51. Let us test Darwin, teacher says

Comment #10479 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 7:38 am

I, for one, think that students should be taught the controversy- the controversy about group selection, gene-centric evolution and various forms of selection, among other things.

52. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10475 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 7:27 am

Nah Andy, I find it rather sad and intellectually abhorrent. There are some good cybermen vs dalek clips on youtube though

53. Doubters do it from the pulpit

Comment #10465 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 7:06 am

Since Athiests are correct, we shouldn't even need the word 'athiest'; use labels for everything else: Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, God, etc. N'est pas? But we have to call ourselves something, I guess.

54. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10434 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 5:29 am

So God cannot be outside the Universe ...

now we've got him cornered!

55. Why there is no God

Comment #10423 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 5:11 am

Has Asana acended to heaven? or is it just medication time?

56. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10369 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 1:09 am

93. Comment #10337 by Vrijzinnig Man on November 27, 2006 at 10:07 pm

You're actually not far wrong - in terms of how you answer you're own questions...

Firstly, the inconsistencies... for every book claiming Biblical inconsistencies there is another to show there are none. But that's a very broad statement for both of us to make and doesn't really prove anything... lets deal with the specifics...

Also, I doubt that you would argue that anyone could expect to understand any wieghty science book by selecting quotes here and there out of context. That's kind of the approach you seem to take with the Bible.

As for the creation of the Sun, it would seem that God, in His way gave an aura of light. That would be consistent with Revelation which speaks of a time when the earth will be restored to it's original created state...

Rev 21: 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Who knows why things were done in that order - maybe this partly explains an earth that *could* be younger than appearances - but that *is* speculation.

Anyway, this comes back to the point that if you haven't studied the whole, or at least considered complete sections then it's difficult to see the power which is contained.

At the same time I haven't spent a life time studying science - i'm an arty type and not given to such - but there are many Christians of my denomination who have and who don't have a conflict with accepting the whole of the Bible as it is presented and still enjoy a lifelong career in science.

So what i'm saying is, this should not be reduced to a level of science versus religion - that is definitely a myth!

We are just two people discussing our beliefs. :)

I think I know what you are claiming, but it's funny that you seem to state that there is plenty of 'incomplete evidence' for your aguaments. ;)

Anyway, if you are happy to continue with debate, i'm sure we are, so it surely can't be an entire futile or wasted experience for us can it?

57. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #10316 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Until I found out that this dialogue even existed,I was prepared to just write off my life and humanity with it. I couldn't agree more heartily. Religion is a lame adherence to something (well, that lends it substance which it doesn't deserve) that is like an ugly, backward secret like incest that needs to be let out and aired and let go. It needs to be reconciled to quaint little stories and myths and fables and recognized as such. Please think: just before the time of the first explorers, people really thought odd fantastic Monsters and Beaties existed. They thought that the earth was flat and that if you went too far you would fall off and die! They also used to think that they could peer into people's heads through a hole and vent the spirits out. The root of religion came LONG before even THAT. That should give you some idea of how dumb and wrongheaded it is. If there's a rock in your shoe, and you can't walk and you're in pain, what do you do? You STOP, take off the shoe, examoine it, find the source of the problem and get RID of it. Common Sense. Spirituality? Fine. respect compasssion and tolerance? essential. Organized religion? TOXIC.

58. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10304 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 7:57 pm

I saw that article and was a little disgusted by it. The author quotes Locke. I have this quotation expressing my own opinion:

Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been expressed.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, discussing the practice of not allowing atheists to give testimony in court: "In most of the States of this Union I could not give testimony. Should a man be murdered before my eyes I could not tell a jury who did it." -- quoted from the book Ingersoll the Magnificent, edited by Joseph Lewis, which does not cite references

The idea that atheists are not trustworthy stems from the belief that people are inherently wicked and will behave properly only if they believe that the Cosmic Snoop monitors their every thought, word, and deed. People who behave morally only out of fear of punishment or hope of reward do not find guidance in morality but in simple hedonism or utilitarianism. In that sense, only unbelievers ever act out of purely moral considerations.

Refusing to trust atheists is not the policy of my government. President Eisenhower, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, commissioned me an officer of the U. S. Navy, without asking me about my religion or lack of religion. I had been an atheist for some years by then.

