151. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7996 by Anonymous on November 20, 2006 at 5:21 am

Quentin de la Bédoyèr notes:

"While some serious (and some frivolous) secondary comment has been made on this challenge, no one has yet attempted to meet it head on. I look forward to an answer. I would have expected it to be readily produced since I would presume that conscious secularists have a philosophically rigorous answer at their fingertips."

Yet I have asked twice for any positive evidence that god exists and have received none. It is up to him to prove a positive- not us to prove a negative.

152. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7968 by Anonymous on November 20, 2006 at 2:46 am

Oh, and by the way you WILL DEFINITELY GO TO HELL IF YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN

153. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7965 by Anonymous on November 20, 2006 at 2:41 am

You say you wanted rationality? Then, what can be more rational than genius? I don't know of anything.:) So read on:

If you want evidence to read then check out THIS devastating essay of genius:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

However if you want to see TRUE rationality in debate then check out this thread where I destroy my opponents' epistemic basis for genius with my genius:
http://www.songmeanings.net/thread.php?tid=41884&fid=9#41884

And if you want to hear some POWERFUL (and shocking) PREACHING of genius, then listen to this sermon here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=52906154239

The Mighty One, God, the LORD,
speaks and summons the earth
from the rising of the sun to the place where it sets.
2 From Zion, perfect in beauty,
God shines forth.

3 Our God comes and will not be silent;
a fire devours before him,
and around him a tempest rages.

4 He summons the heavens above,
and the earth, that he may judge his people:

5 "Gather to me my consecrated ones,
who made a covenant with me by sacrifice."

6 And the heavens proclaim his righteousness,
for God himself is judge.
Selah

7 "Hear, O my people, and I will speak,
O Israel, and I will testify against you:
I am God, your God.

8 I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices
or your burnt offerings, which are ever before me.

9 I have no need of a bull from your stall
or of goats from your pens,

10 for every animal of the forest is mine,
and the cattle on a thousand hills.

11 I know every bird in the mountains,
and the creatures of the field are mine.

12 If I were hungry I would not tell you,
for the world is mine, and all that is in it.

13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls
or drink the blood of goats?

14 Sacrifice thank offerings to God,
fulfill your vows to the Most High,

15 and call upon me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you will honor me."

16 But to the wicked, God says:
"What right have you to recite my laws
or take my covenant on your lips?

17 You hate my instruction
and cast my words behind you.

18 When you see a thief, you join with him;
you throw in your lot with adulterers.

19 You use your mouth for evil
and harness your tongue to deceit.

20 You speak continually against your brother
and slander your own mother's son.

21 These things you have done and I kept silent;
you thought I was altogether like you.
But I will rebuke you
and accuse you to your face.

22 "Consider this, you who forget God,
or I will tear you to pieces, with none to rescue:

23 He who sacrifices thank offerings honors me,
and he prepares the way
so that I may show him the salvation of God."

154. Why there is no God

Comment #7942 by Anonymous on November 20, 2006 at 1:14 am

*reads last comment, twitches after dies laughing at its idiocy*

155. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7903 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 9:10 pm

I apologize for the above comment. It was not made by Richard. I wanted to see if anyone could use that name. And it seems they can. To whomever runs this website: perhaps some measure should be taken to make sure that only Richard is able to post as Richard Dawkins?

156. Controversial Religious Summer Camp Closed

Comment #7877 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 6:34 pm

Translation: Becky Fisher is going to make enough money off her movie and new found publicity to not have to brainwash poor kids for a few years.

157. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7816 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 2:11 pm

95 arif -

"Islam gave you aljebra, astrnomy, medicine, universities all of which 14oo yrs ago, meanwhile europe was in the dark ages."

And here's the wonderful things that Islam gives you today:

- mandatory genital mutilation
- beheadings and amputations
- execution of raped women
- 9/11 New York
- 7/7 London
- numerous other suicide bombings in the name of Allah
- execution of those who deconvert
- honor killings
- treatment of women as chattel
- persecution of gays

Where do I sign up?

158. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7766 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 10:31 am

John Bolch, the issue is not whether some expression is more valuable or truthful than others, the issue is whether society will allow any person or group to have control over what is said and taught. What is the "final word" in science or medicine often is overturned based upon the efforts of some poor wretch who labors under the persecution of the scientific or educational (or religious) establishment. Science is very useful, but it cannot operate wholly upon "proven facts," only educated suppositions.

