201. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #44043 by CJ22 on May 23, 2007 at 8:14 am

Splitters!

202. Busted Halo

Comment #43965 by CJ22 on May 23, 2007 at 5:12 am

"A third factor is provided by contemporary biblical scholarship. Our understanding of the bible has grown considerably in the past century as a result of new methods of biblical studies. As you mentioned in your explanation of your question, one of the areas where recent studies have focused has been that of the bible's teaching on homosexuality. It appears not as easy as it once did to pinpoint exactly what the biblical texts mean. Some of the passages which appear to condemn homosexuality may refer to other realities such as rape, sexual relationships with young boys, violations of purity laws or sins against hospitality. It would be hard to mount a case that the bible has anything positive to say about homosexuality. Yet it would also seem to be true that none of these passages address the concept of a loving, committed relationship between two adults of the same sex."

Gawd I hate revisionist theists, it's intellectual dishonesty of the worst order. Give me an honest fundementalist anyday.

203. Busted Halo

Comment #43962 by CJ22 on May 23, 2007 at 5:08 am

It doesn't appear to have a forum. Clearly, open discussion is not at home to Fr. Joe. Shame, cos I eat trendy priests for breakfast.

204. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved

Comment #43957 by CJ22 on May 23, 2007 at 4:55 am

Is this the prophecied messiah of the Jaws?

205. The God question

Comment #43955 by CJ22 on May 23, 2007 at 4:52 am

That's quite astounding considering the location of the source. It must take some daring to post a positive review of TGD in Pakistan of all places.

206. Gay row US Anglicans miss summit

Comment #43942 by CJ22 on May 23, 2007 at 4:35 am

I feel a (modest) amount of sympathy for Rowen Williams. He clearly doesn't give a monkeys about whether his bishops are gay or not. Unfortunately, he's honour-bound to represent the zeitgeist of his electorate, the gaggle of bishops he moderates.

207. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #43936 by CJ22 on May 23, 2007 at 4:24 am

[quote]Lifes too short to NOT underline your book. What are you going to do, sell it back to a museum in pristine condition?[/quote]

I sent mine to my MP.

208. Cult leader sparks Sikh riots with 'guru' stunt

Comment #43481 by CJ22 on May 21, 2007 at 4:16 pm

It just goes to show there are no 'peaceful' religions. Followers of any religion can be called to violence at the flick of a switch. Just because they're not big in the suicide-bombing scene at the moment, doesn't mean they don't have violence in their hearts. Offend a faith-head, take your chances.

209. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43480 by CJ22 on May 21, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Have you noticed how it's "Christians and Jews" this, "Judao-Christian" that at the moment? As long as you're capable of the mind-bending double-think neccesary for religious faith these days, and of course you're light-skinned, then you can be in the club. Especially if you have a strong lobbying power. Mormons need not apply.

210. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42430 by CJ22 on May 18, 2007 at 7:32 am

Hmm, surely in an islamic bike, the saddle should be removed entirely and the ladies required to stand up at all times. After all, a saddle implies a place to place upon it.

211. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42417 by CJ22 on May 18, 2007 at 7:12 am

I don't often comment on other commenter's comments, but this time I feel compelled to comment.

Bizarro Dawkins wrote:

"I cannot accept the scientifically and philosophically absurd notion that matter created itself or possesses aseity. I cannot accept that molecules can organize themselves into complex life that we are just beginning to understand. I cannot accept a world with no logical justification for belief in a transcendent moral code. My journey has thus led me to a belief in Christ."

"Thus", uh? May I ask why Christ in particular? Why not Allah, Zeus or the increasingly venerable Spagetti Monster? Your premises dictate an initial creator. They say nothing about the nature of that creator, save an implication of great power. Such a creator need not even be omnipotent, either within or without the scope of the universe they created. As a developer of some extremely complex software, I can tell you that it is perfectly possible for complex creations to quickly become unmanageable by their creators, otherwise I wouldn't need a test team. Certainly such a creature would have no need to resemble any of the squalid little gods humans have thus far been able to imagine.

devolved wrote:

"Computer shops are fascinating. Not only can you buy gleaming new black and silver boxes of amazing variety but they come with an astonishing amount of software too (far more than I've got on this pc). Just think about it, I can buy a computer fully charged up with word processing skills, spreadsheets to assist my maths, speech recognition, internet access, and so much more. There's seems to be almost no limit to human ingenuity and the ability to design more and more applications for a computer."

