151. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79533 by BMMcArdle on October 17, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Arguments against idealism:

That nothing can be thought of without its being thought of, to the conclusion that nothing can exist without its being thought of, is a tautology.

1) You cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind, without having them in mind.

2) Therefore, you cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind.

1) Is a tautology; therefore the premise of this argument is trivially true.

2) Is not a trivially true conclusion. The logic flowing from 1) to 2) is valid (as this premise cannot lead to a false conclusion), but unsound because tautological premises can bring only tautological conclusions.

(David Stove)

152. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79276 by BMMcArdle on October 16, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Is your God the God of the Old Testament?
Is that your idea of morality?
If not, then you are creating your own image of God, your own morality.

Your opinion seems to be that there is either your morality or no morality.

2438:

I hate hypocrisy and smug superiority as much as any atheist might.

153. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78936 by BMMcArdle on October 15, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Since God is invisible, and the universe is no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html

154. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78827 by BMMcArdle on October 15, 2007 at 2:56 am

The worst argument in the world, to know the unknowable.

155. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78316 by BMMcArdle on October 12, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Supernatural: unknowable, unexplainable by any law or phenomena.
Belief in the supernatural: ????????????
Ethically empowering: righteousness affirming.

Something I would do in similar circumstances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1iNH7W9SC8

156. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77829 by BMMcArdle on October 10, 2007 at 6:47 pm

This is a clear-thinking oasis, not an imagination-gone-wild playground.
Kudos to the oasis keepers.

157. How Baboons Think (Yes, Think)

Comment #77391 by BMMcArdle on October 9, 2007 at 7:38 am

It takes a civilized man to come up with a wild idea.

158. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75900 by BMMcArdle on October 4, 2007 at 2:31 am

I think, therefore there is no physical reality.

159. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75803 by BMMcArdle on October 3, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Ethically empowering: self-righteousness enhancing.

160. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75567 by BMMcArdle on October 3, 2007 at 2:58 am

Delusion is my heroin.

161. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75225 by BMMcArdle on October 2, 2007 at 4:37 am

Utterly useless meanderings on the road from nowhere to nothing.

162. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75215 by BMMcArdle on October 2, 2007 at 4:06 am

Since gods are invisible, and the universe would be the same if they did not exist, it is simpler to assume that they do not exist.

163. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74705 by BMMcArdle on September 30, 2007 at 3:28 am

Who's to say that delusional isn't the best mindset? You get to make up your own answers for everything.

164. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74703 by BMMcArdle on September 30, 2007 at 3:18 am

When fanatics try to screw things up for the moderates, its good to have some other fanatics around to throw at them?

165. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74209 by BMMcArdle on September 27, 2007 at 5:17 pm

The world's foremost biologists, geologists, and paleontologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops!

166. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #73944 by BMMcArdle on September 26, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Paul,

Please take your high and mighty, atheists have no morality, cherry-picked religion, and fuck off!

Sincerely,
Brian

167. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73712 by BMMcArdle on September 26, 2007 at 12:12 am

The world's foremost biologists, geologists, and paleontologists are a bunch of nincompoops!

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

Comment #73647 by BMMcArdle on September 25, 2007 at 5:44 pm

revcort 666.....sorry, can't help myself.

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

Comment #73572 by BMMcArdle on September 25, 2007 at 10:26 am

If I held a certain belief in something, and someone asked me why, I sure as hell wouldn't say "I don't know".

170. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72965 by BMMcArdle on September 23, 2007 at 4:21 pm

I have faith in the lack of belief.

171. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #72748 by BMMcArdle on September 22, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Maybe they don't "like" cucumbers at all, but eat them if nothing else is offered.

Once they saw that they had a chance of getting a grape, they quit taking the cukes.

If I had a chance to get a grape, I wouldn't eat a piece of cucumber either.

I don't see how they could tell that the monkeys thought it wasn't fair.

It seems that the only thing this study proves is they like grapes more than cucumbers.

172. The Science Of Collective Decision-making

Comment #72725 by BMMcArdle on September 22, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Why did they have to estimate whether she was young? She didn't want to tell them her age?

Couldn't they test her multilingualism?

173. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72724 by BMMcArdle on September 22, 2007 at 12:57 pm

"Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night?"

Any question of religion on a health form should be under the heading of "Psychiatric Ailments".

174. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72631 by BMMcArdle on September 22, 2007 at 2:38 am

Cranberry sauce.

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

Comment #72416 by BMMcArdle on September 21, 2007 at 2:48 am

Regarding the talking mule:

Shepherd starts thinking, "Holy shit! I hope the sheep don't start talking too! I'll just tell everyone I meet that them sheep's a bunch of damned liars."

176. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72205 by BMMcArdle on September 20, 2007 at 2:21 pm

PaulEmecz 2395:

It depends what the etc. consists of. The implication that you do whatever makes you feel good is worrying. I don't like the thought of a great number of people living according to that principle.

177. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72183 by BMMcArdle on September 20, 2007 at 1:51 pm

PaulEmecz 2391:

My point is that they cannot turn around and say "You should value x" or "It is right to value x".

I make assumptions too. However, my assumptions have the added value of being compatible. Do yours?

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

Comment #72119 by BMMcArdle on September 20, 2007 at 11:39 am

From truthbeknown.com
A prayer: "God, protect me from your followers." Well, needless to say, it doesn't work, thereby providing concrete proof that God doesn't exist and that prayer doesn't work. And those who have squeaked through the supernatural protective net have expressed psychosis, which proves that religion creates it.
"I'll pray for you!" This comment sounds like an alien language to freethinkers. It comes out something like this: "BZZZPPFFFFTTT." When interpreted, it becomes clear that the person who is making such a comment feels quite smug and superior in that he/she has chosen the RIGHT god, compared to whatever it is you do with your consciousness, such that he/she now has a direct pipeline, whereas you do not, and he/she will put in a good word for you, you lowlife scum. Since the concept of "God" is completely arbitrary, we could respond that we will pray to the Cosmic Mickey Mouse that our well-wishers become intelligent. Naturally, we are not talking about loved ones who make this heartfelt prayer comment in times of true trauma. We are addressing the condescending offer presented by missionaries and proselytizing fanatics who have never even met us but who feel they know we are sinners who need prayer to their "Father in heaven." Theirs is a rather unctuous and smarmy mentality.

179. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71958 by BMMcArdle on September 20, 2007 at 2:16 am

I'm going to sue Santa Claus for not bringing me what I wanted...I was nice for a whole year!

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

Comment #71827 by BMMcArdle on September 19, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Let's see....

Should I believe the world's most prominent biologists and paleontologists.....

or a collection of Hebrew myths full of ancient ignorance?

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

Comment #71792 by BMMcArdle on September 19, 2007 at 4:50 pm

revcort 326:

Now, I have no problem believing that Darwin saw 13 or 14 different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands, but what I still haven't seen is a half-lizard, half-bird in the fossil record.

Its feathers resembled the flight feathers of modern birds, suggesting not only capacity for flight but also homoiothermy. Otherwise, its features were reptilian, with jaws lined with sharp teeth, three 'fingers' ending in curved claws and a long bony tail. These features, which are consistent with theropod dinosaurs, made Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil.

182. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71780 by BMMcArdle on September 19, 2007 at 4:10 pm

PaulEmecz 2383:

This is not to say that atheists can't be or are not courageous, kind, honest people (I have never said that). It just means that they cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom.

183. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71552 by BMMcArdle on September 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

Morality has no need of a god. People will do good or bad or anything in between regardless.

Divine endorsement has been used as justification for some of the greatest atrocities ever committed. Gods are creations of ancient ignorance.

Since gods are invisible, and the universe is no different than if they did not exist, it is simpler to assume they do not exist.

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

Comment #71269 by BMMcArdle on September 18, 2007 at 9:02 am

Deut 25:11-12
If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.

Ex 35:2
For six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Lev 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.


Ex 21:20-21
When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

1Tim 2:11-12
Let a woman* learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman* to teach or to have authority over a man;* she is to keep silent.

Luke 14:26
'Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

The Bible was written by primitive men, many of who were obviously insane.

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

Comment #71013 by BMMcArdle on September 17, 2007 at 1:16 pm

"Who made you so angry?" This comment one is full of implications, and I could answer in a variety of ways. One favorite response is "Who made you so dumb?" But I could focus on the "made" part and say, "Well, God made me, so he must have made me angry." I could also point out that the question itself is extremely angry, and that those who see anger everywhere are themselves seething with anger but are repressing it and are thus not mentally balanced. Human beings SHOULD be angry, because their situation is atrocious. If there were such a god person directing everything, they should be very angry at "him," because this world is a mess and every day abominable things are happening to millions of people. Of course, the standard stupid response to this is that "God gave us free will."

http://www.truthbeknown.com/proof.htm

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

Comment #71002 by BMMcArdle on September 17, 2007 at 12:53 pm

If God were real, he would speak for himself. The fact that God does not speak, and that he allows any lunatic who comes along to speak "in his name," shows us that God is quite imaginary.

http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

187. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70504 by BMMcArdle on September 15, 2007 at 7:07 pm

You're viewing everything on a black and white TV(telly?). Get yourself a color set.

188. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70082 by BMMcArdle on September 14, 2007 at 3:00 am

Where is all this charity going? To their own church, of course.

My brother, an atheist, always claims he gave money to the church when filing his income tax.

Are you happy? Yes, because I know I'm going to a better place when I die.

189. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70032 by BMMcArdle on September 13, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Since God is invisible, and the universe is no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist (see Occam's Razor).

