251. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54775 by alovrin on July 9, 2007 at 12:18 am

Hello Sharon and welcome, and I like sickeningly optimistic.

We need them to understand how a moral society works without faith (because not only can it work, it will work better). Education is the key.

And Health Care. The basis is to have a society in which people feel cared for. But after a few decades of user pays, the market decides, and all manner of such euphemisms for making a buck and rolling back social welfares. There exists a societal basis in a lot of countries which is uncaring, and in which people can assume a facade of caring to just line their pockets. Just look at TV ads, mega corps that care Uh huh.

And the third world, that is a global disgrace and wars are still fought another disgrace.
We better start turning this around before its to late, just hope it happens soon. But with each "terrorist attack" the war footing gets ratcheted up a notch or two every time. And the polarisation becomes more entrenched its us against them, me against you, etc etc.
And fluffy versions of this god thingy ala DG are not helping.

252. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54770 by alovrin on July 8, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Comment #54577 by Shuggy

I just have to presume he is referring to religions that have been around for a while. And has limited himself to dealing with those and any others can be dealt with under the same parameters.
It still seems more complex to me, but its a small quibble with an otherwise excellent I/V.

253. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54587 by alovrin on July 8, 2007 at 1:25 am

Dinosaurs do walk among men.

And thens there's Louis Jordan(more 50's), Sly Stone, maybe Fletcher Henderson, Bird,Iggy, DB,VU, or if you want 90's Little Axe, On U, I wish Cary Clail had made it.
For a titmouse you are awfully bold, must be the tuft.

254. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54557 by alovrin on July 7, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Live Earth so I hear are using generators run on biodiesel, and will be audited for carbon neutrality. Which is kinda the way we(first world) should be heading self checks on energy use.
But most of the music and musicians/celebritees suck IMHO. Pity it didnt happen in the 60's. Jimi Hendrix, Steve Winwood thems musicians, again IMHO.

255. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54533 by alovrin on July 7, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Dan is an excellent talker always concise and interesting.
I wonder if he really believes the religions that are around today exist because they have passed some time test. It seems to me the reasons run much deeper than that, or was he just paraphrasing for TV.

256. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54380 by alovrin on July 6, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Dianelos is striding along the straight, he seems to be labouring slightly, but is still upright. He's approaching another steve99 hurdle, he's got it in his sights, the hurdle looms, he seems to pick up pace as if he is about to hurdle it, a simmy of the hips a mighty kick of the hind quarters, and.......

At least in part I do that, yes. Why shouldn't I? If it fits, it fits. People (be it in the context of math, or in the context of science, or in the context of searching for a mate) often make a hypothesis and then test it by working backwards to see how well it fits. Working backwards is a big part of reasoning. Come to think of it, working forwards into the unknown hardly ever works.

Nooooo. he skates around the outside yet again, readers one must admire his adroitness in the heavy conditions, it's a slippery surface out there. So far he has not managed one hurdle straight on an amazing feat, with so many onlookers aghast at this blatant disregard. No matter to Dianelos he strides on with what seems to be a skip in his gallop, no doubt looking forward to hosing down he'll get in the stables.
This is a sight dear readers.

257. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54191 by alovrin on July 5, 2007 at 11:06 pm

Your comments date you Down. And I said toilet attendants should be paid a fortune, they alas are not, otherwise I'd be in there haha.
Bad behaviour, what exactly do you mean? Behaviour deteriorates as the pressures on the individual by external forces increases,or if your depressed. Except for teenages but all teens are usually lazy, angry or rude goes with the territory.
So if everyones in a rush no ones luxuriates in the pleasures of a good shit in comfortable surroundings, mores the pity. I read once that the pharaohs poo was considered quite special back in those days. And was prized as a fertiliser, perhaps the pharaoh had a good diet.
Anyway military discipline is fun isnt it, doesnt scare me.
How many times do I have to say it DG can say what he likes Im not stopping him, I just think he's deluded and I have every right to say that.

258. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54174 by alovrin on July 5, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Downudder

. Think about it : whether we like it or not, "holy books", the law (is an ass) and regulations rule our world. You are at liberty to rave. Shouldn't others also be allowed to do whatever they feel like with the proviso that they must not stand on our toes?

