Comments by Anonymous

Comment #6952 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 10:03 am

very atheist-like values? What is an atheist value

Comment #6947 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 9:06 am

Although the deadline has past they still appear to be allowing you to sign, so get in quick!

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

Comment #6941 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 8:37 am

That's a bit bizarre. Considering the source is the daddy of all creationism, you'd expect any reference to Dawkins to paint him as an arrogant Darwin-worshipping moron who was ignoring the evidence for biblical truth, and that only because AIG is too respectable to refer to him as a servant of Satan.

Instead, I get an absolutely fair evaluation of Dawkins' beliefs and what he's doing and a plea to Christians to go forth and be as un-quiet about their beliefs as Dawkins is and engage atheism head on. It's this kind of atitude, as opposed to "dismissal by damnation" and sticking the head in the sand that will encourage meaningful discourse about the role of faith in society.

204. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #6881 by Anonymous on November 16, 2006 at 3:15 am

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

Comment #6799 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 3:53 pm

Deepak Chopra on his own blog, http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/11/the_god_delusio.html#comments
right now is trying to deal with Richard's "God Delusion" in his own way, whatever that may be.

Richard would not need any help if he were part of the discussion but the New Age Guru is not always fair, especially in Richard's absence.

Chopra recently appeared on CBC and almost proudly announced that he called Richard a bigot and a fundamentalist.

Chopra: "I would love to debate him (Richard Dawkins) because his idea of his atheism went out of fashion about 200 years ago, you know, it is about this anthropomorphic figure out there, you know!"

A lot of deep thinking went into that statement!

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

Comment #6791 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 3:26 pm

"1. We must know what we, as Christians, believe. There are hundreds of resources on this site to help you understand your faith and know what you believe and why. You might also consider taking one of our online courses."

What most disturbed me was the above quoted passage, which skewed the article towards sounding more like an ad for the Church of Scientology than a critical analysis.

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

Comment #6786 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 3:11 pm

Many people here are saying that because evil things are done in the name of religion or by those who claim to be religious, that religion therefore contradicts itself and cannot exist.

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense? If I am the head of an organization that collects money to give it away, and one of my workers embezzles, then is my organization not actually charitable?

Also, in response to the previous post: what is the point of the choice? Given the choice, would you choose to live, or would you choose to never live at all-in other words, to die before you were ever born?

208. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #6771 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 2:33 pm

hehe i guess you just cant convince some people that their sky fairy is a myth despite the evidence. its hard to accept faith and stupidity and religious heritage are stronger than science and rationality.

209. Science vs religion

Comment #6748 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 1:37 pm

89

"Muslims etc. do not believe in your God, that is why."

Which God is My God? I have not claimed that a God exists, just that an intelligence that is several order of magnitudes above human is possible - and that such an intelligence would seem "godlike" to human level.

210. Science vs religion

Comment #6742 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 1:29 pm

84

"Observed occurrence of some other events = not zero"

What "other events" do you refer to?

211. Science vs religion

Comment #6741 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 1:26 pm

85.

"This is a typical christian tactic of nit picking"

I find this typical of Atheists - jumping to conclusions that have not yet been proven factual. Where do you find the evidence that I am Christian?

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

Comment #6712 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 12:12 pm

John, have you seen these articles?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=24625&in_page_id=34

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17095691&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

jack's strategy is to terminate the arguement of infinate regress by invoking god. This is futile anyway, because even if you did disprove evolution, that does not prove god did it, and there is the who created god arguement that he doesn't think needs any answer other than he always existed

213. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #6705 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 11:58 am

Hi Phil, Haven't been reading, but you must have made a call on the special billy phone. Here is a chicken wiyh teeth (cant remenber if I already posted it http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1584077/posts

"Question the flaws and find answers in what you believe because of this I'm a better Christian."

WE DO

Take care

214. Science vs religion

Comment #6675 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 10:17 am

re 36

I am quite aware that atheists don't have all the answers, which is kind of my point. Atheists are in the same category as theist - the only difference is one side precludes the possibility of a creator i.e. they don't "believe" in a creator while the other does. Both are belief systems and are so far un-provable. I personally just don't know and therefore refuse to rule out possibilities.

