Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by D'Arcy


301. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57477 by D'Arcy on July 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm

So according to Myers' summary of Kleiman, inside his faith there is another more abstract faith:

True Religious People™ know that everything in their religion is a metaphor. They don't really believe in an anthropomorphic god … why, that is only a symbol for "an infinite, omniscient, beneficent, immortal being".


Slippery character this God. Just when you think you're getting to grips with Him He disappears into a deeper metaphorical world. A sort of divine dance of the Russian dolls. Maybe the dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies would be a fair description of Kleiman's faith.

302. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #57197 by D'Arcy on July 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Having spent hours reading through this board, I'm wondering if I've wasted my time. The interesting thing is the way the religios sidetracked Dawkins review into one about morality, a bog almost as impenentrable as theology.

Still I ploughed through it, and I still think that Dawkins has got Behe by the short and curlies.

303. The Great Mutator

Comment #56865 by D'Arcy on July 17, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Donald, 67 above, obviously knows far more about this than I do, and I thank him for his comments. From the, dare I say it, common sense point of view, it is obvious that an organism with an evolutionary advantage is likely to prosper and produce viable offspring. As they say in golf, (British Open starts Thursday), if you don't make the cut, you're out. No genes, no dna, no heritage, and plenty of food for bacteria and other uni-cellular organisms about which we know almost nothing. These critters are the real rulers of this planet.

304. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56612 by D'Arcy on July 16, 2007 at 2:33 pm

As usual, the existence of the "church" and the omnipotent creator is assumed without question. What else are churches for but to turn them into flats, nightclubs and libraries (for the devout of course).

We should remember that things are different in Nairobi where you will be very wealthy if your toilet flushes into a main sewer, or if you own a digital camera.

305. The Great Mutator

Comment #56601 by D'Arcy on July 16, 2007 at 2:04 pm

bizeditor84, has to his satisfaction, proved Coyne "wrong": not only that but Coyne's critique is not based on science according to biz.

Evolutionary science has revealed the existence of working models of eyes of various configurations. Evolutionary science has not shown how the series of additive heritable mutations, each bringing an immediate survival-reproduction benefit, produced working eyes from non-light sensitive cell ancestors.

Ooops ... Coyne was wrong. But then again, science is not the basis of his critique of Behe ...


I, for one, am far from convinced that Coyne was wrong. If an organism as a result of mutation in its dna produces offspring that even slightly has some advantage to that organism and its descendants, and it manages to reproduce the next generation, that advantage is likely to be carried forward. If a mutation occurred which resulted in the death of its offspring, then nothing would be carried forward. In the case of the eye, even a slight sensitivity towards light (hardly unusual), that increased the organism's awareness of its environment would improve the chances of that organism reproducing a viable offspring.

Traditionally evolution has assumed quite rightly long periods of time for different species to evolve. Darwin never knew about genes ,chromosones, or dna, but IMHO he got it exactly right. Recent research seems to be showing that evolution progresses at its own speed depending on the circumstances. The so-called "junk dna", may well be working as the "additive heritable mutations", which biz dismisses above.

Yes I agree with biz that we don't know all the answers, but can I ask if biz has some other motive in proving Coyne "wrong". Is biz perhaps arguing that the eye was intelligently designed all at once by some unnamed being? If so why doesn't biz say so? Picking a "hole" in evolutionary theory does not prove the existence of the supernatural.

306. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56226 by D'Arcy on July 14, 2007 at 2:42 pm

serrano may well be smarter than Hitchens, who cares? Certainly not me. Surely what Hitchens is saying is that you don't have to be religious to disapprove of murder.

Depending on the circumstances, e.g. 2nd world war, Christians on both sides were very happy to wish the worst for the other side. If war is not murder on a massive scale then what else is it? Like priests, soldiers are trained in obedience to a higher power. They are trained that when commanded they must kill the opposition. The impersonal act of pressing a button to launch a missile which will eventually kill when it explodes some miles away, is no less murder than thrusting a knife into some-one's heart. It may be impersonal, but it's still state sanctified murder. As far as the dead person(s) is concerned, the legal definition of murder is irrelevant.

307. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56187 by D'Arcy on July 14, 2007 at 11:07 am

I hope Bizarro is Catholic, because according to the pope, that's the only true church.

Also, where have I ever indicated that I believe all religions to be true?


All the protestant organisations are not "proper" churches according his holiness. I guess that cuts out quite a lot of Christian organisations.

Bizarro's reason for not being a muslim are pretty unconvincing. He says that his religion does not encourage him to kill for it. Wrong, how about the quote from Matthew 10.24-26 cited above? The great peace loving Jesus, yes Him of the other cheek, comes not in love but with a sword. Sounds pretty menacing to me. Throughout the Bible there are exhortations and deeds to wipe out false believers.

Just as Bizarro does not believe in Islam, Janism, Sikh or Hindu religions etc., atheists don't believe in them either, we just happen to include Bizarro's religion too.

I hope more believers will visit this site so that we can all have a civilised exchange of views. Maybe they can convert me to their religion?

308. The US map of faith

Comment #56085 by D'Arcy on July 13, 2007 at 4:20 pm

God was obviously busy sherpherding his flocks in Indianna and Utah, when he let off the Asian Boxing Day Tsunami.

309. Butterfly shows evolution at work

Comment #56081 by D'Arcy on July 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm

And a very large and solid nail in the coffin of the creationists.


Ah yes, but in their intellectual way they will argue that a butterfly never yet gave birth to a monkey!

If parasites drive an evolutionary arms race between species, then I wonder what Wee Fleas will do for Dawkins!

310. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56074 by D'Arcy on July 13, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Bizarro (57) writes:

some stereotypical idea in mind of the students being flogged after failing to recite the book of Matthew from memory in their Bible class,


Bizarro's imagined punishment for not knowing the book of Matthew sounds quite amusing to me. A public flogging on Liberty campus for all those sinful students who forgot: "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away" (Matthew 5.27). A cat of nine tails should definately be used on those desperate souls who forgot Jesus saying: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world: no, I did not come to bring peace but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law: a man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family" (Matthew 10.24-26).

Bizarro may be too kind, a public flogging is too good for the deviant Liberty students forgetting such gems. Could he not instead arrange a mass stoning of sinners? I volunteer to throw the first stone.

311. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #55832 by D'Arcy on July 12, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Sorry bad editing. Message 20 is mine after 3 paragrapghs ( para starting "As a Christian....")

What follows I agree with!

312. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #55830 by D'Arcy on July 12, 2007 at 2:12 pm

chadvader123, quoting Newton30, above says:

"The historical aspect of this documentary in the beginning seems a little disturbing to me. We see the theory of evolution being 'interpreted' by various social classes and individual thinkers into things like eugenics, almost as if it were some kind of new theology to be worshipped. Although this is probably historically accurate, those interpretations (including those of Darwin himself) go squarely against the theory of evolution, and the idea of interpreting a scientific theory to fit one's socio-political interests goes squarely against the idea of science. The documentary does not properly discredit these interpretations, in my opinion, and leaves us with the danger of re-awakening the totally wrong and dangerous ideas that have been disastrous in the past."


I am a christian and I completely agree with this comment; however, it is important for us to understand how easily a theory can be turned into something negative. Ann Coulter is a great example of this. Unfortunately, no theories are immune to corruption!

As a Christian chadvader should ask itself whether the "theory" of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, (and presumably omniverous), God, is a viable theory to explain reality. The answer is a resounding NO!

In scientific terms a theory is the next best thing to the "truth". It is the best current available explanation for observed events.

The "theory" of evolution needs no more justification than the "theory" of relativity, special and general which included gravitation, or quantum chromodynamics. These "theories" happen to be well founded in empirical observation.

There may well be "missing links" in the fossil record, and problems related to punctuated equilibrium, but this does not give the theists room for their god of the gaps.

