Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

If life looks designed then it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that it is. Once we've drawn that conclusion we can then start debating identity and purpose.

Sure, if you have no other information to hand. At first glance much looks obvious, that everything orbits the earth, or that heavy things fall faster than light things. Yet all wrong, so it is with the design fallacy.

Much we have discovered about the physical world is counter intuitive, and lets not get started on quantum physics.

If you are a naked human on the steppes 30,000 years ago, the world looks designed. If you are a 21st century human with access to the vast amounts of knowledge accrued in the last 100 years, you know that design is a weak cop out, almost everything we now know points against it.

1154. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17243 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:39 am

"IDiots"?? Your going to have to do better than that.

No actually, we won't. Until such time as IDiots actually produce some extensivley peer reviewed science that gets broad acceptance, they will continue to be given the cold shoulder.

In fact, they have made such a shit of relationships, that any real science they actually come up will have some real discrimination to fight against.

Still if it's real, it will eventually overturn the prevailing view. I'm not holding my breath though:-)

1155. Halting progress

Comment #17242 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:35 am

The protest was over religious groups being forced to allow two homosexuals to sleep together in eg a christian owned B&B.

Nonsense. This is merely the spin to put an acceptable face on what is undiluted discrimination and simply unacceptable.

If two men walk into a B&B what they do in their room, as long as it doesn't infringe on any laws, is entirely there business.

For that matter, group sex and hetero anal sex may be something a group of people will engage in, but again, it has nothing to do with the proprieter of an establishment they are staying at.

Finally, issues of conscience that are purely theological on one side, yet activley inconvenience some party on the other, should be ignored. We don't accept forced polygamy, female circumcision or the liver eating of babies, because such practices have clear negative outcomes and for no rational reason. Thus it is with this purient obsession with what other people get up to.

The entire discussion, positioning and spin of this dialouge highlights yet again that religites will lie through their teeth to get their way. Their hypocrisy is beyond disgusting.

1156. Halting progress

Comment #17216 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 4:24 am

"The condition is that they do not impose those beliefs on others". Hmmm! Presumably this is Mr Grayling's belief. Which he wants to impose on others? Inconsistent? Yep, I think so.
32. Comment #17046 by Logicel on January 10, 2007 at 12:12 pm

You are either being obtuse, or really think this is a winning argument. Amazing.

If I form the religious view that beating small children and eating their livers is a critical and important observance, would you respect that? Hardly.

Demonising a section of the community for no other reason than their sexual preferences falls into the same category.

Tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, there lies disaster. Beleive what you like, just don't expect the rest of us to allow you to practice your peversion on society at large.

1157. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17130 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 3:09 am

23. Comment #17126 by Logicel on January 11, 2007 at 2:50 am

Thanks, briancoughlanworldcitizen, for your link to your blog. Why have you stop posting for over three months now at your blog? Spending too much time here? I will eventually read your back posts.

Work has been crazy, and I have discovered this site. Bit of both. Let me know what you think of the blog, maybe it'll inspire me to pick it up again:-)

1158. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17125 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 2:47 am

1. is it moral to kill one innocent to save a thousand innocents?
2. is it moral to kill a thousand innocents to save one innocent?

i guess, most of those, who are against torture in any circumstances, would say, both are immoral.

Humans have moral "grammar" which governs these kinds of decisions. In all cultures both of the positions you posit violate our inate evolutionary driven sense of morality.

The real issue however is wether we are all equally governed by law, or wether one group can arbitrarily visit death and destruction on some other group.

The hysterical "24" scenarios cloud the fundamental lunacy of a global society running at different speeds of justice depending on where you were born. Change that, and much of the rest will gradually be shoehorned into line.

Just look at the EU, not perfect sure, but 50 years ago we were killing each other in job lots.

1159. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17124 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 2:40 am

Why not put all our human energies into preventing war? Us humans have a long history of it, and we are all tired of it. Some scientists like Watson and Wilson have stated that humanity has become less violent through the ages because violence is not productive in a densely populated world. Let us continue in that direction.

Logicel, you are singing my song. I'm with you 110% on that.

http://globalconfederacy.blogspot.com/ Some of my rambling thoughts on the subject.

1160. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17121 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 2:34 am

Yes gimlibengloin, there is much that is obvious at first glance.

That everything else orbits the earth, or that the earth is flat for example, or that solid matter is solid, are perfectly obvious, and yet wrong.

In fact, if we take your train of thought to its logical conclusion, its perfectly "obvious" that the designer is a deranged and incompetent psycho.