215. Science vs religion

Comment #6632 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 7:20 am

Nice link skeptic jim

AIG sshould be renamed Assenine Idiotic Godbotherers

216. Science vs religion

Comment #6611 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 5:23 am

Steve, her is an obvious error in the bible (somewhere around gen 5 from memory) God says that people will live no more than 120 years. People HAVE lived longer than that,
Here is one with a significant effevt on theology (a non valid prophecy)
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html

Oh yes, the old greek version of the old testament had methusela surviving the flood. The king james version still contains numerical errors

217. Science vs religion

Comment #6600 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 4:12 am

Charlene, I have looked at many sites like AG. They are a joke and easily shot down. it makes claims that scripoture is the only reliable dating method. They present no evidence. Their claims on radiocardon dating are refutable, and lead dating of the earh is valid. No one has found soft tissue cells in T.rex. What has been found is FOSSILISED bone marrow. The ichthyosaur proves nothing other than it died a couple of hundred million years ago in the act of birth, and became fossilised. You have done no research. Stop assuming christians are the only enlightened ones - any way, you seem in no position to jugde scientific data for yourself. you are only respouting easily refutable nonsence. However, the bible is pretty good evidence against itself. you however are not objective enough to see that.

218. Is Apple Computer Insulting Islam?

Comment #6587 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 3:05 am

Oh Mohammed! This is what religion turns people into -fucking idiots!

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

Comment #6560 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 9:50 pm

We must clean up our act. I know that sounds harsh, but that's what non-believers see all too frequently: "Christians" who don't really act out what they say they believe.
--------------------
Like stonning people for having sex before marriage?

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

Comment #6505 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 3:28 pm

oh no another shouter!

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

Comment #6487 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Billy - you're shouting again!

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

Comment #6480 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 1:27 pm

Billy, youre Scottish arent you? (this is just an aside, not really a lot to do with this thread, just that Courier connection) I think there are a lot of Scots on this forum... Land of John Knox and all that....

DC Thomson also publish the "People's Friend" - a story magazine for older women - well, REALLY old women. The sort of women you find in churches... Anyway, I heard that DC Thomsons policy on magazine illustrations stated that if there was ever to be a picture of a woman holding a baby, then the left hand WITH RING was to be clearly visible.....

OK, thats the light relief over, back to the cock pit, you folks...

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

Comment #6473 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 1:06 pm

bj

Rev Robertson gets a mention in this article - there is also a picture of him:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/07/25/newsstory8579896t0.asp

Now there is actually a fascinating little connection here. That article appleared in "The Courier" (gets referred to simply as the Dundee Courier) - a fairly typical, Scottish locally based paper, an easy read with a broad appeal) Now, the Courier is owned by the publishing giant D C Thomson - Guess who the wife of the Deputy Chairman and Chief Exec of DC Thomson is?

Ans: Claire Enders, one of the Trustees of the RDF!!!!

http://richarddawkins.net/foundation,trustees

Man, this is an absoultely rivetting thread this one. I've wasted HOURS poring over it!

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

Comment #6447 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 9:57 am

Nate,
"you are so sure your faith is based in Reason and proof. Where? That's all an athiest wants! You have provided none"

I'll let you into a little secret, he has none. There is also no santa claus, but dont let that slip either.

eileen, Dawkins is so right about the god of the bible when he says "The God of the old testement is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homphobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
He also promotes slavery, forces people into cannabalism and accepted the sacrifice of jephthahs daughter. What a bastard eh! The resaons xians give for justfying these atrcocities is rooted in cloud cuckoo land. People are sheep and will follow anything - depressing really

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

Comment #6427 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 7:23 am

david to sane atheist:

"Is this really the standard you want us to aspire to as 'sanity'? A friend who 'obviously' (why obviously?) knows. You have heard a bit of gossip from a friend and on that basis you are going to withdraw from the discussion"

Hmmm, see where you are goming from here. I know a guy who claims to know a book written by another guy that he doesnt know. It contains unicorns, talking serpents, sea monster stomach holidays, dead people coming back to life and a talking Donkey. He lives by this book. Surely you must agree that he is mad.

