Comments by SRWB

Comment #182946 by SRWB on May 21, 2008 at 6:31 am

I thought mjr1007's attempts were more than just stating "you can't disprove my concept of god" - he at least tried to tie it to science and evidence (as he saw it), as his theory hinges on quantum mechanics and universal observers, etc. Now I remain unconvinced, but it became even more fun when Shrommer joined the debate and chastised us for not believing in Jesus and blah, blah, blah........

52. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182613 by SRWB on May 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Muhammad sure was a brilliant guy. Satan urinating in your ear... do you think he was completely retarded or only partially?

Maybe not brilliant, but nor was he retarded. I mean he struck upon one of the greatest means of control ever known - spin people a yarn, the more fantastic and unbelievable the better, and you'll have them under your complete and utter power for an eternity.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182528 by SRWB on May 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

MaxD

I await your apology to the norse gods.

Of course, what was I thinking?! The Norse (Germanic) gods are way cooler than old Yahweh. Besides, I don't think they were responsible for killing nearly so many of their faithful followers.

CoS vs Scientology - battle of the cults. What was it that Irate said........?

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182440 by SRWB on May 20, 2008 at 6:10 am

...life was created 6000 years ago on a Wednesday afternoon.

Never on a Wednesday, a day named after Wotan (Odin), who is just another lesser god, and is no longer widely worshipped.

55. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181870 by SRWB on May 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I wonder if Larry ever returned to the school as an adult and made his displeasure known. As a kid, I attended a nominally Catholic school (only because it was close by) where corporal punishment was no longer, if it ever was, de rigeur. But we had a particular prick of a teacher who enjoyed rapping his knuckles on some of our heads. While we were no "angels", I did not take kindly to this and after a while informed my father. He promptly paid a visit to said institution of learning and informed the principal that if anyone would rap knuckles on heads it would be him doing so. Miraculously, we were never touched again!

56. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181569 by SRWB on May 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm

DSGF,

Four comments already and not one of them worth a shit! What exactly are we "athies" "lapping up"? If anyone is lapping anything up, it's believers and all the drivel in the "Holy books". Are you one of those believers? If so, present a coherent argument for your belief in one of the hundreds of religions, or get lost.

57. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #181100 by SRWB on May 16, 2008 at 12:31 pm

You know the world is going insane when people get upset about a cartoon depiction of a mermaid, and a fairly poor one at that! I mean, who's ever seen a mermaid with two tails? What next? Is there a contest to see who can become outraged and offended by the most innocuous symbols going on?

58. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178016 by SRWB on May 10, 2008 at 8:50 am

Any comparison with Hitler automatically has the association with the holocaust and the war and implicates that the thing that is compared to Hitler leads to genocide etc.

And that is precisely the problem. It is not my intention to downplay the negative impact and downright evil actions that Hitler had on his time and place in history. However, I also think (and this may be unpopular with many) that the impact the man had is still being overblown to the point where his name is often invoked in the most ridiculous circumstances. Not every mere mention of Hitler should result in people going hysterical and demanding apologies for perceived slights. In a nutshell, I agree with Phil Rimmer's comment in #160 above.

59. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177989 by SRWB on May 10, 2008 at 7:01 am

Speaking for myself - of course it was obviously satire. I think the tone of most comments indicates that as well.

60. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177793 by SRWB on May 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Now that's more like it - the Cardinal's comments make eminently more sense in this version of his speech - direct and to the point!

61. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #177772 by SRWB on May 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm

JohnGalt,

You have made an argument that has been made umpteen times before. Dealing with theists is a slippery business, for they have many gambits with which to "refute" your points - they go something like this:
- "those people must have displeased God to be destroyed like that" (not so common, but we occasionally see it)
- "that's not MY God you're talking about, for MY God is a loving, kind god."
- "My God is far too mysterious, inexplicable and grand for us simple humans to understand" (usually accompanied by the "God works in mysterious ways" quote or something similarly inane)
- "God is outside time and space" (but he apparently intervenes on earth occasionally to help selected people, but not everyone and certainly not all the time)
- and failing any of those trite pronouncements, we inevitably get the "but Hitler and Stalin were atheists" dragged into the discussion.