That's why we need armies of scientists, constantly disagreeing and testing each others theories to determine what actually is, as opposed to what seems "obvious".

1161. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17113 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 10, 2007 at 11:52 pm

It's not something that should be in question. Deliberately inflicting severe pain on another human being is wrong.

Not just wrong, but activley stupid. The real threat from terrorists has been studiously overblown so as to stampede people into handing powers to the government, they otherwise wouldn't dream of sanctioning.

Government should be fiercly controlled by the people, handing over the right to keep secrets, torture and kill people is down right crazy.

That old adage, "you might be next", may be statistically improbable, but the odds are higher of being hauled in by your own government than being blown up by a suicide bomber.

1162. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17109 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 10, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Secondly, as an ex-religite, I can testify to the power of group coercion and how overwhelming the urge can be to stay in with the "in crowd".

Sometimes we need to close ranks and protect our "own", and a little partisanship is required, if for no other reason than to facilitate some minimal level of co-operation. However, we must also be acutely aware of the ever present potential for group think and extreme partisanship.

Long term "our own" are comprised of every human on the planet:-)

Sam is well able for a little criticisim, and with luck it will help him to moderate his views, especially on the subject of torture. We don't need to cheerlead every single thing he or Dawkins do, most especially if we disagree.

A cult of personality would be an oddity in this context no? Yet, cults of personality are the HIV of religion, they fly below the radar and bamboozle the immune system precisely because they don't look like religions, but they are. They infilitrate peoples minds, and hijack their most laudable instincts for the most base of purposes. If Hitler and Stalin are anything to go by, they are perhaps the most lethal strain of the religious impulse we've seen yet.

Is it possible, don't all yell at once, but it is possible that the combination of atheisim and the religious impulse, does unleash a more virulent beast than unadulterated religion?

Regardless of the answer, we must avoid the knee jerk defense of our "authorities" that I see and I'm afraid recognise as disturbingly familiar, and almost certainly fuelled by the religious impulse. Lets be conscious that we too have all the religious machinery in place that any fundy has, it is simply looking for a vector to express itself.

1163. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17108 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 10, 2007 at 11:09 pm

I'd like to reiterate some points I made when this initially came up, and I'd love to get some feedback from my fellow atheists/agnostics/brights.

Firstly, the dropping of bombs on innocent people, should not be used to justify torture. Both are wrong, and unacceptable in a civilised global society.

I see precious little difference between a suicide bomber who blows himself up, and an airforce pilot who drops bombs and a government torturer.

All have a goal in mind, and are using violence to acheive it, all know in advance that there is a high probability of innocent people being killed or injured, and all proceed nonetheless. All beleive that the price in innocent lives is "worth it".

Violence is generally pointless and almost always wrong, especially when perpetrated by the very strong against the very weak.

I like Sam, and he takes pains to highlight that only in "extreme" circumstances should this reasoning be applied. I also think he is an articulate speaker, and an excellent representative of atheisim, but I disagree with him nonetheless.

1164. Halting progress

Comment #16964 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Right on scooter. We have go stop this scourge.

Colbert, has some salient points to make :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM59Urtgco4

1165. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16852 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 7:33 am

understand that many of you may be hostile to southpark after Richard Dawkins was also ripped on it, but even them episodes made some good points about atheism (plus they were really funny).

Amen to that:-)

As an ex-religite, I can testify to the power of group coercion and how overwhelming the urge can be to stay in with the "in crowd".

Sometimes we need to close ranks and protect our "own", and a little partisanship is required, if for no other reason than to facilitate some minimal level of co-operation. However, we must also be acutely aware of the ever present potential for group think and extreme partisanship.

We don't need to cheerlead every single thing Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris do, most especially if we disagree.

A cult of personality would be an oddity in the context of Atheisim. Yet, cults of personality are the HIV of religion, they fly below the radar and bamboozle the immune system precisely because they don't look like religions, but they are. They infilitrate peoples minds, and hijack their most laudable instincts for the most base of purposes. If Hitler and Stalin are anything to go by, they are perhaps the most lethal strain of the religious impulse we've seen yet.

Is it even possible that religion and atheisim fuse to produce a particularly virulent strain of the religious impulse? Certainly nationalsim and religion do.

Lets not do the same thing eh? Lets not even do a weak fluffy version.