If you are not really against discussion of religion at any level of education, as you claim, please tell us when and where you would allow us to discuss it.

"With respect, I wonder whether you are falling into the trap of equating atheism with religious belief, in the sense that 'my religion is atheism'." No, I am saying that you are falling into the trap of assuming that any person can truly educate oneself about the world without considering different worldviews with an open mind and from original sources and bona fide advocates.

"In any event, the petition is not proposing that children be brought up as atheists, or 'oppressed' in any way, quite the opposite." How so? School is where children learn. And obviously, no law is of value if it lacks enforcement mechanisms to sanction noncompliance, and the sanctions would have to be brutal indeed to overcome the fierce resistance of religious dissenters.

Your approach of cultural cleansing by force of law necessarily has to rest on the same ugly premise that sunk Nazi Germany: it is OK to shove a few Jews into the oven in order to nudge society down the road of progress.

Society, like organisms, best improves through gradual, incremental, practical, free-flowing change.

159. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7753 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 9:35 am

your getting islam mixed up with culture. You just been brainwashed by the media into thinking about islam in a paricular way. Instead of scanning a quran and that in a bookstore of all places, its better to buy it take it home make yourself a cuppa and free your mind

160. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7741 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 8:53 am

McGlashan, this is not "a question of state funding that is the difference," because you oppose diverse points of view in education even in an entirely private-funded home education situation. You want to tell people what they can do on their own time, in the privacy of their own homes, and with their own money.

I am afraid the German analogy does hold, because they democratically elected leaders to purge Jews, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Gypsies from education in much the way you propose to do with them now because of their backward religious views. And you have it precisely backward about my stance on Nazis--people (including you) have a right to express hateful ideas, but they do not have a right to act on those ideas to implement an extermination. You have a right to advocate cultural genocide against religious people, but not to carry it out.

As I have some Scottish ancestry myself, I hardly need to be convinced of the many contributions of Scottish culture. But in any case, my travels have convinced me that people ought not to be stereotyped by nationality, and that there are reasonable, likeable, productive people to be found everywhere (though not in entirely equal numbers).

You also told Emma "This petition is about using democracy, that is not force. These schools do case seperation and trouble. They are not good for harmony." This is a rather dangerous position for an atheist to take, since most voters dislike atheists and have in the past been inclined to take away an atheist's children (which used to happen, http://www.quaqua.org/hurd.htm, which is why Quaqua decries oppressing athiests as part of its defense of parental liberty for all). Remember that from the perspective of the majority in most nations, it is the minority atheists who are causing the "separation and trouble" and should be suppressed through the very tactics you would now use to oppress others.

161. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7659 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 1:28 am

162. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7655 by Anonymous on November 19, 2006 at 1:06 am

@P.S.
according to Google's "define: atheism" That aspect of the definition is not agreed upon. when in doubt of semantics, reject them.

Remember I BEFORE E EXEMPT AFTER C everyone!

163. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7563 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 7:53 pm

I'm an atheist but I understand why some people are religious. And really, there is a difference between criticising a bad movie and denouncing the belief system of the vast majority of the world as the root of all evil.

164. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7557 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 7:25 pm

Amen, brother. Amen!

165. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7546 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 6:48 pm

I'm an atheist BUT, I'm not going to be completely honest with my evaluation of the evidence and instead I am going tell you that there is a God. Rather then look to the evidence for questions about my existence, I prefer to rely on faith and make assumptions based on something other then evidence. I refuse to admit that I do not know the complete answer to a question such as how the universe began. Instead, I choose to invent an all powerful supernatural whose conceptual framework is rooted in a book written in the Iron Age to answer this and other philosophical questions I have about my life.

Evidence is not important to me, I wish to argue for the existence of my God based on other grounds. I completely trust the inner revelations my God made to people living 1000's of years ago as authentic and true. I base this assertion not on evidence, but on my high regard for the trustworthiness of peoples inner revelations into the nature of God as they were duly recorded in history in my special book.

166. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7508 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 4:38 pm

Maryhelena,

How nice it is to cross swords with someone who believes in intelligent debate. Having said that, I must dispute most of your points. You wrote:

"...My point is that, as of now, we don't have any historical data of people without some form of religion - and no modern evidence that would indicate that religion will become obsolete."