And that's when you know the jig is up and the discussion is over. For evidence of this see the Catholic cardinal O'Connor's long-winded diatribe about nothing (kind of like the hit comedy "Seinfeld", which purported to be a show about nothing).

62. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177737 by SRWB on May 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Fides said

The Cardinal (speaking on behalf of millions of people whose faith Dawkins has made lots of money criticising) should not be given a platform to respond.

Now you're getting it. But seriously, he should be allowed to say anything he wants AS LONG AS HE IS PREPARED TO PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE. Clear enough? If he is not prepared to do so, he should be treated accordingly, i.e, ignored and relegated to the religious minor leagues like those who believe in Zeus, Janus and Odin.

63. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177452 by SRWB on May 9, 2008 at 5:52 am

Clevor Trevor,

Open up the Comment Posting Guideline window when you are posting a comment and follow the instructions.

Marie,

The clarity of theology...

The same guy also said that essentially God is unknowable and a mystery. So which is it? Oh yeah, theology certainly answers all the questions and "gives us an articulate intellectual expression". Where I come from we call that BS.

64. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177069 by SRWB on May 8, 2008 at 2:08 pm

This whole lecture seems to be just another instance of "Not my religion...."

Good point. But this is what I like to refer to as the cherrypicker gambit - how does one counter such thinking? If "God" is such a "mystery" and one who cannot "be spoken of comfortably and clearly by human beings" then the Cardinal has got a tiny problem. If that is so, how can he himself even deign to represent "God" or JC, or talk about their desires and wants of us mere humans? Just because he went to a seminary?

65. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177036 by SRWB on May 8, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Richard,

Such theistic drivel needs to be countered with logic and reality, and you're the man to do it.

66. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #176036 by SRWB on May 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm

And how exactly does that shit work?

Where does God get all these souls?

Does he pull 'em out of his pocket?

And where does he restock that pocket?

A supply closet?

Come on atheists. If God can create man out of dirt and women from ribs, surely making a soul is not too difficult. Presumably he could use tapioca pudding or even some of last night's left over apple crumble. You just have to have faith that it is possible.

67. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175885 by SRWB on May 6, 2008 at 7:47 am

Did anyone catch the news program on Sunday morning (see http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/) wherein a woman living in Toronto claimed (seriously) that she was saved from demonic possesion due to the efforts of a local priest who performed an exorcism. Even one of the priests interviewed for the story had difficulty controlling his smiles!

68. Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

Comment #169591 by SRWB on April 26, 2008 at 11:26 am

This fascination with faith and religion in the US military is not unheard of at all, unfortunately. The US military has a well-deserved reputation for ramming this stuff down their members' throats. Thankfully we don't have the same experience in the Canadian military, although we still have a chaplain's branch which has some influence. But by and large, faith is a personal matter and not one endorsed by the military hierarchy as a rule - there are exceptions of course.

69. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169574 by SRWB on April 26, 2008 at 10:24 am

God only has a problem with Egyptians, Midianites, Philistines, assorted others and of course his own people (except Noah). Oh yes, he's the greatest "lover" of all times!

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169116 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Where did all these wankers suddenly come from??

There's a shortage of rooms and beds at the JC Home for the Theologically Insane, so they are rampaging through cyberspace!

If boxing gloves are designed to protect a boxer's head,...

And one of them can't read worth shit either........

71. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169086 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm

What does f**kwit mean?

Oh come on, be a MAN and spell it out! And you have the cheek to ask whether al-rawandi is a man? You are an oxygen thief and a waste of rations!

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169069 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm

I don't know about the rest of you, but Tweedledum (R) and Tweedledummer (TTID) almost make me wish Wee Flea would come along to help out.

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169024 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

He is just trying to avoid the flood question by digressing.

Wouldn't you if you too were a bullshit artist? Remnant hasn't got any evidence remember, just complete faith in an "infallible" book written 2000 years ago (give or take a few centuries). I mean it's perfectly logical that just one man and his family (Gen 6-9, "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations") were worthy of being saved. Ironically, no one else was. It's also completely understandable that they were therefore deserving of being wiped out by such a loving God (you know the same one who was omniscient, but for some reason missed all the signs that man would be wicked until it was too late, and he was forced to act in such an extreme manner).

74. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168996 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 1:58 pm

This whole "secular left-religious right" is a bit off the mark and not entirely accurate. For example, people can be secular, atheistic and yet still vote for conservatives and republicans. By the same token, liberals don't vote unanimously for the atheists and socialists. Most people just can't be pigonholed like that. Politics is too complicated and many-faceted. Some prefer fiscal conservatism and social liberalism for example Some would like to impose theocratic values.

When was that flood again?

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168817 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 11:25 am

riandouglas,

Surely to qualify for that title, Remnant would have to actually be, in some small way, you know, convincing?

I apologize if I, in any way, came across as suggesting that remnant was in any way even remotely convincing! I meant only that he is trying his damndest (oops, is that cursing?) to convert us and save us from eternal damnation (another curse?), without much luck. Which is a bit of a mystery, for I would think that such a wise servant of God would have all the answers, to say nothing of the complete support and assistance of the Jehovah himself in completeing this task! Unless remnant is worshipping the wrong god?!

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168796 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 11:07 am

This is called fighting fire with fire.

I prefer to think of it more as a rather infantile response to an infantile poster, but one brought on by mounting frustration! I think we have all been very patient with our new found cake-baking, half-baked, saver of souls.

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168763 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 10:38 am

As you clearly put on display.

I know you are, but what am I?

But seriously, when are you going to answer some questions which have been posed to you? I too would like to see you expose your children to this site (assuming they are old enough to understand). Put your money where your mouth is. Oh, and has been pointed out (Anna said it well), atheists too devote time and money to charitable causes.

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168721 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 10:09 am

Remnant, male or female?

Does it matter? Delusion has no gender; neither does being an asshole.

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168514 by SRWB on April 25, 2008 at 7:18 am

Remnant,

I bet you wish that you had the power of some of the past icons of your faith, like Nero, Decius, Stalin, Mao, etc.

More drivel spewing out of your deluded mind.

I was right earlier. While it was only a hypothesis that you are an asshole, it's now been proven as fact.

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167978 by SRWB on April 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Sympathy does not change truth.

Neither does wishful thinking.

In addition, I was not referring to a specific drunk, I was referring to a hypothetical drunk. Sympathy would be appropriate for a real drunk, not for a hypothetical one used to relate a point.

Ahh, more christian hairsplitting! I can only conclude that you are an asshole - hypothetically of course.

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167955 by SRWB on April 24, 2008 at 12:44 pm

We have God's entire, complete, revealed Word, something they did not have. Are you starting to understand yet?

I understand all right, but I think you are in error. Humans have been around for some 100000 years. Why did it take so long for God's "entire, complete, ... Word" to be revealed to a small tribe of goatherders in the Middle East? Why not to some other more powerful civilization like the Romans, for example. They would have been in a much better position to ensure the "word" was spread throughout the empire - unfortunately that still doesn't do much for getting the message to the rest of the world.

God reveals Himself in His creation in many ways, in the language of DNS, the complexity of the cell. In the physical laws, in the miracle of life, to name just a few.

Name some more that couldn't possibly exist naturally. But now that you have posited these "truths", explain to us how God did all this. If you cannot, how can you be sure?

It is musing the lengths science will go to avoid a Creator. It reminds me of a drunk as he is polishing off the last of his daily ration of two six packs while claiming, "I don't have a drinking problem, I just like the taste of beer."

No, what is "(a)musing" is the lengths cretinists like you will go to to avoid seeing the obvious. Furthermore, I would think a man of Christ like yourself would feel a little sympathy for the "drunk".

82. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167806 by SRWB on April 24, 2008 at 10:44 am

Your question reveals that you do not understand the culture during Biblical times or the Bible. During those times, people required a sign to confirm the truth of a prophet. God confirmed the truth of what they were teaching through signs and miracles just as he did in the Old Testament and in Jesus Christ.