Even atheists can succumb to some wierd personality cult, and knee jerk defense against "heretics" and "blasphemers". We must never forget that long term "our own", are comprised of every human on the planet:-)

1166. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16850 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 7:21 am

But the record shows both approaches working in tandem may deliver results. I certainly have been surprised by TGD's success in the US, which has got to be a good thing ...

It's basically a God cop, Godless cop routine:-) Dawkins and Harris are the Godless cops, forcing the weaker perps to turn to the God cops for help, but they have to narc on the hardcore perps to get that help.

Bascially the routine will hopefully drive the "moderates" to agressivley disavow their more extremist brethern, choking off finances, PR and support.

It also shifts the centre of the discussion, people who beleive in the rapture and the literal return of Christ and other nonsense, should eventually be driven from office by public disapproval. It needs to be constantly highlighted that these people are demonstrably dangerous, potentially delusional, and simply cannot be trusted in positions of power. Especially not military power.

Keep up the pressure!!!

1167. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16812 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 12:54 am

This site's banner proclaims itself as a "clear-thinking oasis". Let's not allow the stampeding herd to turn it into a muddy swamp.

Amen to that:-)

As an ex-religite, I can testify to the power of group coercion and how overwhelming the urge can be to stay in with the "in crowd".

Sometimes we need to close ranks and protect our "own", and a little partisanship is required, if for no other reason than to facilitate some minimal level of co-operation. However, we must also be acutely aware of the ever present potential for group think and extreme partisanship.

Long term "our own" are comprised of every human on the planet:-)

Sam is well able for a little criticisim, and with luck it will help him to moderate his views, especially on the subject of torture. We don't need to cheerlead every single thing he or Dawkins do, most especially if we disagree.

A cult of personality would be an oddity in this context no? Yet, cults of personality are the HIV of religion, they fly below the radar and bamboozle the immune system precisely because they don't look like religions, but they are. They infilitrate peoples minds, and hijack their most laudable instincts for the most base of purposes. If Hitler and Stalin are anything to go by, they are perhaps the most lethal strain of the religious impulse we've seen yet. Lets not do the same thing eh? Lets not even do a weak fluffy version.

I'm just sayin'!!!

1168. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16804 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 8, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Note, like Sam, I am not advocating torture but it does put it into perspective. I also think, like others have posted, that a lot of the abhorrence of torture comes down to both the very personal and deliberate nature of the act. Whereas there is nobody sitting in front of you screaming when dropping a bomb from 15,000 feet or a cruise missile from a 1,000 or more kilometres away.

I think the focus is somewhat misplaced in this discussion. The dropping of bombs on innocent people, should not be used to justify torture. Both are wrong, and unacceptable in a civilised global society.

I see precious little difference between a suicide bomber who blows himself up, and an airforce pilot who drops bombs and a government torturer.

All have a goal in mind, and are using violence to acheive it, all know in advance that there is a high probability of innocent people being killed or injured, and all proceed nonetheless.

All beleive that the price in innocent lives is "worth it".

Violence is generally pointless and almost always wrong, especially when perpetrated by the very strong against the very weak.

I like Sam, but I disagree with him on this point.

1169. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16747 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen - your denouncement of Allah and Islam made me laugh my ass off just now! FANTASTIC! :)

Can I just say, I did not mean to offend or impugn any member of the gay community. I bet they wouldn't let Allah near them.

1170. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16728 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 8, 2007 at 10:50 am

"Freedom of speech does not end when it offends someone. It should only end when it incites violence."

I am almost inclined to disagree with this statement as much as I believe that if someone can't control their behavior just because someone is speaking his/her mind, then the "bully" needs to be knocked down, not the person speaking.

I agree with you scooter. Violence cannot be the flag that triggers suppression of freedom of speech, this just leaves the lever in the hands of those most willing to pull it!!!

Nope, you should be able to say whatever you like about anything. If someone has a problem with it and they become violent, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

There is precious little excuse for violence, and religious "offense" is by far the most facile reason I can think of.

We should be activley offensive, so that the religious become inured and used to it.

In that spirit, let me say that Allah suck mens willies, that Jehovah is made entirely of pork, and I deny the holy spirit (again).

Get over it people, they are not real.

1171. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16565 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 7, 2007 at 10:47 am

This is exactly what myself and billy are attempting to prove to Mark, sadley he seems incapable of realsing that not only are they far from evidence of gods existance but christianty in not unique in fulfilled prophecies
615. Comment #16560 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:28 am

Hey, I admire your relentlessness:-) This koranic prophecies are pretty good though ... I wonder. Oh my goodness!!!! I think you people have converted me to Islam.