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html

190. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69835 by BMMcArdle on September 13, 2007 at 1:29 am

The major philosophical criticisms of God as viewed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam are as follows:

1. Evil:
Because evil exists, God cannot be all-powerful. all-knowing and loving and good at the same time.
2. Pain:
Because God allows pain, disease and natural disasters to exist, he cannot be all-powerful and also loving and good in the human sense of these words.
3. Injustice:
Destinies are not allocated on the basis of merit or equality. They are allocated either arbitrarily, or on the principle of "to him who has, shall be given, and from him who has not shall be taken even that which he has." It follows that God cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing and also just in the human sense of the word.
4. Multiplicity:
Since the Gods of various religions differ widely in their characteristics, only one of these religions, or none, can be right about God.
5. Simplicity:
Since God is invisible, and the universe is no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist (see Occam's Razor).

None of these criticisms apply to the God of pantheism, which is identical with the universe and nature.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html

191. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69774 by BMMcArdle on September 12, 2007 at 5:16 pm

[Creation science is] an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops. ~Ron Peterson

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

Comment #69547 by BMMcArdle on September 11, 2007 at 4:55 pm

I like it when a boxer thanks Jesus for being able to beat the shit out of the other guy.

193. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69524 by BMMcArdle on September 11, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Typical atheists have no morals, cherry-picked religion bullshit.

It's a fact that you have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to create and maintain your sky daddy.

194. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69521 by BMMcArdle on September 11, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I can certainly say that I am not certain.

195. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69381 by BMMcArdle on September 11, 2007 at 3:22 am

Arguments for the Existence of God
Philosophers have tried to provide rational proofs of God's existence that go beyond dogmatic assertion or appeal to ancient scripture. The major proofs, with their corresponding objections, are as follows:
1. Ontological:
It is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be perfect unless its essence included existence. Therefore a perfect being must exist.
Objection: You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence.
2. Causal:
Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God.
Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you contradict your own premise. And if you do, there is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates without cause.
3. Design:
Animals, plants and planets show clear signs of being designed for specific ends, therefore there must have been a designer.
Objection: The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design.
3a. Modern design argument:
the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. This is the strongest card in the theist hand. The laws of the universe seem to have been framed in such a way that stars and planets will form and life can emerge. Many constants of nature appear to be very finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Objections: The odds against all possible universes are equally astronomical, yet one of them must be the actual universe. Moreover, if there are very many universes, then some of these will contain the possibility of life. Even if valid, the anthropic cosmological principle guarantees only that stars and planets and life will emerge - not intelligent life. In its weak form, the anthropic cosmological principle merely states that if we are here to observe the universe, it follows that the universe must have properties that permit intelligent life to emerge.
4. Experiential:
A very large number of people claim to have personal religious experiences of God.
Objections: We cannot assume that everything imagined in mental experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations etc) actually exists. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or publicly verified. Mystical and other personal experiences can be explained by other causes.
5. Pragmatic:
Human societies require ethics to survive. Ethics are more effectively enforced if people fear God and Hell and hope for Heaven (cf. the origin of ethical systems).
Objections: The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth. In any case, many societies have thrived without these beliefs, while crime has thrived in theistic societies believing in heaven and hell.
General objection against all the rational proofs for God:
Each of the above arguments is independent of the others and cannot logically be used to reinforce the others.
The cause argument - even if it were valid - would prove only a first cause. It would tell us nothing about the nature of that cause, nor whether the cause was mental or physical. It would not prove that the first cause was the personal, judging, forgiving God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It would not prove the existence of a designer or of a perfect being. Equally, the design argument would prove only a designer, the ontological argument would prove only the existence of a perfect being, and so on. None of these arguments individually can prove that the cause, designer or perfect being were one and the same - they could be three different beings.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html

196. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69088 by BMMcArdle on September 9, 2007 at 5:16 pm

God didn't even want Mother Teresa to know He was there.

He wanted her to be an atheist, but she didn't get the message. Maybe she was afraid.

197. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68967 by BMMcArdle on September 9, 2007 at 10:26 am

What thou shalt or shalt not do is defined by our culture, not a god.

God wants me to be an atheist.

198. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68645 by BMMcArdle on September 8, 2007 at 2:08 am

I think, therefore I am a simulation in the computer matrix of a god.

199. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68252 by BMMcArdle on September 6, 2007 at 2:11 pm

DG 2142:

Yes, well, I on the contrary find that the kind of populist naturalism that Dawkins epitomizes and which you apparently follow is based on two main cognitive failures:

1. To conflate all theism with biblical literalism, which implies a contradiction between all of theism and science.

2. To fail to appreciate how shaky naturalism really is, including that naturalism's typical worldview of scientific realism may be contrary to objective evidence.

200. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68013 by BMMcArdle on September 5, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Atheism is the ultimate test of personal virtue.

God knows He has provided no evidence of His existence, and ample evidence that He is superfluous.

In your heart of hearts, you (and God) know that you're making up excuses to bolster your belief in Him.

God knows nobody knows God.

If you want to get close to God, you've got to believe God doesn't exist.