59. THANK GOODNESS!

Comment #10303 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 7:38 pm

Concerning comment made by #5232, Lydia Hartunian:

If this is the Lydia B. Hartunian who taught at Emerson College in Boston, the following message is for you: (if this is not the Dr. Hartunian I am looking for, please disregard this note)

I am one of your former students from Emerson College's honors program. I graduated 5 years ago, and I am now married with two beautiful children. I have never forgotten you, Lydia. I remember everything about you, down to your middle initial!
I just want you to know, that my husband and I pray for you regularly. I remember you sharing with me some of the goals you have in life-- We pray that God would give you the desires of your heart. May you be well.

Sincerely,
A Student Who Has Never Forgotten You.

60. The New Atheism

Comment #10281 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Ref. Comment #102430 by Chris:

Dear Chris,
Glad you agree.

61. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10222 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 1:51 pm

"Why don't we see any living transitions eg half scale-half feather?"

We do see living transitions all the time. We all are living transitions. It would help reading a bit about evolution.

62. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10204 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 1:10 pm

askwho, the UK doesn't have a constitutional separation of church and state the way the US does, which is actually strange considering the US is so much worse off regarding the rampant creationist propaganda. If I were you I would be very, very afraid.

63. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #10166 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 8:57 am

"These people are NOT stupid; they make the claim knowing perfectly well that it sounds illogical and still they think that they're onto something. I disagree, as I'm sure a majority of contributors to this website do too. I want to get inside their heads, not stomp on their fingers."

There's a chapter entitled "Why SMART People Believe Weird Things" on that in "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. Which I haven't read, personally, but he makes a passing reference to it in Beyond Belief - second video clip, I think.

64. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10150 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 7:30 am

"As a Christian I believe that every human being is created in the image of God. I do not believe that any one race is inherently superior to another or better evolved."


Don't you mean evolved? Deformity is better explained by evolutionary theories. Otherwise, god is a bastard and just makes some people with disabilities for the hell of it.

65. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10123 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 6:01 am

Will someone take away David Mathews f****ng keyboard. I am amazed that one person con come up with so much bullshit. He consistently avoids giving direct answers to direct questions, a tactic used by all god botherers.
David Mathews why don't you do us all a favour, and go and get yourselfe a big bottlee of paracetamol, as obviously from your rantings the end can't come quick enough for you.

66. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #10122 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 5:57 am

Il try and find the quote

sorry if you didnt but im sure its their

lol

regards phil

67. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #10107 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 4:58 am

Comment #10093

Will,

Try this. It's written by an atheist and professional philosopher and is one of the fairest of the critical reviews that I've some across. It doesn't apper to be posted on this site.

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061023&s=nagel102306

68. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #10079 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 3:13 am

And resurrected ...

69. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10043 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 12:32 am

70. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10000 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 9:03 pm

Woo! Comment #10,000. :D

Err, sorry, no useful contributions from me. I just wanted #10,000...

71. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #9952 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 6:21 pm

TO THE HUMAN BEINGS OF THE PLANET EARTH.WHY DO THEY BELIEVE IN SO MANY VERSIONS OF GOD.HOW COULD THERE BE MORE THAN ONE SUPREME BEING.THERE ARE INTELLEGENT REASONS FOR ALL COMMENTS BUT I AM STILL PUZZLED.....

72. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9912 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 11:48 am

"I mean, that kind of level of ignorance combined with arrogance is just astounding.

How do you open such a closed mind?" - 47. Comment #9843 by denoir on November 26, 2006 at 7:49 am

9mm?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

73. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #9903 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 11:26 am

"Yet, that theory of evolution is completely false..."

Can you say something like that at all?

Genetic algorithms have been used for some time now to find optimal solutions to problems (usually if the problem is too complex for other methods).

Is it meant in the sense that convergence of such algorithm is not guaranteed (strictly speaking)?
Or is it meant that theory is not applicable to genetics/biology?

I have always wanted to know this, but never had any replies from people who oppose evolution.

74. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9836 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 7:27 am

Here's a link to the torrent of all 10 videos: http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=77449

75. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9822 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 6:13 am

"Yet the September 11th hijackers were college-educated, middle-class, and had no discernible experience of political oppression. They did, however, spend a remarkable amount of time at their local mosques talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise."
Partially correct. But this conveniently ignores the issue of US support for Israel as a counter measure to an Muslim middle east. Admittably, that in itself was partially religiously driven. But Harris is overly crude here - more often than not, religion is not the cause, it is merely, by an order of magnitude, the best possible excuse.