Alakbar!!!

1172. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16553 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 7, 2007 at 10:05 am

Gee ... are you guys still at this. The biblical prophecies you claim are accepted only by a small select group of fringe christian cults. They are less than worthless.

1173. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16181 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 5, 2007 at 9:37 am

I have to say that many of the responses are pretty naive. The subject of "evil" or why people do crazy things is incredibly complex, thats why research would be valuable.

If it was obvious it would hardly require research would it?

To Joads list I'd add, did George Bush think he was evil when he caused the death of 100,000 iraqis? I'd say not, but we can see that it was an evil act nonethless. I'd love to know how he came to his conclusions.

1174. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16159 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 5, 2007 at 4:42 am

Wow ... Wafa Sultan ate the face off that guy!!! Excellent stuff, lets hope we see more of that from the Islamic world ... can we get that posted as main article Josh? It's great stuff!!!

1175. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16044 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 9:11 am

The trouble with you and Richard is that you know too much about science and not enough about real people living in the real world.

Poppycock. Because we think lying to people is wrong, we are one dimensional?

For the record, I was a fundi for about 10 years and a wishy washy hand wringer for another 10. Four of those years spent in "service". It is arrant nonsense for people to stand up and insist things that they cannot possibly know, are certain and true.

First I came to this conclusion as regards groups within Christianity, then religion generally ... then I realised the whole thing was a complete crock.

Thats not to say I didn't meet wonderful people, and see love, generosity and self sacrifice, but I can see those things in all humans, not just those of a particular cult.

This whole thing is based on hypocrisy, lies and fraud. Did you see that ghastly Pat Robertson article? This is the sharp edge of what you are promoting.

1176. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16039 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 8:29 am

Richard removes their faith and offers them nothing of any equivalance in return.

Other than the truth you mean? You are a fine one to lecture Richard on his position, when what you are proposing in it's place is a tawdry lie.

Oh, and let me guess ... you think its a fine idea to sanction the state to murder other human beings?

1177. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16033 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 8:20 am

Guys ... Dawkins has called this correctly. Killing people in cold blood is simply wrong, and if we allow it in our societies it cheapens life generally.

Per capita murder rates in the US are four times higher than those in any EU country, and in some cases 10 times higher. Yet almost no EU countries have capital punishment. Why is that? Are you chaps not even curious?

If it's merely a question of horror inflicted and the body count, surely there should be a contract out on Tony Blair and George Bush right now. We know the ballpark deaths are in the 100's of thousands, and millions of people have be pitched into a never ending war zone. On the atrocity meter, we must be inching towards the "saddam zone". Or do they got off because they had "noble" motives?

Killing people is wrong, here the religites and I agree, however I beleive it is wrong in any context other than clearly defined self defence.

Certainly it is madness to hand such a dreadful, and ultimatley futile, sanction to the faceless machinery of the nation state.

1178. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15996 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 5:56 am

All respect Mr Dawkins to your books, your fierce intelligence and your stand against this virus called religion, but really you need to get out from those 'cloisters of academe' where you received your political indoctrination and take a long hard look at the real world.

The US stance on the death penalty is almost unique in the developed world. Almost all civilised nations have stopped using it. In addition, in almost all of the countries without capital punishment, both murder, and prison populations are orders of magnitude lower. Wierd huh?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Capital punishment does nothing to deter crime, so why allow a fictious, artifical construct like the state such a sanction? As one poster comments, only states with capital punishment can commit mass murder.

1179. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15818 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 3, 2007 at 7:18 am

Those who are also politically clueless? I read that Dawkins and his minions want atheists to shun all religionists -- including the more enlightened, on the grounds that they enable the fundamentalists. The irony of their own intolerance mirroring the latter group's would seem to be utterly lost on them.

For goodness sake!! Tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, that is nonsensical, and would eventually result in the destrucion of all tolerance. By definition, revealed monotheistic religions are intolerant, it's in their genes, so to speak. Secular societies have to aggressivley reject all absolute truth systems such as fascisim or religion, it's a matter of survival. People can beleive what they like, but can expect resistance when what they beleive claim to be some kind of revealed exclusive truth that the rest of us must kow-tow to. Screw that!

Curious, how 3rd-order intellects are often attracted to atheism, whereas guys like Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger were deeply reverent.

Curious how apologists always trot out the same carnards, scientists from the 16th century beleived in God!!! Go figure!!! Or Einstein beleived in God!!! Wow!!! Actually no ... he didn't. Schrodinger I've no idea, can someone advise?

