351. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56033 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 11:57 am

Comment #56027 by darwin2 wrote:

"All we can say is at this moment in time we have absolutely no scientific evidence to prove either that consciousness survives death or that consciousness ceases at death. It's a 50/50 proposition"

No, it is not a 50/50 proposition. This is one of the biggest mistakes you can make.

Two possible outcomes do NOT always mean an equal likelihood of either being true. We must assign a balance of probabilities.

Is there any testable evidence for an afterlife?

No

Do we have a definitive answer to the question of what 'consciousness' is?

NO

Do we have any idea how something we cannot easily define might survive our physical death? If it is energy, for example, how is it changed - where does it go? Do we have any workable theories here?

NO

And so on and so on.

What evidence do we have that when the brain dies all electrical and chemical processes end?

Lots of evidence.


So, I do not assign equal weighting; it is not 50/50.

Not even close.

352. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #56014 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 9:12 am

There are plenty of other sites for Bush Bashing; I hope with the US election approaching this oasis of sanity does not become to political.

After all, remember herding atheists is like herding cats. We generally march to our own tune and that means politically too.

It would be horrible if this site became partisan either way the closer we get to '08

353. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55998 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 6:39 am

Keith, (reference #1394 above)

I think the problem was we had some very, very smart people who honestly believed that Dianelos was someone who could be rationally argued with because of his obvious intelligence and willingness to engage.

I know this is smug self satisfaction on my part but I knew from the start it was hopeless.

Now, of course we know that people of faith can and do reject religion, (many great posters on this site as examples), but their stories always seem to indicate a much more personal and lengthy fall from faith than a few weeks debate with disembodied and distant strangers.

If Dianlos does ever abandon his delusions it will take more time and I think much more personal events in his life than we can provide.

All we can do is try and raise consciousness in our lives and spheres of influence and support those who have a larger platform and a wider influence such as RD, Harris, Dennet, Hitchens et al. A slow but steady, 'change in the Zeitgeist', as RD would say, is ultimately the only way forward. In my opinion.

Good luck to Dianelos though.

_________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan.

354. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #55995 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 6:19 am

1378. Comment #55891 by _J_ on July 12, 2007 at 7:09 pm wrote:

"If anyone sees me on here again, please tell me to piss off and get back to work."


.... _J_, piss off and get back to work. Just following orders sir!

:-)

355. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55960 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 3:32 am

1384. Comment #55918 by alovrin :

"But I think Dianelos should best be remembered for this:
'THE CASE OF JESUS' RESURRECTION IS A SPECIAL CASE...'"

etc etc..

Yes Alvorin, you and I have been on the same page for a very long time. This is where I came in long ago:

"Comment #47509 by USA_Limey on June 4, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Dianelos Georgoudis...

I've just read four pages of your crap; My fellow atheists pain me somewhat when they allow themselves to be sucked into "high brow" philosophical debate.

Can you please just cut the shit and tell us what bullshit myth you subscribe to? Or don't you have the guts to actually plant your flag in any hard theist ground? "
_____________________________________

....And as you reference above, (and I earlier post 1356), all these many points later, all we are really left with is Dianelos' 'special case for Christ'.

Everyone needs to realise who hasn't, that EVERYTHING else that came from Dianelos was just verbal gymnastics to convince himself of the 'truth' of his belief in Christ.

Take that to the bank.

356. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55867 by USA_Limey on July 12, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Doc Benway,

You totally missed my point. You said:

"So what if Dianelos doesn't concede?"

I never said he should, or lamented that he hasn't. Projection on your part I think after so much hard work put in on your part.

You have just been too wrapped up in your high school theology/philosphy/science debating club to see the wood for the trees.

Dianelos is as bad a case of the mental illness of religion as I have ever come across in written words precisely BECAUSE he is so intelligent.

You have enabled a drug addict.

357. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55852 by USA_Limey on July 12, 2007 at 3:53 pm

1350. Comment #55837 by _J_ wrote:

"It is upsetting to hear that not only have we not made progress, but we've strengthened the view."


.... All this effort, over so many weeks, spent on this hopelessly confused theist, (I'll grant by all evidence a nice one too), and by your own admission not a dent made in his theistic armor.

