51. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13118 by Skeptic Jim on December 15, 2006 at 4:03 pm

I deny the holy spirit!

52. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #13045 by Skeptic Jim on December 15, 2006 at 6:46 am

This article represents another minor victory to Dawkins and Atheism. This guy is clearly very pissed off and thus was very motivated to put this article together.... yet this is the best he could do. We're seeing a bombardment of similar reactionary articles and in each case the author has been forced to resort to lies and fallacious arguments.

RD was faced with some of the most mindless and idiotic of all christian arguments on the late late show and he handled them easily.

53. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12898 by Skeptic Jim on December 14, 2006 at 9:24 am

Articles such as this just dig a deaper hole for theists. Normal inteligent people are growing in numbers and that unmistakable stench of ignorance can be sensed from a mile away.

54. China's white dolphin called extinct after 20 million years

Comment #12891 by Skeptic Jim on December 14, 2006 at 8:15 am

I blame the school system

55. Simon Mayo interviews Keith Ward about his book 'Is Religion Dangerous?'

Comment #12851 by Skeptic Jim on December 14, 2006 at 4:10 am

The same tired old arguments that have been debunked over and over again....

we need religion for morality... debunked
stalin was acting as an atheist... debunked
but I want to have my cake and eat it to and claim that hitler wasn't acting as ac christian... hypocritical

piss poor interview

56. Simon Mayo interviews Keith Ward about his book 'Is Religion Dangerous?'

Comment #12844 by Skeptic Jim on December 14, 2006 at 2:45 am

Obesity? Not what i'm getting.

57. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12663 by Skeptic Jim on December 13, 2006 at 6:43 am

Hubbard reflects on his experience of almost being run over by a train on venus.

http://www.insolitology.com/sounds/Venusloc.ram

58. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12662 by Skeptic Jim on December 13, 2006 at 6:41 am

incidentally, he also had a view on evolution...

Hubbard on Evolution

"Alcohol was a tremendous thing, but here's an oddity. Today, alcohol makes people feel tired. Now, isn't that an oddity? It's been laid in on the genetic line, evidently to such a degree that it now produces the illness it was most used as a remedy for. Any time you got tired, you took a drink. The genetic line ... accumulates these things ... The experience the body line has in one generation may culminate in another generation. Even so, Darwin found out that when you took horses up to the high country in the Middle East, they would then grow long hair after a season or two. But when you took them - these long-haired horses - back into the low, hot country, they wouldn't get rid of the long hair, just in case, for about four generations."

59. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12659 by Skeptic Jim on December 13, 2006 at 6:30 am

http://www.scientomogy.com/

Lots of good stuff on scientology there including recordings of hubbard saying various things and a qutoe from him stating that the best way to get rich is to start a religion rather than being paid by the word (or words to that effect).

60. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12653 by Skeptic Jim on December 13, 2006 at 5:21 am

If atheist organisations were as unscrupulous as theists they could be that rich and powerful too. I suppose that's our conundrum.

61. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12491 by Skeptic Jim on December 12, 2006 at 6:58 am

Nothing wrong with comedy I suppose... if it's actually funny. I'm not suggesting this wasn't a good vehicle to appeal to a different kind of audience.

62. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12466 by Skeptic Jim on December 12, 2006 at 4:12 am

I generally find the show very annoying. They'll be discussing important issues like the budget and you have to sit through their constant and ridiculous wise cracks.

The Australian version of the show is much worse however. They actually did a piece that took seriously the lunar landing hoax conspiracy. One of the members of the panel actually suggested it had credibility because when the eagle blasted off from the moon you couldn't hear its engines.

63. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12366 by Skeptic Jim on December 11, 2006 at 3:48 pm

>It was silly to say that fundamentalists are only people who believe in a holy book

Dawkins didn't retreat. That has always been his definition of fundamentalism. I've heard him use exactly the same definition in other interviews. It's quite common in this kind of debate to find conflict due to a difference in definition.


fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn'də-měn'tl-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Adherence to the theology of this movement.

64. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11962 by Skeptic Jim on December 8, 2006 at 3:49 pm

That was brilliant. I just saw RD on Irish TV. It was a good interview. 95% of the audience were theists with crap arguments that he managed to debunk. Ireland seems to have a very large number of theistic scientists. But that's just my own anecdotal evidence speaking.

65. Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

Comment #11789 by Skeptic Jim on December 7, 2006 at 11:13 am

*does a little dance*

woohooo! score 1 for the good guys.

66. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11497 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 2:19 am

If there actually were strong evidence for the existence of god then the celestial teapot argument would in fact be a straw man.

So when a person who ignorantly believes there is strong evidence for the existence of a god cries strawman in the face of the teapot, that person clearly understands what a strawman is.

Whether or not the celestial teapot is actually a strawman is irrelevant to whether the accuser understands what a strawman is.

If the accuser actually believes the other side has used a straw man and they go on to use straw men themselves then that is hypocricy. If the accuser does not believe the other side used a straw man but they make the accusation anyway, then that would be projection perhaps. Having said that i'm not convinved that hypocricy and projection are mutually exclusive.

67. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11495 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 2:05 am

Yeah I think we agree too about most things. I just think you're generalising a bit. I'm not suggesting the pseudo-intellectual you describe doesn't exist. I'd even accept that a great percentage of theists comfortably fit this category but there are still plenty of delusional intellectuals out there.

68. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11493 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 1:51 am

Anyway my point still stands. To make the accusation that the celestial teapot argument is a strawman, even though it is not, requires an understanding of what a strawman is.

Therefore when the same theist who demonstrates this is also standing knee deep in straw at the end of a debate, their actions are very hypocritical.

69. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11491 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 1:46 am

>Any honest theist openly acknowledges their belief is based on faith

It's a bit much to expect honesty from someone who actively lies to themselves.

70. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11487 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 1:29 am

They like to make the strawman accusation when an atheists uses the celestial teapot, pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster analogy to explain that we have no reason to believe in religion.

I wouldn't see this as a strawman myself but I can see how a person who actually believes there is some credible evidence supporing the existence of god might view it that way.

I don't think it requires a great deal of brain power to understand the concept of a straw man argument and 5 minutes on google can tell you everything you need to know about it.

I do think there are some intelligent theists out there. They waste that brain power coming up with sophisticated rationalisations for their delusion.

71. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11483 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 1:06 am

I agree with others in that this isn't a solid refutation. It annoys me more than a bit to see it presented as one because it offers credibility to the Intelligent Designists argument that there's a global conspiracy against ID preventing them from being published. This is counter-productive to say the least.

72. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11480 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 12:59 am

Harris and Dawkins are really leading the way to undermining the basis of every default, fallacious christian argument.

I've noticed in debates that it's the theist side that is usually the first to start crying strawman and fallacy (even if they have no reason to)... which demonstrates that they fully understand and are conscious of what they're doing when they hypocritically base all of their arguments on logical fallacies.

73. Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Comment #10706 by Skeptic Jim on November 29, 2006 at 2:11 am

Mary,

Surely you realise the site you just posted is loaded with lies and propoganda. Also, some of the science is out of date.

For example "Furthermore, it has been established that the universe is not fixed and static, as materialists still stubbornly maintain."

I'm not aware of any materialists 'maintaining' that the static universe theory. The Big Bang theory is accepted pretty much universally.

It also goes on to talk about the big crunch theory. Current science is suggesting this won't happen.

74. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10623 by Skeptic Jim on November 28, 2006 at 4:04 pm

>When you imigrate to a country, you are obliged to THEIR laws

Does that apply to Englishmen who get the death penalty in Pakistan?

75. Godless America: 'Letting Go of God' Excerpt

Comment #9266 by Skeptic Jim on November 24, 2006 at 9:37 am

I don't think what makes you you has anything to do with your specific atoms. We shead atoms and consume new ones all the time. You don't have all the same atoms you had when you were born and you presumably won't have all the atoms you have now when you die. All you need to exist again is to win the cosmic lotter for a second time and end up with the exact dna sequences you currently possess. That's my understanding anyway.

76. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #8732 by Skeptic Jim on November 22, 2006 at 5:53 am

*pulls up pillow*
*inserts cafeine IV*

77. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #8681 by Skeptic Jim on November 22, 2006 at 1:02 am

Every time I see a fallacious christian argument or an argument based on complete and utter lies it reinforces my position as an Atheist.

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

Comment #8680 by Skeptic Jim on November 22, 2006 at 12:59 am

This is appalling. How did this idiot ever get a teaching job?

79. What Does Someone Believe? One Man Has the Answer

Comment #8374 by Skeptic Jim on November 21, 2006 at 3:54 am

This essay aired circa 1954.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious -- the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with the awareness of -- and glimpse into -- the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive.

