1101. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27275 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:08 pm

The brave men you mention, and I have to say you have some gall indeed to bring them up in this context, were the vangaurd that shattered the hold the church had on mens minds.

Why else do we see such a fierce backlash against science in fundamentalist circles? Because they realise, belatedly thank goodness, that reason is their enemy. Of course the church has always been basically aware of this, hence the meme of "faith" and Luthers injunction to "put out the eyes of reason".

So that old carnard gets trotted out as usual:-) Where do our fancy morals come from? What is the meaning of life? WHY???

Grow up already, find your own meaning and stop trying to pin your existence to a foundation which is simply absent. We'll find our own way, with the ethical grammer evolution has built into us, and the application of these handy brains to overcome our baser instincts. Or maybe we won't. It's a crapshoot. In any event a book that encourages murder for non existent "crimes", genocide and slavery is not going to be much use to us.

Interesting choice of scripture, you really are whipped and spineless aren'tcha?

2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Why? Because he'll kill me if I don't? Or he'll kill my family? Or torture me in hell for eternity? Gee ... I see the light now Jesus.

Here are a few other choice cuts of biblical morality.

Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
(Shit! Can you say Orwell?)

Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

1 Samuel 6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.
(Really, the whole alien technology run amok idea makes waaaay more sense)

2 Samuel 24:14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.
24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.


Care to refer me to some more scripture? I've got lots of fun verses to share. Want to take a stab at justifying any of this toxic stuff? I could really use a laugh.

1102. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27258 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm

On the other hand God does explain because as acknowledged by Dawkins living organisms give every appearance of having been designed by an intelligence. Therefore the creator hypothesis is a perfect fit with the facts.

Except the creator hypothesis breaks down completely and spirals into infinite regress with the question where did the creator come from. C'mon this is 101 stuff. If you are going to say God always existed, you might just as well say the universe always existed. An eternal simple universe, trumps an eternal complex God everytime and you loose.

Evolution, barring a few critical "gaps" explains the development of life on earth perfectly. Not only that, it can be directly observed happening today, and the shifting web of change and interrelationship can be observed in the DNA of every creature on the planet. Cosmology, barring a few critical gaps explains the origin of the universe perfectly.

My how the mighty have fallen!!! God (and a God absent any defining characteristics) is relegated to just before the big bang, Abiogenesis and maybe the Cambrian Explosion. Thats it, science has the rest covered thanks.

Start to add some detail to our hypotetical God, and you are really in trouble. Start talking about virgin births, winged horses or resurrection and you are utterly screwed, so why bother positing this vague amorphous, undefined, completely lacking explanatory power, creature at all?

1103. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27251 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Only "millions", old chap? You're still a long way short with those.

Yeah, but I think we'll get there:-) If we do, will you change your mind, or the goalposts?

1104. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27249 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Can I prove it? Of course not.

Thats the critical point. You can't prove it and the onus is on you to do so. Not only that, but you are also saddled with 400 years of gradual retreat on every front that the religious have chosen to engage science, nothwithstanding an almost unassailable initial position. Not a terribly compelling track record is it? Keep it up, you're making the case:-)

Why on earth should I embrace an endevour that has spent the last 6000 years encouraging humans to kill each other for invented crimes, enslave other humans and treat women and children like chattle?

Especially when I have an alternative that has spent a mere 400 hundreds years explaining stuff our ancestors, heck even guys like Darwin could not have dreamed of.

I'd be mad to take the first option, and yet this is exactly what every religious person does. Frankly it disgust me, this mewling subservience to an invisible deity. If the tyrannical christian God existed, we should kill him for attempting to enslave the human race. It's species treason is what it is, grow a spine for goodness sake, EVOLVE already:-)

1105. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27240 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Still 100/250 extrasolar planets is a long way short of the billions of billions of "roughly suitable planets" required for life nevermind the myriad of other universes.

Oh Rubbish, and you must surely know it:-) We have only surveyed a tiny number of stars, and can only detect planets above a certain size. What we have is overwhelming statistical evidence that millions of planets exist.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061004-new-planets_2.html

But hey, don't take my word for it. Give it another decade and we'll be directly imaging earthlike worlds.

