101. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71929 by Theocrapcy on September 20, 2007 at 12:39 am

People who are driven to idiocy by rationalism deserve to be there.

102. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #71901 by Theocrapcy on September 19, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Unlike the army to suppress individualism.

103. In Depth: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #71370 by Theocrapcy on September 18, 2007 at 3:01 pm

anyone have a link to the RD book-tv interview? Don;t think I've seen that one.

104. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71367 by Theocrapcy on September 18, 2007 at 2:43 pm

@jimbob

The stereotyping will occur regardless. Religionists have an in-built need to be simplistic.

You go girl.

105. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71160 by Theocrapcy on September 18, 2007 at 12:09 am

@BAEOZ

"Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot..."

You must be thinking of Guy Fawks night.

106. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70823 by Theocrapcy on September 17, 2007 at 2:48 am

"Was there ever a thread so rich in puns?"

A very biting remark.

107. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70820 by Theocrapcy on September 17, 2007 at 2:36 am

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
-- Homer Simpson

108. Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god

Comment #70817 by Theocrapcy on September 17, 2007 at 2:23 am

Are they KIDding?

109. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70419 by Theocrapcy on September 15, 2007 at 11:51 am

"Richard Dawkins IS a fundamentalist- pure and simple. And yes, he does shrill, rage and spew hatred. No better or worse than the average human. The difference between a Christian fundamentalist and a Dawkin fundamentalist is that the former says "God knows best", while the latter says "I know best".

This brings up the question- which Charles Darwin considered- as Dawkins is an evolved monkey (true evolution), how much faith should one place in the judgment of a monkey's brain?

I rest my case."

Fundamentalist, London,

--------------


If there's any further proof that some people use no more of their brain than a monkey does, there you have it.

110. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70389 by Theocrapcy on September 15, 2007 at 8:38 am

Youtube is now completely awash with those banned videos and vicious attacks on Hovind and the CSE.

The internet at its best.

111. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70320 by Theocrapcy on September 14, 2007 at 11:41 pm

I don't know why they bother, the movies are already going back up, see here as an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfYENNup27k

112. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70303 by Theocrapcy on September 14, 2007 at 8:16 pm

yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but....

113. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70299 by Theocrapcy on September 14, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Reply to Stanford:

"Anyone who writes or cares about religion will have questioned of late whether they should attempt some sort of answer to the current bout of God-bashing dominating the bestsellers' chart."

Stanford begins by aligning his righteous forces behind him, and he implies anyone with an interest in religion must be in favour of religion and against the new atheists. This is a seriously flawed assumption, as Dawkins et. al. obviously care and write about religion - but do so critically. Stanford is constructing his straw man from the start - or in this case more like a straw trojan horse.


"The caricature of all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists provided by Richard Dawkins, and the sheer factual inaccuracy of Christopher Hitchens's rant, God Is Not Great, deserve a decent response."

This is a strange combination of statements, which if make any sense at all are simply insults. I am unaware of Dawkins ever explicitly refering to all church goers as either simple-minded or fundamentalist - I think he is more understanding of people's desire for faith, but he does suggest that moderate religionists do open the door for fundamentalists. Maybe Stanford has let slip his own subconscious views on the flock? It is the basis of any good writing to cite evidence when making serious claims against a person's honesty - please clarify and back up your statements about Mr Hitchens, Mr Stanford.


"But how to fashion it? First, you need a catchy title. God Is Sort of Alright Some of the Time If You Don't Take Him/Her Too Literally doesn't quite do it. Then there is the insatiable taste for negatives. A qualified positive is unlikely to catch the imagination."

Probably the only part of this piece that I agree with.


"And what of content, since in many ways the language of religion and science simply don't go together? This is where John Cornwell comes in. A former seminarian turned non-believer and now a typically wavering Catholic who, in Graham Greene's phrase, doubts his own doubts, he writes successfully on religion. But he is also director of the Science and Human Dimension Project at Jesus College, Cambridge."

