Comments by SRWB

Comment #129618 by SRWB on February 19, 2008 at 11:34 am

Here we go again - this is timely as there is currently a debate in Ontario, Canada in regards to the practice of reciting the Lord's prayer in the provincial legislature. The overwhelmingly Christian letter-writers are up in arms over the Premier, a Catholic, musing about catering to other religions and allowing other forms of prayer. This move is rightly seen as a cynical ploy to garner more ethnic/religious votes. Conversely, the Christians are bleating on about changing the way things have been for decades and why should we change to placate non-Christian immigrants, blah, blah. Some of us see it all as BS - after all does saying a prayer every day make Ontario a better place to live than anywhere else? Are we less screwed up than non-Christian or secular jurisdictions? Is prayer more effective at improving our lives than sacrificing sheep or chickens?

202. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #127457 by SRWB on February 15, 2008 at 10:06 am

What does "never buy crackling from a mohel" mean?

This is Hitchens' cleverly oblique reference to the mohel who supposedly made it habit to take the severed foreskins of babes in his mouth as part of the rite of circumcision. Apparently this was an accepted method of carrying out this bizarre practice.

203. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123648 by SRWB on February 7, 2008 at 12:47 pm

...it is far more common to take matters on faith and go with the program than it is to demand evidence of every claim

And right you are, in cases where there is existing evidence to begin with! For instance, I have faith that the sun will rise every day, even if I can't see it because of the clouds or snow, because it has done so as long as I have lived (I can't vouch for the time before 1962). I also have faith that the bus I take to work will arrive at roughly the same time five days a week, barring circumstances like inclement weather, traffic congestion, etc. The difference of course is that my faith in the sun and the bus is based on historical evidence and not just faith of a religious kind which is essentially just wishful thinking.

204. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123566 by SRWB on February 7, 2008 at 11:00 am

I think that God has been quite reliable, all factors considered.

Yes, what a great, loving, caring, god. He sure has been "reliable" - just ask those who've been killed, injured or otherwise personally affected by the dozens of tornadoes which have wreaked such destruction in the US this last day or so (just one of daily disasters which afflict this planet). Yet many of the survivors continue to profess their great faith for the almighty, and attribute their survival to his beneficence!

205. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123532 by SRWB on February 7, 2008 at 10:13 am

I bet the majority of believers in evolution are Christian... at least in America. And I think that most theists recognize that science works by adapting to new evidence.

And that too is a relatively new phenomenon. Up until the evidence of evolution became
common knowledge through education, etc., that was not the case. Clearly the constant intellectual pressure and knowledge of evolution over the last century or so has had a cumulative effect on people's beliefs. Even the most ardent faithhead can't deny the truth forever. Just a few more steps......

I would love to hear your evidence that God does not exist. Do you know any?

And again, we must ask where is your evidence that God exists? You have asserted his existence, so it is up to you to provide the evidence. If there is none, other than your faith and some old books, then we could conclude that you are wrong.

206. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122987 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 10:26 am

Have you studied your bible in its original Greek, Hebrew and Ancient Aramaic texts or in English?

Why? We're these ancient cultures incapable of writing fiction? :-)

207. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122843 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 8:07 am

Epinephrine,

Good questions. I didn't say such a decision would be easy! I guess it would also depend on how close my friend and I are and whether or not we share other beliefs. A reasonable approach would be to go with your option A above, and then decide further based on the response. The wearing of religious garb, in which I do not believe, is the same as other overt signs of faith like giving religious gifts, or singing carols in church as part of a religious ceremony.

Of course, another approach is to just wear the cap/clothes as it is just that, nothing more. It's not like a yarmulke, etc. are imbued with sacred qualities just because someone believes so! Right?

208. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122837 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 7:43 am

I nonetheless do respect the people - I'll wear a yarmulke at a wedding - it harms nobody to show that I can be respectful in that way, though I'll happily challenge religion on issues that matter

And this is perhaps the issue that causes me the most heartache. As a non-believer, I would feel torn to wear a yarmulke in a Jewish setting or a head covering in a Sikh ceremony, etc. To me, to do so is hypocritical and is a sell out of my beliefs. The way I see it is that I can still be respectful without setting aside my beliefs and falling in line with their ideas. I don't do so in my personal daily life so why should I do so simply to placate other deluded thinking. I will be respectful, but not submissively compliant.

Is that extreme?

209. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122807 by SRWB on February 6, 2008 at 6:00 am

Richard,

I understand your dilemma, having faced it too (all of us will if we haven't yet). What does one say to people who believe in something we don't? I find the best way is to be neutral and not to use that occasion to convince said person in the errors of their beliefs. I think one can remain respectful of their feelings and the memory of the deceased by being helpful and offering condolences without being overly cloying or dishonestly spiritual. Although I'm not sure I would have given an openly religious symbol - but that's me.

210. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119001 by SRWB on January 31, 2008 at 9:00 am

There are three possible outcomes of divine judgment as written in the Christian Bible.

You've missed the obvious fourth outcome of "divine judgment" - that it's all a bullshit idea created by humans to exert control over others. Besides how do you know that the Christian Bible is correct?

211. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118983 by SRWB on January 31, 2008 at 8:39 am

Enjoy a happy B'day and wishes for many more!

212. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117707 by SRWB on January 29, 2008 at 12:17 pm

"Furthermore, the benefits of science are hugely exaggerated... Most inventors are not scientists and most scientists are not inventors... From vulcanized rubber to the microwave oven, accidents combined with fortuitous observations by non-scientists have accounted for a surprising number of advances in human knowledge, advances to which the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation may claim no credit."

While some of what is in this statement on its face may be true, it is also irrelevant. The value of science is that we are able to study an "accident which has resulted in an advance in human knowledge" to determine how and why something works. The "scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation" certainly does allow us to dig deeper and determine answers beyond "God did it", even if it had no part to play in an initial discovery, accidental or otherwise.

213. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114572 by SRWB on January 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Besides shortbread cookies are way better than mint cookies! :-)

214. This Week's Flea

Comment #114547 by SRWB on January 22, 2008 at 11:47 am

Glossed over? We've been deftly diverted into discussing other works of fiction instead!

215. This Week's Flea

Comment #114485 by SRWB on January 22, 2008 at 9:42 am

"Nobody's interpretation of it is infallible", therefore, in ADH's opinion, his own interpretation is probably erroneous, and yet he bases his life on these possible errors.

Too right! That is quite the dilemma. As I asked earlier, does ADH live his life according to all the beliefs, customs and practices of the infallible Bible? I doubt it, and if this is the case, he is a self admitted cherry picker to boot. Why do that if your guidebook is so infallible?

216. This Week's Flea

Comment #114221 by SRWB on January 21, 2008 at 3:14 pm

ADH said,

That was the purpose of the OT Law Not to burden us down with rules and regulations, but to show how far short we fall. The problem is that our default reaction to God is to hate him, to dig in our heels and to believe all the misrepresentations that are swirling about in contemporary culture.

So do you eat pork? Do you sleep with your wife when she is menstruating or is your whole house unclean? Do you let your wife speak? Are these the types of rules and regulations that show how far short we've fallen?
We don't hate God, we just don't think he exists. Personally, I only dig in my heels when I hear and read BS like this.

217. This Week's Flea

Comment #114218 by SRWB on January 21, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Steve,

{Ahem} "The Flood"
It don't get much more merciful than that! ;-)

Of course God was being merciful - what he was really trying to do was to teach everyone alive how to swim and tread water!

Steve

218. This Week's Flea

Comment #114143 by SRWB on January 21, 2008 at 12:43 pm

God's not interested in getting people to believe in his existence, but to love him with all their "hearts minds and souls".

How can we love him if we don't believe he exists? Even more to the point, to love him we must believe he exists - is it possible to do otherwise? By the way water also boils at 212°F (and on Mt Everest it will boil at 69°C or 156.2°F). The point is that these are just numerical values we give to phenomena which happen, unlike God.

By the way, you still haven't answered our queries about Jesus born of a virgin and your proof that it was so.

219. The New Theology

Comment #113370 by SRWB on January 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm

ADH said (#56),

After the conception of God's Son in the virgin's womb, the laws of nature took their regular course with regard to gestation and birth.

Perhaps ADH can explain why the virgin Mary was required in the first place. After all, God supposedly created Adam and Eve out of dirt. Why couldn't he have done the same, using higher quality dirt if needed, to create his own son, a living god? He surely would not have had to impregnate a lowly human being, would he? I mean nothing is impossible for such a supreme, omnipotent being, is it?!

220. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111428 by SRWB on January 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Mr Scales,

All the best for your operation and your full recovery.