1106. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27237 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Nice link Janus. I see I'm behind the times, 215 extrasolar planets, and counting:-)

How would we test the existence of another universe outside of our own 3-dimensional space,time,matter continuum even "in principle"?

No idea, why don't you look it up? I'll grant you it's a wild speculation, little better than an "I don't know", but man, it's a millions times better than the weak, mealy mouted cop out that "Magic man done it" represents. Not to mention the utter dishonesty of claiming that you "know" that "God did it".

Whats your position GG, do you "know" that "God did it"? Or are just like the rest of us, and simply don't know? As the great prophet Sagan said, "sometimes it's ok to say you don't know".

If you are in the don't really know camp, then you are in direct violation of Christianity and Islam, just for starters. Better get that barbecue going .....

1107. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27232 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Prof Dawkins referred to billions and billions of "roughly suitable planets" ie "roughly suitable" for life. Do you claim they've been observed and are scientific fact? If so, where have these discoveries been reported?

The solar system has at least 4 separate habitats where life could thrive, we know of at least one of these does have life.

We know of at least 100 extrasolar planets, all incidentally discovered in the last 12 years. Getting nervous? It's a sound extrapolation from these datapoints to posit that planets that can support life are common in the universe, certainly a vastly more tenable posit than the evidence free God hypothesis:-)

Gotta love the theists that ask specific questions, because eventually, they actually get answered:-)

1108. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26463 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 19, 2007 at 1:03 pm

I do question why believers torment themselves with these self-imposed disciplines…. but I must say, I know a few "non-believers" who also self-impose some "moral code of conduct"…. Hey, whatever floats your boat….. just don't try to tell me you are any less "delusional".

What exactly is the problem with choosing to behave in a moral way? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Atheism and Theism are equally delusional positions? Help me out.

1109. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26407 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 19, 2007 at 6:38 am

We may not have it as bad as our American friends but irrational superstitious decisions are still being made by those in Government here.

The truth is that we, as 2nd class global citizens, are at risk. If you are not an american, your voice is simply not being heard, we have been disenfranchised.

The root of this evil is the american republican party. I have been following these creatures for some time now, and there is nothing like it anywhere in the rest of the world. The level of devious, disingenous misrepresentation and disinformation they engage in, is of a scale unseen in the world to date. They are the source, the veritable heart of the darkness of the wave of irrationality that is sweeping the western world.

WMD in Iraq, stem cell research, rational abortion policy, HPV vaccine, disarmament, aids prevention, evolution, global warming ... the list is very, very long, these are just a few of the headlines. In almost every case, american republicans resist and are against the rational, data supported positions.

They are the single biggest problem we have today, because they stand on the wrong side of all the problems that threaten us.

1110. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26369 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 19, 2007 at 12:37 am

As always, theists must write pages of obscure anecdote and convoluted apologetics to defend their position.

Ours is simply this. Take a look at the world. Does an omnipotent, omnibenevolent (if words are to convey particular meaning) God fit the facts?

Take a step back, how about there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God? Is that a better fit?

Have I advanced the case? Yes, I have logically excluded the omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

Do I know where the universe came from or why we are here, or if there is some kind of powerful, yet undefined being peering over my shoulder? No, but neither do the theists.

1111. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #26044 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 16, 2007 at 8:08 am

You mentioned the Chinese. A lot of the reason for their "coming on board" is more to do with domestic issues.

I totally agree. My point is the log jam of the developing world refusing to get on board, until they get preferential treatment, is beginning to break up.

The bottom line is this. Your average guy in the street needs to be plugged into the summaries of what is going on, and where these advise action, taking it.

The only reason we are having these discussons is because they have been politicised within the US. Practically every other country has majorities of the public in favour of action. When you consider the science community it is an overwhelming majority.

So why shit in the pool, especially now where some momentum is finally building? Unless you are a climate scientist with your own peer reviewed findings that support a particular controversial view, why regurgitate oil/coal/gas industry propaganda? How could anyone take a study funded by anyone like this seriously?It's exactly like the studies by tobacco companies to refute the link to cancer.