"
Nevertheless, I am not as certain about God as you are about no-God. When I look at the unjust world God created, I have questions, sometimes even doubts. But not atheists like you, Sam. No, they look at love and consciousness, at the grandeur of the universe, at the birth of a child, and they hear Bach's music and conclude that all of this and everything else just came about by itself."
So because something is magnificent, it logically cannot have come about by chance. This is one of the main cancers of Christian thinking, traceable back to Augustine's door - everything wrong in the world is man's doing, everything good is God's. Ugh. How utterly repulsive, to claim that the only source of any worth in man or the world is not that it inherently worthy, but because the diety put it there.

"On the other side, we believers look at the evidence and believe that there is a God. In that sense, the atheist has considerably less intellectual honesty than the sophisticated believer. The atheist says he knows, despite the fact that what he "knows" is unprovable. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable."

Teapot! To try and paint the atheist as intellectually dishonest because he cannot do the logically impossible (something most Christians believe even God cannot do) is beyond belief. Loaded semantics to boot - the theist "believes" the atheist "knows". This despite the fact that the prof Dawkins, considered a "militant" atheist states "ther almost certainly is no God" while theists are sufficently sure of God to live their whole life under assumptions that he exists, but also about his specific nature (what happened to mysterious God?). Sounds like knowing to me.

That's just a couple of cherries to show that both of these two are not exactly at the summit of intellectual prowess for their respective sides.

76. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9745 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 8:38 pm

Congratulations to Prager...

He presented a dozen reasons why god is improbable, according to his own definitions, then proclaimed a proof.

1: The Creation Fallacy. If the universe was created, then it would be the handiwork of a physicist. It would be a fairly mundane task.
Theists avoid using the correct terminology.
A physicist would create a universe. A God would manifest a universe. They avoid the word 'manifest' because that moves God further into the unbeleivable and suprnatural.

2: The Superman fallacy. We know that Superman does not exist. It has nothing to do with the extraordinary abilites of Superman. They are possible. We know that Superman does not exist because we have Superman comic #1, in which he was invented. We can trace him directly back to his fictional source. The Bible is the fictional source of the Judeo-Christian diety. We know it does not exist because we can trace him directly back to his fictional source.

3: The "Life has Value' fallacy. Theist ague that religion gives value to life. Yes, value to God.
It is the same value that an automobile has to its driver. It denies that life, in and of itself, has value.


4: Factual knowledge decreases wisdom. I can see how he came to such a conclusion. Teaching religion certainly decreases wisdom.

5: Revisionist History. Religion has re-written its historical role. The undeniable truth is that religion has stood in the path of all social progress. In an outrageously racist absurdity, religion claims that it was love of God which caused Black people to oppose slavery. Does he really believe that Feminists oppose rape because it offends God? Perhaps he should read about the role of women according to his bible.

6: The Judeo-Christian morality is amoral. "No obedience without Consultation'. The Judeo-Christian diety did not consult with us about his laws. That relieves us of any moral obligation to obey them. I believe the correct term for such a system is tyranny. The justness of such laws is irrelevant.

Prager's arguments can be sumed up as: I like Christianity. It provides me with benefits and priviledges. It may cause harm to others, but they are outside the group receiving benefits, therefore we can ignore them.

It is nothing more than a justification of being in the Priviledged Elite.

77. Holy Baloney: Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion crucifies religion and the religious

Comment #9734 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 7:19 pm

JESUS HATES ME

78. Canadian ID Scandal

Comment #9666 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 12:57 pm

In response to comment #4: The SSHRC committee wrote in response to Alters' science education proposal to measure the effect of popularizing intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience that (1) it's an "assumption" that ID is incorrect, (2) it's questionable that popularizing ID pseudoscience is detrimental, and (3) researchers declaring ID being incorrect or its popularization being detrimental are so biased that research based on these assumptions would not yield objective results.

SSHRC is shockingly and factually wrong on all three points, yet has not retracted these statements (or even stated them as inaccurate) despite public condemnation from international scientific organizations totaling over 20,000 scientists! Why not? No other known federal funding organization in the western world has supplied sympathetic language to ID pseudoscience. Why in Canada?

79. The God Delusion Review

Comment #9642 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 10:27 am

Richard militant atheist?
What a load of rubbish. Has this Barney read the book at all?

80. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #9629 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 9:58 am

Who CREATED the English language? Who was the single CREATOR? I mean it is obvious it was created---there was a time it did not exist and now it does...therefore it has to have a CREATOR and an intelligent CREATOR...so who gets the credit? Or is it possible for unguided interactions between existing forces (in this case speakers) to generate the complex entity we know as the English language? Can complicated things come about without a guiding single intelligence or plan?
No-of course not..what was I thinking? Why bother with thinking at all when I can have faith.

81. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #9619 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 9:22 am

Smith says, "How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics" and "Richard Dawkins, the proselytizer for atheistic materialism, apparently supports human breeding programs". Smith seems to miss the point or to be intentionally misrepresenting. As Smith quotes, Dawkins says that he "can think of some answers … good ones … why it is acceptable to train fast runners … and not to breed them". Clearly, the Dawkins quote shows that he doesn't necessarily support human breeding programs and in fact can think of reasons to no support them. It is apparent, rather, that Dawkins is raising the issue of whether it is unethical to even talk about the issue. It seems clear that he is simply proposing that there be a dialogue flushing out what the ethics indeed are on the issue.

82. Why there is no God

Comment #9602 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 8:45 am

Universal Common Ancestor created all living things it's sort of like God except it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

83. To be Read at my Funeral

Comment #9599 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 8:31 am

It seems that the concept of "I" seems to precede in value that which allows your identity ("I"), to come to being in the first place. It is almost like saying that "I" have nothing to do with my environment. I just can't agree with this solipsism.

Due to the scientific fact that our bodies are atom bound, and that the roles of those atoms once contributed to the life and matter of the planet (Or perhaps even never at all), I can no longer accept the concept of "I" as preceeding my very being here. I value most which I am made of for without the atoms, there would be no "I".

I can concede that I only value consciousness because I've experienced it. This does not mean I don't appreciate the chance to have lived it. As Mark Twain said, "I was dead many years before I got here, and it didn't bother me one bit."

It is more than just the idea of our atoms "spread across the cosmos" that grants comfort. You are oversimplifying what myself and other people think about this.

84. [But it's not about religion] Sectarian Attack Is Worst in Baghdad Since Invasion

Comment #9585 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 7:39 am

What the dickens does this reporter think is behind the labels Sunni and Shiite?

"When all of them have left office, we can get serious about a campaign to indict them for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

To be sure the invasion was bungled by not paying attention to the question, 'What do we do when we have captured Baghdad and toppled Saddam?'

The neo-cons had their eye on the oil ball to the exclusion of all else. Tunnel vision seems inbred in these guys.

Count me in too and a start would be a full investigation into the true causes of 9/11, all those things that the Kean/Zelikow Omission Commission report avoided.

Things like: Why was WTC 7 brought down by controlled demolition (watch any video carefully) after a few hours of low temperature fires. Hint there was much held in there by FBI, FSA that was potentially embarrassing and also it was Rudi's command bunker – and he said some strange things immediately afterwards and during the following period.

WTC1 & 2 were also brought down by controlled demolition, again watch the videos. Burning jet fuel fires are just not hot enough to melt structural steel. Molten metal was seen poring out of the corner of WTC1 before collapse. That it was steel is known by the fact that molten aluminium is grey in colour - I have worked with these materials.

Three major buildings, supposedly, suffered major structural failure in a single day due to fire, according to the official report, no other steel framed building has ever collapsed through fire, even though some burned for three days. Normally all material under these circumstances would be examined as part of an investigation into that collapse, certainly as it was supposedly a crime scene – mass murder. But what happened, the authorities cleared all the stuff away, far away to the Far East, as quickly as possible effectively preempting any investigation. Looking to who was behind the corporation involved in this, and also involved with security at WTC is informative.

I won't even go onto to the nonsense of an invisible 757 crashing into the Pentagon after a manoeuvre that a seasoned military pilot would have found almost impossible, and without leaving a mark on the lawn outside. What was going on with all the Washington missile defences that day, let alone what was NORAD up to.

All this may be thought off topic, but are those responsible for the above events declared atheists?

85. Take a leaf out of their books/Books of the Year 2006/Guardian UK

Comment #9575 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 7:17 am

"Who is this jerk ?"

Julian Barnes is the author of 'Atheism' by Oxford University Press..... (if you can believe it)

86. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #9561 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 5:45 am

Robert, when confronting liberal pemissiveness you ask '- Trouble is who defines 'hurt'?'

Good point. No secular consensus can be enough. When defining 'hurt' our thoughts must turn from this life to posthumous eternity - get it wrong and we're talking about trillions and trillions of years of unimaginable torment as a mere introduction to the Lord's justice.

You really swallow this. Le con!

Read Godless Morality by Holloway.

87. Less Faith, More Reason

Comment #9557 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 5:38 am

comment

88. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #9454 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 8:40 pm

I know I've promised an explanation of why Hell exists and why it was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross; it will be coming when I can get better support for it than I have presently. Mike Walker, I also promise to check about the "final choice" I mentioned-which, after all, is only a theory and may or may not be validated.