I sense that it is not the State that has intrinsic value in the machinery of humankind, but rather the creative, feeling individual, the personality alone that creates the noble and sublime.

Man's ethical behavior should be effectively grounded on compassion, nurture and social bonds. What is moral is not the divine, but rather a purely human matter, albeit the most important of all human matters. In the course of history, the ideals pertaining to human beings' behavior towards each other and pertaining to the preferred organization of their communities have been espoused and taught by enlightened individuals. These ideals and convictions -- results of historical experience, empathy and the need for beauty and harmony -- have usually been willingly recognized by human beings, at least in theory.

The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us westerners in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

The pursuit of recognition for their own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice and the quest for personal independence form the traditional themes of the Jewish people, of which I am a member.

But if one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it is glaringly apparent that mankind finds itself at present in grave danger. I see the nature of the current crises in the juxtaposition of the individual to society. The individual feels more than ever dependent on society, but he feels this dependence not in the positive sense -- cradled, connected as part of an organic. He sees it as a threat to his natural rights and even his economic existence. His position in society, then, is such that that which drives his ego is encouraged and developed, and that which would drive him toward other men (a weak impulse to begin with) is left to atrophy.

It is my belief that there is only one way to eliminate these evils, namely, the establishment of a planned economy coupled with an education geared towards social goals. Alongside the development of individual abilities, the education of the individual aspires to revive an ideal that is geared towards the service of our fellow man, and that needs to take the place of the glorification of power and outer success.

Translation by David Domine. Essay courtesy of the Albert Einstein Archives at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

80. What Does Someone Believe? One Man Has the Answer

Comment #8369 by Skeptic Jim on November 21, 2006 at 3:44 am

Albert Einstein's Essay

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4670423

81. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #7938 by Skeptic Jim on November 20, 2006 at 1:06 am

Wow it looks like a few cages have been rattled.

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

Comment #7340 by Skeptic Jim on November 18, 2006 at 9:19 am

I'm a christian but... I don't believe in the bible, god, jesus and think christianity does more harm than good.

83. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7198 by Skeptic Jim on November 17, 2006 at 3:45 pm

*curls up in foetal position*

LA LA LA. LA LA LA. OLD MACDONALD HAD A FARM EI EI O.

84. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7193 by Skeptic Jim on November 17, 2006 at 3:25 pm

Disturbing

85. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7132 by Skeptic Jim on November 17, 2006 at 9:24 am

Aussie,

Dr Dawkins has been to Australia a number of times. But you're right. Someone needs to drop a reality check in the face of our idiot prime minister.

86. My God Problem

Comment #7084 by Skeptic Jim on November 17, 2006 at 4:49 am

yep. here here.

87. Science vs religion

Comment #6623 by Skeptic Jim on November 15, 2006 at 6:40 am

Yes AIG is a joke. Full of lies and deception designed to trick the uneducated.

The best site debunking AIG is this one...

No Answers In Genesis...
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

88. Nice Guys Finish First

Comment #6464 by Skeptic Jim on November 14, 2006 at 11:53 am

But those are 875mm disks. In 1987 they were extremely modern.

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

Comment #5864 by Skeptic Jim on November 11, 2006 at 12:45 pm

Every time I read an article like this one I feel more and more satisfied with the whole concept of atheism, safe in the knowledge that this is the best argument the opposition can come up with.

90. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5644 by Skeptic Jim on November 10, 2006 at 8:42 am

Where did all this straw come from? Anyone got a match?

91. Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

Comment #5615 by Skeptic Jim on November 10, 2006 at 6:03 am

Further to that, I still celebrate christmas and easter. To me these are family events. They lay hand in hand with the 'christian culture'. I don't have to believe in god to participate in christian culture.

92. Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

Comment #5613 by Skeptic Jim on November 10, 2006 at 6:00 am

I don't think godless is right at all. You can keep the culture and remove the religion. You can still have national identity and maintain the customs of your peers without the need to believe in some sort of supernatural deity. The Atheist Jews do it and so can everyone else.

93. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5611 by Skeptic Jim on November 10, 2006 at 5:52 am

yep I sure did notice ;)

You know what I noticed even more? Is that Mr Dawkins didn't stoop to the low levels he could have when this info came to light. I can't imagine the creationists not making use of that kind of info against their enemies.