It amazes and frustrates me to see otherwise intelligent people falling for the same strategy. The republicans are a cancer on the face of the Earth, and I'm not even an american!!! These diabolical fuckers are single handedly responsible for almost all the disinformation in the world. From GW denial to the Discovery Institue, these black hearted assholes are busy spreading confusion.

After Iraq, surely only an idiot could now credit anyone remotely associated with them, with any credibility at all? Sheesh ....

1112. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25977 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Quetzalcoatl : Essentially the West is saying, we did this, and got rich off it. But we won't let you do the same, because you might destroy the environment. It makes me sick, and it should anyone else.

This I can agree with, the developed world should carry the bulk of the burden. Nonetheless,the consensus is still what it is, we still need to act and it looks like the Chinese now have so many problems, that they are getting on board despite the wests selfishness.

(I daresay others will be able to come up with competing links against the pro-human-agent side, ....)

Except the humans are causing GW side has the overwhelming support of the scientific community. Whats a rational lay person to do? Stay reasonably informed and act on the consensus. Exercise, take vitamin C, drink an occasional glass of red wine and use less energy.

I must respectfully disagree and pose the question, why waste all the time and resources on it untill it is proven one way or the other?
Appreciate you tuning down the volume, and I acknowledge that I got this particular party started:-)

Here's the thing, nothing is ever fully proven. I wonder if you haven't used this same argument when banging heads with some theist? Some things are simply more proven than others. I never actually said GW was proven to the same degree as evolution what I said was a) The scientific consensus, while not on a par with that on evolution, is nonetheless overwhelming and consistent.

I think that is pretty indisputable. Sure you can find people in the relevant field to disagree, but every single one I've looked up has ties back to the oil industry, or is a non-entity trying to make a name for themselves. Besides, they are simply a vocal minority, they are welcome to their views, but we aren't obliged to pay them a blind bit of notice until they convince a critical mass of their peers. Otherwise, why are you not investigating every nuance of "intelligent design"? We see the "same shit different subject" in the evolution debate.

Yet, the great thing about science, is that even with agendas, personal vendettas and human nature, the truth will eventually out. If these guys are right, the evidence will become too overwhelming too ignore. Thats the waiting game we need to play. In the meantime, we need to act on the very significant evidence we have.

As I noted earlier, the odds of real catastrophe in our lifetimes (50 year timeframe) are what I call space shuttle odds. Now I'd love to fly on the space shuttle, but would I do it without life insurance, or without putting my affairs in order first? Course not, thats just stupid.

Finally what expense are you alluding too? We need replacement energy sources anyway, if the much touted "global cooling" occurs, we'll still need alternate energy sources. The costs are in any event hopelessly overblown. Some companies will go bust, others will prosper. Some indivduals will loose their jobs, some will move to new ones. All in all, the level of employment is likely to increase if we come to the conclusion we need new vehicles, power stations and new technologies.

Consider that the US spent 5 years manufacturing stuff expressly for the purpose of flying it half way around the world to blow it up, and came out of that pointless exercise richer than when they went in. WWII, remember that? We need to treat this the same way.

1113. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25864 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 1:46 pm

How the fuck did you draw that conclusion?

... wouldn't it be logical to conclude that nature has selected us (humans) as the vehicle to bring about climate change?

... as nature has selected.

I mean what else could one conclude? You think nature "selects" and chooses "vehicles", you think that nature wants to "bring about" climate change. Do you actually speak English, as a native tounge? I mean you might be writing in Latvian and running your "prose" through a shitty online translator or something. That would get you off the hook by the way, but really, the only one not seeing this is you.

Jesus!! You wrote this tripe, not me!!! Do you generally have no idea what you're saying, or is it just this evening?

I don't know about your care gene, but "nature" certainly seems have short changed you a pair of frontal lobes. What a bitch, after all your loyal worship!!!

Heres the deal. If we don't get this climate thing in check, there are good odds (not amazing odds, but certainly space shuttle odds) that things could get very squiffy in our actual lifetimes. So if you don't give a shit about anyone else, at least try and summon up the morsel of sense required to care about yourself.