Why are we debating, Joad? To strengthen our viewpoints for future discussions, to sharpen our intellects, for pure intellectual enjoyment...the potential reasons are various. I won't presume to speak for yours. As for value...Christians believe that humans are a creation that became flawed, and is meant to be redeemed. Historically, men and women have always become nobler when they find a source of value outside themselves, something for which they were willing to sacrifice themselves. Whether or not the cause was good does not in any way diminish the value of the sacrifice. Is that not what a "moral" is-an external measure by which we judge ourselves?

Mike Walker, I believe I made a mistake. I put forward a theory-that of a "final choice" and did not explain it as such. With that said, I will defend it until I can research it more. For your first point...who knows what the choice will be like? Instead of a background of heavenly light, it may just be us and Christ alone in a room to discuss our lives. But to answer your question more directly-who would reject God at that point: hopefully, no one. Presumably, the people who would turn down such an offer are those who hate God, those who would not wish to accept responsibility for their deeds, those who would turn it down out of spite, those who prefer murder to mercy...surely you can come up with other scenarios. Hopefully they are in the vast minority. However, you seem to be saying that God ought to make it difficult. God wants us to go to Heaven; He is not going to make it more difficult than necessary. That is what Purgatory is for.

Since no one can enter Heaven with sin, there must be a place of cleansing. I hardly imagine that this place is pleasant, but at least there is the knowledge that Heaven will be waiting at the end of the process.

Does this answer your question, or am I still being too vague? If not, please repost it and I will respond as succintly as possible.

As for your second point...perhaps I didn't understand it. You seem to disregard my "textbook" answers, so maybe my personal one will work better. When I find a quiet place and sit down to pray and meditate, I contemplate God as I know Him. I know-perhaps feel is a better word-that God loves us enough to grant us mercy; I have been taught that what I feel is only a shadow of what He actually is. I do not believe that such a God would allow sadness in His house; neither do I believe that a love such as you have described, e.g. the love of parents for children, will be ignored by God.

In essence, I do not claim to know what arrangements God has made, only that He will do His best to get everyone into Heaven. That's what Christians call "faith." I have been as honest as I can.

Before I wrap up, a quick add-on to Jacob's response about Peter. "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do." A common theme of Jesus' ministry was choosing the lowest common denominator of society to be his followers; he rubbed shoulders with lepers, women (subordinated at the time) tax collectors, the poor, and others who were considered villainous or wretched. It would be no surprise if Peter and the other apostles were weak and cowardly men. That is why Jesus chose them-"For God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong." Make sense?

89. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #9351 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 2:44 pm

Iain.

I am certainly no ignoramus and object to the term. If you are to be so closed minded then I won't argue as this will lead to dispute. That bronze book is living testament to mankind's history.
Wasn't there a time when the idea of Nebuchadnezzar ruling Babylon was scoffed at because the bible spoke of it until evidence was uncovered? Had it not you would have still scoffed.

Lauren, no amount of cutting statements to sentences and evaluating the sentence "missing the point of the statement" will win you an argument, you have again showed no evidence to support single celled organisms evolving genitalia. All that is shown is how current single celled organisms reproduce and this is certainly not evidence that whales and bananas are related, that we came from dirty rocks or that male and female populations arose from single celled asexual reproducing organisms. Any fully educated Christian scientist would make a fool of you to no fault of their own. I would also like to point out that most of the major branches of science were developed by theists (some young earth, some not) but you have become arrogant to promote atheism as a freethinking idea from theism and fail to realise you are just as religious.

Try as might but you wont get me angry by calling me names or stating how unintelligent I am, however, I may emphasise "I have still seen no evidence to support evolution at all in this forum other than changes within the same kind".

I have been sworn at and some have attempted to belittle me but it is obvious who is arrogant and ignorant. The best arguments to support this nonsense have come from Billy, at least he could bring his side of the discussion to the points I made in previous statements (although he cursed a little). Iain why attack me on a personal bases? Introduce your statement and wait for a reply. Although I am one person with little time, typing and cant answer everyone so if I have missed comments Im sorry but have you seen how much Ive typed? I will refuse hence to answer any of your comments due to your own attitude and am thinking about with drawing from the discussion all together (not you alone but a collection of personal attacks).

I am very sorry to say im feeling somewhat under whelmed by the lack of evidence to support your faith in big bang, evolution and its God "random chance". I never came to this discussion to prove God, I have used the very tip of the ice berg in theologys evidence due to silly return comments asking about the alternative to evolution rather any support for its claims.