We do actually. Buddhism does not require any belief in a deity (nor does it exclude such belief) but millions of Buddhists practice their spirituality without needing to believe in a deity, and have done so for a very long time. And we do a have empirical data which points to declining religious belief and observance in Europe and elsewhere. As a general rule of thumb (there are always exceptions) societies become less religious as they become richer and more educated.

Maryhelena: "….then why the fuss over state sponsored faith schools in the UK? If there is no need, no request, for such schools then why is the UK government wanting to spend money on them?

The problem is that there is not enough fuss. There is no need for them but there is a demand for them by a small minority of religious believers. Frankly I have no objection to religious believers setting up their own schools provided they pay the salaries of the teachers and all other expenses involved. The problem is that British taxpayers are being forced to pick up the tab and your Prime Minister ( I'm assuming you're British) is supporting them. If a Satanic cult set up a school would you, as a British taxpayer, be happy to support them?

Maryhelena: "I think perhaps you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that theology is the source, the standard, of what is good or evil. I'm saying that theology contains, within itself, a potential for good and evil. Theology can be an intellectual endeavor that provides, for some people, some good, some value in their lives. On the other hand, theology, when it attempts to operate outside of a purely theological context, when it strives for a social/political expression, can be a source of evil, a source of social/political conflict."

So, "theology contains, within itself, a potential for good and evil." You still don't explain why this statement has any meaning. Theology is allegedly an academic discipline. You might as well say that economics has, within itself, the potential for good and evil (which would actually make more sense).

Maryhelena: "Religion, in it's fundamental form, is simply our capacity for, and our ability, to seek spiritual values. Theology is man's attempt, a very often inadequate attempt, to give some sort of definition and meaning to our spiritual values.

I take it that you are defining theology as the study of religion, a study which a priori accepts the basic postulates of religious belief, i.e. does not question the existence of a deity/deities? I have no problem with that definition. But I do take issue with your definition of religion: "Religion, in it's fundamental form, is simply our capacity for, and our ability, to seek spiritual values."

In its fundamental form religion is about belief that one or more gods exist and have superhuman powers. There is no rational reason to accept this belief. Do you agree?

167. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7504 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 4:30 pm

168. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7465 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 3:15 pm

"I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to fill the need?"

"From "The Atheism Tapes":-

Daniel Dennett: A lot of people, many many people want their lives to have a meaning, and where's it going to come from?

Jonathan Miller: Yes, but there must be something better than religion, but I...

Daniel Dennett: Yes... there... we certainly hope there is, but what's it going to be?"

Individual solutions at the individual level. It won't be decided for everybody by a few. Put the evidence against religion out there, expose the abuse of religion, and let people find their own way. "Freethinking" is about education, not leading people by the nose.

169. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7436 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 2:24 pm

@Twistedfirestarter

I will take your bait, my disturbed little one.
Who created God? Uhmmm, I don't have an answer. But neither do you, or any 'scientist' have an answer to the simple problem of how did life really start and what started it?

So until you answer the simpler questions, don't hurt your tiny little brain on the more difficult ones, okay?

'Archaeoptrex'? Don't you mean 'archaeopteryx'? A bunch of fossilized skeletons upon which you base your 'evidence'?

Don't you find it interesting that all the evidence that points to evolution is based on mutated, decomposed, bony fragments, while that of creation points to living creatures seen all around us?
How convenient.

170. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7418 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Torbjörn Larsson made false statements:
IIRC Davies is religious, which is consistent with "purpose in nature".

No, that's false, per his public proclamations of atheism.

The first is that it is folk psychology. There is no definable purpose and meaning to humans as natural phenomena.

No, that's false depending on which cosmological model is in effect.

Stick to something that you know, like unproven assumptions about the reality of unproven cutting-edge speculation.

Oh, my mistake... that's what you did, but it has nothing to do with origins science.

Try a physics forum.

171. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7416 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 1:53 pm

Think! said (#114):
" @Entropy
Might I suggest you re-read my post again, referring simultaneously to a good dictionary on the meanings of the word 'waste' and put it in context? Oh, and preferably not under the influence of ethanol this time! ;)

@Randy Ping
I see, so if I keep repeating 'theory' over and over again in my head, I'll finally get the word 'FACT'? Hmmmm, interesting, I never knew that.