As to your comments on meaning, I'd be interested to hear your views on what you consider "true" meaning. I'm sure we could all use a good laugh:-)

1114. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25855 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Don't bring peoples' weight or sexual orientation into the argument please! ;-)

I apologise unreservedly to fat lesbians the world over, around the globe as it where. I meant no offense:-)

1115. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25851 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 12:56 pm

38. Comment #25843 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm

brian coughlan and kniggit whats with the knives at each others throats, chill out!

He deserves everything he gets. Quoting known shills when the overwhelming consensus is that urgent action is required.

I'm sick of having to have the same damn conversation with these idiots, and really, the ones that claim to be rational have no excuse whatever. Unless they plan to revisit every paper and every claim, the rational response is to stay in the loop, accept the consensus position, and act on it. Anything else is just shitting in the pool to sound clever. Well guess what, no one likes a turd. So sue me, it's a free planet:-)

1116. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25849 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm

wouldn't it be logical to conclude that nature has selected us (humans) as the vehicle to bring about climate change?

There is nothing logical about what you are saying here, you are clearly attributing intent and design to nature, as well as expecting that we should somehow accept the "will" of nature and go with the flow. Overt theistic language and of course utter bullshit. We are not in any sense obliged to enslave ourselves to nature, or the criminals of the Bible and Koran.

Reacting to climate change is just a more dramatic variation of co-operating to build a shelter, dam a river or erect massive dykes to push back the sea. Similarly it's a modest effort in comparison to rerouting a killer asteroid, shielding the earth from supernova fallout and protecting the solar system from black holes. It's what humans DO. We co-operate when it's in our interest, and other than a few million rich assholes, this is in our interest. So lets get on with it.

It's not scary to me…. We come, we go and the only meaning there is, is what we fashion ourselves. Either you're a liar or not terribly bright if that isn't generating an emotion at least partially laced with fear.

And why should I care if you have a kid? I don't expect you to care, but I care. I'm genetically predisposed to care, it's a motivation you fuckwit. I obviously want my daughter to live in a stable world, where she can have some modicum of happiness and material comfort. A climate gone mad doesn't strike me as facilitating those modest goals. Are you always this dense, or just being obtuse?

... and acknowledge that life is completely absurd.

Thats a bit rich coming from a godbot!!! Besides, it's only absurd if you are crazy enough to have a sense of proportion about your place in the universe. Raising kids, being good to your wife, work, sex, youtube and bittorrent deliver plenty of meaning and challenge to keep us occupied, until we ... you know ... die.

1117. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25838 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 11:48 am

Nature is not a God you idiot, and doing something is (in my mind anyway) based on enlightened self interest, plus I have a kid.

You don't need any more morality than that.

You're having trouble understanding it, because you're trying to find meaning where none exists, except the meaning you assign.

This is the biggest hurdle for theists to get over, life is pointless, the universe really doesn't give a shit. It's up to you to muddle through yourself. Scary huh?

1118. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25831 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 11:06 am

Well kniggit you certainly are a persistent asshole, lets give you that:-)

I'm sceptical because everytime someone provides an actual name, an actual scientist in the relevant field, I look it up in source watch and they are a shill, or a 4th rate nonentity, and frequently both. So you'll forgive my annoyed tone. Dr. Ball ?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Look the rest of them up yourself, I may be your intellectual superior, but I have zero interest in being your mentor you lazy fuck:-)

Have a nice day.

1119. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25762 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 4:00 am

So can I respectfully suggest you smell your own coffee and check they havent put dusted bullshit instead of chocolate on your frothy milk...

LOL .... touch a nerve did I? You are a prick of course, a disingenous prick at that, given that the clear implication of sitting doing nothing because some oil industry shills are not "convinced", means a reduction of funding for renewables and other alternatives.

The case for global warming, evolution and the heliocentric universe has been made kniggit. We now need take action, and retrograde assholes like yourself need to be countered with verbal savagery, as your "confusion" and "honest questioning" represents a danger to anyone under the age of 60. So yeah, you are a prick, and you should be ashamed of yourself to boot for promoting this crap.