Trouble is _J_, Doc Benway, Steve 99, you were never going to get anywhere.

When Alvorin and I finally weeded a bit of doctrine out of him after his first round of McGrath impersonations that should have been an end to it.

Yet pages later we go on; only on the previous page he comes out with:

"The case of Jesus' resurrection is a special case: my guess is that God was so moved by the disciples' grief that he caused them to experience the bodily presence of Jesus for a few days after the crucifixion. You see God incarnated in Jesus had had the kind of personal relationship with the disciples that we humans have with each other, so that was really a special case"

... but you still wax lyrical about how intelligent Dianelos is because he has a good vocabulary and can hold a debate. No doubt he is intelligent. And how much more we should despair because of that.

I've read, (almost, 90+% I'd say), every word he's written and each post was a sadness to me. They indicated nothing to me but the depths of his delusion and how far he will go to hang on to it. He is why religion is evil personified in my opinion; because for all its physical manifestations in the world its primary effect is that it destroys minds. The greater the mind the more terrible the effect. This is not a criticism of Dianelos but of what religion has done to him.
I have not the slightest doubt that Dianelos Georgoudis is a very intelligent person. But it is an intelligence crippled in a way mine and yours is not. His intelligence is bound up in delusion so that they are now one and the same. The delusion has dominance and his intelligence is slave to it, without freedom to go where evidence and free inquiry would take it. A free mind, of lesser intelligence, but still FREE to roam unhindered through all the possibilities of the universe is a far greater asset both to itself and humanity.

How much more could he contribute to the great pool of human consciousness and learning that has spanned recorded history and beyond if he would divest himself of the mind forged manacles he has placed around his own consciousness?

He could be so much more, but never will. Are you not saddened by this?

If Dianelos Georgoudis, with all his patience, and intelligence cannot be swayed what hope for the millions of the poor and uneducated which must endure generation after generation of continued slavish indoctrination?

This has, in the end, been rather depressing I feel.

358. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55526 by USA_Limey on July 11, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Comment #55387 by alovrin wrote:

"Holy crap go fairy hunting for a couple of days and look what happens....

...Damn and I almost had one of the little buggers, I swear I'll catch one soon."

Alvorin, I recommend the following excellent resource:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Catch-Fairies-Inviting-Creatures/dp/1931412219

HOWEVER, whilst not wishing to be overly critical of whatever technique you are employing, I must nevertheless ask if you are doing the most important thing necessary to catch fairies?

It is this: You have to Believe Alvorin.

Do you?

Do you believe?

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

359. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55517 by USA_Limey on July 11, 2007 at 11:42 am

Comment #55514 by darwin2 wrote:

"Can't we just have a mutually respectable dialogue without resorting to name calling?"

Others on this site will be happy to do so no doubt.

I won't.

I don't respect anything about religion so how can my dialogue be based on it?

People like me had to stay largely silent in fear for thousands of years from people like you on pain of death from the likes of the inquisition et al. THEN, when that was threat was removed, and we could speak up(in SOME countries at least), we STILL had to show deference and "respect"

Screw that.

I want to make it very clear I have nothing but contempt for religion.

You have a right to come post on this site; and infact I welcome it and invite you to do so: but do not, DO NOT expect my respect.

Those days are over bud; I'm not the only one by far who feels this way.

All the best!

360. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55415 by USA_Limey on July 11, 2007 at 3:43 am

Hey Doc Benway!

How's old Danny boy at the McGrath thread doing? I can't face it anymore.

...

:-)

361. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55315 by USA_Limey on July 10, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Comment #55301 by darwin2 wrote:

"The $64,000 question here is this. Who is crazy me or you? The answer will only be found when we die. If when we die and if we find ourselves conscious on the other side, then the answer to this question will be it is not me."


.... Only if it's **your** version of god and heaven waiting on the "other side" you complete loon.

I hope it's Thor and he squishes you for eternity with his hammer.


...I really thought you were having us on; but if you are not and really believe this stuff. Wow... that's all I got to say.

Thanks for visiting the site; I'm going to bring my kids next time they like going to the zoo and looking at the funny monkeys.

362. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55005 by USA_Limey on July 9, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Comment #54946 by darwin2 wrote:

"God created our eternal souls to participate in the creation process with Him. Our destiny for our existence and being is to become gods ourselves, imitate God, and use our God given powers to create our own universes and beyond. This is what heaven and paradise is all about. To accomplish this we need to learn, obey, and master God's laws of physics and how to use energy correctly"


... Sir. You are, are you not, rrremoving, (roll your tounge), our piss from us?

363. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53053 by USA_Limey on June 29, 2007 at 5:58 am

Comment #52974 by Dr Benway wrote:

"You went out for popcorn and now you've lost the plot. Allow me to catch you up.

Dianelos:
These go to eleven. It's one louder. (click here"

....

Thanks Doctor, that really does get me caught up quite nicely.

:P

364. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52965 by USA_Limey on June 28, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I am frankly amazed this "debate" with Dianelos Georgoudis is still going; I dropped out weeks ago when he said this:

"How so? Well, God created people in such way that they intuitively knew about the truth of God's death and resurrection in Christ, but as Christ had not yet come they created myths to instantiate the truth they intuitively knew."

This in response to my pointing out how much of Christianity is so obviously stolen from previous pagan myths. THIS is the true level of intelligence and honesty you are dealing with. I wish some of you would see that.

Come on guys, he talks a good game with his pseudo intellectual philosobabble but when it comes right down to it he is no better than any street pamphleteer for Christ.

Why do you let him suck you in like this?

Sigh....

365. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51305 by USA_Limey on June 22, 2007 at 8:51 am

Comment #51148 by cathjm wrote:

"This CH guy is a (brilliant) polemist, not a scientist; beware."

...What are you trying to say here? I am not a scientist; sorry I didn't know that was a pre-requisite for being an atheist or posting on this site.

There are plenty of us non-scientists who nevertheless like to take the time to stay informed on matters of science. Which, by the way, is really all a scientist specializing in one discipline can really hope to do of another. As a "non" scientist I bet I could give you a run for your money on my knowledge of a number of sciences except whatever one you work in.

Bottom line: don't be a science elitist snob please.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

366. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50874 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 9:24 am

Comment #50870 by ranjani wrote:

"Gandhi prevented massive bloodletting by curbing the revenge instinct of the Indian populace in the face of some terrible British atrocities."

...This can't be right. I grew up going to school in Britain and not once was I taught of a single example of a British atrocity anywhere in the world through the more than 400 year history of the British Empire.

Therefore there weren't any.

Fingers in ears now. LA LA LA LA LAAAAL LA LA LA

:-)

367. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50871 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 9:18 am

Comment #50865 by Xenocratic wrote:

"I think what you were implying by the Washington analogy was that we need a bold man of action who makes a good portrait and is really tall. Perhaps George Clooney could make the grade?"

Hmmmm. No I think Clooney is too tainted with politics. It has to be someone with brand name recognition across the board but who has never, up to now, took a public stance on any divisive political issues. They would also have to have the guts to flush their career down the toilet; which is what they would be doing. So they must be in my view:

1) Super rich
2) Super famous
3) Seen as politically neutral, or an 'unknown' in that respect.

Bill Gates is the best I can come up with; but I think it really needs to be someone with more popular appeal. I just don't know who.
I do think someone will emerge though; I just have a feeling, (I know, bad to thing to say here), that some very big names will be coming out of the closet in the next couple of years.

I'd love just ONE presidential candidate to declare themselves as an atheist. Political suicide I know; someone who isn't going to win anyway needs to be brave and start the ball rolling for those that will follow.

368. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50858 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 8:14 am

Comment #50851 by Xenocratic :

"No doubt there will be a veritable storm of protest on this site as a result of my blatant heresy, a response I fully expect."

... Well, perhaps but not as much as you might think I suspect. If it was Dawkins being attacked I would say watch out, since Dawkins is so obviously a decent likeable chap; but I don't think too many will protest your critisism of Hitchens since he obviously invites attack through his polemic style. I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful response; I do think your views are colored somewhat by your obvious distaste for his position on Iraq. Nothing wrong with that necessarily.