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

Comment #6426 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 7:16 am

Fedler, thats fair comment. I'm not at work today, so here's my own take.

I think that both types of evidence are apposite, that there is no dichotomy. In other words, I think we should take account not only of evidence obtained from the so-called 'hard' sciences, but also from the 'softer' disciplines such as psychology and sociology, which is something John Polokinghorne stresses in his 'Belief in God in an Age of Science'. In particlular, Polkinghorne is interested in the origin of such concepts as mind or reason, purpose, value and hope. He argues that these are characteristically human traits and that in order to understand who we are and how we got here we need to conisider these data as much a apart of the equation as, say, genetic similarities between ourselves and other species. Polkinghorne is, of course, a christian, although he does accept evolution as a valid explanation for at least some aspects of our nature and is, to that extent, a theistic evolutionist. (For this reason some of our fundi friends would repudiate his claim to be an evangelical). The question for a consistent darwinian is, Can evolution through natural selection explain the traits I mentioned, or does one need to invoke the idea of skyhooks?

A critique of the idea of mind - for Polkinghorne the fact that the universe is intelligible and appears to make some sense - is to be found in any critique of the anthropic principle, namely that it is no less probable that the universe is finely tuned to us than that we are finely tuned to it. In other words, the universe makes sense to us precisely because we could not have evolved in any other type of universe.

Perhaps more difficult to explain are humnan aspirations for meaning and the fact that as Gordy M suggests, some people at least find it difficult to live with the alleged sterility and coldness of atheism. I think there are two things that can be said (I'm sure there are plenty others that I havent thought about) First, the fact that atheism may be difficult does not mean that it is false. Conversly, of course, the fact that religion is in some sense 'easier' or more comforting does not make it true. If we want to find 'meaningful' meaning, then we would want to base it, surely, on something that is demonstrably correct rather than something we might feel a prior wish to be correct. But this doesn't answer the question, Why are we so bothered about meaning in the first place?

So secondly, Polkinghorne - and most christians, theistic evolutionist or not - would argue that our search for meaning comes from god, althought Polkinghorne does not argue that the 'evidence' of our search for meaning proves god. Rather he argues that an antecedent acceptance of the validity in belief in god makes sense of this evidence. Personally, and if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure why we crave this meaning: it is a part of the data for which I, as yet, have no completely satisfacory answer. I think there is more to it than that religion (which deals with meaning) provides social cohesion. Others may be able to shed some light. Nonetheless, I would note two things. First of all, darwinians have provided explanations, or part explanations at least,for other uniquely human traits such as morality - traits that theists argue cannot be explained by anything other than an appeal to god. Dawkins deals with this in Chaptr 6 of TGD. Another useful resource here is Matt Ridly on The Origin of Virtue.

Secondly, I would again argue that difficulties with a theory such as evolution in relation to certain data (in this case how to explain certain psychological and sociological aspects to humanity) do not necessarily mean that the theory is seriously flawed since further reflection my yield appropriate answers. I would argue that all we can do is work with what we know to be highly probably true and empirically testable. We can demonstrate that evolution is highly probably true and we can argue that it provides an explanation for certain data that on the face of it might otherwise have needed a supernatural explanation. Again, the problem appears to be that some christians assume that darwinism does no take these kinds of questions seriously and has no answers for them. This is not the case.

Alex

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

Comment #6378 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 12:58 am

Quote:

if you find one, run down to the reception and exlaim "I wanted to alert you that I have come across an extremely obscene book in my room, which contains genocide, incest, rape and mass murder."

ROFL!!!

Actually, theres another aspect as well. If its the King James Version, its got the word "piss" in it.

Try this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=piss&version1=9&searchtype=all

Bet they dont do those passages in Sunday School. Wonder why? Is it not supposed to be "inspired" and "inerrant"

2 Tim 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

ALL Scripture? Including references to "drinking piss" Yet these bible thumpers would get all upset if you said you were into watersports porn! Mind you they probably secretly watch it themselves......

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

Comment #6373 by Anonymous on November 14, 2006 at 12:09 am

Mr Robertson on another complicated, difficult issue - the virus of faith?