1120. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25400 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 12, 2007 at 11:46 pm

kniggit, I can't speak for the others, but I'm sufficiently well informed to be confident that the science on this issue is sound.

a) The scientific consensus, while not on a par with that on evolution, is nonetheless overwhelming and consistent.

b) The consensus that oil is running out is almost universal, with some minor disagreement on the timing, disagreements that amount to mere decades.

c) What is the downside of developing economically sound renewable sources of energy? Even in the event of 95% of the scientific community being so wrong, that we plunge into an ice age, we'll need even more energy!!

Sounds to me that you are the one on the lunatic fringe in this discussion. Simply muddling along as we have, is the worst possible option, even if we accept whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense you're peddling at face value.

Wake up and smell the coffee, and at least get out of the way if you're not going to help. Prick.

1121. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25350 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 12, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Here is another slightly off topic, but very amusing clip for my fellow atheists:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-er9FqhYA

1122. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24970 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Finally .... nationalism is religion. Dogma is religion, you don't get off the hook for your irrational kak by pointing out otherirrational kak!!!!!

So pissed this evening!!!

1123. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24969 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 9, 2007 at 2:39 pm

What weak minded drivel .... it's not God. it's us. Hello???? God created us you utter fuckwit!!!! Not only did he create us, but he did so in the full foreknowledge of what a cluster fuck things would turn out to be. And this is a good God?

AAARGH ... it is such self evident nonsense from start to finish.

1124. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24965 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 9, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Always the same bullshit!!!! The worst of sceince? Sceince doesn't claim to be an enterprise promoted and inspired by the omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. So yeah ... sometimes we screw up. What's religions excuse?

1125. The God Delusion

Comment #21809 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 11, 2007 at 6:19 am

Secular countries, tending to be richer anyway will have larger aid budgets anyway

No, no you can't weasle your way out of this. Per Capita friend, per capita. Look it up.

1126. The God Delusion

Comment #21805 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 11, 2007 at 6:17 am

Christians give because in thir opinion it glorifies God and shows love not to have a better chance at the Pearly Gates- do not dop such a diservice to the literally thousands of christians who work everyday for the betterment of mankind.

Really? So why the carrot or the stick? If neither is required for motivation, who do they occupy the core of all the major monotheistic religions?

Besides, good intent is hardly sufficient, if the outcomes are harm, all the good will in the world isn't worth a damn.

1127. The God Delusion

Comment #21802 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 11, 2007 at 6:13 am

2000 years of providing compared to the spending of possibly ill-gotten gains by Gates. Ill-gotten in that his methods cannot strictly be described as moral now can they?

Yeah ..... 2000 years of burning heretics and witches, as well as keeping humanity in the dark with regard to just about everything?

Sure, Gates "ill gotten", 20 billion, robbed from millions of software starved americans and europeans, won't make a dent:-)

1128. The God Delusion

Comment #21796 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 11, 2007 at 6:00 am

perhaps secularism makes people stop worrying about others?

On the contrary, the most secular states are the ones with the highest per capita aid budgets, and the most religious are those with the lowest.

Also the world foremost philantropists, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are both atheists. So it's a little disingenous to make the claims you do. Give it a little time and atheists like Gates will eclipse the "good works" of the churches.

1129. The God Delusion

Comment #21787 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 11, 2007 at 5:28 am

Fortuna, the number of schools in Africa funded by the catholic church is part of the problem, not an act of altruisim to be lauded.

They do this to spread their noxious brand of theisim. As the jesuits said, "give me the boy for 7 years, and I'll give you the man". At best they can be given kudos for their forward thinking, but not for their altruisim.

In the meantime, these "schools" contribute to a growing genocide in Africa by insisting on abstinence (in the teeth of our most powerful urges) and suppressing the use, provision and understanding of condoms. This is genocidal stupidity (ok yes I've read Sam Harris).

Theology IS nonsense, plain and simple. It has yeilded exactly nothing about the nature of god, and precious little about the nature of humans in the last 6000 years, why should we expect this to change or improve?

