8:20 pm
As much as the forcing of a young girl angers me, it appears normal in many cases.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/18saudi.htm

That is truly disgusting. And batshit mad- fathering 100 to get in the book of records. His dipstick should fall off; fortunately, he doesn't have that special underwear!
Steve

579. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73929 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 3:25 pm

56. Comment #73787 by BCReason on September 26, 2007 at 7:37 am
If we ate the Dinosaurs how come Archaeologists don't find the bones when excavating archaeological sites? They find sheep and cattle bones but no dino bones.

Oh, shut up! ;-)
Steve

580. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73924 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 3:04 pm

751. Comment #73920 by gr8hands on September 26, 2007 at 2:55 pm

For a laugh, you can go to http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm to see how some very silly people have tried to "counter" the contradictions.

Very interesting. I found the following on that page. Does this argument sound at all familiar? (scratches bald spot)

However, before we launch into the actual reply, there are several points worth mentioning.

First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?

I think, paradoxically, that I find myself in agreement.
Steve

581. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73922 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 2:57 pm

748. Comment #73914 by captain underpants on September 26, 2007 at 2:47 pm
A little off-topic, I know, but I just read this:

Shock at archbishop condom claim

The head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique has told the BBC he believes some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately.

More batshit.
Steve

582. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73919 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 2:54 pm

746. Comment #73911 by Trilobyterian on September 26, 2007 at 2:43 pm

"Seriously, and I really mean this, you might as well be quoting the Egyptian Book of the Dead."

**Careful** Haven't you seen that movie where they opened that book? All kinds of bad things happened.
(shivers) ;-)
Steve

583. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73897 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm

733. Comment #73894 by Bonzai on September 26, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Steveroot,
My mistake. Where is "the Good, the bad and the ugly" section? I never knew such a section even exist.

No biggie! Look almost directly to the left of this text! (a couple images above Sam Harris)
Steve

584. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73888 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 1:59 pm

725. Comment #73882 by Bonzai on September 26, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Veronique wrote:

"All religites, everyone of them. Disgusting, really."

That is a very sweeping and unwarranted generalization. I think most of us who have read the posts of CHeard on this thread would strongly disagree.

V was speaking of the twits quoted in the "Ugly" section of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". I agree with her, as it isn't a generalization at all- it's a complete sample.
Steve

585. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73875 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 1:01 pm

208. Comment #73848 by Dianelos Georgoudis on September 26, 2007 at 10:44 am

I justify my belief in God by its superior (in comparison to naturalism) explanatory power, among other things. The explanatory power of the God hypothesis implies a series of predictions. Some of these predictions apply to my life here and now, and some to my afterlife. If any of these predictions failed to obtain it would amount to evidence against my theistic belief.

Stop! Stop! I can't take it anymore! :-0
Steve

586. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73871 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 12:32 pm

717. Comment #73868 by revcort on September 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm

In a way, it's inevitable. People are becoming more and more wicked and more and more God-hating. The venom I see here is mild.

People on this forum do not "hate god". It is impossible, and unhealthy, to hate something that doesn't exist. I think it is safe to say what is hated is the attempt by others to run our lives based on what is clearly insufficient evidence. What's more, wickedness does not come from failure to believe in a particular imaginary friend; it comes from other sources and the religious are not necessarily immune. I believe you would find that most of us are as concerned with "wickedness" (human rights violations, environmental degradation, unscrupulous business practices... to name three that come to mind) as you are. We (you and those who believe as you do, and I and those that believe the same as I do) would be better off in my opinion working to fight some of those things, and spending less time worrying about who shares our beliefs about things that should be private.

BTW, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! :-)
Steve

587. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73816 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 9:01 am

699. Comment #73812 by revcort on September 26, 2007 at 8:48 am
So, it only leaves us at one point. I can't absolutely prove He DOES exist, and neither can you absolutely prove He DOESN'T exist. So, we're both operating on a kind of faith. My faith is that He is real and my death will actually be the beginning of life. Your faith is that He is not real and your death will simply mean you cease to exist. If you're right, it won't matter that I've been deceived all my life. But if I'm right, well, I would tell you to pray that I'm not right, but what good would that do? I guess you should keep trying to prove He doesn't exist- either that or seek Him to find out whether He does exist.