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/07/25/newsstory8579896t0.asp

229. Why there is no God

Comment #6371 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 11:46 pm

Peter Kemp on November 13, 2006 at 11:35 pm

Asana B, there is a theory to explain why sexual reproduction has some advantages over asexual reproduction:

Bodhitharta: Your life would be so more open to the reality of God if you just realize that when you speak of "advantages" in regards to evolution you are saying "intelligence" How would a process recognize its process and "Select" ie..(once again a by product of intelligence) beneficial outcomes.

230. Why there is no God

Comment #6334 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 5:03 pm

agreed!

231. Why there is no God

Comment #6327 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 4:14 pm

Chicken before egg?

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

Comment #6312 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Fedler, I confess to having only made several false starts with the Origin. It is hard reading, although its just a matter of Victorian style rather than any inherent difficulty in the ideas portrayed. The Voyage of the Beagle, by the way, is a much easier read. For those interested in the development of Darwin's thought, Janet Browne's two volume biography is superb and may well replace Desmond and Moore's classic. There is though a lot to be said for persevering with the Origin, I guess. I note too that Janet Browne has written a wee book in the 'Books that Shook the World' series (Atlantic) that may well be worth a look. Another useful, if at times difficult book, is Antony Flew's 'Darwinian Evolution'.

The problem of suffering is, I think, too easily dismissed by some christians. It was a problem that troubled Darwin, not least when his 12 year old daughter died. Interestingly, he was troubled too by parasitism. Darwin was a bit of an expert on the liver fluke and could not see how a benevolent god could be responsible for such an obnoxious organism. The usual christian response is that death and suffering (and presumably the parasitical habits of the liver fluke) are a result of the fall. Aside from the fact that the fossil record proves that death and disease has always accompanied life, an appeal to the fall fails to answer the question, Whence the liver fluke? Are we to say parasitism did not exist until a few thousand years ago and that befor then liver flukes and their ilk lived happy and contented lives only benefitting the rest of creation suddenly somehow transforming habits when man fell? Of course, some creationists argue in precisely this way in that they would insist, for example, that tigers and other carnivores ate only grass prior to the fall. The alternative is that God created liver flukes in all their grossness and notwithstanding the bible's insistence to the contrary is ether directly or indirectly the cause of death and suffering. In another place, Mr Robertson insisted that God did not create the AIDS virus. Who did? Where did it come from? It is not sufficient to argue that 'it came about as the fall' since then either god continues to create (despite the bible's insistence that he ceased prior to this) or else the devil is responsible for the AIDS virus, i.e the devil has powers of creation, something which again would seem inadmissable in biblical terms. It seems simpler to me to just accept that death and suffering are just a fact of life, that there is no overriding purpose: we are simply the products of random events. The strength of the theory of evolution is that it is able to explain how random events can give give rise to complexity and the appearance of order. This outlook gives no comfort in the religious sense, but does help us nonetheless to come to terms with suffering and death. Death is just a fact of life; indeed, life as we experience it depends precisely on the fact of death. There is no meaning; there is no need to look for it. Our existence in this world is the result of chance and chance will take us out of it.

The other point you raise is also important, namely that many of those posting in this thread indicate little or no understanding of the theory of evolution and yet presume to critise it. As I have continued to labour, it is only once you actually begin to properly understand what Darwin was saying that you realise how radical it is - and how catastrophic for religious belief.

I wish you well in your search for answers to what are, when all is said and done, difficult questions.

Alex

233. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #6300 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 2:17 pm

jealousy

The reason it's dangerous for people who believe the earth is 6000 years old to hold political power / influence is because in order to believe that, they would also have to believe that there is some massive clandestine conspiracy theory running through almost all branches of human knowledge. Asylums are full of people that think that the whole world's against them. It's not much of a conceptual leap to begin to imagine that the world in general (not believing the earth is 6000 years old) must be dangerously deluded / influenced by evil / abominations in the eyes of god to deny the truth, and start pre-empting these perceived threats with military action. That's why it's dangerous for these people to have any power at all.