I just recently read of an MRI scanner that can predict with 70% accuracy the intent of the mind being scanned. The designers are concerened that as it becomes more accurate and more powerful, that it might be abused. They expect increasing accuracy in years, not decades.

Do you think theology could have delivered that result, a machine that actually can read the human mind? Not in a million years.

In the last 100 years we have developed a plethora of disciplines and instruments to plumb the depths of the human psyche, that trend is simply going to accelerate, and personally, I'm looking forward to the trip.

God can run, but he can't hide:-) Eventually we will turn over the last rock, damn I'd love to be around to see what is under it!!!!!

1130. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21573 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 10, 2007 at 12:59 am

Seems like Andrew is getting a savaging. Mind you, I've being doing skypecasts on atheism, and I have met a truly moderate and charming muslim. Really, I've asked him probing and tough questions and he comes up with the whole nebulous attenuated version of God, and he is very concerned about wahabbists, claiming they are violating the principles of Islam.

Chalk up a score for dialouge to knock our prejudices on the the head:-)

However, I will not be worshiping allah just yet:-)

1131. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21571 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 10, 2007 at 12:53 am

I've commented on the Cult of personality that has been constructed around RD before. It IS a problem, and a curious and ironic one for atheists to face.

However, the responses to mcGrath are not about "Dawkins Worship". McGrath relentlessly, and surely deliberatley, distorts and misrepresents what RD has said and written, and these people claim their "faith" makes them more moral!!! McGrath's comments here and thousands of years of history give the lie to that nonsense.

Thanks Janus for your analysis, cuts through the crap like a laser:-)

Lets keep this "Dawkins Worship" in the forefront though, worship of a human is just a mutated version of the religious impulse. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ... heck George Bush!!! I think RD is great, but lets always treat his utterances with the same critical analysis we would any other.

1132. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21309 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 8, 2007 at 3:44 pm

and the counterpoint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

1133. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21188 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 7, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Nice response Gordon. Look forward to seeing you as prime minister one of these days:-)

1134. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21185 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 7, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Wow!!! Great to see what a furore this has caused!!! Lets face it, Dawkins has really got a movement going. A few years ago, I would never have even seen this piece, most American Atheists would have been annoyed if they'd seen it on TV, but in their isolation done nothing.

I myself have written to both CNN and Karen Hunter. It is almost certain that I would have done nothing a year ago.

The fact that we have these kinds of issues concentrated and focused is already having an effect, fantastic. Well done Professor Dawkins, well done!!!

Just sent this off to professor hunter :

Hi Karen!

I saw your comments on CNN online and was simply appalled. I am not american, and you did a fine job of shredding what little respect I have left for your nation. With bigoted views like yours expressed with hardly a protest (well that guy Smith was trying, kudos) is it any wonder that your country is in the catastrophic state that it is?

You noted that you yourself are a christian, as if this was a surprise:-) As a black woman growing up in the US it must surely be clear to you, that the odds of you being a Hindu are vanishingly small? Is it not breathtakingly obvious that your "religion" is pure cultural osmosis? Look around the world Karen, 99% of people embrace the religion of their cultural milieu, to imagine that it represents a connection to the creator of the universe is truly delusional.

I consider myself fortunate to be a "de-programmed" christian. We need to shout all the louder to eliminate religion from society, and even criminalise some of it's more odious characteristics. Certainly, the brain washing of children from an early age requires investigation, and should be a minimum starting point

Let me make a final point. Atheism is actually the default position, you yourself are an Atheist about every god but your own. Some of us just go one god further.

Try and strike some modicum of balance in your comments next time. Hmmm?

1135. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20754 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 6, 2007 at 9:27 am

Let me close with a final thought. I do not want to live an unexamined faith. I want to question and poke and prod, to doubt like Saint Thomas—but, in the presence of convincing evidence, to fall with Thomas to my knees, and be thankful.

Well certainly if Jesus where to make a personal appearance, it would help, but he generally tends not to. Bummer.

I also think that all the lovely things mentioned by the author are trumped by the sight of a single starving child in the Sudan, too weak to swat away the flies. Would that there were only one.