Wow! What an accolade. Stanford is so excited about Cornwell's vitriolic retort to Dawkins I can alomst believe he is sexually aroused by it. However, the most revealing point is not Stanford's rising testosterone on the mention of Cornwell, but the phrase "he writes successfully on religion". What are your criteria for success Mr Stanford? Dawkins' book has outsold all the fleas combined, probably by a factor of ten. Do you mean to say that a successful religious writer is one whom you can only agree with?


"His title - Darwin's Angel - is robust enough."

What is so robust about it? Dawkins did not name himself "Darwin's Rottweiler" (which no doubt the title of Cornwell's book toys with), it was given to him. Cornwell's self-assigned blandishment is more Cromwellian than Darwinian.


"He manages a healthy dose of negatives. He accuses Dawkins, for example, of "substituting yourself for God"."

A narrow accusation at best. Richard is a very humble man, but again we see the strategy of the religionist - attack the man not what he says.


"But the core is his dismantling of Dawkins's answers and sources. Perhaps the most telling point is just how small and self-serving was the reading list for The God Delusion."

This is just peurile gibberish with no cogent explanation.


"Cornwell does, however, start to get sucked in to Dawkins's fact-based approach. And religion is hard to fit in to that agenda, for it simply isn't about facts."

At last, we have a confession. That will be two `Hail Mary's` and five `How's Your Father's` Mr Stanford. We really see here the guts of the matter, the black pearl of truth that even the most vehement holy man cannot deny: the existence of facts. And because facts cannot be denied, they can only be derided and made inconsequential. Flying teapots anyone?


"The basic premise that has dominated our world since the scientific enlightenment is that unless you can put something under a microscope and prove it is what it says it is, you can't believe in it. Religion fails utterly this test."

The failure of religion to stand the scrutiny of scientific rigor is correct. Your assessment of science's premises is disingenuous.


"You cannot prove God exists because religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith."

How else can the word "belief" be understood? Are you harking back to the good old days when belief meant "either believe or be burned"?


"Dawkins would call it blind faith."

A precise definition. It also sufficiently describes Santa Claus.


"It is an intuition, a sense of something more than meets the eye, a glimpse of transcendence, of a higher purpose, but nothing more tangible."

Dawkins deals with this kind of sense of intuition in his book as Einstein's God. Stanford is asking us to fill in the gaps with his own religion-branded god. I just wish he'd be honest about it and tell us exactly what he believes instead of opening false doors and stepping over the cracks in the pavement of his words.


"Quite how you capture it in a book is a challenge that most religious writers fail to answer."

Bingo.


"In the meantime, Cornwell has done an excellent job in providing a book that should, in an ideal world, be sold taped to every copy of The God Delusion as an essential corrective."

This is all a bit of an anti-climax, after having built up Cornwell so mightily as the saviour of religion against the heathenist forces of new atheism. But where is the argument?

Has Stanford even read either books? I leave you to fill in the gaps on that question. What we can probably agree on is that this review is very poorly written at the academic level and can therefore not be taken seriously.

114. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69892 by Theocrapcy on September 13, 2007 at 5:03 am

Let's face it, we do charitable work to impress the opposite sex and get laid.

115. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69891 by Theocrapcy on September 13, 2007 at 4:59 am

"Maher publicly supports PETA, an animal rights organization, and has expressed his distaste for the pharmaceutical and health care industries in general, on the grounds that they make their money out of curing people who are made sick by consuming unhealthy food that society urges upon the public. He has expressed skepticism that vaccines are responsible for helping to eliminate many diseases."

Apart from the last part about vaccines, I have no problem with the rest. What exactly is wrong with supporting PETA? His point re food making people ill is quite probably true, and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot to answer for.

116. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69881 by Theocrapcy on September 13, 2007 at 4:32 am

Debating with the religious is a bit like playing Whack-a-mole.

117. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69880 by Theocrapcy on September 13, 2007 at 4:26 am

"That sort of thing must really shake the faith of even the most ardent atheist."

Brrrrrrrrrrt! Wrong answer. You lose.

By definition an atheist is unburdened by faith. I love how religionists use their own criticisms against non-believers. A bit like the way they use science to prove science wrong.