Oh boy that's rich! Do you think people today are any different in that we don't require signs "to
confirm the truth of a prophet." Have you ever wondered why the world has not seen another "bonafide" prophet since JC (barring Mohammed, but that would call into question your religious convictions, wouldn't it?)? Why haven't we "sinners" been visited by God or one of his progeny again? Aren't we as worthy as the people in the middle east were between 1400-2000 years ago? And why specifically there? Why not in China or in the Americas?

83. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167515 by SRWB on April 24, 2008 at 6:00 am

Religion is the manual and handbook of humans if some they interpret it wrongly, that does not mean that God does not exist. If you take it wrong and fail to interpret it according to the time an circumstances, it has nothing to do with religion and accordingly evolution delusion.

So it's all about the interpretation of an old book "according to the time an(d) circumstances"? Funny, that's what many of us have been saying for a long time! The "book" (actually collection of stories) may have made sense 3000 years ago in a tribal society vying for its very existence among other like minded societies, but much of what it contains has come to be shown as superstitious nonsense which no longer (if it ever) applies to human groups.

Philip,
"Eloquence"?! Like this gem.....

Your attempts are like the same as a little boy whose delusional toy is proved that it is delusional, having frustrated, attacking on real toys of other kids who are unable to use their toys properly and they damaged them.

You are too kind :-)

84. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166875 by SRWB on April 23, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Like I have said, feel free to use your God given free will to believe what ever you want, but be willing to accept the consequences of that decision.

And what exactly would such "consequences" be? How do you know? Have you spoken to someone who has been to heaven or hell (presumably this is what you refer to)? If so are you still in contact with them? Or did you get all your information out of a book which has been shown to be, at least partly, fallacious and downright wrong?

I believe you are a creationist. In which case I ask you this - where does your family come from? Are you descended from Noah's family? Presumably, you (and the rest of us) must all be descended from one couple via the middle east and then throughout the rest of the world. Now according to the Bible that has happened not once but twice. Think about it. Is it possible?

85. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165392 by SRWB on April 21, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I spent 20 years serving my country, facing off against people who want to destroy this world.

Congratulations - many others also serve. But your comment is a wonderful non-sequitur. What exactly has your military service got to do with the veracity of creationist claims? How is your 20 years of service at all relevant as to whether God and Jesus exist?

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164116 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Do you have a picture of Stalin or mo tattooed on you are?

Who's "mo"? Another famous atheist or communist? And what's an "are"?

You just drink the Kool-aid and have blind FAITH in the priests of your false religion.

I can't speak for Epeeist, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who likes koolaid, as it's sweet, artificial crap just like your ideas on God and creation. Oh and for the thousandth time atheism is NOT A RELIGION, numbnuts! Where's Irate when we need him?

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164069 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Just came back from a trip to Europe. The area I was visiting abounded with rabbits. There I saw a baby rabbit with it's eyes picked out, probably by ravens or other such bird - the remainder of it was virtually untouched! So I suppose that was part of God's plan as well.

88. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164062 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Lying is acceptable under your moralistic world view, even desirable,...

To quote Steve Z - piffle! You have no idea what is desirable under our world view. I think I speak for Billy and the others in saying that lying is in no way part of an atheistic worldview, whatever that might be. Most of us would argue that lying is wrong because it makes one untrustworthy and unreliable, and not because it violates your "God's moral standard". But that doesn't mean we don't all do it consciously and sub-consciously.

if someone gained some kind of an advantage over another person by lying, this would be a desirable trait for survival through the filter of "natural selection". According to your worldview, this would be desirable as a survivability trait.

Where did you get this idea? Of course, the irony is that people, even you, probably lie every day for numerous reasons, good and bad, i.e., to avoid hurting feelings, to avoid uncomfortable situations, and even to hide crimes and embarassing situations. So is lying always bad?

89. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163846 by SRWB on April 19, 2008 at 7:00 am

Keith,

Ouch! Remnant's analogy really is scraping up remnants of the same old tired argument. Remind me who is the desperate one?

90. Flea of the week

Comment #163515 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 12:50 pm

all the works of science are outweighed by the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who believed that all the world's species lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

What's your point? I mean, these "cattle-sacrificing primitives", as you called them, were there when all these world-changing events were happening, weren't they? Are you telling us that none of what is written is true?! Surely we should trust their completely objective motives in all this. And isn't it possible that all the world's species could have lived within walking distance of Noah's house. After all, he only needed two of each, not all of them.

