201. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67846 by BMMcArdle on September 5, 2007 at 1:50 am

From nowhere to nothing.

202. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67717 by BMMcArdle on September 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm

"How can we say what is 'nice' and what is not?"
Two consistent? answers:
1. We can't.
2. My imaginary sky daddy made this entire universe for me so I can worship him.

Society defines morality.

203. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67234 by BMMcArdle on September 2, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Dianelos 2064:

I don't have to show that idealistic theism is falsifiable because I am not claiming that idealistic theism is true. Rather my claim is that it is more reasonable to believe that idealistic theism is true than to believe that naturalism is true.

It (my worldview) is ethically empowering. It is experientially fulfilling. It is intellectually satisfying.

204. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67077 by BMMcArdle on September 1, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Strange...a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and invented Hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him! ~Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

205. A World of Eloquence in an Upturned Palm

Comment #66769 by BMMcArdle on August 31, 2007 at 9:08 am

Gimme five!

206. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66626 by BMMcArdle on August 30, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Bacteria and yeast gave rise to Man...or was it Eve?

207. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66444 by BMMcArdle on August 30, 2007 at 2:35 am

How can something that lasts for half of your life (40 years) be called a crisis?
Too bad she didn't publicly admit her doubt, she could have gotten more psychological help for it than from her church.
Nontheless, this is probably helping a lot of doubters struggling with the same one-way conversation with a non-existent god.

Don't be born-again, just grow up.-anonymous

208. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #66042 by BMMcArdle on August 28, 2007 at 3:18 am

What about the Zig-Zag man? He looks jesus-like.

209. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65593 by BMMcArdle on August 25, 2007 at 3:06 am

DG 1965:

Naturalists make fun of theists for positing unnecessary hypotheses and believing in magical effects, but in fact it's their worldview that requires such. Quantum mechanics makes as clear as it can possible get that the realist view of physical reality is wrong. Which of course does not mean that reality does not objectively exist :-) Just that physical reality doesn't.

210. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65505 by BMMcArdle on August 24, 2007 at 1:53 pm

If you don't think the physical world is real, why do you think you think?
You keep saying naturalism when you should be saying realism.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick

211. Diamonds unlock secrets of early Earth

Comment #65340 by BMMcArdle on August 23, 2007 at 5:22 pm

It's like a communion wafer for physicists!

212. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65136 by BMMcArdle on August 23, 2007 at 1:56 am

How can you claim owership of anything?

You can't have thought, idea, wish, hope, opinion.

You do not exist. Nothing exists. It's all a dream. How can I respond to that?

What makes you think you think?

213. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64815 by BMMcArdle on August 22, 2007 at 1:21 am

You've never seen the light emitted by electrons striking a flourescent screen?
I saw a show about this phenomenon on my magic talking picture box.

214. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64418 by BMMcArdle on August 20, 2007 at 3:20 am

Please keep the comments reality-based when talking about my imaginary friend.

215. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64093 by BMMcArdle on August 17, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Conscience is the price we pay for our ability to reason, not because you have an imaginary friend.

216. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63745 by BMMcArdle on August 15, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I don't like anyone else's answers, so I make up my own!

217. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63700 by BMMcArdle on August 15, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I don't need evidence, I have my imagination!

218. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63520 by BMMcArdle on August 14, 2007 at 4:32 pm

So, in a nutshell, yours is a god of the gaps.

219. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62499 by BMMcArdle on August 10, 2007 at 1:53 am

What planet is this guy from?

220. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #62007 by BMMcArdle on August 7, 2007 at 10:41 pm

The ease at which DG can whip up an essay is to me impressive, but for all of his apparent intelligence, he allows his imagination to get the best of him.
Kudos to Dr Benway, _J_, steve99, Alvorin, Lauregon, SharonMcT and many others for their eloquent and articulate rebuttal.

221. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61918 by BMMcArdle on August 7, 2007 at 11:49 am

DG 1785:

And it makes eminent sense that our experiential environment was designed with us in mind – it's our experiential environment after all :-)

222. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61634 by BMMcArdle on August 6, 2007 at 3:47 am

All arguments whither in the blinding brilliance of my omnipotent imagination.

223. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61566 by BMMcArdle on August 5, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Delusion:
Underestimating the power of imagination.

224. Atheists of the world: unite!

Comment #61529 by BMMcArdle on August 5, 2007 at 3:13 pm

1. I prefer individuals with rights to herds with agendas.
2. OUT, whether we like it or not, has implications of a hidden controversial personality/philosophy.
3. Scarlet letter A, like adulterer?

225. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61390 by BMMcArdle on August 5, 2007 at 2:47 am

Deluded:
Outwitted by your own imagination.

226. Atheists of the world: unite!

Comment #61331 by BMMcArdle on August 4, 2007 at 5:49 pm

As far as this "Campaign" goes, count me out.

227. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61156 by BMMcArdle on August 4, 2007 at 1:20 am

Delusion:
(A)
1. Certainty (held with absolute conviction)
2. Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
3. Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)


(B)
A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).

228. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60526 by BMMcArdle on August 2, 2007 at 6:15 am

Sometimes people lose the ability to recognize that they are lost in their own world of fanciful beliefs.
How can anyone claim to know and understand a god and its desires?
By imagining every sense or thought so that the god is the result.

From Wikipedia:

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

1. Certainty (held with absolute conviction)
2. Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
3. Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).

229. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59636 by BMMcArdle on July 30, 2007 at 2:41 am

There are gaps in science so I use my own wishes, ideas, hopes, imagination, to fill those gaps.
It is what I believe, no matter what anyone else has to say about it, because it is a gap, of course.
How can you debate that which doesn't exist?

230. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59430 by BMMcArdle on July 29, 2007 at 3:28 am

Your intuitions are not science.
Do some research and try to find an opinion that agrees with yours. It's likely the only ones you'll find will rely on the supernatural/imaginary.

231. Come Out!

Comment #59424 by BMMcArdle on July 29, 2007 at 3:01 am

Out, nowadays, has conotations related to hidden homosexuality.
A large "A", also known as the scarlett letter, is punishment for aldulterers.

Looks like something Jerry Falwell would have come up with.

232. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59423 by BMMcArdle on July 29, 2007 at 2:58 am

Out, nowadays, has conotations related to hidden homosexuality.
A large "A", also known as the scarlett letter, is punishment for aldulterers.
Looks like something Jerry Falwell would have come up with.

233. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59295 by BMMcArdle on July 28, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Of course a sense of beauty is not dependent upon belief in God. (Even though I believe that a sense of beauty is dependent upon God, but that's another issue.)

234. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59266 by BMMcArdle on July 28, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Lead Balloon

235. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59084 by BMMcArdle on July 27, 2007 at 8:19 am

Downunder,
You scoff at the idea of a god, yet invent an "invisible abstract" and hijack the term life, calling it LIFE, and offer your imagination as proof.
Life exists because it can, without the need for an other-dimensional reservior that it comes and goes from.
When explanations are sought, a good rule of thumb is "the simpler, the better".

236. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59014 by BMMcArdle on July 27, 2007 at 1:09 am

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
If your going to spout BS, expect someone to turn their nose up at it.

Downunder 1632:

LIFE, an invisible abstract, not made of matter of our acqaintance, but being of a dimension beyond ours, slips at our death back to its own dimension which surrounds us, even in our own miniscule part of the universe.

237. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58716 by BMMcArdle on July 26, 2007 at 12:31 am

Didn't a god create simulated realities for the people who made the atomic bombs? Or is that just a simulated reality it created for me to test my virtue? Did I just write this, or did I just imagine I did? Is anything real?
Maybe atheism is a god's way of testing our virtue. Surely it must appreciate reasoning more than blindfolded fear. (Loose interpetation of a Thomas Jefferson quote)

238. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58300 by BMMcArdle on July 24, 2007 at 9:58 am

The same people who scoff at the idea of looking for a god to explain the universe have no problem raising the "difficult question" of conciousness to the same level.

239. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58242 by BMMcArdle on July 24, 2007 at 5:46 am

I realize that a lot of very intelligent people think that consciousness is a very difficult problem. Having said that, why do we feel the need to make the subject so complicated? It's not black or white, that is, either you have it or you don't. Like anything else, there should be an infinite number of levels of it, with us at the highest level. People are never shy of expressing their belief that animals have "personalities". In animals who live in groups, some, based on their perception of themselves, take dominant roles, others subordinate. What am I missing?

240. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57991 by BMMcArdle on July 22, 2007 at 7:33 pm

In 1597 PaulEmecz wrote

If you dismiss our experiences, on what basis do you know about the electrochemical processes?

This sort of reductionism does not explain anything. A much more complex answer is needed,...

241. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57977 by BMMcArdle on July 22, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Occam's razor. Why does consciousness have to be anything more than the electrochemical neuronal processes of a highly evolved organ? An organ that doesn't lend itself to being revived, once deprived of oxygen. This is much simpler an explanation than an unknowable cosmic force.

The human brain is extremely complex. It contains some one hundred billion neurons, which are capable of electrical and chemical communication with tens of thousands of other nerve cells. Nerve cells in turn rely on some quadrillion synaptic connections for their communications.-Wikipedia

242. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57823 by BMMcArdle on July 21, 2007 at 10:59 am

I just saw a really cool sci-fi movie starring Keanu Reeves that explains God and my "worldview"!

243. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57764 by BMMcArdle on July 21, 2007 at 12:47 am

Is lightning alive?
Where does the spirit of a battery go when it dies?
It seems that questions like these are not far from the question of where conciousness comes from.
Searching in Wikipedia for "life force", this was the only topic relating to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%28spirituality%29

244. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57618 by BMMcArdle on July 20, 2007 at 9:01 am

Pardon me,
but I think you'll agree,
imagination sets you free.
Then again the reverse is true
if you let it run away with you.

245. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57478 by BMMcArdle on July 19, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Re: Smart people believing weird things

Being brainwashed from infancy and immersed in a culture of ignorance and non-critical thinking is a hard thing to get over.

246. Energy use 'drove human walking'

Comment #56873 by BMMcArdle on July 17, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Perhaps the title should be "Getting From One Place To Another Drove Walking".

247. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56797 by BMMcArdle on July 17, 2007 at 9:14 am

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

248. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56147 by BMMcArdle on July 14, 2007 at 3:15 am

Downunder, click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem for more information than you ever needed to know about it. I especially liked the simulation using playing cards.

249. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55874 by BMMcArdle on July 12, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I don't know everything, except what God is and what He wants...

250. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55822 by BMMcArdle on July 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm

You can lead a horse to water....