I have often thought that the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennet etc represent the more cerebral, academic core of this movement we see growing around us; the Jefferson, Paine, Franklin of atheism dare I say. But what we REALLY need is our Washington. Is Hitchens the man? No, probably not because as you would agree I am sure he is just not likeable enough even to those who share his views on Atheism. We are still waiting for our Washington figure to emerge. Who will it be? I have no idea. I have often thought that what we need is a super celebrity of some kind from the likes of the movie or music industry to decide that they have made enough money and aren't worried about their career anymore and would be willing to publicly come forward and start campaiging on our side. But for them to step up to the plate they need the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet et al to lay the groundwork.
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

369. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50845 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 7:26 am

By the way all, here is a REALLY good interview with Hithens on the BBC including a bust up with a church of england vicar. Great! I am hoping this site will post a link to it. THE INTERVIEW WAS ON MONDAY, make sure you click on the MONDAY tab.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml

Enjoy!

370. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50838 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 7:07 am

Comment #50831 by Xenocratic:

"Hitchens is above all an arrogant git"

Xeno, whilst I see where you are coming from I disagree with you fundamentally. I believe an aggressive counter attack on the forces of superstition has been long overdue. I would ask you to pause and consider just how far 'rationally addressing' religion has gotten us. It is high time that a little ridicule and downright insulting behavior is employed against those who have felt immune from such ridicule in the past. I'll bet that vicar is an intelligent guy who has read or at least heard of every argument for atheism in the book; but I'll also bet he has NEVER had his faith so forcefully challenged, with no quarter given and no respect shown. People like the good vicar NEED that verbal cold bucket of water in the face which the likes of Hitchens provide.

I recently had a personal experience in my own life were a colleague questioned me on my assertion that I was an atheist. I could see they were utterly stunned when I refused to let the conversation go the way I think they imagined it going in their head; namely me advancing my position but all the time showing respect and servility to their belief. I would have none of it. It dawned on me that this person had simply never had their beliefs challenged in such an uncompromising manner. I am sure they took it as an insult. I won't give an inch to these people any more as I am sick of them feeling fuzzy and warm in their little bubble of self satisfaction and delusion. Hitchens shows us the way in my opinion. No respect, no retreat, no hand wringing and apologetic piffle; 'well, I respect your opinion but....' NO, I DON'T respect their opinion and won't.

Most importantly, I think you miss the point that we are never likely to convert believers no matter how polite and rational we are. Nor will we succeed with Hitchens approach; this should NOT be the primary goal. The aim should be to give confidence to the millions of closet atheists who have felt cowed into submission and silence. You need the brave few like Hitchens to stand up and show us that we can stand up too. We don't need to be as aggressive as Hitchens, nor could most of us be if we tried; but it should make us think, 'well, if Hitchens can say THAT, then maybe I can at least admit I am an atheist where as before I would have kept my mouth shut'. This is his greatest service to us.

Just my thoughts!

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

371. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50828 by USA_Limey on June 20, 2007 at 5:37 am

Thanks all for your comments.

I am still hoping this will be posted on the site; it really is one of the best Hitchens interviews I have heard and it would be a shame if a lot of people on this site missed it because it is only referenced in this thread.
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

372. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50694 by USA_Limey on June 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Nice interview,

By the way all, here is a RELLY good interview with Hithens on the BBC including a bust up with a church of england vicar. Great! I am hoping this site will post a link to it. THE INTERVIEW WAS ON MONDAY, make sure you click on the MONDAY tab.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml

Enjoy!

373. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50400 by USA_Limey on June 17, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I downloaded this beore they exceeded their bandwidth. I have the MP3 I'll e-mail it to anyone who sends me their e-mail.

374. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50285 by USA_Limey on June 16, 2007 at 11:39 am

Ahh... good one by Hitch here; where he allows his devlish humor and love of a good profanity every now and again to come out. He didn't have to worry about a mixed audience at a book signing for this one.

My favourite part, and I paraphrase:

"The guy who says, 'there, but for the grace of god, go I', really means; there by the grace of god goes some other fucker"


He probably didn't come up with it but he says it so well.

375. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49743 by USA_Limey on June 13, 2007 at 7:50 am

With reference to: Comment #49694 by Dianelos Georgoudis.

Thank you. I appreciate the reponse. You are spending alot of your time responding to multiple posts by many of us atheists.

I appreciate your time; I will hopefully respond later in detail; but you did get me thinking.

376. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49567 by USA_Limey on June 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm

CBC / NPR - Bah!

These are heretical offshoots; false idols worshipped by those who do not know the one TRUE broadcasting God:

THE BBC

:-)

377. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49557 by USA_Limey on June 12, 2007 at 11:29 am

Comment #49515 by FoundLink:

"Canada is looking better and better all the time as an escape from this backward country of mine. Too bad it is so damn cold there!"

... Just give global warming a bit of time. Canada will be a paradise in twenty years.

Just ask Brian!

:-)

378. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49368 by USA_Limey on June 11, 2007 at 4:27 pm

I wonder what result you would get if you repeated the same poll in China.

Oh that's right, no one would have time to respond they are all too busy studying math and physics.

Goodbye America!

379. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49335 by USA_Limey on June 11, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Comment #49332 by krogercomplete wrote:

My response to Danielos post #532 disappeared

This has happened to me. I have found it prudent to paste a copy into a word document before I post, just in case. It's saved me a re-type once or twice.

:-)

380. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49275 by USA_Limey on June 11, 2007 at 9:29 am

Comment #49273 by Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:

"the exact name for my worldview would be "Dianelos's worldview" I suppose."

and...

"When discussing with other Christians the ones I am most often in agreement with call themselves "liberal Christians" so I suppose "liberal Christianity" is the general name that would describe my worldview"

... This is very revealing in my opinion. Thanks for your honesty first of all; this is the exposition Alvorin and I and some others have been asking for all along, and this along with some of your more recent posts finally gets us there.

...Dianelos, I would like your opinion on how 'liberal christianity' came to be? Presumably there was once, (still is?), a NON-liberal christianity? What changed? HOW did it change? My argument would be, (not an original argument of course I would never claim that!), that it was the evolving social and ethical zeitgeist which shaped christianity; in other words, external forces INDEPENDENT of the bible and by extension the 'word of God'. If those forces were able to effect a shift in our moral outlook as a society, (for example slavery ok 300 years ago if you were a christian; not so much today), then what need have we of the holy books?

Oh... and I note you have not responded to my previous post, (502. Comment #49115 by USA_Limey); but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't had a chance as you are responding to a lot of people. However, I really think you have problems there; that kind of challenge is a little harder to make go away with double speak - best ignore it I suppose.
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

381. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49237 by USA_Limey on June 11, 2007 at 5:40 am

Holy moly, credit where credit is due, this Dianelos is indefatigable.

He's racking up lots of points with the big guy I am sure.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

382. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49115 by USA_Limey on June 10, 2007 at 11:58 am

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:

QUOTE
"That's a reasonable question, but it's not easy to explain Christianity to someone who thinks that theism is unreasonable. My point here is that one arrives to Christianity via theism and not vice-versa, in other words you can only find Christianity reasonable if you first find theism reasonable, in the same way that in order to understand quantum electrodynamics you must first understand quantum mechanics" END QUOTE

Well, Excuuuuuuse me! So to engage in any debate about the validity of the claims of christianity I first have to believe in God at an absolute minimum; and you'd probably require a few years of Sunday school of me too!

This would be like the nazi's saying in 1943 we don't have the right to question their extermination of the jews by herding them into gas chambers until we became anti-semites, becuse we just don't 'understand' the complexities of the jewish problem. Once an anti semite; well sure then you can question whether gassing them is the right thing to do. Or is that unfair?

Regardless, your answer to my question was complete nonsense; I have no idea what it meant quite frankly.

Dianelos, by all means believe in God: but the divinity of christ? Dying for our sins? Resurection? This is garbage. I BEG you to please go and do some sober research into the early christian church and the pagan religions that went before it.