313. A force for good?

Comment #55715 by D'Arcy on July 12, 2007 at 4:03 am

Valley writes:

Some 80% of British charities may be non-religious, but the research by the Home Office's Bureau of Volunteering shows that those committed to one of the historic faiths are between three and four times more likely to get involved in than others.


It seems that the religious mentality is quite happy to accept as normal a world society where there is the need for so many different and divers charities. We've had capitalism (include USSR and China etc.) for over 200 years and yet it still can't solve the basic problems it causes. By now the reformers should done away with the haves and have nots, but that's not the way capitalism works. Capitalism is based on inequality, owners and non owners, but religion is quite happy to accept this and justify it. Tinkering around in Manchester soup kitchens, however well meaning, will not get rid of world poverty, which is what is needed.

Most people today spend most of their lives working on behalf of someone else. It's about time that we worked with each other for each other.

314. A force for good?

Comment #55481 by D'Arcy on July 11, 2007 at 8:45 am

How Green is My Valley?. Without repeating what most others have said, this is the kind of religious , slimy, weasel verbiage that has come to represent CoE thinking.

Where I start from as a religious person isn't with philosophical paradoxes that ask how God can be both all-powerful and all-loving.


The last place a religious person starts from is from a position of questioning the existence of Big G. They prefer their leaps of faith. Mumbo Jumbo beats reason at all stages, it's just so dammed comforting to them. They do use reason when it comes to life and death situations like eating, crossing the road, using medicines, etc. etc., which perhaps they shouldn't. They should believe their own claptrap and "trust in the Lord".

The next time Stalin is mentioned on these boards as the atheist murderer, we should all remember that although Stalin was an atheist, he was brought up in the ways of the church and trained as a priest. He knew and understood the social power the church had to terrify people, and he used what he had learnt throughout his life.

315. Now this is how to critique Ken Ham's creation 'museum'

Comment #54973 by D'Arcy on July 9, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Unfortunately, in my experience, creationists are not susceptible to reasoned argument. They only "know" that their holy book is right and that anyone or anything that contradicts it is an agent of Satan. They start from the basis that the Bible is the word of God and that is therefore beyond challenge.

The progress of science has pushed such a viewpoint more and more to the extremities of credibility, such that even many "mainstream" Christians regard the creationists as freaks.

If the Creation Museum is built upon fossils many millions of years old, it must have been conceived and paid for by freaks with a fossilised mentality.

316. Brainwashed children plead to die as martyrs in Red Mosque siege

Comment #54683 by D'Arcy on July 8, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Was it the Jesuits whose claim was that given a child up to age 7, that child would be forever a Catholic? If you feed children mental poison and ignorance as soon as they are capable of absorbing it, it's hardly surprising that they can quickly be turned into potential suicide bombers as this article shows.

What is going on in Pakistan is not a religious struggle but a political one, with the various protagonists using religious fronts as part of their propaganda, in much the same way as the Christian bishops were happy to bless the war efforts of their respective countries during the 2nd world war, even if, (especially?), if it meant killing Christians from the opposing country.

The thought the mad mullahs in Pakistan getting hold of political power and control of nuclear weapons is scary, but then so is the thought of the USA wielding its vast arsenal in the name of Christendom.

317. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #54134 by D'Arcy on July 5, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Following Fadeux's theme, would Cameron be the first one to throw a crocaduck? The man is so obviously convinced by the "design" of things, that the question of how the "designer" came to be is not even considered. Mysterious are the ways of crockaducks!

318. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54132 by D'Arcy on July 5, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I have a lot of empathy with our young friend. A close relative of mine aged about 17, who was brought up as a Catholic finally fell out with the priest, when he was told that he was not allowed to read Alexandre Dumas' works, (e.g. The Three Musketeers). If our young friend wants to visit say the wikipedia page for Index Liborum Prohibitorum, he will see a list of "forbidden" authors including Copernicus, Defoe, Diderot, Hugo, Marx, Milton, Joyce, Voltaire, Stuart Mill, and a whole load of others. Dawkins is in good company, although not on the Index. The Catholic Church is just as "progressive" as any of the others, in that it hates its authority to be questioned.

