51. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37024 by Coel on May 3, 2007 at 7:10 am

To John Phillips

"Coel: Actually if you look at the user name displayed it is obviously someone having some fun at weefree's expense as the user name is wefree, notice the missing 'e'."

Yep, I noticed that, but do you think that that sort of "fun" is acceptable?

52. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37005 by Coel on May 3, 2007 at 5:31 am

I have reported the above post, Comment #36977, which is presumably an impersonation, to the forum.

53. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35377 by Coel on April 27, 2007 at 2:58 am

To weefree:

Me: "Things like France and the Netherlands are the sort of "atheist state" (meaning large number of people who lack belief in God; no special privileges for the religious) that most people here advocate."

Weefree: "Dear me Coel, you should really check your facts before you post. There are so many flaws in this one sentence. Firstly there is no doubt that France is officially secular but it is not an atheist state."

But that's why I had "atheist state" in quotes and added "that most people here advocate".

You see, what Parris, Dawkins etal want is the sort of "atheist state" (note the quotes) that France, the Netherlands and the UK to a large extent are or are rapidly turning into.

You see, no-one here wants the sort of "atheist state" that Mao's China or Albania became; your suggestions of that are a complete red herring. Clear yet?

weefree: "Let's try again. Does Dawkins say that religion is a virus?"

Yes, in the technical sense of replicating for its own good, not for the good of its host.

"Does he say that it is worse to be infected by this virus than it is to be sexually abused?"

No he doesn't. He says that it might, in some circumstances, be worse to be "infected" by some "strains" of this virus than it would be to encounter a mild instance of sexual abuse.

"What do you think should be done with a harmful virus?"

It depends, how harmful? For example the cold virus is harmful, but we can live with it. It doesn't "need to be eradicated".

"Can you manage to answer those questions?"

Yes, quite easily. Now, is all your bluster an admission that your quote was fabricated, a your-interpretation paraphrase of Dawkins, not something Dawkins has actually said?

If so, do you have the integrity to say so? And, as I said, must be that nothing Dawkins actually says is that bad if you feel the need to invent "quotes".

Weefree: "Hilarious in its ignorance. You accuse me of presenting no evidence and then make sweeping statements with no evidence whatsoever. [. . .]"

A lot snipped in which weefree gives no actual examples of Hitler persecuting Christianity, nor of Hitler saying anything anti-Christian. If Hitler persecuted Christians so much, why did you have to resort to giving the example of him persecuting Jews?

54. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35176 by Coel on April 26, 2007 at 1:37 pm

To weefree:

"Could you name one atheist state which has been a force for good and tolerance?"

Things like France and the Netherlands are the sort of "atheist state" (meaning large number of people who lack belief in God; no special privileges for the religious) that most people here advocate. And yes, they have been a force for good and tolerance.

"religion is a virus which needs to be eradicated".

I've asked you twice whether this a fabricated quote and you have not given any citation for it. I'll take that as admission that, yes, you fabricated it. Must be that nothing Dawkins actually says is that bad if you feel the need to invent "quotes".

"Notice the wee word – 'first'. Then go figure."

As usual, you've failed utterly to present any evidence that Hitler was anti-Christian. Indeed, he considered himself a Christian; he never persecuted Christians for being Christians, and he remained on good terms with the Christian churches.

55. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34791 by Coel on April 25, 2007 at 8:50 am

To weefree:

"Another man thought Nietzsche was spot on in his analysis of Christianity and he was prepared to take advice about using any expedient to get rid of it. First of all he went for the Jews - his name was Hitler."

So let's see if I've got this straight, your evidence to support your claim that Hitler tried to "get rid of" Christianity is that he went for the Jews. Correct?

56. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34788 by Coel on April 25, 2007 at 8:44 am

Dear Weefree:

"Really? Why? The track record of those who have espoused such militant atheism is hardly good. I do not expect a new wave of tolerance."

Not so. The track record of those espousing totalitarian communism is hardly good. But the record of those such as Parris, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett who espouse what you call "militant" atheism is entirely laudable.

"Are you missing something? Have you read TGD? Was I misreading when I understood Dawkins to say that religion was a virus?"

Sure, he said it was a virus in the technical sense of spreading itself for its own good. That is not the same as saying "religion is a virus which needs to be eradicated". Is that a genuine quote, or a fabrication/paraphrase? Has Dawkins ever said "religion . . . needs to be eradicated"? The words "needs" and "eradicated" are strong ones.

If this isn't an actual quote, but is instead a distorted fabrication/paraphrase, don't you think it is highly misleading to present it as one?

(And don't you think that the Times should have checked its accuracy before publishing it?)

57. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34718 by Coel on April 25, 2007 at 1:55 am

To weefree:

"I suspect that disbelief in the form of the atheist fundamentalism espoused by Mr Parris, Richard Dawkins et al ('religion is a virus which needs to be eradicated') is more likely to be a destructive and oppressive force rather than the 'redeeming, saving force' of Mr Parris's dreams."

The chances of disbelief as espoused by Parris, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al being a destructive or oppressive force are minimal, as you'd see if you listen to what they actually say.

And that supposed quote of yours of Dawkins, is it fabricated? Like your claims about the VT killer?

58. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34454 by Coel on April 24, 2007 at 5:50 am

In reply to weefree:

"Could you tell me one decade in the past ten where atheists kept silent?"

Most of them, if judged relative to atheists' numbers in the population (particularly in the US, the context here, but also in the UK to some extent).

59. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34450 by Coel on April 24, 2007 at 5:33 am

In reply to weefree:

"Because as Dawkins clearly implies words can easily lead to violence."

That is not what the Dawkins quote you posted is about. Try reading it in context to see.

"Anyone who thinks that words are not powerful and can often be used to incite violence is clearly living on another planet."

Err, so? Did Dawkins ever say that words aren't powerful, or that they can't incite violence? Again, you have not managed to point to a contradiction. What Dawkins did say is that he will not get involved with violence (and nor has he ever incited violence).

"Dawkins comments are typical of the shallow, superficial and school boy type arguments of most of TGD."

And you say that just after complaining about atheist ad hom on this forum? You sound a bit embittered (as in your Times letter today).

60. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34117 by Coel on April 23, 2007 at 9:39 am

To weefree,

The fact that words might have a damaging effect is not at all a contradiction of Dawkins's statement that his antipathy to religion will be limited to words, and not extend to violence. Where is the supposed contradiction?

Oh, and did you ever come up with any evidence that the VT killer was an atheist, or that he had a "hatred of religious people"?

61. Flea Circus!

Comment #33082 by Coel on April 19, 2007 at 5:44 am

Dear weefree,
You say "Two days ago in Virginia. The student concerned yelled out his hatred of rich people and religion as he killed. Which is not to say that all atheists are responsible . . .".

Can you point me to a reputable news source that says he was an atheist or that he "yelled out his hatred of . . . religion"?

The reports I've seen of his videos say they "show Cho talking to the camera and discussing religion and his hatred of the wealthy", which is not quite the same thing.