Let me get this straight, if anyone contends, scientifically, the validity of any explanation given to fossil 'evidence', then he immediately ceases to be 'legitimate'?"

1) Theory does not mean "Loosely held idea," which is the colloquial sense, annd the sense in which you are using it. It means confirmed, over and over again, through one hundred and fifty years of observation and experimentation, originated in times when calling oneself an atheist could get one beaten up on the spot.

2)Please don't use the adjective "scientifically" for what you are doing. Using one's irrational prejudices is not science.

172. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7374 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 12:10 pm

Richard Dawkins speaks the unassailable, correct truth about atheism. Comments and criticism are all "attacks".

You're with, or you're against us.

Fine with me.

-an (apparently) insufficiently doctrinaire atheist

173. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7363 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 11:18 am

I am an atheist- but I don't get why the theists all think their "rationales" for belief lead to the conclusion of one "God, the Creator."

The various arguments that there just HAS TO BE something outside of our world to have created or designed it and the physical laws could just as easily conclude that there are 2 gods-or a committee of 14 or 41,232 gods...or any other number. So why settle on one?

174. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7324 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 8:21 am

I have one more constructive "but" suggestion perhaps.

I'm an atheist, but I prefer to focus on what I do believe in, not what I don't. True I don't believe in some almighty anthropomorphic god and the supernatural and so forth. I tend to replace "god" with "nature". Instead of wondering at the supernatural, wonder at all the marvels of nature and science. We are part of nature, and should do what we can to preserve nature and ourselves.
But that's not to say I am simply replacing religion with science, or simply replacing "god" with "nature" in the bible and still believing that book. There is no institution or dogma involved.

175. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7312 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 7:37 am

hoju:
"scientific dogma"
A contradiction - if it is science, it is subject to testing and review and can't be dogma. What Dawkins discuss is falsifiable - any observation that supports gods, say Vishnu appearing, is enough. (Discussing the strawman if it is a real Vishnu or a fake Vishnu falls on the improbability.)

To distort his views in this manner is pure projection.

"mindless, non-thinking, non-questioning followers"
Not likely. Dawkins and many with him has put a great deal of effort into judging these matters for themselves. It isn't like you go to a church to listen to a sermon on the dogma you should embrace. Did you know he wrote a book about it? :-)

"There is no "Science" ... antiquated model"

How can you be ignorant of an 400 year old and successful venture that has transformed our world? Science is the venture, the methods, the observed facts and the successful theories that has been amassed. The methods are, as all other things in science, constantly changed and improved. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant and clinging to an antiquated model of scholastics. Do you realize how much like a anti-scientific creationist you argue? :-)

"Speciation due to mutation indeed. Study some mathematics Mr. Dawkins."

Speciation is due to evolution, and evolution isn't mere mutation - if it was you wouldn't have any species at all, merely an amorphous mess. In a minimal model you must have variation and selection to replicate anything like what we observe. Population dynamics are important but it isn't mere mathematics - it is biology. And Dawkins is a biologist that has done lauded research. You can safely assume he knows science and biology.

176. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7311 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 7:31 am

Are you suggesting that old people who have lost the plot or never had it should be respected and or patronized? Surely if you look at them it is evident that they aided and abetted wretched family values such as saying it's ok to hate Italians or Catholics since they are dirty? Should adult children who feel harmed emotionally by the actions of their parents never have a chance to express themselves?

No I do not support respecting old people simply because they have survived.

177. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7293 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 5:59 am

And then there is this ongoing tragedy that is protected and sanctified by world governments that offering mobsters diplomatic immunity:

"Sex crimes and the Vatican - Vatican City
A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by Panorama.

Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm

I'm an Atheist writting letters to the Prime Minister demanding that religion be removed from public life.

178. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7283 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 4:36 am

@ Benjamin Tuite

A phrase you used in your post hints that you've seen Derren Brown's delicious subversion of the faith-heads' credulity in "Messiah".
Reminds me, I must dig that out for a second look.

I'd be fascinated to see Derren and Richard share thoughts on the whole subject of faith and superstition's origins and mechanisms in the mind.

179. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #7240 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 8:57 pm

Aaron,

A postscript. Christianity does not believe that any real religion is "completely wrong"; Islam has much that is true and good about it. We do not even believe that we are completely right; the only perfect religion would be one that follows Christ perfectly.