I don't know what kind of school the author of our article goes to, but I gather it is in the USA, where (in theory) religion is not allowed to be taught in state schools. Assuming our blogger is at a state school in the "land of the free", I can only assume that the pricipal is probably more scared of being shot by his friend's father, than in upholding the "right" to free speech.

The small minded attitude of those that hold religious beliefs, prohibits them from a broader view of life and nature in general including the universe. Those who can at least shake off the veils of religion, have a better chance of having a clearer grasp of reality and solving our society's urgent problems. Religious mysticism explains nothing.

319. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53528 by D'Arcy on July 1, 2007 at 11:53 pm

While those who have been affected by the storms are innocent victims, the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching.


Presumably when the next serious flooding happens in Bangladesh, that will be because Allah or some other God is pissed off with all those decadent sinners living their high life styles. Or maybe it could be the Bishop of Carlisle's God punishing them for ignoring biblical teaching. According to these high priests humanity just can't win, and it's all Adam and Eve's fault.

A previous poster is right, Christian prayers should be concentrating on getting some rain to Africa and Australia. Anyone know a guy called Noah in your neighbourhood?

320. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53461 by D'Arcy on July 1, 2007 at 2:34 pm

I think the bishops are possibly pissed of with God because all this rain has interupted their Wimbledon viewing. So who do they blame? Well who else but all us sinners of course.

Let's hope Wee Flea is having good weather so he's in a good mood when he ressurects himself on this board.

Have these ignorant bishops never heard of North Atlantic weather systems. Pompous pricks.

321. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #53297 by D'Arcy on June 30, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Too bad the learned Father couldn't get to explain about why God allows road accidents to happen. But then don't rely on priests for your knowledge of the world - they have a one sided view.

I much prefer to use my own judgement when crossing the road.

322. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #53296 by D'Arcy on June 30, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Too bad the learned Father couldn't get to explain about why God allows road accidents to happen. But then don't rely on priests for your knowledge of the world - they have a one sided view.

I much prefer to use my own judgement when crossing the road.

323. 'First west Europe tooth' found

Comment #53289 by D'Arcy on June 30, 2007 at 3:08 pm

HomoMichaelBeheius has been found alive and well and working for the Biologic Institute.

324. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53286 by D'Arcy on June 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Whilst Behe himself would not approve, I'm sure that 500 years ago, most Christians would feel it their moral imperative to burn heretics at the stake. We should bear this attitude in mind when dealing with the "modern" Christians. The fact is that the discoveries of knowledge in general, and science in particular have forced all religions more and more onto their back foot.

The sniping of people like Behe, against the theory of evolution, shows the paucity of their ideas!

325. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53275 by D'Arcy on June 30, 2007 at 1:48 pm

kaiserkriss (message 12), takes me to task for my comments in message 8:

D'Arcy: I find your comment rather broad brush and disingenuous, as well as insulting to the many good scientists working in the oil industry, and pharmaceutical industry who DO NOT prostitute their views to a particular cause. That some do not happen to agree with your views in an ongoing debate is not a good enough reason to insult the integrity of the majority of Scientists who are true to science for the sake of science and not to the almighty $. jcw


kaiserkriss is entirely right of course. The point I was making was that some scientists in general, and Behe in particular, dance to their paymaster's tune. The pressure to "succeed" in science is intense as we all know. The South Korean (name forgotten) guy who was faking the results in his lab, investigating human egg cells, is now discredited. IMHO he's an example of the pressure put on scientists to "achieve" or lose the grant. The saving grace of science is exactly in its ability to review and monitor its own progress by peer review. Science can change its viewpoint depending upon the facts.

To kaiserkriss, I'm just pointing out that not all scientists are knights in shining armour seeking the "truth"; they are human beings like you and me and subject to economic pressure.

326. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53254 by D'Arcy on June 30, 2007 at 11:42 am

Dawkins feels sorry for Behe because of the hole he has dug himself into. I don't worry about him, after all he's got the almighty on his side! Behe like so many other paid experts puts the point of view he's paid to do. I'm sure there are other scientists who do the same thing. Oil industry and global warming, pharming of drugs, spring to mind. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

It's nice to know that the irreducibly complex has been complexly reduced to zero!

327. God Hates the World

Comment #52942 by D'Arcy on June 28, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Personally, I didn't find the video any more offensive than watching the Pope addressing the masses in St Peter's Square, or the Archbishop of Cant reciting the Lord's Prayer, over some dead soldier's body, or some mad mullah raving for the death of infidels.

All religion is offensive. The main message of the video was "God hates the world". Yes, if he exists, of course he does. No omnipotent, omniscient and caring creator could possibly treat his/her creation in such a way unless he/she hated it, fags n' all.

328. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52920 by D'Arcy on June 28, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Dr. Miller, a Roman Catholic whose book, "Finding Darwin's God" (Harper, 1999) explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with religious faith.


If there is such a "reconciliation" between evolution and religious faith, it raises more questions than it answers. So the religious believers who are not 6 day creationists, instead accept that life on Earth has taken an evolutionary path over millions of years. Presumably these same people accept the present scientific consensus that the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old and the universe (big bang) some 13.7 billion years.

Those of faith must ask themselves why a caring creator should have to wait so long for the cream of his creation (the only ones with souls), to appear some 3 million years ago. In the case of the Christian God, he even waited until only 2000 years ago to send his only son to Earth, to appear by virgin birth, perform a few miracles, (like Derren Brown?), and then be tortured to death for the sake of His creation. The whole concept is so ludicrous, you wonder how anyone believes it.

James Brown had more "soul" than Jesus.

329. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52253 by D'Arcy on June 26, 2007 at 3:20 pm

My previously carefully considered answer to Paul disappeared up the electronic Swannee, so I'll keep this brief.

The odds against Paul's designer are even smaller than the odds of humans actually being here and communicating on the Dawkins web site.

330. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52247 by D'Arcy on June 26, 2007 at 3:11 pm

PaulEmecz writes:

I wasn't assuming an intelligent agent.

It seems that Paul is telling a porky to me, precisely because Paul has previouly talked of his belief in God because of the "unlikeliness of the existence of humans." (45 above).

Let's ask Paul to work out the mathematical odds of the existence of this "intelligent agent" which appears to have designed the universe. If the odds against humans being here and being able to communicate on the Dawkins web site are almost infinitely small, then we have beaten the odds with a bloody good win! All hail to Evolution! The odds against some designer (unamed but probably Christian in Paul's view) also winning are much much nearer to infinity.

To put it in plain language, the "unlikliness" of Paul's designer happening to "pop into existence" are indeed vanishingly small.

331. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52238 by D'Arcy on June 26, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Hitchens may well be right that "rent a mob" is alive and well in Pakistan, together with the requisite cameras. What should be remembered is that religion, of whatever kind, is often used as an excuse for appalling acts of. If Islamics also have political objectives, (as do Christians), they can disguise their objectives in the name of their religion. The various conflicting interests of the ruling classes of the world lead them to use whatever propaganda weapons they can, including religion, nationalism, democracy, language, etc.etc.

During the 2nd world war, the Christian bishops on both sides in Europe, were willing to bless the bombs that murdered many, as long as they dropped on the other side. So much for the Christians turning the other cheek.

Like nationalism of all kinds, religion is a poison of the mind.

332. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51927 by D'Arcy on June 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm

To all you Canadians out there, please bear in mind that I am a Brit, although I would rather there were no nations in this world. I am rather ignorant of the machinations of Canadian politics, although I did go to school with a guy called Paul Martin, (no not your one).

The question is which one is the Albertosaurus, Harper, Manning or Day? Which ever one, send him/her off to the Creation Museum so that they at least understand their own point of view better, have some fun, and maybe realise how ludicrous are the views that they hold! Enough said.