Now we read that Dawkins seems to look forward to Blair and Bush being tried for war crimes and that he thinks Saddam should have been preserved for research purposes.

What is the problem here? Dawkins is not suggesting they be hung. Did you read the article?

Why is it always the christians who want to kill people, and the atheists saying "lets think about this". Says it all really.

1180. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15717 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 2, 2007 at 8:36 am

I am a supporter of free speech and civil rights as well. The petition does not seek to outlaw adults holding religious belief, and does not seek to prevent educating children about religious belief. I see the petition as merely ahead of its time.

It's an intruiging issue. At one time a father could kill, rape or sell his progeny into slavery without fear of repercussion. Children (and women) were in a very real sense merely possessions no different from a cart, or a cow or a pair of shoes. Sigh ... good times. NOT.

Throughout the last 300 years, in effect since the Enlightenment, this sense of ownership has been steadily eroded to the point where children in some countries are rightly considered to be individuals with the same rights as any other person.

With that in mind, perhaps there are grounds for more robust action? Would society allow parents to force their children to smoke, or drink alcohol? Certainly sex below a certain age is already prohibited in all developed countries. Is religious indoctrination not worse for a 14 year old girl, than consensual sex with a 15 year old partner ... ?

If we really believe that religious indoctrination is dangerous, doesn't it drift into the same category as enforced female curcumcision, or enforced marriage? Shouldn't society at least have a helpline for children who reject religious indoctrination? That's not a terrible idea actually .....

I'm just throwing it out there:-)

1181. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15540 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 1, 2007 at 7:04 am

No LD. I love America. Religious or otherwise. Many of us do. Those that profess hatred of America are likely jealous or misguided. The current Iraq war is a different issue altoghether, and anyone foolish enough to make the link from the Iraq war to hatred of America is in a bad place.

An important sentiment. Whenever I feel myself tipping into virulent anti-americanisim, I watch an episode of "3rd rock from the sun", "buffy the vampire slayer" or read excerpts from the Federalist Papers.

Bush has pissed all over the ideals of the US, but those ideals have nonetheless been the gift of Americans to the world. Even if they were to be extinguished in the US (and even at my most spittle flecked Bush hating I think this almost impossible) they have already begun to burn elsewhere.

I too really love the american ideals .... but my God (just an expression!!!!) I loooooathe that maggot Bush.

1182. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15413 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 31, 2006 at 4:55 am

Brian, by everything I have read on this site you are an admirable advertisement for casting off the shackles of religious dogmatism. Does this tell us much about belief vs unbelief in general? I don't think so.

I think it does, but you are certainly correct that the process is more complex than my post suggests. I guess I was just trying to articulate the main thrust of my thoughts on the subject.

Nonetheless, when I examine my own faith, and the path I followed to eventually ditch it, "not thinking deeply about stuff" was critical to maintaining the fiction. This habit corrodes cognition generally, at least in my case I beleive it did, and given that more than 50% of the US electorate voted for Bush, I conclude that religious thinking generally contributed to that irrational choice. Voting for Bush (2nd time round) was objectivley a bad idea. So are roughly half of all americans just stupid? I don't think so, hence some other factor must be at work.

I could be wrong, about any of this:-) I'm atheist enough to reject absolutes ... erm ... at least most absolutes? ... bugger now I'm in a pickle ... :-)

1183. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15406 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 31, 2006 at 3:21 am

Perhaps, Sir, but not all. I don't think it necessarily follows that atheism means a certain world view eg pacifism.

Agreed, but it implies (generally) a higher degree of rationality. Self defence is rational, nationalism is not. Respect for and even love of the planets ecology and resources is rational, monotheistic religion is not.

Bush and the neocons are irrational and dangerous, and they have already caused the deaths (either directly of indirectly) of hundreds of thousands of human beings. How could any rational person support that?

Hence Bush draws his support from some of the most persistently irrational people in the world. American fundamentalist christians. The work to short circuit rational thought has already been done, the "muscles" of irrationality get a constant work out reconciling the completely incompatible world view of christianity, with the world as we see it.

From there, it's a short skip to "killing tens of thousands of people is a good idea", because it keeps us "safe".

1184. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15290 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 7:26 am

They are now in retreat, and I have no doubt that the Grand Canyon bookstore will be revising its stocklist in the near future.

Amen to that. I do notice that almost all atheists are consistently anti Bush/Neo Cons/Blowing stuff up.