Steve

221. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110050 by SRWB on January 10, 2008 at 11:53 am

Steve,

All's fair in love and war, no? Weren't we talking about this issue on another thread just the other day? One must temper the approach based upon the tactics used by the religious faithful apologists. An even-handed, logical approach should be returned in kind, while a fundamentalist diatribe might need to be ridiculed in the fiercest possible way.

Steve

222. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108571 by SRWB on January 7, 2008 at 9:08 am

because religion and science are two different ways of knowing about the world.

I've always wondered how religion is truly a "way of knowing". "Knowing" implies a degree of certainty that religion definitely doesn't possess. I would agree that religion is a way of viewing or thinking about the world, but that's a far cry from knowing.

223. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108550 by SRWB on January 7, 2008 at 7:29 am

I happen to think we are right, or at least that we need both militant and "respectable" approaches.

I couldn't agree more - we need to tailor the approach to the situation, i.e., the right tactical solution for the right problem. In that vein the respectful approach might work for the soft theists, while a more robust militancy probably needs to be applied against the fundamentalist idiots out there.

224. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104468 by SRWB on December 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Lots of comments in the article concerning environmental stewardship and inferences that we humans were causing damage to God's perfect creation. If the earth is so perfect, how is that even possible? Wouldn't God have created earth, its contents and surrounding atmospheres in such a way so that we mere mortals couldn't possibly fuck it all up?

225. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104270 by SRWB on December 28, 2007 at 8:51 am

Show me your 100% guaranteed proof that God does not exist

That's an impossible task, therefore we should be arguing about likelihoods vice guarantees. As has been said before, the very lack of evidence is good evidence of non-existence. Good examples are al-rawandi's bogeyman in your closet, Dawkins' fairies in the garden and the invisible pink elephant in your fridge.

226. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101642 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Not from the UK but "barmy" is Brit for crazy and the tale of Alfred and the cakes refers to King Alfred of Wessex in the 9th century. While hiding from the Danish viking invaders he was apparently left in charge of some oatcakes, and they were burned. This earned him the wrath of a peasant woman.

227. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101639 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm

If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?

Then you wouldn't need to have FAITH would you? And we could could all go merrily on our knees praying every waking moment of the day knowing that He's listening and watching. Honestly, is there a large warehouse of columnists in the UK who get paid to churn out this crap?

228. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101622 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 3:34 pm

What I think I am saying for now is that there are consequences that I think could matter if we participate in religious rituals, even if it is simply carol singing. Those consequences could be insignificant, but they might be more insidious. I find myself agreeing mostly with Paula - why give those who wish to deride atheism even the slightest chance?

A valid point – but only if you consider the mentality of the critics. After all, as atheists we are going to be criticised and derided anyway. However, there is a fine point about carol singing. If I am singing carols in church as part of a religious rite, that is one thing. If I am singing drunkenly with a bunch of friends in the pub, that is different. Context is very important here. Now, as I said earlier, we will have Xmas carols and music in our house (already do) because it just seems right, especially with the several feet of snow piled up outside the house. But, although I will listen to it as seasonal background noise, it holds no more spiritual significance for me than listening to Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath or anyone else. It's just music, and some of it is very pretty indeed.

another Steve

229. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101481 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Christmas (despite the name) can be a non-religious event (trying to make it as irreligious as possible yet still be a valid event is a work in progress for me).

Agreed - I can choose to participate in all the social aspects of Xmas, or I can choose to stay at home and do what I do the rest of the year - that would be rather bleak and not much fun. To me it's like participating in other religious events that have nothing to do with my personal wishes/beliefs, like attending a friend's wedding at a church. Listening to carols on the radio - it just goes with the season - is a lot different than attending a Xmas service or hymn recitation - in such cases those are held with a very express and distinct intent - to worship God. You will never catch me in such a situation, but you might catch me listening to Xmas music at this time of year!

230. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101295 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 7:42 am

The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.

Say what? Didn't his previous comments in the very same article contradict this one simple statement? Is he a literalist or not? It seems to me that the archbishop is not only an arch cherry picker but a hair splitter as well!

231. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100251 by SRWB on December 18, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Not to be too pedantic, but how can a Christmas card reading "O come all ye faithless" be anything but a joke? And in regard to the Evangelical Alliance's Thacker noting, "I think the atheists will love it because it's bashing Christians around the head. It's another thing to take a Christian festival and abuse it", the response should be "lighten up and don't take yourself so seriously". As has been discussed on other threads of late, many of us atheists remain cultural Christians who celebrate Xmas in the sense of gathering family and friends for cheer and camaraderie at the bleakest time of year (weatherwise) - some of us even give gifts while gathered around a pagan pine tree and donate time and money to worthy causes. How nasty are we?

232. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100148 by SRWB on December 18, 2007 at 9:57 am

I have to agree with Steve99 and Bonzai - no need to tar and feather the CBC just yet! And I am Canadian too. Initially, while watching the interview last Sunday, I was of like mind with some of the other opinions, as I had pegged Solomon as a bit of an unbeliever for reasons related to his other works. Perhaps he is, and was merely playing devil's advocate to make the interview more interesting. Nevertheless, RD handled himself well and cut through all the BS in his usual forthright manner. If I wasn't already convinced, I would be now!

233. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97847 by SRWB on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Ruht,

No, I'm saying that there are no morals if there is no God.

And that, once again, is the very interpretation that others have already effectively countered in this exchange. You just refuse to acknowledge what's been said. In any case, you have offered no proof to back up your unlikely claim - your holy book, and your amazing ability to quote from it, are ludicrously thin on convincing evidence.

Only "survival of the fittest," "the strongest make the rules," "might makes right," etc.

Nobody on this forum has said anything like what you state above. Ironically, all the nonsense you spout from the bible, especially from the OT, actually demonstrates these particular beliefs were quite prevalent among Moses and the Jews.

On another recurring issue - I, for one, am dying to be enlightened in regards to your fetish for green cats. Please tell us, because I'm having a lot of trouble sleeping at nights, preoccupied as I am wondering just what amazing wisdom apparently known only to you, is just of reach...

234. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97073 by SRWB on December 11, 2007 at 11:09 am

...just make something else up until that is disproven as well

Pot calling kettle! Isn't that exactly what religions have been doing for thousands of years? And what is your strange and unintelligible obsession with green cats? The only "dead end" is the space between your ears.

235. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90330 by SRWB on November 24, 2007 at 10:32 am

Your statement is nothing but theoretical hogwash and you know it.

If I might paraphrase - your statements are nothing but theological hogwash but you don't know it.

236. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90137 by SRWB on November 23, 2007 at 6:25 am

Ah yes the drivel about images on grilled cheese sandwiches, walls and garage doors and the like! The obvious question that never gets asked is how does anyone actually know the images in question are of deities? Does anyone "blessed" with one of these artworks have a digital photo of Mary or Jesus to confirm that it isn't just coincidentally a likeness of the next door neighbor or Bob the janitor who works in a school on the other side of the country?

237. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90004 by SRWB on November 22, 2007 at 11:31 am

I consider God to be able to do anything he is capable of doing.

That's very magnanimous of you! The obvious problem with that explanation is that it could be applied equally to everyone of us as well, and doesn't really answer the question posed. Are you not able to do anything you are capable of doing? Surely that doesn't make any of us god-like, does it (with some notable exceptions, like Quetz:-))?

238. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #89276 by SRWB on November 20, 2007 at 6:44 am

Philip,

I'm partial to Earl Grey but almost any kind will do. I even enjoy the odd herbal tea!

Peacebeuponme,

Not "immediately" after opening presents. I would usually allow a sufficiently polite intermission.:-)

239. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #89264 by SRWB on November 20, 2007 at 6:03 am

Not yet - I'm an ateaist until the afternoon (only 0900 here)

240. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #89258 by SRWB on November 20, 2007 at 5:59 am

OK - now what?

241. For the glory of God

Comment #88435 by SRWB on November 16, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Daksian,

I too live in Ottawa and agree with Gardner's take on this issue. He has written at least three sound articles on this topic in the last year or so. Warren, in contrast, is a bigoted idiot who likes to stir up shit. Recently he wrote a couple of articles directly attacking Dawkins as deluded while holding up Michael Behe and Alister McGrath as credible defenders for the theists! Not convincing in the least.

gr_man,

Whoa - I think you need to lighten up a little! Are you suggesting that the west, Alberta in particular, is not more prone to religious belief? I think the stats would show otherwise.

242. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87216 by SRWB on November 11, 2007 at 1:51 pm

krisking,

What you have just described about the situation in the UK seems to be very much what I experience in Canada. People tend not to focus too much on religion, at least not openly, and those that do, tend to keep it low key and to themselves. There are exceptions of course.