333. The Great Mutator

Comment #51540 by D'Arcy on June 23, 2007 at 10:31 am

I must say that I'm a bit puzzled about the whole intelligent design movement. What exactly is it that they are trying to do?


Maybe they're trying to save our souls? If so, I would tell them not to bother. As I understand it, unlike the Jews who increase their number by breeding, the Christians have to actively pass the message on to the great unconverted. The more power, political, economic, moral etc etc., you have the easier the task, and God will be pleased with you. Basically they want their world view to be the only world view.

As for me? Well I'm happy in this amazing 4.5 billion year old Earth, in this 13.7 billion year old universe, and the fantasies that I like are Harry Potter (can't wait till July), Lord of the Rings, and the Greek myths, where the gods really did put humans into impossible situations, where they could only upset one god to please another.

Incidentally, on Harry Potter's new book, let's wait for the howls of anguish from a section of the Christians (mainly US I suspect), with their denounciations of black magic and devilish deeds.

334. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51115 by D'Arcy on June 21, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I specialized in theology, then considered "the queen of sciences,"


If theology was the queen of sciences, maybe we should forget about the theology and the monarchy and just keep the sciences.

335. In the know

Comment #51113 by D'Arcy on June 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm

The Guardian (British daily paper), has managed to drag out two missing links to the hominid fossil record, in the form of Theo Hobson and Mark Vernon. Apparently they have been classified as Homo Nocertaintyus.

Vernon puts it succinctly in quoting St Augustine:

Faith for Augustine was about deepening the capacity to enter this cloud of unknowing, and conversely, not about fleeing from it in the shallow certainties that religion can deliver.


I think Karl Marx called it the "mist enveloped land of religion", and that's good enough for me, for there is none so blind in a fog who will not use a compass or map. Vernon can willingly enter into his fantasy land, but please don't blame us if he gets lost.

336. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51096 by D'Arcy on June 21, 2007 at 12:50 pm

It's good to have someone like Manning masquerading as a 16th century cardinal, putting his view against atheism so that he can be answered. "Answered" may be the wrong word because he presents nothing positive, he only warns against being over confident of knowing the "truth". No fear of that, Preston, we admit that there's loads of stuff we don't know ... yet. But as Manning's cardinal probably denied Galileo's sun spots as being real and an example of heresy, he's hardly the best guy to be warning Dawkins of being over confident.

If as other messages have said, Manning is a Catholic, then he's one who believes in the infalibilty of the Pope, whoever the Pope happens to be. So rather than being one who looks at the world sceptically, Manning is one who believes what he is told as long as it comes from the Pope. Sorry mate who are you to question anything that conflicts with what God's representative on Earth has said.

The "truths" of modern science of course change in accordance with the observations. With dark energy, we now have a universe that is falling upwards instead of downwards. Its a new challenge for science but not one that will undermine the scientific method.

337. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #51066 by D'Arcy on June 21, 2007 at 10:35 am

Zwingli (66 above), agrees with most of what Hobson wrote, and is enjoying the indignant responses of atheists. Good glad that Zwingli enjoys this web site, so do I. Unlike Zwingli, I disagreed with most of what Hobson wrote. In general, I didn't like his sort of sneering tone, and his general vagueness about religion. He struck me your intellectual armchair, (pipe and slippers), Christian, who tries to smarm his way through arguments without answering anything specific. He is the model of a thoroughly modern theologian.(apologies to Gilbert).

But don't worry Zwingli, we're not all bad tempered!

338. Baptists Warned About Islam, Atheism

Comment #50519 by D'Arcy on June 18, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I know that you shouldn't shoot the messenger but this guy has some nerve. He's been "born again", which gives him, in his mind, the right to lecture others:

Colson, White House counsel for President Nixon, pleaded no contest to obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal. He started Prison Fellowship in 1976.