Sorry think about what? I was being nice about it, your the masses "need"religion comment stinks to high heaven of all manner of cretinous sanctimonious condescending dumbass stupidity.
And I was serious clean public conveniences should have a higher priority than just about anything else. In some parts of europe there used to be attendants in the toilets,(dont know if they are still) these saints should be paid a fortune.
And I know you have no idea about ultimate truth, tho I wasnt asking it was a joke, hehe.
Your "shouldnt other be allowed" comment is that your relativism at work? DG can think what he wants but to make claims about the superiority of his worldview over others is a subjective judgement. But him claiming some manner of objectivity for, or because of it smacks of the usual religious failing snobbery.
BTW Am I standing on your toes yet?

259. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54158 by alovrin on July 5, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Downunder

History shows that the masses need "religions" including a god-concept with human attributes and holy books with incredible stories.......... Science has as yet no better alternative for the God-concept or evidence of the ultimate truth.

Boy which history books have you been reading. The masses also need to take a crap, more clean public toilets is a much better idea than "holy books with incredible stories". Science is not in the business of providing an alternative for a god-concept. Whats "Ultimate Truth" is that a bands name?

I see a movement building around Dawkins & Co based on the claim that all religion is both irrational and harmful. What I tried to do here is to argue that this is wrong on both counts, in fact trivially wrong. On the contrary it seems to me that movements of people who uncritically consider other peoples' ideas irrational and harmful for society have been at the root of much evil in the history of humankind, because from uncritically considering other peoples' ideas irrational and harmful to considering the people themselves irrational and harmful is but a very small step.................. Dawkins represents the kind of angry populist atheism whose intellectual underpinning consists of ignorance and logical fallacies; I think I'll write a post about what fallacies and ignorance.

Me thinks you have got it the wrong way round, the movement has existed, and has existed for a very long time. Dawkins etc might more correctly be considered catalysts in bringing this view out in the open. They are not the leaders of any organisation.
Religion is irrational despite all that you have written here DG, and it has been monstrously harmful and still is. Do you deny this? Um christian invaders of other countries mostly considered the beliefs of the inhabitants of a country irrational, so by your statement these past christians stand of evil. And as such have tainted the whole christian thingy

And there are an awful lot of theists who just get angry back. So there is always going to be harsh words said in any debate. But Im not sure if you can extrapolate that out to persecution of god followers by atheist's. Besides we are seriously under equipped with hardware.
I look forward to your post on fallacies and ignorance, well not really.

260. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54009 by alovrin on July 5, 2007 at 12:25 am

DrB and now alvorin are showing signs of frustration, bad loosers? Loosers you are, because from the side line I am anxiously awaiting to read amongst all your blah blah what your suggestions are for the world's predicaments. You seem to have your minds in the scientific clouds, theorising at length to find a ray of sunshine of which you know, but cannot prove, that it will be just a few meters away. How long will it take you to provide proof with a clear yes or no so the rest of us can get a lead on why we are here and what we should do in our daily "hunting & gathering". Should we just carry on killing and stealing, locally and globally? We need advice; we can no longer trust religions.

Ah some intelligent life arises. Indeed what is the way forward.
Hey look if you think DG is winning, I wonder if your reading the same posts. Dianelos has been held to task by steve99 and J on many occasions and just skated around the points raised. He also keeps changing tacks. Saying he believes in god and then not, just a theistic worldview. So by no stretch of the imagination has he won anything. But if you want to call it that way go ahead. I really cant be bothered with DG. I wonder if from my last post, which I see he's ignored, if he thought Lucifer was calling him out.
Anyway science is science if can never prove or disprove the existence of any deity, merely because it has no reason to.
But as we gain more and more physical information about the world/universe whatever the existence of such things seems more and more impossible. But still DG holds on like so many hardly surprising, he probably has to live amongst it like us all still.
As for my learned colleagues, bless their cotton socks, I fear if someone so much as tweeked their nipples they would be singing Glory Hallelujah, Praise the Lord in any key they were told.