Oh, good... Pascal's wager. Now we're getting somewhere! (not)
Steve

588. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73745 by steveroot on September 26, 2007 at 4:01 am

Bill Maher said it pretty succinctly:
"(This) religion is batshit."
Steve

589. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73688 by steveroot on September 25, 2007 at 8:56 pm

I dated a girl in college who wound up valedictorian with a double major, then earned a PhD and taught at a university. She suffered a head injury and now does "nursing home ministry", saving (she believes) the oldsters before they lose their chance of getting into the country club. She talks like this comic strip and begs me to accept Jesus... yada, yada...
Pathetic.
Steve

590. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73654 by steveroot on September 25, 2007 at 6:23 pm

668. Comment #73649 by revcort on September 25, 2007 at 5:47 pm

revcort 666.....sorry, can't help myself.


Ha! Yeah, I noticed that too, but I'm not superstitious. (and the crowd groans in disbelief)

Well, as long as people seem to have a sense of humor...

Numerology of the Beast
666_____The Number of the Beast
667_____The Neighbor of the Beast
660_____Approximate Number of the Beast
DCLXVI_____Roman Numeral of the Beast
666.0000_____High Precision Number of the Beast
0.666_____Number of the Millibeast
/666_____Common Denominator of the Beast
666*sqrt(-1)_____Imaginary Number of the Beast
sin(666)_____Transcendental Number of the Beast
1010011010_____Binary Number of the Beast
6666 6666 6666 6666_____Credit Card Number of the Beast
666-66-6666_____Social Security Number and Taxpayer ID of the Beast
6-6666-6666-6_____ISBN Number of the Beast's Book
1-666_____Area Code of the Beast
00666_____Zip Code of the Beast
66 & 66/100%_____Purity of Beast's Soap
1-900-666-0666_____Live Beasts! One-on-one pacts! Call Now! Only $6.66 per minute!
$665.95_____Retail Price of the Beast
$699.25_____Price of the Beast plus 5% state sales tax
$769.95_____Price of the Beast with all accessories and replacement soul
$656.66_____Walmart Price of the Beast
$646.66_____Next week's Walmart Price of the Beast
Phillips 666_____Gasoline of the Beast
Route 666_____Way of the Beast
666 F_____Oven Temperature of the Beast
666k_____Retirement Plan of the Beast
666 mg_____Minimum Daily Requirement of the Beast
6.66%_____6-year CD interest rate, First Beast of Hell National Bank, $666 minimum deposit
DSM-666_____(revised) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast
Lotus 6-6-6_____Spreadsheet of the Beast
Word 6.66_____Word Processor of the Beast
i66686_____CPU of the Beast
666i_____BMW of the Beast
6 iron, 6 iron, 6 iron_____Contents of Beast's Golf Bag

(After Jill Harvey, Andover Newton Theological School. Submitted by Alice Haugen. Contributions from Tim Romano and Norman Hinton.)
From www.dogchurch.org ("The Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua")
Steve

591. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73580 by steveroot on September 25, 2007 at 11:06 am

23. Comment #73356 by Quine on September 24, 2007 at 8:40 pm
While I was reading some of the comments at the Des Moines Register for this article, I came upon this one that is just too good to miss:

If your (sic) still silly enough to think the Bible was meant to be taken in a literal manor, then rebut these passages...

Which room do we take the bible in?
(John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions...)
Steve

592. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73159 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 9:59 am

4. Comment #73048 by Richard Morgan on September 24, 2007 at 1:00 am
(The whole article is excellent and so complete it's almost a non sequitur.)

"Non sequitur", Latin for "that which does not follow", doesn't seem to apply here. Am I missing something?

Excellent article.
Steve

593. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73153 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 9:39 am

34. Comment #73149 by Yorker on September 24, 2007 at 9:22 am

No, the English is correct. The reference is to the name of a program, a single item.