His pernicious Southern Baptist views should surely just allow his saviour to deal with the Islamic rival pretender to the "almighty" throne. But no, having obstructed justice on behalf of Tricky Dicky, Plucky Chuck just has to get his oar in, and have a swipe at non believers too. Go back to sleep Chuck.

339. Quackbuster causes too much flak for university

Comment #49811 by D'Arcy on June 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Apologies for the spelling of gobbledygook in above message. A person may talk 10 different languges but he may also talk nonsense in all of them!

340. Quackbuster causes too much flak for university

Comment #49810 by D'Arcy on June 13, 2007 at 3:23 pm

How come politicians manage to get so far in life without talking goblydeegook, or is it only the successful ones we hear about.

341. The Great Mutator

Comment #49808 by D'Arcy on June 13, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Methinks me had a dream last night. It was of a learned professor of biology whose design theories were just so correct that they fitted the reality so perfectly they could only be the result of the Great Architect, who shall forever be unnamed, but before whom all kneel. It all seemed so wonderful and then suddenly a nasty Judge Dread figure backed up by federal agents armed with locust sprays and leprosy bacilli told the professor that he spake untruths, and with the threat of hellfire and damnation ringing through the courtroom, suddenly a great winged horse appeared and carried off our learned professor to paradise!

Strange things dreams, but not as strange as the ideas of the IDers. Great article Jerry Coyne.

342. We of little faith

Comment #49365 by D'Arcy on June 11, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Having lived all my life as someone who has never believed in gods or God, it doesn't surprise me that the above discussion, mostly about Buddhism, has not made me see the divine light.

If a God is supposed to care about your life then it must surely advise and encourage you through your daily life, including telling you what foods to eat and when it is safe to cross the road. In my experience most people who are religious actually make these life or death decisions for themselves without to recourse to the "will of Allah".

But religious faith is inconsistent with reason (and much more that we value as well).


Sue Blackmore has nailed it fair and square. Of course faith in some unkown and indeterminate deity is positively harmful to the spread of knowledge. Whatever Blackmore's feelings about eastern religions, I felt it was a very good article.

343. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48607 by D'Arcy on June 8, 2007 at 2:11 pm

I'm going to be an intellectual coward (as per Hobson) by defining religion as "organised superstition". Without its social aspects, religion would be nothing. If there are no gods or God, then there are only human beings to carry on the various beliefs, rituals, material support and everything else that helps perpetuate these obnoxious beliefs. Religion is a social phenomenum. In modern Britain it has to now compete against football, Big Brother, celebrities, soaps and other media products to reach its adherents. Is this what Hobson is on about? Seeing as he doesn't know or want to define "religion" can we assume that he is saying something like we must be careful not to offend the blind faith of Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool (etc.) supporters, because these teams play great football?

Forget it Theo, don't you know that in this capitalist world, the God is Mammon?

344. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48565 by D'Arcy on June 8, 2007 at 11:57 am

I nominate McGrath for the ignoble prize for services to education. He should be sent to New Zealand where he will be kept company with lots of wooly christian friends.

345. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48334 by D'Arcy on June 7, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Surely the burden of proof must be in the theists' court. We can argue all day about the meaning of words. This is the philosopher's life blood. If any theists reading this feel they can convince me (us?) of the existence of a deity, then speak now.

Maybe they will not use the slippery eel language of McGrath, but try at least to write something comprehensible. In the meantime we have a world that needs sorting out.

346. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #48108 by D'Arcy on June 6, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Sorry, I haven't quite read beyond about message 180. I get pissed off with the red herrings that devolved sets up and then, on being answered, changes the subject to raise yet another.

Your turn devolved; if science, and evolution in particular, is such crap, where is your positive proof of God? After all it's not up to non-believers to disprove God, it's up to the believers to establish His presence. Please don't rely on any evidence that hasn't been supernaturally enhanced. In line with theological ideas you can pick and choose anything from "ok" science, already accepted by theists, and again, in line with theological thinking, you can make up the other bits of your "proof", and substantiate them with opinions from web sites that support your viewpoint. Whether anyone here will accept your "proof" is doubtful, but just think of the reward in Heaven, if you just save one soul!