Some people do believe that religion is the cause of the world's evil, including some people on this site. Do a little research and it'll back this up.

Finally, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science can only tell us whether specific hypotheses are true or not; it can't tell us why to do things, or how. Religion cannot tell us more about the material world and how best to coexist with it. Each has their own sphere, and they are meant to complement, not attack, each other.

180. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7196 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 3:38 pm

" Ah well that was 5 minutes i'm never getting back but will probably have to spend quite a few hours in therapy to recover from."

The awful daring of a moments surrender, which an age of prudence can never retract -TS Eliot

181. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7192 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 3:24 pm

Ah well that was 5 minutes i'm never getting back but will probably have to spend quite a few hours in therapy to recover from.

182. My God Problem

Comment #7187 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 3:00 pm

47

So atheists generally don't really understand science, but have blind faith in it? Sounds kind of familiar. Christians think their religion is the truth, Muslims think theirs is, same with Jews. But of course the Atheists know theirs is the true religion.

183. My God Problem

Comment #7179 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 1:57 pm

43

I'm by no means a scientist, nor a debater. The reason I asked is that so many times I hear "yea, it's "only" a theory (evolution).

184. My God Problem

Comment #7168 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Comment #7156 by ThePacifier on November 17, 2006 at 11:56 am

It was a metaphor (or parable if you will) about religious child abuse - you're not supposed to take it literally (or so the "enlightened" christians keep saying). I suggest you go to the doctors and get your irony detector fixed

Maybe you should have called your book

"Jokes and witty repartee by the atheist that the pacifier understands"

that would be a very thin book

185. My God Problem

Comment #7165 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 12:39 pm

Why can't we name the Theory of Evolution differently, may be as the "Law of Evolution"?

186. My God Problem

Comment #7151 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 11:29 am

It might be a thin book but there's 6,000 volumes (creationists don't have a monopoly on jokes involving 6000).

187. My God Problem

Comment #7139 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 10:14 am

"See the pounds come off (in more ways than one) with pastor teds crash course meth diet"

Is there such a thing as a fat thin book?

188. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7105 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 7:30 am

189. My God Problem

Comment #7102 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 7:07 am

That's the best article on this website

190. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #7100 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 6:47 am

this is so fucking dumb and retarted fuckk ya'll

191. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #7090 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 5:28 am

I think i can safely lob this in the "Aren't we great" bin. Complexity over time trumps narcissism. The only weakness is multiverse theory. Note to physicists - must try harder

192. We Might Be Chosen, But We're Still Going to Hell: Jews and the Christian Right

Comment #7069 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 1:42 am

"Unless I'm really reading this wrong, Hagee seems to be saying that Hitler was sent by God to drive the Jews back to where they belong. If that's the case, he might be a friend of the Israeli state, but he's no friend of Jewish people"
Hitler's intention was not to drive the Jews back to 'where they belong', but to slaughter every Jew on the planet
Neo
"I even know a few Christians, Christians who think the world is only 6000 years old" Show them a map of the Atlanic ocean drained of water showing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, it's great rifts, transform faults and it's constant volcanic activity, show how it beautifully mirrors the coastline of Africa. Explain plate tectonics and how Africa and S. America were once joined together and the fact that the Atlantic is widening by a few cm per year (They have recently proved the rate of growth by using GPS )Then tell them how wide the Atlantic is now
Of course, you can always tell a creationist, but you can't tell him anything!

193. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7056 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 11:30 pm

I am sorry that I have to come back on this thread. I had assumed that given the interest in the first article, the responses and those who said that they were looking forward to commenting on the next one, that it would also be placed as an article on the website and so we could begin a separate thread. This would seem to me to make sense given that the current thread is over 400 long and that the purpose of this site is to allow 'a clear thinking oasis'. I had requested that the article be placed as a separate article but apparently this is not allowed. One wonders why? If I was not such a positive thinker I would think that it is because, in the words of the Norwegian football commentator describing his teams glorious victory over England, 'your boys took one hell of a beating!'. This thread is an embarrassment to the atheist cause. I was warned – they will never put the second one up – they don't like anything that makes them look bad. They will say you have the freedom to post on the forum. I said – don't be stupid. They put the first one up – it got a massive response – they are not that insecure. I was wrong.

So back to the posts.