91. Flea of the week

Comment #163503 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I think what we need is a(nother) book written by God to settle this once and for all! I'm surprised that one of these fleas simply hasn't been able to whisper into His ear to get him to do that and make this whole silly argument go away.

92. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163334 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 8:00 am

Another thing Muslims don't like to talk about is the "young boys" of "handsome eyes" that also reside in paradise, and are there to serve their man masters. Pederasty in the hereafter.

Sounds like equal opportunity delusion, never mind that it is simply wrong and corrupt!

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163326 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 7:46 am

I think that is simplistic.

That may be so, but the comment wasn't about what children (specifically) believe. It was in relation to the Xian premise, i.e, the basic question "why are we here?".

Seeing we are on the "childhood indoctrination" issue again, I basically agree that the issue has the potential to be overblown and that not all religious teachings are child abuse (not that Dawkins or anyone else has said it was/is - but he has been misquoted and his views distorted). But it is also a matter of degree - teaching children about a loving God and Jesus is on par with stories about Santa and Easter bunnies - it's hardly child abuse. But the line is crossed when concepts like Hell houses, etc., are introduced into the mix.

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163311 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 7:21 am

That is why suicide bombers wrap their genitals in wet towels. So they will be fresh and ready for the virgin-fest.

Is this true? If so, how bizarre. I've always wondered why 72? Is this number symbolic of something? And is there a never-ending supply of virgins, as once one has been deflowered, she's no longer a virgin. Or are these 72 girls miraculously "re-virginized" repeatedly to get ready for the next ascendants?

Looks like the standard christian purpose of existence. You behave well in this life and get your reward in the next.

That's what it all boils down to in the end for these people. They simply cannot accept that we (all life) are here for no other reason than the fact that our parents/ancestors reproduced. Why does there need to be a purpose? If you need a purpose, why not just behave in such a manner so that you will be remembered as a good person by your descendants and friends. Is that not enough?

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162749 by SRWB on April 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

How do you measure Love, how subjective is it?

I agree that love is very subjective. Do you love your wife in the same way, and for the same reasons, that you love your parents? Have you ever loved someone and then changed your mind - love depends on many factors. It is also not necessarily unconditional or forever.

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162688 by SRWB on April 17, 2008 at 8:54 am

Vaal,

Well said. I tend to agree with all your comments. Love is an overused word, which has become a trite and hackneyed expression of fake emotion. I love my family, but I do not love or even care for most people (I don't even know most of them!). However, as a human, I can feel emotion and respect for some people, close friends for example, and other acquaintances. I can even have emotional bonds with some animals.

97. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151213 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 9:16 am

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently. these are two different classes of questions and not surprisingly would have different standards for answers

Why would/should "certainty" be on a sliding scale, dependant upon the type of question being asked? If one allows that, then the issue is wide open and all bets are off. Anyone can then be "certain" about anything they believe. Is that useful?

98. Fleabytes

Comment #151192 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 8:52 am

I can't BELIEVE some people can be so insensitive as to not appreciate the differences in cultural humour.

Funny is funny, no matter what cultures one is imbued with. I find some German stuff funny but I also enjoy Brit, US and Canadian humor as well. It's often about language nuances, etc.

99. Fleabytes

Comment #151137 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 7:37 am

I always found it strange that humans were supposedly made in the "image" of YHWH who is supposedly perfect, yet humans are not perfect?

Yes, this too has always mystified me. But of course, the fact that we, God's creation, are not perfect kind of blows that whole myth right out of the water. Now the theologians and faithful might tell you that we were perfect until Eve ate that apple (forbidden fruit). So was she perfect, if she erred by not following simple instructions? That is a bit if a conundrum.

100. Fleabytes

Comment #151085 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 6:22 am

In my youth beer was our god.

So now you're an a-beer-ist as well?! Does that mean you no longer seriously "worship" beer daily? Do you just pay lip service and "worship" on the weekends, like most people?
Off to Germany next week (via five days in Paris first). So I'll be imbibing some of the finest brews on the planet. Cheers.