Enough!
The future, as long as a majority believe that the problems we all face will be sorted out by some higher power, of indeterminate origin, we are fucked. The problems humanity face are all solvable but there is very little in the way of cohesive will. So as we stumble towards where we should be, a global view of ourselves we do so with no sense of urgency.
Or squabbling all the way. This is no way to exist on a planet.
The present system is going to collapse that much is obvious and before that happens, somehow there has to be an overarching body set up but not another layer on top of the already too many multilayered bureaucracy that exists now.
And I would be looking to people of the George Soros, Warren Buffet type to set something in motion.
Then one of The first things humanity as a whole should insist on, in my view, is get rid of all weapons that use explosive forces gunpowder etc. Obviously knifes swords are still going to be around.
But There is just no reason good enough for anyone to kill anyone else. Close all arms manufacturers, and maybe find someway to put all nuclear weapons into outerspace maybe on a one way flight to jupiter or the sun. It should be feasible with no disasterous effect on the solar system.

The day to day "hunting &gathering" just has to continue as changes are slowly made.
Sorry I'll have to stop there I've run out of time stuff to do............... Day to day gathering stuff.

261. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53775 by alovrin on July 3, 2007 at 5:19 am

I am not claiming that God exists. Rather I am making a sequence of claims that mostly concern only reasoning about reality

That's it's reasonable for me to believe in theism. That by itself is an important claim, because many naturalists believe that theistic belief must be irrational in all cases (to believe in God is like believing in fairies, and so on). And that's where I want to make my stand: my argument shows that this is not the case; theistic belief can be entirely reasonable

Apart from your overuse of the word reality. So you just want to believe in belief of something as yet to be determined, but it is in some way outside of the humdrum day to day world of stuff, but its not fairies cause they are to silly by half.
Your gonna look pretty silly if it is fairies running everything.
Or maybe its one of the gods so carelessly discarded over a miilion yrs of human evolution. There's no guarantee its the liberal christian theistic thingy you subscribe to.
Or maybe there is no absolute.
And this habit of forever making lists is a bit anal dont you think DG. Or does it just help you make things look all neat and tidy.
Its time to get down and dirty DG. Somehow I dont think you can do it. You like creating pretty word pictures a carefully constructed "reality" which you can inhabit.
I can really get up your nose and I dont like Bullshit of the kind you have been indulging in.
Theres a lot more I could say but lets just see if you are up to it.

262. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53741 by alovrin on July 3, 2007 at 2:10 am

966. Comment #53369 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 1, 2007 at 4:49 am
Alovrin (post 959, or #53361):

I think the world would be a better place if more people had the same understanding of reality I have
Is it just me or does anyone else find this statement obnoxious

Doesn't Dawkins claim the same? Would you call him obnoxious?

Also, please observe that I made that statement in response to Dr Benway's claim:
Dianelos, you won't make the world a better place by persuading the nice folks here that theism is a good thing.

In that context then I think my statement above is entirely appropriate. And is justified by my arguments elsewhere in the sense that my worldview is ethically empowering.

OH Dear the cracks are starting to show in the oh so polite DG.
Please refresh my memory I dont remember Dr Dawkins making any claims about reality.
He has said on occasion the he cares passionately about truth based on evidence. Which is not the same as reality.
Reality is such an abused word if I recall it came to some prominence in the heady days of the New Age. When everyone could claim to know their reality, and it gave rise to relativism of a special kind which still lingers today. Even found it way into affecting the staid christian organisations who claimed their reality was real.
blah de blah.

And sorree for jumping into you cosy little tet-a-tet with Dr Benway, by this you exhibit all the hallmarks of theism, you have somehow deluded yourself into thinking belief gives you the moral high ground. But the claims you make are based on a premise which you will never be able to provide any evidence for, except how you feel about it. Look cock, Im sure you feel compassion for your fellow man, but I bet you have at times been a complete prick, lets say, at work sometime? Id rather hear about that than all this obfuscation about your belief making your life soooo much better.
"Ethically Empowering" such a nothing phrase.
Come on fess up, we know your not perfect.

263. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53560 by alovrin on July 2, 2007 at 4:00 am

"The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."

Global warming and gays are linked, Well I never!
Is this man a genius or wot.

264. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53361 by alovrin on July 1, 2007 at 2:56 am

ONLY SELFLESS LOVE FOR THEM CAN POSSIBLY BE SUFFICIENT REASON FOR HURTING PEOPLE.