Here is a good place to start your journey if you have the courage:

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

And I HIGHLY recommend the works of Joseph McCabe:

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/library/myth.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/

McCabe was an ex-Franciscan monk who was fluent in latin and greek and could not reconcile what his English language bible was telling him and what he could read, first hand, in the ancient texts he read.

It's really all about the man made constructs of religion. It always was.

I can't disprove "God". But I CAN disprove the tenents of organized religion. If they are wrong, maybe God is wrong too eh? Just consider it.

And this to my fellow atheists just to be cheeky:


"If he could be turned, he would become a powerful ally."

"Yes. Yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?"

383. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48794 by USA_Limey on June 9, 2007 at 4:28 am

Hello Dianelos!

I have re-read all your posts including your most recent contributions and have seen the light. I now accept there is a God. I have decided to become a Muslim.

Are you happy for me?

384. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48651 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Comment #48634 by BAEOZ wrote:

"But ouch! Is that a straw man or something else?
Who said you could have an atheist schism while I was asleep?"

...LOL, ok point taken and a fair one. I was a bit hard on Steve99 earlier and for that I apologize. But to make a serious point you can hardly have a schism of such a diverse group anyway. Often the ONLY thing I have in common with fellow atheists is our common atheism. We are a disparate group and we don't have a God or the threat of hellfire to keep us bound into a cohesive group. That's been part of the problem of getting organized. I don't wan't to build bridges with Theists, I am sorry but I stand by that; but I do want to build bridges and cement bonds with as many atheists as I can: it's the only way to move forward as a movement. If I have created any bad feeling then I not accomplishing my goals so mea culpa will try harder!

:-)

385. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48630 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Comment #48623 by Zwingli wrote:

"And you can't get off the hook by saying that bad atheists (who between them oppressed hundreds of millions and presided over the killing of tens of millions) were just bad humans if you persist in saying that some bad moslems (who killed 3000) prove that religion is evil!"

...You must be confusing me with another poster to the forum; but if you are sure please name the post where I, 'persist in saying that some bad moslems (who killed 3000) prove that religion is evil!'

I have said no such thing. I don't give a crap about the moslems who killed 3000 people in 2001 and have never, not once, used them in any argument I make against religion. I was against all religion long before 2001 thank you very much.

As to bible interpretation, you are SUPPORTING my argument though you don't know it of course. You write:

"The writers of the bible books etc were writing thousands of years ago in greek, hebrew etc, and to people in rather different stuations to our own. What we think God inspired them to write won't all be relevant to us today."

I agree. If their situations were different and it's not all relevant to us today why can't we get rid of the books? Ahhhh... but that is EXACTLY what you are doing; getting rid of the bits that you find embarrasing: WELL IS IT THE FUCKING WORD OF GOD OR IS IT NOT! by what criteria do you make your judgements about which portions of your ancient bronze age myth to keep? Is it by chance the laws and morality of modern secular Western society? QE fucking D. You don't NEED the book. Ditch it. You've got what you need because you are using it to make your decisions on'interpretation'.
_________________________________________________

386. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48619 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Logicel, (re askatheists.com)

Ahhhh.. I see.

Well, I hope you are running your answers by his High Holiness the Grand Muftee of Atheism and to consult all our most sacred texts before you respond to theists; after all this is our religion don't you know you can't just make this stuff up without consulting our leaders.

:-)

387. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48614 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 3:15 pm

LOGICEL:

About the website, asktheatheists.com: how do you post on there? I couldn't work it out.

Nice site, I was unaware of it.

:-)

388. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48611 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Comment #48608 by Zwingli wrote:

"USA_LIMEY, Interpreting what the Bible writers meant, and what it means for us today, is hardly a black art. A good starter book is "How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth" by Gordon Fee et al."

...Zwingli, have you ever asked yourself WHY it should NEED interpreting? If it is the word of god couldn't he/she have been a little clearer? You openly admit that there were, in your words, 'bible writers'. By what mechanism did they write the bible? Direct dictation from god? If not, and "interpretation" is required, how can we trust what they wrote? How can we know what is fabrication, what is distortion, what is mis translation, what is not? How can we trust THIS holy book when so many others are on offer? Shouldn't we reject them all as contradictory nonsense? I am sorry but I won't be reading, "How to cherry pick the bits of the bible that validate my version of Xtianity for all it's worth" by Gordon pay me a large, (oh what a scam), Fee.