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

Comment #6296 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 2:11 pm

Re: bibles in hotel rooms. The actor Ian McKellan has gone on record as saying that if he is ever in a hotel room that has a Gideon bible in it, then he rips out the pages bearing homophobic texts - Leviticus and stuff like that.

McKellan is gay of course.

Actually, rather than removing it, or censoring it McKellan style, a case can actually be made for leaving flyers in it containing info from sites like www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Now theres a fascinating website for those that dont know of it!

Almost as good as www.landoverbaptist.org (possibly the funniest place on the internet....)

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

Comment #6274 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 1:01 pm

He's stupid man

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

Comment #6247 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 11:35 am

This is a good little snippet I've borrowed from another site (evilbible.com)

"When I was young, I used to pray every night for a new bike; I never got one, so I stole one and asked god to forgive me".

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

Comment #6238 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 10:56 am

David responds to a question of mine as follows:

You wrote "By the way, David, how do you explain the cannibalistic part of your religion: eating the flesh and drinking the blood of your god. Don't try to weasel out of this by saying it's symbolic. Even if it is, it's still pretty disgusting, don't you think?" - I find it fascinating how history repeats itself � the early Christians were also accused of cannibalism. They were of course thrown to the lions. What do you want to do to me? By the way it is symbolic. Anyway what do you care? Surely we are just a bunch of molecules eating another bunch � what would be wrong with that?!"

Yes, David, we are a bunch of molecules. Is this your idea of a reductio ad absurdum zinger? Surely, YOU must think that your particular bunch of molecules is endowed with a soul. So how does your soul justify the cannibalistic practice of chomping on Jesus bits? Aren't there better ways of communing with your imagined god. And throwing you to the lions does sound like a good suggestion, although only symbolically, of course. Real lions are endangered;I would not want to upset their gastric systems.

David, you responded to another one of my posts:

"The bottom line for believers is: Reason is not a necessary element of faith." Wrong. Wrong . Wrong. The bottom line for atheists is that they must believe that reason is not a necessary element of faith. For me reason is an essential element of faith because faith must be in someone or something. And because God has made us in his image as rational and reasonable creatures. Although this board is also proving the Christian teaching that that image has become perverted and corrupted!

Your asserting that you use reason is not actually the same thing as using reason. Surely the collection of molecules that calls itself David Robertson has enough reason to realize that. Your rationales come from the bible and from what "god says." I don't remember the biblical god placing a really high premium on our ability to think; it seems that he's mostly concerned with our ability to kowtow.

And I repeat my previous question: Why use the bible as your authority? Why not use the Iliad, or Grimm's Fairy Tales, or the Story of Peter Rabbit?

238. Losing Our Religion

Comment #6180 by Anonymous on November 13, 2006 at 2:30 am

"But I think it would be better to draw the distinction here that it is the institution of religion that is responsible for this harm as opposed to the personal belief in something greater than ourselves."

I take it you haven't read 'The God Delusion'.

The point made in the book is that the source of the harm is the view of faith as a 'virtue', i.e. that believing in something with no evidence, or even better, believing in something in spite of contradictory evidence, is somehow a good thing. The only reason religious instututions are able to do the harm they do is that their followers believe that it is wrong to question that harm.

239. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #6161 by Anonymous on November 12, 2006 at 11:56 pm

3000 year old Dinosaurs--have they applied for the James Randi's million dollar challenge?

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

Comment #6151 by Anonymous on November 12, 2006 at 10:28 pm

It would help arguments to be more credible if folk could take the time to get basic facts right.

David has been referred to several times as Mr Robinson when his name is Robertson. This simple mistake suggests that some have not even read his original article in any depth and therefore can not be clear of what they are arguing against.

Terri clearly states that he is not a christian yet Billy (201) claims 'I know a few christians like you'.

Come on people if you want to be taken seriously you need to raise the standard! Discussion involves listening as well as talking. Otherwise you are guilty of the arrogance so many of you claim Mr Robertson diasplays.

241. The terrorist virus is no lightweight matter. We must contain its spread

Comment #6136 by Anonymous on November 12, 2006 at 8:02 pm

Heather: Treatment with D-cycloserine apparently only takes a couple of trips to the therapist who is there mostly to present a simulation of the activating stimuli. Best of luck!