The example you give of discipling your daughter because you love her selflessly is trite. This exact same justification is used for killing people. And saying yeah but I dont mean it that way is the ultimate in sticking your head in the sand. It IS used that way and it comes directly from religious conviction.

I think the world would be a better place if more people had the same understanding of reality I have

Is it just me or does anyone else find this statement obnoxious
Sorry but there are many people who have the same understanding of reality you do and its one of the main reasons the world is presently the way it is. Dont put yourself on a pedestal mate!
My fellow atheists is your love of debate and manners blinding you to how deluded this man is? He probably feels at times as if his god is guiding his mind or his fingers on his keyboard.
I said I would let you debate this clown but honestly behind his manners this person is bizarre.

265. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53321 by alovrin on June 30, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Sharpton keeps accusing Hitchens of criticising Religion instead of God

Yes it happened in their last meeting too. I think it has to do with the whole, we are just sinners and have to find redemption thru god. So this neatly sidesteps the issue, because god is always considered perfect, and humans / the material world is deeply flawed and needs god to attain perfection. So god is beyond criticism(in the mind of believers) and always will be so, however this god is understood, and any failings on the part of followers of god is their human sinner failing.
Anyway it hard to criticise something you doubt the existence of, or you consider manmade.
I just think the incredibly cunning Rev sharpton has picked up on this and will use it as a tactic whenever he can, until some one calls him on it. So just got to wait, it will happen eventually.

266. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53211 by alovrin on June 30, 2007 at 5:52 am

jesus I dont believe it you did write it,this gods image bible etc, shit

267. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53185 by alovrin on June 30, 2007 at 2:43 am

Dainelos

But, impressively enough, the Bible is right in one fundamental bit: that we are created in the image of God.

did you actually write this or did I just imagine it?

268. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53038 by alovrin on June 29, 2007 at 4:00 am

Maths
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html
Some quotes

For a start, there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from?
............
This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, so physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.
..............
I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws

269. God Hates the World

Comment #53034 by alovrin on June 29, 2007 at 3:44 am

"ey David Robertson when god takes responsibility for the words and deeds of his followers thru time. Then it might be reasonable to hold Josh and RD responsible for some rude words on this web site that were written in your general direction."

He does. And we will have to answer to him, far more than those who do claim to know nothing about him.

I see my joke went straight over your head, but then you arent renowned for your sense of humour. Tho' the joke was very wry,
I thought a scotsman may have got it. I kinda hope this is the last we see of you tho', your kinda boring.

270. God Hates the World

Comment #52704 by alovrin on June 27, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Josh and Dawkins do carry some responsibility for this

Hey David Robertson when god takes responsibility for the words and deeds of his followers thru time. Then it might be reasonable to hold Josh and RD responsible for some rude words on this web site that were written in your general direction.

271. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52432 by alovrin on June 27, 2007 at 2:57 am

Wow those Evil Publishing Co's are creating and cashing in on this atheism fad. Who Knew!
I bet they are run by Jews.

If belief that human conciousness came from god was law, and not believing was a criminal offence. If I were a defendant, these three would be exhibit No. 1. The brian power on display here, well theres nothing to display, just three of the stupidest people on this speck of dust in the cosmos.
It brings to mind that saying Lights are on, but no ones home.

272. God Hates the World

Comment #52020 by alovrin on June 26, 2007 at 12:51 am

Ah Wee Flea its so touching the way you start some of your posts with the salutation Dear Dr Dawkins, as if it is a personal letter.
You seem rather desparate for Dr Dawkins to notice you, maybe respond to your book.
It so sweet really like a dog with its tongue hanging out and its tail endlessly wagging. Such behaviour suits a dog, its unbecoming on a grown human male.
I know belief can make one incredibly thick skinned, metaphorically speaking, and this is all I can attribute your persistent too. Is this some kind of rite of passage, is this your equivalent of door knocking for god? Do you think you are likely to find potential recruits here?
It really is baffling behaviour, And I am not suprised by the fart joke behaviour directed in your general direction, as you bring this on yourself. And I doubt, in fact, I would say you or any christian is in no physical danger from anyone who has spoken roughly to you, as much as you would like it to happen so you can say, toldyaso, naynaynaynayyynah.
But hey this is the wonderful world of the internet, a chance to let off steam, not every word by us plebians needs to be vetted. and especially not by the likes of you. Dont you think its time you took you leave, you have worn out your welcome.

273. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51778 by alovrin on June 24, 2007 at 10:29 pm

But if evolution would not produce a brain capable of finding out whether the physical universe is real or not (because doing so is entirely superfluous), neither, obviously, would it produce a brain capable of finding out whether anything in the physical universe is real or not.

OK, so according to this logic we dont need our brains, it just fills that space between our ears.
Hm.. should I get a lobotomy,
Maybe Dianelos and I could both get one.
Would certainly never get a hangover again, mmmmmm,
So whaddya say DG, you up for it?

I note that no philosopher of note has pointed out some clear mistake in Plantinga's paper.

Probably because its based on a false premise. The same one you believe about god dishing out conciousness.And hes a prude.

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four
F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing.

Why didnt he just say fucking, the four eef's honestly!

274. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51640 by alovrin on June 23, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Its hard not to let speculation skip ahead of reality when listening to Mr Tabash talk. If the worst happens and the US gets another Republican president. Is it just a matter of time before the US is drawn into conflict with Islam enmasse, as believers battle believers. Would such a conflict inevitably see the use of mass nuclear weapons. I hope time proves such speculation wrong.

275. In the name of the Father

Comment #51464 by alovrin on June 23, 2007 at 2:30 am

But how is it that the majority of the world's great philosophers, composers, scholars, artists and poets have been believers, often of a very devout kind

They also had really big beards and didnt bathe a lot, had pets and drank copious amounts of alcohol or laudanum, and their table manners were atrocious up until the 19th century. And a lot of them probably had worms, Had slaves, were bad husbands, wore powdered wigs on ceremonial occasions.

Any way my point is,if I can be bothered, there may be a big fella in the sky hiding somewhere, but the cults of worship such as xtainity,islam, hindi. Are not going to bring anyone closer to said big fella, despite the whining and protestations of bishops that it will.

Religion is rooted in our capacity to recognise and appreciate value; in our search for truth;

What value is that exactly, which truth Bishop? As religion seems to be very capricious as to what is valued and what is truth, its almost seems to depend on the time of day in certain instances or the mood of the pope, or whoever is in charge where ever. I dont think the Bishop would know truth if it molested his nether regions.

276. His word

Comment #51453 by alovrin on June 23, 2007 at 2:01 am

Why is it that some reviewers seem to approach reviews of anything vaguely derogatory of god or religion as if they have put a peg on their nose and donned surgical gloves lest they get infected.
The condescenion drips from every word, every syllable, every snooty turn of phrase. Why does this twit bother.
I bet this cock would get Vista, if he knew what it was.
If anyone see's him down the pub be sure to accidentally spill a pint on him. Tho' I doubt, he goes anywhere.

Just employing some sixth form tactics here tit for tat, so to speak.

277. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51401 by alovrin on June 22, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Boy, the pub was going off...Sheez, you guys are still at it, Ah well the dialogue must go on I suppose. Hey go have a read here anyone, DG you as well.
http://www.naturalism.org/plantinga.htm
A few quotes:

This means Plantinga is also mistaken to say that "naturalism...is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science [evolution]." If science, conforming to its canons of explanatory adequacy, were to demonstrate a role for god in guiding evolution, then naturalists would happily accept that conclusion. But of course in that case god would have been naturalized, integrated into a scientific account of the world.
..........

Plantinga raises the possibility that, if our cognitive capacities are merely physical, we're living in a dream. This possibility, like that of global, brain-in-a-vat skepticism, is something naturalists are happy to live with if the only cure is to posit god. That cure is worse than the disease, since it requires we give up our commitment to explanatory transparency as the touchstone of factual truth. Indeed, we naturalists are constitutionally unable to abandon our demand for clear evidence-based explanations, even if that leaves us (possibly) vulnerable to rationalist critiques.
.........
None of this, of course, will cut the least bit of ice for Plantinga and other supernaturalist rationalists (such as John F. Haught), since their commitment isn't to explanatory transparency but to discovering unimpeachable foundations for reason (and ethics, another story). Such foundations, they argue, cannot be supplied by a world whose ultimate constituents are inherently mindless. Only in god can we trust.