Tells you something, doesn't it?

1185. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15271 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 5:16 am

Well John, I envy you. I am still pretty bitter about the incredible waste of time the whole business entailed. I don't know how old you are David, but get out as soon as you can.

1186. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15266 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 4:07 am

JohnC, have you ever been a Christian? I mean the real, intense full blown "touched by Jesus" version? I have, so I understand where David is coming from. Nonetheless, I am pretty certain that intelligent people can be talked around. They just need to allow themselves to pull on the threads of doubt for a few months, without restraint and the whole thing unravels.

David, have the courage to "no holds barred" question your faith, just for a few weeks. Don't go to church, don't read your bible, don't associate with christian friends. To make a break with any cult, you need to separate yourself from the reinforcing environment.

Mull over in your mind the obvious inconsistency of the world as we see it, and the existence of an all powerful, loving God. Be honestly critical of God, I mean .... look at this place!!!

Hang in there David, you strike me as sufficiently intelligent for the cognitive dissonance to get you in the end:-)

1187. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15261 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 3:36 am

Josh McDowell's material.

You must be joking. Josh McDowell is a known hack who has made a fortune on the backs of christians desperate for "evidence" supporting their faith.

I bought a book of his about 15 years ago, and one of the sections suggested that the Sun was not running on nuclear fusion, but gravitational contraction or some such nonsense!!!

This seems a reasonable summary of the position as I recall it. Handy the 'ol internet, ain't it?
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_12/default.htm

Even then I knew he was off the rails, and now I simply despise opportunistic snake oil salesmen of his ilk.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html

Here is an intruiging rebuttal of his views on the biblical canon. You might find it instructive, if for no other reason than that Josh accepts there is such a concept as in and out books. Disingenous? Sure, but not barking mad.

1188. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15259 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 3:06 am

Brian, I love the fact that in the same post you can condemn (rightly) asserting that 'things are so' and within a couple of sentences gives the gem "I did not learn this from Wikpedia. It is common knowledge"! Wonderful stuff.

Some things are common knowledge David. That the earth is round, that the stars are suns, and yes, that the bible was assembled (intelligently designed!!!) from the detrius of a thousand or so years of religious writings. You can spout off all you like, and yet every modestly educated person reading this knows that it is so. By railing so furiously against the obvious, you simply become laughable, and frankly pitiable. No one is swayed by the intensity of a person who insists, spittle spraying in all directions, against all evidence to the contrary, that the earth is flat. One is repelled, or embarrased not impressed.

The wikipedia link was merely to help you fill in the gap in your knowledge. Here is another source to help you on your way : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

Can't get better than the Catholics on this subject, they've been around from the start, or so they say.

I admit it is very hard to discuss with someone who seriously thinks that a combination of 'common knowledge' and Wikpedia entitles him to claim expertise in biblical scholarship.

Who is claiming any such thing? I have made two points, neither of which require "expertise" in biblical scholarship to make, and neither of which you have made even a half arsed attempt to address, nothwithstanding your "expertise".

1) The bible was pieced together in the 4th century by people with an agenda. This fact is certainly more probable than the resurrection, if the word probable is to have some kind of conventional meaning.

2) That a flesh and blood person, whom you can see and touch, is more probably "real" than the ressurection of Jesus. If the word real is to have some kind of conventional meaning.

The problem is not the sources David, wikipedia is absolutely fine for general knowledge. The problem is that you are in denial about what is generally agreed to be reality, and while point (1) does depend on putting "faith" in multiple and mutually supporting historical sources, point (2) is just cloud cuckoo land .... and golly, I really hope you know it. Disingenous, is still preferable to raving.

1189. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15111 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 29, 2006 at 1:43 am

David, simply asserting that "things are so" does nothing for your credibility.

The probability that Jesus rose from the dead, and that your wife exists are not equal. This is plain to all rational people, probably even a majority of sensible christians, and your blunt assertion that these probabilities are equal, nudges you into the non-rational camp.

It is a matter of historic record that the bible was pieced together from a range of sources by a committee of clerics in the 4th century. Some stuff was put in, some stuff was left out. We are not privy to all reasons for the decisions that were made, but the probability is that the decision making was heavily influenced by the religious politics of the time.

Finally, I did not learn this from wikipedia. It is common knowledge, and wikipedia is an excellent source for information that is largely undisputed, and the blatant, documented, manufacture of the bible qualifies. For goodness sake, terms exist to define in books (canonical) and out books (apochrypha)!!! I'd recommend you follow the source links if you need further clarification.