Atheism is a belief because we simply don't know the origin of everything and if a professor says God is nonsense its because someone told him that. I can back this up through some answers and comments posted by yourselves (my point here again: we don't know enough). I can accept faith and assumptions but the problem I have is you (counter claimers) promote your faith and assumptions as fact using other assumptions but it is a pill you will never swallow because to your belief, it is bitter. Atheism will never ever be inclusive to freethinking scientific study as you would like to think. Its just a growing meaningless belief intended to destroy another through stereotyping humiliation, arrogance, lies and imagination outside the realms of science and convincinly human.

Phil

90. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9340 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Mwaha, Ramachandran's comments about Bush and ID were priceless...

91. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9323 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Still it is a religios world, even some of scientists are still ass licking religious supporting, it is a freaking lonely world out there for people with working brain, I am dissapointed with so called some scientists' religion supporting views, they just don't get it. It will be too late before WWIII starts , scientist should stop kissing religious asses and try to educate people instead of hiding. That's why Richard Dawkins and Harris are my HERO!!! They don't suck up, they were lonely at the meeting!

92. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9318 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 12:37 pm

"(Dawkins') take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is "brainwashing" and "child abuse") was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin Konner as simplistic and uninformed."


Uninformed about what? Teaching children from birth that belief in things there is no evidence for is by definition brainwashing.
From Dictionary.com:
Brainwashing - any method of controlled systematic indoctrination
Indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

Hello?

Secondly, brainwashing children is obviously child abuse. Who would even argue with that? I dare anyone to come up with a morally defensible reason for brainwashing children.

Dawkins' position regarding this (which is also a lot of other people's position, he just may be the first to voice it so bluntly) is NOT "simplistic", the issue itself is THAT SIMPLE. Brainwashing is child abuse. Religion is brainwashing.

93. Two who hopped off the faith train

Comment #9291 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 10:52 am

Tony B-

I am sorry--I guess I am just too dense...but how are these examples of "evidence of absence" any different from the "absence of evidence"
that is apparently criticized by the cliche noted here and seen so many times?

94. To be Read at my Funeral

Comment #9288 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 10:46 am

Hugo-
nothing I said should have implied anything about the meaning of life...merely the meaning of my "wishes" regarding my funeral- as you point out it is what happens while you are alive that is important...it is not that I do not care what happens after I am gone i--it is that after I am gone I will not be able to care.

95. Canadian ID Scandal

Comment #9240 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 8:07 am

ID:
a theory that anything that is too complicated for us to understand is therefore designed by a higher power--
lack of knowledge = GOD
ID is quite simply Ignorance Deified.

96. Public school teacher tells class: 'You belong in hell'

Comment #9192 by Anonymous on November 24, 2006 at 5:12 am

Sadly, this is far from the worst I've seen.

In Providence, RI you have teachers making sexual advances on students. One big reason this continues is the complete lack of morality among unions who hold us hostage. So long as you defend the misdeeds of your members, you take down the whole organization.

97. Welcome relief in a world full of superstition

Comment #9176 by Anonymous on November 23, 2006 at 8:49 pm

Jesus' Y chromosome must have:

5) Never existed

98. Public school teacher tells class: 'You belong in hell'

Comment #9161 by Anonymous on November 23, 2006 at 7:56 pm

Peter - yes, what you say is true. But what an "opinion" that is... Say, for example, the man believes that white men and superior to black men, and a student, knowing this, tries to expose him as a silly racist by probing him with questions. If he snapped up the bait by explaining (in what he thought was a logical manner) why he thought white men were superior to black men, and told all the black students in the class "i'm very much afraid you lot are inferior to us whites" - would it have been taken to kindly? i was just wondering...

99. Public school teacher tells class: 'You belong in hell'

Comment #9150 by Anonymous on November 23, 2006 at 7:08 pm

Tania, that may be all well and good, and it's a good point to bring up...

... But I'm sure everyone agrees... that even if this ... 'teacher'... conveniently FORGOT he ever said any such thing - shouldn't he have APOLOGIZED? He was clearly in the wrong, think ye not?

100. Public school teacher tells class: 'You belong in hell'

Comment #9146 by Anonymous on November 23, 2006 at 6:59 pm

"Matthew has ... received one DEATH THREAT."

Praise to the Lord! Honor and glory to those who threaten to kill in His Name!

you reading this, micklc? gimme a break, man.