This example defeats your own argument, even on your own terms. Man is only around to create computers, because God created man. There you have the beginnings of an infinite regression. Who created God so that he could create man so that they could create computers? Or is it "turtles all the way down"?

212. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42408 by CJ22 on May 18, 2007 at 7:02 am

I don't often comment on other poster's posts, but I feel compelled this time.

Bizarro Dawkins Wrote:

"I cannot accept the scientifically and philosophically absurd notion that matter created itself or possesses aseity. I cannot accept that molecules can organize themselves into complex life that we are just beginning to understand. I cannot accept a world with no logical justification for belief in a transcendent moral code. My journey has thus led me to a belief in Christ."

"Thus", uh? Okay, if we except your premises, why Christ? Why not Allah? Or the increasingly venerable spagetti monster. Your premises dictate an initial creator, it says nothing about the nature of that creator - it doesn't even demand omnipotence (as the creator of some very complex software, I can assure you that there are parts of my own code even I don't understand and can't always control - ask my QA dept!). Such a creator certainly need not be like any of the squalid little gods that humans have ever been able to invent.

devolved wrote:

"Computer shops are fascinating. Not only can you buy gleaming new black and silver boxes of amazing variety but they come with an astonishing amount of software too (far more than I've got on this pc). Just think about it, I can buy a computer fully charged up with word processing skills, spreadsheets to assist my maths, speech recognition, internet access, and so much more. There's seems to be almost no limit to human ingenuity and the ability to design more and more applications for a computer."

This doesn't even make sense in your own terms. In your terms, man is only around to create the computer because God made man. There you have the beginnings of an infinite regression. Who made God so that he could make man so that they could make computers? Let's just say "bad choice of analogy" shall we? Or is it "turtles all the way down"?

213. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42370 by CJ22 on May 18, 2007 at 5:50 am

Am I the only one getting a little fed up of religious people saying "Yes but we're not all like that. That doesn't happen in MY faith. That's only extremists!" Don't they realise that they help to create a climate and safe-haven for extremism by 'normalising' society to their own 'moderate' beliefs (that in any objective view would be wildly irrational and extreme themselves).

214. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #42351 by CJ22 on May 18, 2007 at 5:27 am

[quote]Dobson can't understand why things are so messed up in the troubled nations of the Middle East. After all they suppress "indecent" literature, are very religious, have a strong patriarchal family structure, homophobia, and probably lots of corporal punishment of disobedient children. No permissiveness there! They've done most of the stuff he has always advocated and more.[/quote]

A touch of in-built American Exceptionalism perhaps? After all, these people in the middle-east are just ignorant savages who can be relied on to mess it up. You'd do it sooo much better in the greatest nation in the world! (I speak from his POV of course).

215. Faith-Based Fraud

Comment #42300 by CJ22 on May 18, 2007 at 3:39 am

I was talking to a Mormon friend who refused to 'cast the first stone' as she put it and condemn the guy outright. I pointed out that given she was a Mormon, Falwell would almost certainly have taken an Al Sharpton stance on her faith, and probably despise her as much as me (more perhaps).

It seems that no matter how weird or extreme your beliefs are, you're never so far beyond the pail as the people who simply don't believe. In their club, better a BELIEVING extremist hatemongering nutcase than any kind of atheist. The priority for this kind of mind-set seems to be that you BELIEVE. What you believe is almost secondary. Those of us unwilling to make that leap into double-think by our very existance expose them as fools, and they can't tolerate that.

216. 5000 Darwin letters go online

Comment #41798 by CJ22 on May 17, 2007 at 4:47 am

I read elsewhere that the actual total of Darwin letters was actually 14,000, and that the remaining 9000 will be put online as resources allow.

In reponse to BAA, I think the purpose of this project was to be an academic rather than historical reference, hence the letters are stored as fully searchable documents, rather than unsearchable scans. I agree though it would be nice if some of them were available as scans.

217. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #41637 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Robertson's entire output on this thread is basically an appeal to special privelege. "Why won't you just accept what I say without ripping it to pieces with your cursed logic!" You came to the wrong party mate. But sit down and have a drink regardless.

218. Dogma

Comment #41626 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 12:14 pm

I suspect Brian's videos are aimed at mainstream Christians, not known for their openness to rational argument. Hence the tone of the video. Hence, presumably, the comparison of the ills of religion to the ills of communism (if that doesn't make them think, nothing will).