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

Comment #6056 by Anonymous on November 12, 2006 at 10:44 am

For anyone interested in finding out more about David Robertson's writings and beliefs go to http://www.freechurch.org and click on todays issues. You may not agree with his views but he's an interesting read

243. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #6049 by Anonymous on November 12, 2006 at 10:19 am

I found Dawkins amusing in one sense, absurd in another and quite insinsre about his presentation of his "facts" from which he assures a firm foundation for his belief in Atheism. He stated that darwinian evolution and "change" must be viewed as a process that improves a system and not random change of no use. Poor little Richard played both ends of the table, in that evolution produces mutations which are haphazard and, to use his own words "mindless", and that this mindless or haphazrd process is the unified equation of usefull advantageous results?! Or, let's try your specialty, mindless mutations and haphazardness = intelligent and useful results? Really? Wow, that's some smart mud or it's a flim flam job. It lacks explatory power, I suspect you know it already. And to cite numerous dating processes such as carbon, and whatever others you had in mind, as a sort of accurate pillar( Time Machine?) for dating aged items is special pleading to the highest degree. Each dating procedure is based on at least three assumptions that are known to be totally opposite of what they claim. That's not bedrock evidence it's puff-n-stuff. Charles Lyell came up with dating the geologic culumn by pure imagination, carbon dating or any other, wansn't even heard of. But then dates are selectively chosen (only the dates that reflects charlie's imagination of course) all others are ardently rejected by evolutionists. dating (the wizard of Oz) is a bogy to get our wit off od charles' imagination the virtual lack of any meaningful support for it. Alas, I found your pitch to the young and imnpressionable weak. I heard a lot about your wit in science of course. You may take head of a fellow countryman of yours who said, "seeing through everything is to see nothing". there's no getting around first principles my dear boy. Though I suspect you already know that. To bewitch a youngster who has already been conditioned to your courageous view is no great feat, others have prepaired him. To simply show up, give him a pat on the back saying, "that's it you've got it" is for boys not men. perhaps you agree with Gould that the little love handles on the undercarraige of a snake are iseless leftovers, the old magical legs they once were? perhaps you agree with Heckael and his famous art work, or Huxley, oe Lyle? Perhaps you shall try to live out the philosophy Darwinism is drredged in to the fullest extent and prescribe survival of the fittest to Mankind, the very same way Hitler, the evolutionist did? In meantime I shall fight it with Vim and Vigour!

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

Comment #5949 by Anonymous on November 12, 2006 at 2:48 am

Jack
Jenna. If you were convinced by Dawkins arguments that only shows how hopelessly na�ve you are. Lets consider his argument concerning the eye, shall we:

Fine talk from a guy that holds up a book written 3000 years ago by a bunch of tribal sheep rustlers as the absolute truth. You keep talking of complex systems, but fail to show how your god could come into being. Arguements of infinite regress terminated by god are a cheap and feeble cop out that avoids asking the question of where god came from. Also, if the is a creator god, you have no evidence that he is your god. Your logic breaks down at this point
Want to discuss transitional fossils again? want to discuss the problems of genesis 1 vs 2 again?

Check out this link - a dolphin that has an extra set of flippers where there were none before - amazing eh? and all down to evolutionary history

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=23906&in_page_id=34

245. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #5944 by Anonymous on November 12, 2006 at 2:07 am

jealousy

Forget about biology for a minute
Have you ever thought about physics or geology or anything else for that matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0
read the comments too

The reason they are successful is because they are trained in debating techniques. Tony Blair is good at debating, but he knows nothing about science