God if he exists should be fired as a seriously incompetent ASSHOLE of the first order. It really is a kind of slave mentality, on the order of the severely abused child, that would WORSHIP, that could LOVE such tyranny.

1136. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19606 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 28, 2007 at 9:54 pm

"Once you remove a cancerous body, what moves into the vacuum? In healthy bodies it is normal, healthy tissue."

Uh ... no ... fonex_86, nationalisim, is simply religion where the object of worship and veneration is visible. The worship of idols is the direct religious connection.

Dogma, regardless of it's source or form is the enemy of reason, there is absolutely NOTHING whatever healthy about "worshiping" a flag, your arbitrary nation state or any of its symbols.

Very disturbing to hear this kind of lunacy from a fellow atheist:-(

1137. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17389 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 7:48 am

Keynes was livid, originally preferring that they be politically independent economic entities, which they should have been. However, Keynes was apparently willing to give that up in favor of getting money for socialist Britain and its expensive ass empire.

I recall reading somewhere that the US representative stronged armed Keynes into accepting the current boom/bust model, and that he predicted it would be problematic.

Anybody know a good site with the details?

1138. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17367 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:38 am

"I believe that when God created us (and I do believe evolution was part of the process God used), He shaped us, breathed life and a soul into us, and then set us free within nature, not seperate from it, giving us intimate connections to all aspects of it. The relationship we have to the natural world is not a relationship between "us" and "it." It is us, and we are of it."

Al Gore, 2006

Your comments, please.

Maybe he beleives it? Maybe it is even the case, as long as God is relegated to the "of no conceivable value or interest" category, he can say whatever he likes.

Odds are he knows it's crap and is indulging in some unavoidable pandering.

1139. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17366 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:36 am

"I believe that when God created us (and I do believe evolution was part of the process God used), He shaped us, breathed life and a soul into us, and then set us free within nature, not seperate from it, giving us intimate connections to all aspects of it. The relationship we have to the natural world is not a relationship between "us" and "it." It is us, and we are of it."

Al Gore, 2006

Your comments, please.

Maybe he beleives it? Maybe it is even the case, as long as God is relegated to the "of no conceivable value or interest" category, he can say whatever he likes.

Odds are he knows it's crap and is indulging in some unavoidable pandering.

1140. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17363 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:20 am

31. Comment #17362 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 3:13 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen, The EU and America both sicken me in this regard--the EU by blah blah blahing about solidarity with the world's poor and then choking off their economic growth with EU protectionism, and America blah blah blahing about how effective capitalism is for fighting poverty and then contributing to world poverty by its protectionism. A plague on both of their houses--how nice if locusts would come and eat up all of their crops? Come on, God, you did it once.

Drives me bonkers. I think both the EU and US are amazing acheivements, with varying strengths and weaknesses, but both are blind in this regard. That said, the agricultural lobby is weakening in both entities, it's just a matter of time.

Here's hoping they crack it this time.

1141. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17359 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:00 am

Authentic globalization--where America would drop its absurd argricultural protectionism--would lessen world poverty. Capitalism is the least worst means of accomplishing that goal of reducing world poverty at present.

Likewise in the EU. Looks like the message is getting through, we just need to keep yelling:-)

I'm a cautious fan of capitalism myself, the biggest problem I see with it is the unaccountability of global corporations. Their local authority (in as much as they even have one) generally no longer have the political power to reacte to and legislate for their worst excesses.

Global capitalism is perhaps the strongest argument there is for a more representative form of global governance, I say bring it on!!!

1142. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17342 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:41 am

22. Comment #17338 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 1:25 am

Brian, I am actually deeply sympathetic to your point of view, but my own intellectual trajectory (which never involved religious belief) has gentled me towards a less judgemental approach on many issues on which I would previously been the bearer of indubitable certainty. Steve Gould's last book of essays I Have Landed is a moving and insightful exploration - in practice - of how these different dialogues can co-exist without corrupting one's sense of truth and integrity. And it's a volume that bears repeated readings ...