219. 5000 Darwin letters go online

Comment #41623 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 12:05 pm

True, but equally they didn't have word processors either. Or even ball-point pens (I'm guessing!). 5000 letters, all hand-written. Mind you, things being what they are, probably half of them are letters to the gas board complaining the last bill was more than it should have been. No wait, that's MY life...

220. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #41620 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Don't worry they'll clean it all up at the Vatican and issue a 'clarification'..."What the Pope meant was..."

221. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41618 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Mash, I got a rather cold automated replay, so I;'m not holding my breath.

Steve99, I do take your point. But how often do we hear utterances by those of faith, often absurd utterances, that go completely unchallenged? While RD might have been more polite about it (and possibly not), he would certainly be in favour of challenging the special privelege of those espousing certitudes on behalf of religion.

That having been said, when I said 'he lost me' I didn't mean I stopped reading, I meant I became unsympathetic to what he had to say.

222. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41612 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 11:52 am

KRKBAB please don't bite the theists, unless you really want a forum full of people agreeing with each other ;)

223. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41515 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 8:18 am

Yes but you might say that if we all believed the same thing. If this were a benign moderate religion, then I could well imagine the world becoming more peaceful (for about 5 minutes until there was a split on some minor point of dogma!). Of course if it were anything remotely fundemental, then you'd get Afghanistan writ large. I'm just guessing anyway - it'd be interesting for somebody to do a socialogical study on.

224. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41439 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 5:59 am

He lost at me after the second sentence. No it doesn't. The third sentence is arguable, and could also be said of astrology.

Just for laughs, I sent the following to the editor:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

James Carroll's article "Thought vs. feeling in religion" lost me at the second sentence: "It explains the mysteries of life." No it doesn't! Even if God exists, religion simply defers the mysteries of life to another level of complexity ("Goddidit"). And if God does not exist, then it explains nothing, and actively inhibits us from finding a more reasonable explanation (should one exist). His third sentence polishes the idiocy to a shine: "It helps overcome life's difficulties." This is a highly debatable contention, and I would be interested in seeing any data he has supporting the theory, but in any case the same could be said of astrology and the healing power of crystals. There's irrationalism through faith, and there's irrationalism through lazy thinking. I'm not sure which is worse, but Mr. Carroll displays an excess of both in his article."

225. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #41438 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 5:58 am

Like the Pope, my grandad is 80 and we don't even let him have the remote control for the telly.

226. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41436 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 5:55 am

>Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence?

A classic example of inventing questions for the sake of providing answers to them. "Why are we here?" assumes there has to be a reason. "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is easily dismissed by the anthropic principle. "What is the purpose of human existance?" assumes there is some overarching purpose. Make up your own purpose, if it makes you happy, but don't invent a magic sky-buddy to blame it on.

The man may not be an idiot, but these questions are the sort a "first year student in a seminary school would wince at".

227. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41419 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 5:24 am

With a few exceptions of dodgy logic and poor historical knowledge, this article is well written in my mind.

Unlike bitbutter, I do tend to think the world would NOT be a more peaceful place without religion. Maybe slightly. But I think humans would find other causes to rally around, and be equally as fervant about the rightness of their cause and the neccesity of doing others in who don't subscribe. When you think about it, politics has a lot in common with religion - it produces zealots and relies on a lot of blind faith in contradiction to the evidence (e.g. the death penalty is an effective deterrant against crime). Religion is just a vehicle for these tendendies.

That's not an argument for keeping it, of course, even putting aside whether it's 'right' or not - I don't think anything would be WORSE without religion.

228. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #40608 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 3:24 pm

The self-righteous tone of that article made me want to puke. "yeah we're America, you can say or be anything here, and about time those filthy muslims realised that!". Trying being an atheist in the wrong states and see how far your freedom of speech will get you.

229. Richard Dawkins' lecture at the State House Convention Center

Comment #40377 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 7:40 am

hurray! Something to listen to while I pretend to be programming!

230. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40376 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 7:39 am

Righteous!

(In a secular sense).

231. Travolta spearheads Scientologists' attack on BBC

Comment #40369 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 7:30 am

It'll be shown. Scientology is too bizarre even for Christians and other religious apologists. They're not going to spring to its defence. The trimmers tendency to ecumenicise will only go so far, and bringing Scientology into the fold is beyond the pale even for them. The irony is not lost, since to me the virgin birth is no more bizarre than being descended from aliens.