So be it. Some people want certainties of the sort that god can deliver, some don't. Some want explanations of the sort that science delivers, some don't. So long as naturalists and supernaturalists don't demonize one another, we can all get along, enjoying some good arguments as we go.

278. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #51005 by alovrin on June 21, 2007 at 2:39 am

Yes this debate has been shown before.
The arguments put forward have been soundly refuted.
I guess its instructive to see again to realise how much ground has been covered, but will have to be gone over again and again.
Ah patience or is it patients.

279. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #50989 by alovrin on June 20, 2007 at 10:01 pm

But many people on this site apparently are still incanting the slogan "moderates are the enablers of the fundamentalists" like a mantra.

You could be right, I'm not sure, maybe a poll should be taken.
One thing I do have trouble with when coming across a "moderate" whatever that is,( some who have visited here have called themselves "liberal christians"). Is they wont acknowledge they get their inspiration from the same source as fundamentalists. It is after all the same book, the same god from which inspiration has been drawn for so many heinous acts through time.
Which somehow tho' remains above criticism in their minds because it exists outside of the physical realm and is superior to it, as perhaps an objective reality, because of this existence above the base world we inhabit. This is surely a problem as it so often leads to abuses in/of this real world.

So maybe moderates may not be enablers, but fellow travellers in fancier pants. And when faced with a choice between an atheist candidate and a xtian one, they can stand alongside fundamentalist voters without knowing it. It is a thorny problem for sure.

Anyway the I/V, The doco "The God Delusion" was it called that in Canada? And that atrocious pun Sheez, Get a new script writer. RD must have to deal with all manner of situations and he does remarkably well in dealing with them. Kudos to him.

280. In the know

Comment #50187 by alovrin on June 15, 2007 at 3:16 pm

I think, that we are not pig ignorant like the beasts.

Hey Mark leave the beasts alone, when did they do anything against you.
I bet you like a bit of bacon or pork occasionally eh Marky, come on admit it, ya do dontcha.

281. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50138 by alovrin on June 15, 2007 at 8:06 am

"Pass the nuts, ta. Oh and a packet of crisps... One more, Alovrin?..."

Its my round newatheist, same again?
I know its been said before but I'll just say it again when the order that exists in the universe is comprehended, and it truly hurts my brain to perform such an act of comprehension. Shoehorning a god in there is like putting a cheap suit on say, Elle Mcpherson or Jessica Alba, Rose McGowan or that other witchie woman. Come to think of it any of them would look quite nice in a cheap suit GRRRRR. Oh sorry, I hope DG is carrying on his dialogue with _J_ and steve99. BTW, Did you read that Jerry Coyne article.. fabulous.
Oh sweet barperson another round over here ...Thanks

282. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50011 by alovrin on June 14, 2007 at 2:20 pm

This is just evil cloaked in piety. This and the no condom use thing for aids prevention. It makes me feel sick.

283. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50006 by alovrin on June 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Steve99, _J_, et al, you can have him. Come on Alovrin, let's go to the pub. I'll buy you a pint.

Yep Im in.

OH Yea Dianelos, thats a strange spelling you wacky Greeks, I like it. Any way

and the epistemology and actual results of how each kind of worldview deals with the task of describing how reality is.

Thats not really a god gap it something you conjured from some nether region. Again the convolution is breathtaking. I guess you mean theism as a worldview describes reality better than a materialistic worldview. Well thats your subjective opinion. So your down to two. Oh by the way I think, thats just me, there are only four real god gaps left, but they are closing fast. Hope you dont find the other two before its to late. Im off to the pub now with new atheist. Some evidence of god about now would be nice.

284. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49873 by alovrin on June 14, 2007 at 1:48 am

1. Naturalistic worldviews contain serious conceptual problems and in comparison my theistic worldview is not problematic. I picked three such naturalistic problems: what causes consciousness, how to account for objective ethics (or for what is objectively good) given one believes it exists, and the epistemology and actual results of how each kind of worldview deals with the task of describing how reality is.