I appreciate that, and I always enjoy your posts:-) I think, on balance, things are moving in the right direction. Now, if someone could just have the guts to impeach GWB, we'd be on the way to a truly rational global society:-)

1143. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17337 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:16 am

Theological discourses (from Aboriginal Dreamtime stories through to Hans Kuhn) are also historic documents of humanity's struggles to find meaning in the world and our lives, which is I suspect the direction from which Eagleton is approaching the question.

I accept that, and it even makes sense. Culture and history are important for us. In that case I just find Eagletons complaint misdirected, and I say this as someone uncomfortably conscious of the undercurrent of partisanship that is sweeping a lot of us along to defend Dakwins, Harris and Co. without really thinking about the substance of the complaint.

In this case I genuinely don't get it. Maybe the broadening of the "atheist family" :-) is coarsening the debate, maybe thats the price we have to pay. As long as we don't become violent, or start burning "heretics", I'm happy enough to see guys like Eagleton get the occasional virtual savaging by the online mob.

Everytime an elite clique suddenly finds itself being transformed to a mass movement, we hear similar complaints. Maybe we should chalk it up to that?

1144. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17335 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:05 am

So Eagleton's complaint remains, and needs to be understood. Why? Because time and again we have seen people at this site express incomprehension at the fact that intensely intelligent scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind) who are nonetheless religious.

Understand what Eagleton is saying, and you start to understand how that is possible. These people are not suffering from a mental disorder, they are not stupid, and they are deserving of our respect.

I think I already understand this. I consider myself modestly intelligent, and yet for 20 years I was a practising, enthusiastic Christian.

However, I always had problems and struggled to orient reality with my faith. I think it is fair to say that below a certain level of intelligence, people simply are incapable of serious scrutiny of their faith, and above a certain level of intelligence, people suppress the contradictions. That is what these guys are doing, and it is ass backwards frankly. Nonetheless intelligent people for emotional, psycological, perhaps even rational reasons in some limited and personal context, simply ignore the elephants in the room.

Thus, should we really accord them respect? Really? I'm no longer convinced. The obvious evolution of religious thought, the multiple and mutually exclusive strands, the deep layers of unsubstantiated (and contradictory!!!) detail regarding the person of God, the problem of evil and the millenia spent debating these issues surely point to the utter meaningless of the exercise? Thousands of years of debate, thought, war and discussion and we can't even agree if God is one or three, whatever the hell that means.

As a fortuitous by product we got the scientific method and the kind of philosophical thinking that allowed us to break the stranglehold of religion, but absent the smothering presence of mother church, we would arguably have got there faster. In fact the greeks and romans were half way there when Christianity threw a metaphysical straitjacket over human thought.

Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it, maybe, and I'm open to that possibility, but thats what theologians have always said, so I'm skeptical.

1145. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17327 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 11:27 pm

10. Comment #17296 by USA_Limey on January 12, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Hey, briancoughlanworldcitizen, God, Inc. Hilarious, thanks for pointing me toward it.

:-)

No problem, did you see episodes 2 and 3? Especially 3!

1146. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17324 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm

The trouble here is twofold. First, it's not ultra-sophisticated religious intellectuals like Eagleton's mates who are in charge of the US military and wield vast social and political power in many parts of the world.

Great post, Russell, articulates my thoughts so clearly. I think this is the bottom line John, esoteric, ephemeral and academic constructs are fine, potentially interesting in their own right, but they have no bearing on the real world. No data, no tests, no results. What could be more pointless?

Besides, the people burning embassies, rioting over comics and killing abortion clinic staff would be the first to call Eagleton and his rarified cohorts heretics and aspostates.

So in my view, Eagletons wordy critique is fatuous because it misses the point so completely.

Finally, Dawkins and Harris are right to dismiss theology, and the comparison to fairology is a nice soundbite, that resonates with the majority of people. Theologians are considered the "brains" of the religious movement, descredit theology as a subject and you remove what little intellectual credibility religion has. I actually don't think it can be said often enough that theology is to cosmology/philosophy, what astrology is to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry.

Theology is bunkum, but it will be very hard for Eagleton and Co. to admit it.

1147. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #17255 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 10:40 am

Check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1148. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17252 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 10:02 am

Check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1149. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17251 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:59 am

check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1150. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17249 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:58 am

check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288