Slaps forehead.

118. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69877 by Theocrapcy on September 13, 2007 at 4:08 am

@Dirk_Starlight

evidence?

119. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #69612 by Theocrapcy on September 11, 2007 at 10:48 pm

And here I was taught as a young sprout that our nations school system was established for the good 'ol basic 3R's...

Pastafarians would call it the three yaRRRs.

120. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69595 by Theocrapcy on September 11, 2007 at 8:07 pm

It's overdue that someone said the words "suck it, Jesus" in a public forum. You're on the A(theist) list now Kathy, bravo.

121. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69426 by Theocrapcy on September 11, 2007 at 8:07 am

I think it is astounding we need to set up organisations to make claim to rights we already have.

122. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68842 by Theocrapcy on September 8, 2007 at 11:17 pm

I like "God-denier" in the same way I like "Santa-denier". Both should only sound mean to children.

123. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68664 by Theocrapcy on September 8, 2007 at 3:25 am

IS this one of those gimmick books sold at the front counter that has all empty pages except one, and it says in bold lettering : "Burn In Hell Dawkins!"?

124. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68590 by Theocrapcy on September 7, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Red hair. No future.

125. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68584 by Theocrapcy on September 7, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I think Richard should consider changing tack when faced with such misrepresentations and remind his opponents and the audience exactly why they are there, and ask the antagonist thus:

Ok, well we understand what you think of my ideas about god and religion, but let us stop for a minute and allow me to ask you this: what exactly do YOU believe?

It's about time we got some straight answers from faith-heads.

126. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68320 by Theocrapcy on September 6, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Interesting that Cornwell conjured a comparison between a potential secular future with Nazi Germany's intolerance - great way to milk the holocaust for value.

And this coming from a Catholic. Tsk Tsk. Do you still celebrate Hitler's birthday in Mass John?

127. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68319 by Theocrapcy on September 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Cornwell either: understood The God Delusion and chose to ignore or misrepresent it which makes him wicked; didn't understand it at all which makes him incredible; or didn't read it properly, if at all, which makes him a rogue.

Whichever the case he is obviously no Dawkins.

128. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68211 by Theocrapcy on September 6, 2007 at 11:15 am

Cornwell is a bellicose fool.

Setting up straw men and misrepresenting Richard's arguments against religion is nothing short of sinister.

Don't be fooled by Cornwell, his bent is singular - that he is insulted that his belief in God is being attacked. Unfortunately for him he is facing a tougher opposition who's armour is the bullet-proof vest of reason.

129. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67908 by Theocrapcy on September 5, 2007 at 5:31 am

This is a terrible piece of writing, how on Earth do these people get paid for stuff like this?

130. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67324 by Theocrapcy on September 3, 2007 at 4:08 am

So the answer against atheism is to misrepresent it in the same way she claims it is misrepresenting religion?

Who allows these morons anywhere near a keyboard?

131. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66850 by Theocrapcy on August 31, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Brings new meaning to "on a wing and a prayer".

132. The importance of doubt

Comment #66525 by Theocrapcy on August 30, 2007 at 9:01 am

I got as far as "Stalin".

Next.

133. Another view

Comment #66194 by Theocrapcy on August 29, 2007 at 8:10 am

I have some magnets for that existential strain.

134. Another view

Comment #66191 by Theocrapcy on August 29, 2007 at 8:01 am

You mean they allow this crap to be printed, and pay someone for it?

Utter piffle, the man reveals himself for a fool for the whole world to see in a few lines. Next.

135. 'Jesus loves you' email

Comment #66115 by Theocrapcy on August 28, 2007 at 11:26 pm

Jesus does love you. So much so that if you don't love him back he will commit you to eternal damnation and hellfire, a suffering greater than can be imagined.

The unfortunate thing for Jesus is that he's dead. Or a zombie. Either way his credibility is no longer what it once was.

136. Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers

Comment #65360 by Theocrapcy on August 23, 2007 at 8:59 pm

The Chaser (http://www.chaser.com.au/) had a skit once where a waiter ran around town in waiter garb and a pepper mill, hounding people for "cracked pepper?". This reminds me of that in a weird way, except this time it's "cracked religion?".

137. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64100 by Theocrapcy on August 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Failed hack actor cocaine freak and booze hag finds Jesus and feels the need to impose it on others.

138. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63341 by Theocrapcy on August 14, 2007 at 1:50 am

You mean Smurftastic don't you?

139. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63294 by Theocrapcy on August 13, 2007 at 8:15 pm

@darwin2 : "But I believe it is unrealistic and unscientific to use the atrocities and stupidities of organized religion as a proof against the existence of God."

I disagree. Religious atrocities are direct proof that their god is false, and their behaviour is man-made. Especially when competing deities claim to be one and only.

Religion is a vestige of our primitive tribalism, it has no place in modern world, which is where it is struggling to survive - and why it lathches on to developing world which more resembles the kind of primitivism it relies on to thrive.

140. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63038 by Theocrapcy on August 13, 2007 at 2:05 am

As a member of AI I'd just like to congratulate the organisation on doing what is right, because it is right. And not out of fear of retribution from a Mafia organisation that claims to hold the higher (and intractable) ground in issues of human morality.

141. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62835 by Theocrapcy on August 11, 2007 at 7:22 pm

"Finally, does any of this matter? To those of us who identify with liberal and progressive cultural movements, whether religious or humanist, there are potentially worrying trends here. The intensity with which new atheist identities are being forged through a hatred of imagined religious others is matched by the hatred felt by some conservative religious groups towards those they perceive as godless."

Gordon, are you actually equating hatred of religion with the kind of hatred religious zealots display in the name of their god? Perhaps you require an introduction to the idea of utilitarianism - the end result of our actions is where the buck stops. However the bigger the buck and the bigger the bang, the more likely the freaks and charlatans are convinced of their actions.

142. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62356 by Theocrapcy on August 9, 2007 at 11:35 am

You may as well just cut off the top of our head, scoop out the useless mush in your skull, and then attend this school.

143. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61803 by Theocrapcy on August 7, 2007 at 12:54 am

next...

144. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60412 by Theocrapcy on August 1, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Hooper is conned by his own stupidity. He claims to know where expression ends and hate begins, but implies Islam should have special dispensation from the law.

This is Islamic law encroaching on the law itself. Islamists need to be reminded, and if need be offended by the actions and RIGHT of rest of us to speak freely within the confines of the LAW, which is the final word.

145. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60410 by Theocrapcy on August 1, 2007 at 8:21 pm

I think "flea" is too complimentary.

146. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58368 by Theocrapcy on July 24, 2007 at 4:11 pm

This was embarrassing to watch, Sackur is way out of his depth.

147. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56664 by Theocrapcy on July 16, 2007 at 9:35 pm

@Dagor Bragollach
"My opinion is that they will only adopt our western values if we actually integrate them and an important factor is to allow them to practice their religion openly in the middle of us."

How is a massive mosque a sign of integration? If anything it is proof they are and want to be different. There are plenty of mosques around already to house mosque-goers. To them it is nothing but a place to go, for the fundie crackpots a massive mosque is a sign of Islamis imperialism - one step closer toward a Moslem world power.

What's the obsession with big houses of worship with these religeous freaks? Isn't believing enough? If MacDonalds decided toi build a massive restaurant they would get shot down in flames, yet we give free reign to god freaks to build the most insane structures - not only that but mosques are horrible ugly things that loonies scream from the tops of.

No thanks.

148. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56649 by Theocrapcy on July 16, 2007 at 6:40 pm

The bigger the mosque the greater the belief, why of course it all starts to make sense.

Sounds like Taliban Disney, they could sell tickets and have a terrorist ghost ride. Stripper virgins in the comedy tent for the adults.

149. Before the New Atheists: Confessions of a Lonely Atheist

Comment #56493 by Theocrapcy on July 16, 2007 at 3:06 am

This is from 2001, ahead of its time and well worth digging up again.

150. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56296 by Theocrapcy on July 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm

This piece is a study in the straw man fallacy.