As for the historical facts of all those atheist bad boys you said I skirted... nope: their have been bad human beings who were atheists. So what? It's not a point worth addressing. Hitler and Stalin were both men and had Moustaches - oh please! Don't insult me. Lets not start piling up body counts according to Atheist / Theist atrocities it's pointless, and is irrelevant to the truthfulness of theist claims. IRRELEVANT.
__________________________________________________
NO! You are the Messiah! I should know I've followed a few!

~ Monty Python

389. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48606 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 2:09 pm

"...religion was not just a benign delusion - it was dangerous and threatened us directly. Once we realised that, we started to see the way that religion was privileged, and was starting to interfere in so many ways - faith schools, condom use, encouraging bigotry against women and gay people. An increasing number of people feel it is time that this stopped"

... I second that completely. See Steve99, I knew our earlier disagreements over Danielos and his madness wouldn't last!
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~Logan

390. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48599 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 1:51 pm

In response to Comment #48591 by Zwingli...

Oh Zwingli, where to start?

"... Rather than what christians (at least most of them in theUK) actually believe and live for"

.. In other words what you have cherry picked and decided to accept as the word of God whilst presumably ditching other parts because what? You don't believe it? SHOCK! Well, please tell us what you believe and live for and we can proceed accordingly; until then, ***YAWN***

And then...

" And ask how you can believe in atheism when it leads to such evil ?"

... Oh dear Zwingli, atheism is not a 'belief'. It is an ABSENCE of belief without evidence. That's basic, bed rock stuff. If you don't even get that you need to.... oh but wait, of COURSE you don't get it. That's why your a theist!
__________________________________________________
Jesus Christ is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ USA_Limey, (paraphrasing Logan)

391. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48572 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Comment #48558 by Logicel wrote:

"I wanted to know the more 'elegant' version of belief"

... Logicel, I respect the intention I really do, and Steve99's wish for dialouge is also admirable; and my position is not, as Steve99 incorrectly asserted, 'you are wrong, go away'. What I cannot stand though are sectarian theists who cloak themselves in the mysticism of religious philosophy. In order to have ANY credibility to post half the stuff Daneilos was banging on about you have to be a strict Deist in my opinion. God exsits, set things in motion XX billions of years ago and then pissed off to another dimension never to return and leaving us all to it. Ok, fine, that's a position that can be held and defended with philosophy. BUT once you come off that position and pin your flag to a particular DOCTRINE, (in Danelios case Xtianity), then again in my opionion you don't have the right anymore to keep the debate focussed on esoteric philosophical questions about the nature of reality and the existence of God and yadda yadda yadda; we have a right as atheists to question your doctrine and they have responsibility do they not to defend it. If they can't or won't then what does that say about their faith?

What exactly is this more 'elegant' version of belief you speak of? I think you have been fooled by the likes of Mcgrath here who would have you believe that there is such a thing, that somehow they are 'better' than the Creationist who thinks the world is 6,000 years old. Less dangerous, yes certainly. But more 'elegant'... no I don't think so since if they cannot be Deists and must subscribe to one of the religions they are little better than pagan snake charmers and sun worshippers. In the case of Christianity, worse.

I cannot stress enough how much I despise the likes of McGrath, I will say again for those who missed it in a previous post: I actually have more respect for the fundamentalists at least they are honest.

Thanks
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~Logan

392. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48546 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 10:34 am

Comment #48521 by steve99 wrote:

"Someone has come on this site, and is politely explaining their point of view. No matter how wrong you may think they are, I don't think statements like this are appropriate."