I can't help you if you simply refuse to accept the known history of the time, or that flesh and blood people trump (as regards existence) historic documents or vague feelings. I'm sorry, but everyone who reads this exchange can see that your answers are simply nuts.

1190. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15026 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 28, 2006 at 9:45 am

WOW .... this is great stuff. http://www.cegenglish.com/

They even have a "False Christs" FAQ! http://www.creciendoengracia.com/naciones/falsechrists.htm

In summary he is the real deal because he doesn't do miracles. Now thats thinking outside the box!!!! ROTFL

1191. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15025 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 28, 2006 at 9:33 am

Interesting really. Of course it is about probability – as is everything.

I'm glad to hear you admit it. Now address the question, is it really equally probable that Jesus rose from the dead and that your wife exists? I take it your wife does actually exist? With your track record so far, there is some residual doubt in my mind:-)

However it seems as though you have already predetermined any evidence. The Gospels are not 3rd century, not political

Oh come along now, this is not even controversial. Even most theologians accept that the bible as it exists was cut and paste together by a committee of clerics in the 4th (my apologies for the error) century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Canonization_of_the_Old_Testament_and_New_Testament

You denying it is so just makes you even more ridiculous than you already are.

and what hallucinations are you referring to? Um ... yours? Jesus touching your life etc. Not full blown I'll grant you. There is hope yet:-)

As to you being Jesus I guess I will have to leave you to work out why that does not work.

Thats a bit easy isn't it?

In we take your world view as given, lets consider that, despite having access to the original hebrew scriptures, and extensive schooling in same, the jewish priests were so certain Jesus was not the messiah, they had him crucified ...

Are you aware there is a guy currently claiming to be Jesus? He has a ministry, a following and seems like a nice chap. Have you personally verified that he isn't Jesus? Seems the Pharisees and Saducess made a bit of a blunder last time round, how can you be certain this guy isn't the real thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24A2vpl_xew

Or this :
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,181681,00.html

Given the fairly low bar you set for evidence, you really ought to check these people out, I mean they are actual flesh and blood, not just some 1700 year old scribblings. You don't want to get caught like the pharisees etc., but God wouldn't do that to you would he? Yet ... he did it to them ... is he messing with your head?

1192. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14961 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 27, 2006 at 11:49 am

In terms of the resurrection of Jesus I have examined the evidence for it and came to the conclusion that the most reasonable assumption is that Jesus did rise from the dead. Since then I have experienced something of the power of the risen Christ in my own life, however I realize that that is not proof for you. Yet I was simply responding to the statement that there is no Christian who is certain that Jesus rose from the dead. I am.

You cannot possibly be certain based on this evidence. You could perhaps form the view that the probability is that Jesus did rise from the dead, but even that is a terrific stretch.

We have tens of thousands of mutually corroborating reports of both Napoleon and Hitler, you can go to Seattle anytime to verify it's existence. What have you got for Jesus? Heavily edited 3rd century political propaganda, and perhaps 2 additional dubious alternate sources, and maybe some low grade hallucinations. Come on! This is equivalent to the existence of your flesh and blood wife?

If I was to tell you now, that I am Jesus and I have risen from the dead, how is my post less credible than the agenda riddled third hand hearsay of the new testament?

1193. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14958 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 27, 2006 at 9:53 am

As for no Christian being certain that Jesus rose from the dead – I disagree. Here is one Christian who is as certain that Jesus rose from the dead as I am that my wife exists.

David, you are either a liar or genuinely deluded. How could you possibly be certain of such a thing?

Were you there? Did Jesus appear (not in itself a clincher) to you and explain the details?

This is an outrageous claim, back it up with something substantial, or retract it.

1194. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14926 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 26, 2006 at 10:08 pm

Point is, these results show that science is not the signed, sealed and delivered case that many commenters here seem to think. However, I attach no theological import to this. Indeed, I think that this is the tremendous strength of the scientific method: it gives us a method for self-correction as well as the only way we really know anything.

Nothing to disagree with there. Apologies for the theology detour:-)

1195. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14925 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 26, 2006 at 10:04 pm

I was referring (as were Orr and Rosenouse) to the soundness of some of the TGD scientific arguments. I take it you are not a scientist.

Please stop reading your own notions into what I posted.

L D Miller

It's a public forum LD, try not to be so sensitive.

Apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, but you are responding to a post defending Dawkins approach, primarily to theology.