Go on be positive! Convince me that God exists!

347. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48083 by D'Arcy on June 6, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Having watched the whole video, I have only had time to read about half the posts, so forgive me if I am repeating what someone else has said.

First, both Oxford professors were wrong in agreeing that Stalin was a "dogmatic marxist". To blame what Stalin did, on Karl Marx and his ideas is a travesty of the truth. Marx died in 1883, long before Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in Russia in 1917, and by distorting and misrepresenting Marx's ideas, claim him as their mentor. Marx was in favour of a classless society where wealth was commonly owned, hardly the same thing as happened in Soviet Russia (and elsewhere) under the lable of "socialism". What existed in Russia was a form of capitalism where the state was the main owner of the resources. The workers in Russia still had to (and still have to) work for wages to live. Even Marx in his lifetime had to say of a French socialist group: "if these people are marxists, then I am not a marxist". Both McGrath and Dawkins have mistakenly used the word "marxist" to describe the system (state capitalism) that Stalin presided over.

That said, apart from the voluminous waffling of McGrath, (fleas n'all), I felt that the better nature of Dawkins didn't allow him to land any killer punches.

For example, Dawkins raised the question of one child being saved from the Boxing Day tsunami, whilst hundreds of thousands of others died, as leading to increased faith on the part of the surviving believers. The question was why did that one child survive, whilst so many other died? And did God in fact have the power to save only that one child and none of the others, or did God choose not to save the others? McGrath swayed between the view that humanity just has to get on with what life throws at it, and that humanity should be grateful for small mercies. His God was both interventionist (saved the child) and non-interventionist, (killed hundreds of thousands but we've just got to get on with life). Make your mind up McGrath, or is that too much to ask of a theologically honed brain where the priority is obscurity at all costs. That this man is paid to preach this nonsense at a world famous university is like paying Long John Silver to play football for England.

348. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47804 by D'Arcy on June 5, 2007 at 2:51 pm

In polite society, you are not supposed to talk about sex, politics and RELIGION. No wonder Dawkins has upset the religios, he has questioned their "special" place in the ideological pecking order. If I have sex, do I consider whether or not the Pope has said that: 1) I have to be married 2) that I musn't use a condom, 3) that the only purpose of sex is to produce offspring? Hell no, never did , never will. I've always been an atheist, so it's no problem for me to ignore what the holy men say, but for loads of others it's not so easy. However, there is a secular move, certainly in traditionally Catholic countries, e.g. Spain, Italy, France, Brazil away from the tentacles of the Church. Little surprise that they hate what Dawkins has to say, in much the same way as their predecessors hated what Darwin had to say nearly 150 years ago.

The religios are only good for creating holy smokescreens.

349. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47791 by D'Arcy on June 5, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I thought the article was quite good, but is asking the impossible. The UN is a nice gravy train for its employees, and it acts as a kind of guilty conscience for today's global society, capitalism. It's not only children who are abused in this world it's the adults too. According to UN figures, something like 2 billion people (one third of world's population) live on less than $2.00 a day. The richest 5 individuals have an income greater than the 40 poorest countries combined. Something like 50,000 children die every day because of poverty related issues, disease, lack of clean water, malnutrition etc.etc. But there again this is all a manifestation of the Mighty Smiter's great plan for humanity. Bizzaro can shoot his gun and feel free and believe in God, whilst thousands of children die every day.

350. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47428 by D'Arcy on June 4, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Joseph McCabe was author of "The Evolution of the Idea of God" and other works. As far as I know, early 20th century, I will let it be known when my copy reappears. Also worth checking out; John Kerracher "How the Gods Were Made", and Karl Kautsky "The Foundations of Christianity". I suspect all are now out of print. But maybe available on the internet.

I thought McKie's article was quite good and parodied Dawkins' critics with his ungodly prose. If Dawkins is suffering from "mental illness" then God save the Pope!

May the wrath of Odin be forever with you!

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next