No you have just identified, with a little help from your animal cunning, three of the areas when scientific explanations dont claim to have all the answers, and you have just inserted god into them. Enjoy it while you can.

As far as scientific and technological knowledge is concerned by theistic worldview is as compatible as naturalism, and indeed offers some practical advantages (e.g. avoids the need to describe an objectively real physical environment).

Gee thanks

In comparison my theism offers some explanations in areas that naturalism can't or doesn't (e.g. why is there an orderly and intelligible physical environment free of "magical" effects in our experience? – and in general questions of the form: why is how it is like to be human as it is?). In post 532 I wrote down various criteria that I think an explanation must fulfill, including the criterion of empirical testing.

You sure about that? Orderly, intelligible, surely one can impose an order on things, which is what humanity has done since, like forever. But I stand in awe of this universe, most of the time it seems incomprehensible, indescribably beautiful to me, not orderly and I dont need a god.

And

why is how it is like to be human as it is?

That has to be the most bizarre phrase I have seen in a while.

Why, OK, ishowitislike, loosing it here, to be human, yes, asitis? as what is oh to be human WHY? WHAT?

285. The Great Mutator

Comment #49621 by alovrin on June 12, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Jerry does it again. Extremely readable and packed with complex information presented in a cogent style.
Fully sick

286. The New Atheists

Comment #49376 by alovrin on June 11, 2007 at 5:15 pm

what are the differences between believers and unbelievers?

Um now let me see... what is that thing that gets in the way..kinda like an invisible fairy only bigger.
All joking aside, its an intelligent thoughtful article. Im just unsure about the possible solutions. I would be happy to work with anyone, just so long as I didnt have to hold hands and pray before the meeting.

287. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #49371 by alovrin on June 11, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Why is that when you mention the word God to some atheists they go berserk and almost have a nervous breakdown? Can't we just have a mutually respectable dialogue without resorting to name calling?

Um I dont think anyone here is having a nervous breakdown. Maybe you are feeling threatened in some way.
Ignorance is not really an insult, Richard Dawkins has spoken about it somewhere, I think in a talk with Lawrence Krauss. Most of us are ignorant of a lot of things. No one person can know everything about everything.
A delusion is often a self imposed condition, persisting in a view when there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts that view.
Believing there to be a god when there is only personal revelation, a weight of tradition and conjecture to support this belief is so darn close to a delusion, I cant think of another word for it.
Shit we're all gullible in some way, except me of course :-{)
And you are at a website where the prevailing view is that there is no god. So if you come here and just baldly say there is take my word for it and dont criticise me for saying it, expect a wee bit of flak.
I say this most respectfully. So carry on you were saying?

288. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49359 by alovrin on June 11, 2007 at 3:43 pm

epeeist
shouldnt it be:-{)

289. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49235 by alovrin on June 11, 2007 at 5:31 am

I don't understand the question, could you rephrase it?

Shit I've only asked it three times.
Does the christainity you subscribe to have a group name like Christadelphians or Order of St jude of the Obscurians, or Trinitarians.

but I personally interpret that stance as the cognitive failure to notice the deeper order and perceive the greater beauty present in our life. But suppose I am wrong and atheism is right. Even then when my own temporarily structured dust permanently disintegrates and all I have been is lost like a tear that falls in the sea (to use a memorable phrase from Blade Runner), I will have lived a better life than my more realistic fellow beings.

Statements like this reinforce my summation of you as a person suffering from a horrendous, truly monstrous delusion.

290. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49182 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Ah, the 1980's, now dont get all touchey on me.
Cunning marketeers those Village People tapped right into the US male psyche and made their fortune, right under the noses of middle America
At least I hope they did.

291. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #49163 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 6:19 pm

about criticism

Silly me, I of course mean above criticism. Especially at this website.

292. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #49152 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 4:38 pm

God is the ultimate reducible answer.

Dont you mean irreducible?

I expect you to respect my right to believe in God and present my views on the issues of science and religion that are discussed on this website.

I will definely respect your rights, but a belief in a god is not a right that is about criticism, especially if your arguments for holding this belief are flawed, or the evidence, if you wish to present any, doesnt hold up under scrutiny. The same goes for your views on science.

293. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49148 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Only in America...
It all sounds kinda leather chaps and droopy moustaches gay..
Macho macho man
I wanna be a macho man

294. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49054 by alovrin on June 10, 2007 at 5:45 am

Well I never, DG actually responded to something I said, but not to the question I would like to have answered. Ah Well.

Well not wanting to engage in debate is obscurantism

You are perfectly welcome to engage in debate with those that want to and I would encourage it, but that is not with me and I think I have made that perfectly clear.
Communication would be fruitless as you post long justifications of your position which just make me want to laugh, induce in me scoffing, scathing sarcasm, and the desire to make, probably to you and others, infantile and facetious one line ripostes. And I dont think that is the style of communication you desire. Or that is suited to the spirit in which, as Steve99 said, this website was conceived. I have done it before and quite rightly was told to desist as it wasnt respectful to another point of view. So it would be totally pointless for you and I to go head to head.
What more do I have to say.
You believe in some form of christainity, which I just consider a delusional position. And you have written nothing that makes me wish to reconsider my position. But what is this form you adhere to. Are there others who believe as you or is this your own justification of your singular position. I dont want to know anything else does this position have a moniker or is it just a work in progress. To be named when fully formed?
If you do not wish to answer say so, and you can carry on the debate with those who wish to enter into debate with you.
I actually dont care I just wonder if you call it by some name are there certain christian philosophers you hold in more regard than others, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Bede. There is a host of them, can you name some?

295. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48968 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 6:42 pm

BAEOZ interesting read ta.
DG might have to do some deconstruction before it will resonate with him.
Using logic to show your logic is not subject to the rules of logic therefore your logic is a better form of logic...ow my head hurts.

296. We of little faith

Comment #48966 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm

krogercomplete on June 9, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Not sure what is so crazy about Sam's article.??

I agree. Maybe Smith could expand on why he thinks Sam Harris is crazy based on this article.
And "pro torture neo Zionist" ? I thought these misconceptions had been explained. Sorry Smith you are way off here.

297. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48944 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

HUH! Darwin2

The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

Are you at the right site?
Maybe you should be here http://www.discovery.org/csc/

298. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48935 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

As I read this old saying kept popping to mind, dont know its origins, probably christian because of the hell reference.

I suppose good on him for making an effort I doubt if any lasting benefit will come of it. I guess he, like many people, wonder where humanity is headed or if we have reached an impasse, the differences too great to overcome. And I dont mean religious differences, the differences of wealth, physical comfort, access to resources, the difference, say, between the way a few million people, and a few billion people interact with this planet, and the many physical differences that exist. What do these add up too? Maybe its because of this impasse and the searching for a solution, religion is gaining prominence. Tho' to me it seems incredibly wrongheaded.
I tried to look for the comments to see how it was received at Timesonline, its not obvious how too. Any clues anyone?

299. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48793 by alovrin on June 9, 2007 at 4:28 am

Dainelos
Could you please just answer the question, and I will leave you and steve99 and whoever else wishs to engage in debate with you to it.
You are obviously an intelligent person, but I have no desire to engage with you. As you abuse logic to show that logic doesnt apply to your illogical concepts.

So if you join with a community of fellower believers to sing songs, exchange pleasantries, do you have a way of viewing yourself as a group?
I only want to know so as to be able to stay out of your way and not cause you any upset as my presence just might. It's just self preservation mon ami.

300. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48474 by alovrin on June 8, 2007 at 5:13 am

so obviously I can only meaningfully discuss my Christian worldview with other Christians versed in these obscure concepts

Well its all rather obscurely convenient isnt it.

So this is it eh, Well DG you may continue to ignore me, consider me a rude boor, an uncultured naturalist, sarcastic, facetious, unable to form cogent thoughts to the depths you consider yourself and your ilk capable of.
But I can smell bullshit before I see it and I could see this steaming pile coming. You are unfortunately just the most recent example of how an otherwise educated person can suffer from a delusion of monumental proportions.
Other seem to want to engage in debate with you, me I just would like to know what brand of obscurantism you subscribe to so I stay out of your way in the future, and I'm sure you and your ilk wouldnt want to waste your precious god given consciousness and time on a lowly individual like myself.
So just fess up bud.