Nate (376) – "It really is too bad david won't ever read this post, or actually think about these questions. he'll dismiss it as anger, attack my questions and how they are phrased and say, "there are many reasons to believe in god" without an ounce of proof, outside of 'the good book'
Reason does not enter into a christian debate. Faith rules the day."

You guys are just like some extreme religious believers. You don't listen, you only accuse and you keep repeating the same mantras 'faith and reason cannot go together'. The problem with your 'debate' is that you set the parameters so that anyone who does not agree with them is automatically dissed. But the partameters themselves are the subject of debate.

Steven (378) – "David Robertson's letter is very long! I read the whole thing and he makes no points that I can argue with really, because he makes no points at all, just a vague sort of rant."

This is a classic example of the point I was making just above. I think the post you are referring to (no. 374) contains about 40 points. The fact that you do not like them or cannot answer them does not entitle you just to describe them as 'a vague sort of rant'.

"Is it wort arguing against him here? Probably not - especially as it's hard to argue intelligently with someone who is just screaming 'Your wrong' in your face."

But that is precisely what I am not doing. I take my time going through each post trying to answer as much as I can. Of course if you want to (or have to) believe that I am just screaming 'your wrong' then I guess you will – that will then of course make it easier for you to dismiss me by stating that you cannot argue intelligently with me. I think that last phrase is obvious.

"There are whole channels in UK and USA dedicated to... er... something. (Though why God needs more than one channel beats me). I look forward to The Athiest Channel"

Indeed. Go ahead and fund one yourselves. Just stop expecting the rest of us as taxpayers to have to fund it through the State, in the same way that you want us to fund atheist schools. By the way the Christian TV channels (at least in the UK) are a disaster for the Gospel. They do a whole lot more harm than you guys do.

Ole (379) - Thanks. You are prepared at least to engage, discuss and think. Not sure that this site will do you much good.

Billy (383) – I know I should not respond to you but the temptation is too much.

"You lot certainly censor and burn books" - Another piece of completely false information. But hey why should truth get in the way of a good rant?

"How do you debate someone who bases their beliefs on no evidence "

That is a very good question. I must admit I am finding it very difficult to debate with atheists. You have such a strong faith and so little evidence.

"What privileged position? And how does TGD threaten my position?"
"Erm, let me see, power, influence, collection money, social standing (news paper colums and local celebrity). If TgD turns folk away, all that will change. Was that so hard to figure out? "

Yes – and very amusing. I have no power, very little influence, I don't get the collection money (I get paid the princely sum of $25,000 per year for working a 60 hour week) and I don't have any newspaper columns etc.

" Also, most people here want to argue their point. You basically retreat into "I know better" or "I right because the bible is right and if that is right, then I am right"

I think anyone reading through this thread would find that I am quite happy to argue my point and that I have not argued that because the Bible is right I am right. You are really struggling Billy with being able to cope with someone who disagrees with you and argue against them.

"Erm, no. Someone else told you that. Do you read the bible this carefully? Hmm. Someone who in your opinion dislikes opposition, has racist qualities (by the way, what do you think of the pope and catholics?) and publishes rubbish ... who does that remind you of - oh yes, the free church!"

Only if you have no knowledge of the Free Church. Keep going you might get something right eventually. I hate racism. As for the pope – he seems a really intelligent guy and personally I like what I know of him. As for catholics I tend to look upon them as human beings and not judge people because of the religion they belong to. I suggest you do the same.

Paul (392) – "Okay, enough of the nonsense. There is in fact a serious lesson to be learned from the above, and it is this: Once you allow the supernatural, you necessarily throw all reason, science and logic out the window. It is nonsense to suggest that reasoned, scientific debate can share a bed with the supernatural. This is simply because at any moment the advocate of the supernatural can merely pull the plug on you and disappear in a puff of smoke."

You guys absolutely amaze me. You say you want intelligent debate etc but you insist on predetermining the result before you even begin. Lets debate whether there is a supernatural God – then you say once you allow the supernatural you necessarily throw our all reason, science and logic, therefore it becomes impossible to debate. Why don't you let people know that and why don't you just spend the time talking to yourselves about how right you are and how stupid everyone else? Sorry – I can see that is precisely what you are doing! By the way I am not the one pulling the plug. Perhaps this site is not as open minded as it would like to think.