246. Why there is no God

Comment #5928 by Anonymous on November 11, 2006 at 10:33 pm

247. Why there is no God

Comment #5927 by Anonymous on November 11, 2006 at 10:33 pm

If this physical life is the only life there is then why in the ______ does anyone keep going on. If I was as sure as Mr. Dawkins and some of the others I have read here then I would without hesitation blow my brains out as soon as possible. I mean screw this bunch of crap. Pain, suffering, disease, struggle, heartache, war, violence, addiction, crime, hate, injustice, etc... etc... What is the point of going on and continuing this when it is all headed to the same place death, and most likly a drawn out one full of pain and suffering. Screw you, I am out of here: that is: if there is nothing after death but decay and worms. But, you see I havn't blow my brains out, and I keep shoveling though this manure looking for the pony, because everything in life teaches me that there is a reason and a purpose for doing. From the cradle to the grave life teaches us in nature, in science, in health and in every area that if we do A,B, and C then we will get D. There is cause and effect. If I work hard, and apply myself and make good decisions then I can expect good and worthwhile outcomes. All of existence cries out with logic and reason that if we learn and work and grow in certain ways then we will get something out of it. So, don't tell me we come to be on this world to exist for an eye blink in time and that it doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't believe it and deep down there is not an antheist or agnostic that believes it either because they live by faith and hope just as much as any religious person. We all live by faith and hope, because the moment faith and hope is lost then that is the moment that a person lays down and dies or ends their life. Without faith that there is something in life to get out of bed for, or something that makes one want to go through the motions and put up with all the crap then there is simply no use to it. If one can't believe or think there is something worthwhile or something that makes some since out of it all then one does not make the effort. And, in truth, it does not matter what ones has faith or hope in, it can be a bottle of booze, a needle full of junk, a piece of ass, a holy book, or a 10 ton pink elephant. Hope is hope and faith is faith, even if it is delusionional or illusional. And maybe it is all an illusional and will disappear one day taking us with it. And, in a way this is true because we will surely end (die, dead, in-a-grave)and the earth will surly die one day also along with the rest of the Universe. So, again, why, what is the use or the since in it. There is nothing to learn, there is nothing to improve on, we can have no hope that anything that we every did meant anything or was of any use, unless there is a spiritual existence and somehow this will all make since one day, as everything in our life and world teaches us to look for common since, reason and purpose. So, I offer a challenge to all the true atheist out there, I mean if you really know that there is no god and no spirtual existence after we die then go ahead and get it over with. Blow your brains out, or jump off a skyscraper and save yourself the missery that is certainly waiting ahead of you with disease and death, besides that, it all is for nothing anyway, and there ain't anything you can do that is worth doing because it is all going to be for nothing. All of existence means nothing, no reason, no point to it. And, life is just too damn tough, hard, and full of struggle to put up with it if there is no since in it anyway. So, just get it over with and don't worry about changing all of us poor delussional fools who believe in God and life after death because that doesn't mean anything anyway and we will find out soon enough for ourselfs. Put up or, shut up, I believe is how the old saying goes. Now, if this has got anyones attention and you are curious about my reasoning then send me an email and I will add you to my mailing address and will let you know when my book is published. It will explain a lot because I take no sides nor support any traditional belief system. I attack them all equally because the one thing I have discovered is that no one is right, everybody is wrong, we are all dead wrong that is why we die. The traditional Christians have got it all screwed up, and all the rest of the religions are about as bad. Science, education and our modern technical establishment are driving us to the brink of anilation with war, polution and no telling what they are not telling us. So, if you you are looking for something new and different that will answer many olds questions with new revelations then send me your email.

248. The terrorist virus is no lightweight matter. We must contain its spread

Comment #5920 by Anonymous on November 11, 2006 at 9:13 pm

Heather: I don't know what your phobia is, but a number of phobias apparently can be quickly and successfully treated with an anti-tuburculosis drug, antibiotic D-cycloserine. It is an unusual antibiotic because it passes the blood-brain barrier. Here is a link to a BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3247150.stm

249. Why there is no God

Comment #5894 by Anonymous on November 11, 2006 at 3:40 pm

Asana: Attack me with your verbal jousts, flog me with your impotent reason, debase me with (accurate) descriptions of my intellectual inadequacies, I am invincible, because I'M A BELIEVER!

Asana, you are a fool and a coward. Obviously the magnificent physical universe is too much for you, so you hide in the blissful, delusional world of religious ignorance.

But please... can't you do it in the privacy of your own demented mind?

250. BBC Profile - Richard Dawkins

Comment #5872 by Anonymous on November 11, 2006 at 1:16 pm

yeah what an idiot.