Technically, the name of the program should be in quotes (or bold or italics...) since the words in the title are "mentioned", not "used". FWIW.
Steve

594. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73150 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 9:26 am

609. Comment #73131 by revcort on September 24, 2007 at 8:17 am

Here is my simple question, and this should settle the entire issue...
Do you believe God to be sovereign? Omnipotent? And if so, can He not preserve for a people writings that have come from Him? Can He not allow them to "think" whatever they want to think their reason for writing it was? Can He not further, even in allowing them to write their own thoughts, sovereignly direct what the finished product would be?

Then why did "He" allow the final product, as Hitchens and (I believe) Dawkins have said, to be so poorly written? And nothing new (no "updates") for 2000+ years? Give me a break.
Steve

595. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73134 by steveroot on September 24, 2007 at 8:24 am

72. Comment #73120 by Bertybob on September 24, 2007 at 7:13 am
Technical question -
How do you get your quotes in the posts nice boxes?

Like THIS? :-)
Click on "[Comment Posting Guidelines]" above your entry and follow the instructions for "blockquote text".
Steve

596. Out of Thin Air

Comment #72983 by steveroot on September 23, 2007 at 5:18 pm

1. Comment #72913 by LawJik on September 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The National Geographic story that they seemed to be obsessed with is online here:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html.

Seems like other wing nuts have attacked the same story.. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

I got 404'd on the NG site, but god let me see this on AiG:

Darwin was partially right about natural selection explaining the origin of species. But because he didn't pay attention to the Bible (but rather rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator), he didn't understand that speciation is simply the God-designed way for the original supernaturally created kinds to produce wonderful variety and perpetuate themselves in the changing environments of a sin-cursed world that would be radically changed by a global year-long Flood at the time of Noah.

I'm glad *that* got cleared up!
Steve

597. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72981 by steveroot on September 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm

57. Comment #72931 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm
chabry, that's either Salman Rushie, or a very convincing replica. Who's the guy on the other side who, of the three, seemed to be the one who was least overjoyed with what Maher was saying?

I'm pretty sure that's Salman Rushdie. No idea who the others are. Who's the woman? Nice tats! ;-)
Steve

598. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72874 by steveroot on September 23, 2007 at 9:49 am

49. Comment #72847 by laroquois on September 23, 2007 at 8:25 am
Comment #72741 by ergaster on September 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Best response is, "God Only Knows."

That reminds me somewhat unpleasantly of: "...god will recognize his own."

I've always thought that the reason the hospitals ask for religion to be specified is well-intentioned. Not that the medical world will screw up, though undeniably it happens at times, but patients *do* die, sometimes unexpectedly. Since a fair number of hospital personnel and patients suffer the same delusion (that it matters), the common desire is to get the appropriate magic spell. I doubt most hospitals are trying to proselytize. "None" would generally be the best response, as seems to be the consensus here.
Steve

599. A Table for One

Comment #72767 by steveroot on September 22, 2007 at 8:40 pm

21. Comment #71165 by Silviu Gherman on September 18, 2007 at 1:18 am
This video illustrates best the arguments against atheists.
...
So please, treat every departed human being with some sort of empathy.

It is a fallacy of relevance to say an argument is invalid because it seems (or is) mean-spirited.

And once you're dead, you're dead. Was Hitchens too hard on Jerry Falwell?
(Psssst: "sympathy", not "empathy")
Steve

600. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72715 by steveroot on September 22, 2007 at 12:20 pm

20. Comment #72681 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 8:55 am
I received an appointment letter to see an ENT specialist today and the out-patient form has a space for religion.

That's a good place for it. :-)

Seriously, my eyes are still watering from watching this clip. That was probably the best put together essay on the foolishness of religion I've seen. Succinct, yet with plenty of serious meat within a howlingly funny delivery.

Now, as to the form with space for religion (it will just about fit, won't it?)- I agree with Dr. B. In addition to the privacy issue, there is the possibility that someone in the healthcare chain will identify you as "difficult". That could be a problem if it becomes part of the wallpaper in life-threatening situations. As a "provider" myself, I know the temptation to be more expedient with "PIA" patients (I like to think it's no more than a temptation!).
Steve