101. The Only One in Step

Comment #14486 by robert s on December 22, 2006 at 4:31 pm

His job is to promote the understanding of science among the public. Challenging a professor who is promoting pseudo-science seems to be required by that.

102. The problem with secularism

Comment #14453 by robert s on December 22, 2006 at 1:47 pm

What does Darwinism is close to being completely rewritten. mean?

Has science turned into a prophetic discipline where the truth of statements can be judged before the statement is asserted?

103. The problem with secularism

Comment #14361 by robert s on December 22, 2006 at 6:19 am

Does an 'arbitrary process' require an arbiter?

104. The problem with secularism

Comment #14339 by robert s on December 22, 2006 at 5:37 am

Anyone know what 'integral insistence' might be?

105. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12863 by robert s on December 14, 2006 at 5:36 am

Passing over the fact that if Christian morality rests on the Bible, it's trying to foist Iron Age ethics on to its followers, which is really more worrying:

Atheists who believe they are personally responsible for their actions and for working out which are ethical.

Or believers who have to avoid sin (sin being defined for them by someone else), but if they commit a sin, however bad, will be forgiven for it as long as they repent?

106. God's Inbox

Comment #11810 by robert s on December 7, 2006 at 12:56 pm

freeserve.uk?
oxford.edu???

Something tells me this might've been tampered with...

107. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11806 by robert s on December 7, 2006 at 12:47 pm

One might ask how long Darwinism has to be held to be true? Will Liddle be celebrating its accession to 'truth' in three years, or in 2,000 years time will his heirs be telling us that Darwinism is still too new to compete with the, by then 4,000 year-old truths of the Bible?

It's also funny that Liddle seems surer that Dawkins believes that there's no God than Dawkins himself does.

108. Doubters do it from the pulpit

Comment #10927 by Robert S on December 1, 2006 at 11:47 am

"The Trinity is a theological vaccination against reification."

Well, thank goodness all the Docetics, Arianists and Gnostics who would not convert to Trinitarianism were put to the sword.

Who knows what horrors such unvaccinated believers might've committed.

109. The New Atheism

Comment #10923 by Robert S on December 1, 2006 at 11:11 am

"The very fact that Wolf remains unconvinced by the arguments promoted by the New Atheists is itself significant."

What a wonderful thing to say. It makes me think that if Wolf could be convinced (he seems fairly close) Mohler would re-evaluate his superstitions and maybe embrace naturalism.

Or am I reading too much into it and all that's really significant is that Wolf somewhat agrees with Mohler? And a convinced Wolf would be an unthinking follower of Dawkins' polemic whose views had no significance at all.