I just attended our Remembrance Day commemorations this morning and even there God has only a passing part to play. But that doesn't prevent a serving atheist like myself from attending and thinking about all those thousands who have gone before. Although I couldn't help but be somewhat annoyed and mystified by the words of the Chaplain General of the Canadian Forces when he said (I'm paraphrasing) that God was and is continuing to look after the soldiers who have recently died in Afghanistan (some 70 plus) and some 300 wounded. If God was truly looking after them, where was he just before they were killed or wounded? He's not doing such a shit-hot job, is he?

243. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86900 by SRWB on November 10, 2007 at 11:56 am

You have taken the imaginings of C.S. Lewis and said they are a more accurate picture then the one given by the Bible. So, yes, in the case of Hell, you have made C.S. Lewis a greater authority than the Bible.

Ah, yes the beauty of cherry picking! This continues to be the greatest weakness of the theistic mind, and yet it is also one of the most difficult to counter. This evasiveness, obfuscation and reliance on grandiose erudite pronouncememnts made by learned others who are really in no better position to judge, really boils down to the classic "that's not my God" defensive gambit, and is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

244. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86462 by SRWB on November 9, 2007 at 10:17 am

Maybe they were Christian dolphins. Not to dispute the facts of this story, but I often wonder if dolphins really do consciously rally to the defence of humans. Or is it possible (more likely) that, being in the vicinity by coincidence, they merely react instinctively to sharks as a natural enemy.

245. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86408 by SRWB on November 9, 2007 at 7:00 am

Hi RascoHeldall,

Apparently you just have to read CS Lewis. He knows what hell is like!

246. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86403 by SRWB on November 9, 2007 at 6:32 am

While some (most?) of us agree with coretemprising's general disdain for the ideas of posters like ADH, I don't agree that we are "cozying up to" such people. The whole idea is to challenge them to see the flaws in their thinking. I don't just want this to be a site, for those of who don't believe, for mutual admiration and resounding agreement (not that it is!). How better to develop and test arguments than against the faithful who show up here?

247. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86387 by SRWB on November 9, 2007 at 6:00 am

ADH,

When I mentioned "encounter with God" in a previous post on this thread someone suggested that, given such an encounter, we would have no choice but to surrender. But the encounters that I'm speaking of are not coercive. There is always a choice.

You missed my point. The point was (is) that if an "encounter" actually happened then how could one logically and realistically not choose to "surrender" to God's will? It was never about coercion – it's about making a decision and choice based on being faced with real hard evidence .

He (CS Lewis) vividly portrays what Hell feels like to the damned and what it looks like to the saved. And what "heaven" feels like to the saved and looks like to the damned.

And CS Lewis knows this because…? Did he spend much time in either place while still alive? Or is this just conjecture on his part after speaking with a large sample group that had spent time in both? In all seriousness, this sort of theological twaddle is one of the main reasons why religion should eventually be consigned to the garbage can of history.

248. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85989 by SRWB on November 7, 2007 at 5:29 pm

ADH said,

Christianity is all about human beings being drawn into a "relationship" with God as a result of God having become human. What's infantile about that?

Lots! Again we have this emphasis on a relationship with an imaginary friend being more important than relationships with real people like your children and others. You still haven't answered my earlier queries about your statement that "Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him (God). Again, why would your life be so, considering you have children, other relatives and friends, etc.? Do they not give your life meaning? Does the fact you are alive and capable of thinking and interacting with real people not give you meaning?

249. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85657 by SRWB on November 6, 2007 at 5:24 pm

ADH said...

I have to say that my faith is real. God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

I have to note that all these comments emphasize "me" and "my" thus personalizing the relationship between you and your God. But what does that kind of attitude say about the reality and likelihood that God actually exists. To me, this is indicative of a search for warm, fuzzy comfort zone, but it doesn't get us any closer to actually determining God's existence. But why would your life be "absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him" considering you have children, other relatives and friends, etc.? Do they not give your life meaning?

I do believe that they will encounter God, that they will, and they will have to make a choice to follow or not.

If they actually do "encounter" God, what choice will they realistically have? I mean if God is revealed and becomes so glaringly obvious then surely only a fool would still refuse to believe. However, if you just mean encounter in the sense of a fleeting feeling, a sensation or strong belief without any hard evidence, then they will be no further ahead and will need to fall back on simple, imperfect faith.

250. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85294 by SRWB on November 5, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Don't ban anyone. While Flea's comments are not as ubiquitous and monotonously repetitive as DG's, it's a lot easier to debate his style of theism as opposed to the wishy-washy epistemological and ontological machinations of DG and his ilk.