Since no one actually knows what the origin of the universe is, in either the religious or scientific community, and at least in the scientific community no one claims to know, your criticism is somewhat vauge and superficial. What science is it he needs to improve on?

Try and firm it up next time .... eh?

1196. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14883 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 26, 2006 at 10:18 am

I do not disagree with Dr Dawkins' conclusions, but I do think that when he gets away from his area of expertise his arguments get somewhat leaky.

Thats the point though LD, theology is not an "area of expertise" as you so quaintly term it, but made up nonsense.

As regards the condescension, I'd recommend you brace yourself for more of the same. Anyone representing theology as an "area of expertise" in this kind of reason based forum is likely to be subjected to plenty of condescension:-)

1197. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14863 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 26, 2006 at 5:17 am

So as I travelled and lived in other countries, I became less and less nationalistic, that is, in my nationality as a New Yorker, well, really, a Manhattanite. However, I am still heavily influenced by western civilization, so I am far from being a world citizen in my mind and heart, but I am trying.

Likewise:-) Born in Ireland, move to South Africa in the hey day of apartheid, returned to Europe now living in Sweden, I can honestly say that I've had any kind of residual nationalist sentiment knocked out of me:-)

The atheist gig is new though, I've been a practising and involved christian for most of my adult life. The last 5 years under Bush have given me much to think about, and I've emerged shorn of faith. I'm still pretty bitter about it ... at the anger stage?

I view nationalisim as an even greater threat than religion, because in an insidious way, it's concerns are more "real world". Lets get them before they get us kind of thing.

Yet the underpinning (basically I'm better/worth more because of the random geographic location of my birth) is as facile and faith based as religion. We urgently need an international system that works, 15% of the global population cannot live at the expense of the other 85% forever ... it's a global french revolution waiting to happen, unless we collectivley address the issues.

1198. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14857 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 26, 2006 at 3:10 am

Unfortunately, that's not what's happening now. I'd be so much more optimistic, if Manifest Destiny was back. We are literally in a worst case scenario, kowtowing to the Islamic equivalent of Manifest Destiny and its religious oppression.

Sancus, I hope you'll forgive me jumping in here. However, you appear to be falling prey to the very thing you accuse the fundamentalists of. The difference is that you have nationalist blinkers not religious ones.

The idea that the islamic world poses a credible threat to Europe, let alone the United States is ludicrous. Although I sympathise with your interpretation of their motives (at least of some of their politicians), they have nothing like the relevant resources to prosectute the islamic version of the neo-con dream.

Thus to express fear, or to justify the massive slaughter of Iraqis or Iranians to offset this fictional threat, to verbally support or bolster such threadbare arguments, is morally unconsionable.

Nationalisim, is arguably a far more pernicious form of delusion than religion, and you seem to be suffering from a full blown infection. Take your atheist skepticisim and apply it to your nationalisim, see how you get on.

For the record, applying my skeptical view of nationalisim to my religious convictions, was one of the primary hammer blows to deconstructing my religious faith. Maybe it can work both ways?:-)

1199. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14856 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 26, 2006 at 2:39 am

But that is exactly what happened in physics. Quantum mechanics turned out to be much more complex and counter-intuitive than the classical physics that preceded it. For all that, quantum mechanics appears to be staggeringly true, and this trend is continuing.

I don't expect that Dawkins or Rosenhouse would dispute this in any detail. Rosenhouse puts the point elegantly at the outset :

Dawkins provides no serious discussion of Jewish or Christian theology? Of course not, because such theology is mostly irrelevant to how religion is actually practiced. Theology is an academic pursuit, and like many such pursuits it concerns itself primarily with esoterica far removed from people's actual lives.

IDmiller, it really is that simple. Sure there may be some wispy, indefinable force that created the universe. It may even be concious, perhaps intelligent. However, it is almost certainly NOT any of the anthropomorphic, intervening, prayer answering, omnibenevolent, omnipotent cultural constructs that humans worship.

If this seems like a leap to you, I'll be happy to explain it, although any modestly intelligent person who attempts to align main stream religious dogma and reality should see the point immediatley.

1200. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14334 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 22, 2006 at 5:06 am

Dead right, because it was I who ate the last chocolate digestive!

You selfish atheist BASTARD. This is what we can expect from amoral and frequently immoral atheists is it? Not so much as a "by your leave" .... (with apologies to monthy python).

It's an outrage, but no more than we expect from people disconnected from the great Truth of God.