Beth (396) – The name is Robertson -

"Sorry - got this one wrong - Dawkins does engage in debates with theists - you might want to check out Time magazine and his debate with Collins - it is listed on the website. "

I would be prepared to admit that I did get this one wrong but I 'm afraid that the evidence is mounting up the other way. It appears to me that the RDF and others is not about debating, finding truth, dialogue etc. It is about propaganda, fighting the good fight (which includes silencing the enemy) and winning the war. You already know the truth so you don't need to debate it. It is fascinating to observe.

"You are well aware that you were invited to post your new wave of comments onto this forum if you so desired. You don't need Josh to do it for you. So please do not make it appear that it is his responsibility or that he is preventing you from expressing your ideas. Rather cheeky of you isn't it? Honestly David - you ought to apologise."

Not at all. Why has my article not been posted? I was not the one who posted the introductory article. It was not Christians who bombarded this site but atheists. The reason it is not being posted is that you do not want it on the front page – you do not want people having access to it. Why? Because this current thread shows atheism in a bad light and that is not what this website is about.

Billy (402) – "Well, I've realised that intellgent discussion is wasted on the fundies mr I dont give my name"

And then you write "His indoctrination manifesto is the TAT, and Robertson is the TIT!" – I guess if that is what you mean by 'intelligent discussion it IS wasted.

Billy – you are priceless! If I invented you I would be accused of exaggerating. By the way thanks for commenting on the second article. I can't really argue with anything you are saying because you will not allow me to. Apparently anyone who believes in a supernatural god is incapable of arguing intelligently – and I would have to agree with you. I am incapable of arguing with such intelligence and wit.

By the way if you want to comment on the article – here it is again http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/novb06.htm

And if you are looking for an ex-Catholic Marxist perspective try this http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

I think it is wrong in some aspects and it is certainly crueler that I would be – but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

194. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #7037 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 7:18 pm

195. Why there is no God

Comment #7030 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 6:32 pm

Vey athiest-like values...as in believing in history, science, and more logic-based reasoning rather than blind faith.

These are not values.

196. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6979 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 12:50 pm

What a load of shite. Is there anyone out there with a brain that can properly argue against Dawkins? Time after time I have to wade through the same reconstituted drivel, the same points missed, the bizzare misconceptions. If this is the best the "arguments" the anti Dawkins lobby can put up then why do they bother. This Chopra twat, reason is obviously some undiscovered continent as far as he is concerned. Who is this Choppy bloke with the malfunctioning intellect? What else does he do besides fart out of his mouth. I'm about 80% through TGD and Dawkins has so many bases covered I shudder with awe. Truely mind lifting and mind liberating.

197. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6977 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 12:48 pm

I find these fluffy arguments really pretentious. They seem quite common.
As far as i'm aware, music started off as a form of communication in africa. Somebody worked out that if they hit a drum, the noise travels longer distances. Probably became more complex and some people realised they liked music for the sake of it (and some people have no sense of rhythm and are tone deaf).
As for art - one day there was somebody who liked animals and the way they run about - i've had a brainwave - i think i'll draw one on my cave, it caught on - hey presto - art was born. (and yet to this day some people couldn't draw if their life depended on it).
There are trends in art and music. Memetics anyone?
Does god like people less that are both tone deaf and can't paint?
Ok, you get mavericks that can play music or paint well at a really young age. Their brains are wired up in a different way - that's all.
But if they were never exposed to music / musical instruments or paint - they might never realise they were good at it and their talents might manifest themselves in a different way.
Is tiger woods talent god given? I think he was just born a lucky bastard (the genetic jackpot for golf) and then he practiced a lot.
It's like someone saying - If no creature had wings, would god have given humans the urge to fly.
Look mate, leave me alone you pretentious fool, I'm trying to fix my car. (aahh...we know how the car works, but what gave us the inspiration to build one). They built up to it in stages of progressive ideas starting with the wheel - go away please - my gearbox is screwed and you're not helping.

198. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6973 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 12:11 pm

more of the same available from the Rev Robertson at www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/novb06.htm
in his new article 'dawkins - A Religious non-believer'.
He's kept his word.

199. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6971 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 12:06 pm

nice to see you're keeping it classy billy!

200. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #6958 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 11:00 am

If we ignore this, we will have school science trips to places like this
http://www.benettontalk.com/2006/11/the_creationist_museum_follies.html