232. Row over Scientology video

Comment #40367 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 7:24 am

Actually, for all it must be painful and embarassing to him, I suspect a lot more people will be watching. His 'losing it' doesn't detract from his case, and it gives him an opportunity to emphasise the intimidation and sinister goings-on that finally pushed him over the edge.

I try hard not to be disrespectful to the religious. After all, whatever they believe, trying to make them feel stupid is not going achieve anything. But when it comes to scientology, I just can't come to any other conclussion that anybody who gives it the slightest credence is a complete moron, a gullible naif, and in some cases criminally fraudulent.

233. Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

Comment #40361 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 7:17 am

A debate between christians on the one side, and atheists + neo-pagans on the other?? How does that make any sense. neo-pagans have a hell of a lot more in common with christians than they do with atheists - both believe in myth, superstition and irrationality. An atheist is simply absent what those other two groups have. The assumption that 'non-christians' are somehow a 'group' is absurd.

234. Atheism in America

Comment #40343 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 6:39 am

>The night of the verdict, tornados of unusual violence descended on the panhandle of Oklahoma. The home of the Principal who had brought the false charges against Chuck Smalkowski was severely damaged.

>This fact has no relationship whatsoever to the verdict.

lol :)

235. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40327 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 6:17 am

So much for "thou shalt not bear false witness". Not only is the piece dishonest, it's knowingly dishonest. At best I'll be charitable and ascribe it to the mind-bending double-think that christians regularly go through in order to believe their six impossible things before breakfast. At worst, this is crass and deceitful ad hominem propaganda. The paraphrasing of the original article was a deliberate misquote of a deliberate misquote of a remark taken out of context (and truncated). Shamefully shoddy.

And how lacking in class is it to use a remark at a dinner party to score cheap religio-political points and to attack a man who is never more than reasonable and polite (if uncompromising). Funny, I was taught that those qualities were a virtue. "Rabid" me arse. If they want rabid they want to see me go at the Jehovahs when they come knocking at my door trying to sell me the Watchtower.

236. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40308 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 5:30 am

Actually, now I've had time to think about it, both creatures are doomed anyway, since I'm incapable of lactating to feed the baby. The elephant however might be able to survive on the vegetation on the island. So given the baby will die very soon, and the elephant would live longer, then I'd shoot the baby and save myself the pain of watching it die a slow and painful death.

237. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40287 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 4:47 am

Given that there's only one elephant, and it's the last, and therefore extinction is inevitable in the iminant future, then the only logical choice is to shoot dumbo.

RD may of course have simply been pulling her leg. It's always tempting to annoy the god-botherers, and so easy to do. And this women seems particularly shrill in any case.

238. God . . . in other words

Comment #39137 by CJ22 on May 10, 2007 at 4:33 am

Her track seems to be 'hmm, this nice Prof. Dawkins is such a pleasant, soft spoken chap, he can't possibly REALLY be an atheist. Let's see if we can't spin his views into something I'm more comfortable with'. She clearly thinks that Dawkins is 'saveable'. One wonders if she'd have come away with such a warm glow if she'd been interviewing somebody less immediately likeable, like Hitchens.

In the end, her attempts to spin Dawkins non-mechanistic world-view into a sort-of-faith is based on vapour, wishful thinking and raping the English language. Hmm, the CoE in a microcosm.

239. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39127 by CJ22 on May 10, 2007 at 4:08 am

Hitchins puts the problem down to political correctness, but I think the problem lies more in the direction of a wel organised cross-faith lobby with power over a broadly sympathetic government. Blair is in favour of faith schools and other ghettos because he is a Christian, and he can hardly promote Christian faith schools while at the same time denying the same for other religions. A less religion-tolerant government would go a long way to addressing this issue. We can only hope.

240. Intellectual Diversity or Intellectual Insult?

Comment #39118 by CJ22 on May 10, 2007 at 3:09 am

That's awful Logiciel, you have my sympathy.

You know what Christians are like - you discourage something, they want it as a right. You give them it as a right, they want it made law. You allow it in law, and they want it to be compulsory. You make it compulsory, they want to police it. This bill should be fought on principle, since it's the thin end of a wedge.

When did they start letting Cletus and Darlene into Universities anyway? Oh yeah, in pursuit of diversity.

241. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36751 by CJ22 on May 2, 2007 at 7:05 am

Best of all, having just taken posession of my shiny new Video iPod, the source site contains links to downloadable iPod compatible video versions. Great commute entertainment :)