It is entirely appropriate. What if he had come here and posted straight away with the last paragraph of his last post:

'Now I am not just a theist but a Christian, and this would correspond to my third stand. But this is a stand I don't wish to make here, for various reasons: First it is irrelevant in the context of the atheist/theist debate and the justification of my belief in God. Second I don't consider Christianity to be objectively superior to other religious worldviews, just to be superior for me for various reasons and especially because of my upbringing. Third my understanding of Christianity differs from traditional dogma in several points, including the dogma of humankind's fall, the dogma of divine judgment and hell, the dogma of salvation by faith alone, and the dogma of God's immutability; so obviously I can only meaningfully discuss my Christian worldview with other Christians versed in these obscure concepts'

... what would your response have been I wonder? Instead he runs you and others around in circles for days and THEN pulls that crap out of the bag, which Alvorin and I predicted from the start. Danielos is the very epitomy of the pseudo intellectual theist who hides his nasty little superstitions behind grandiose philosophical arguments: and you fall for it and engage him! You sound like one big sap, I bet you are all about inclusivity and cultural relativism and dialogue and understanding an all that bullshit aren't you?

I want the death of religion. It won't happen in my lifetime or the life of my children; but I will do all I can to contribute in my small way to its demise while I am here. YOU are only helping these idiots perpetuate their nonsense and I have no time for it.

Thanks

393. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48518 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 8:28 am

Comment #48474 by alovrin wrote:

"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.


.... Alvorin, you beat me to the punchline, it took us a long time and a lot of bullshit to get there though didn't it? All that philosophical debate and it turns out he's just a Christian after all, subscribing to the dumbest hotch potch, badly translated, politically spun and down right plagiarized religion to come down the bullshit pipeline in the last two thousand years. All that intellectual high brow obscurantist subjective thought and it finally comes down to he thinks that Christ was the son of God.

Dianelos, of what possible significance was the life of Christ, (assuming he did exist, another debate), a localized event, to the lives of Aboriginal Australians who did not have an opportunity to receive his word until 1,800 years after the event? Piss poor planning by God their eh? Ever heard of Mithras? Ever done ANY research whatsoever on the Pre-Christian Pagan religions which the Church ripped off to create their little myth? No... too busy contorting your mind into knots with the type of crap you've bored us with for 6 pages which only serves to convince yourself in God, and therefore by extension your silly little Christ myth.

I am very disappointed with my fellow atheists who wasted so much time with you; I hope some of them have learned a lesson. You don't engage with these people it just enables them and makes them feel they have a place on our stage. It's the same reasoning which Dawkins uses when he turns down invitations to debate creationists. DO NOT ARGUE philosophical arguments about the existence of God with these people, you are giving them a credibility they do not deserve. Pin them down to what they believe and then go for the throat. They are pathetic, humanity needs to be rid of them and we have got to be hard on them.

Dianelos. please go away now.

394. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48484 by USA_Limey on June 8, 2007 at 6:23 am

Comment #48459 by Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:

"Now I am not just a theist but a Christian, and this would correspond to my third stand. But this is a stand I don't wish to make here, for various reasons: First it is irrelevant in the context of the atheist/theist debate and the justification of my belief in God. Second I don't consider Christianity to be objectively superior to other religious worldviews, just to be superior for me for various reasons and especially because of my upbringing. Third my understanding of Christianity differs from traditional dogma in several points, including the dogma of humankind's fall, the dogma of divine judgment and hell, the dogma of salvation by faith alone, and the dogma of God's immutability; so obviously I can only meaningfully discuss my Christian worldview with other Christians versed in these obscure concepts"


... Oh my, FINALLY we actually get to it. Thank you at least for that; I had zero respect for you now I have some. No time for a detailed response now but it's coming...

395. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47994 by USA_Limey on June 6, 2007 at 8:10 am

Comment #47961 by alovrin wrote:

"This person is a flimflam, a phoney.
They have no intention of altering their postion one iota, there is some alterior motive at work here. I'll just wait for danni to slip up, cant be long now.
So which bible college did you go to diane?"


... I too am waiting for the punchline. I doubt we'll ever get to it. This has been an annoying thread but I'll stick with it because I want to see how it fizzles out to nothing and Dianelos just quietly disappears.

He's gutless, I have more respect for the street nuts who thrust bible tracts into my hand as I walk by them.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

396. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47603 by USA_Limey on June 5, 2007 at 3:57 am

201. Comment #47572 by Flagellant wrote:

"While I am not as dismissive of what you have written as, for example, USA_Limey (193) and Alovrin (195), (Hey Peeps, I think it behoves us to engage with visitors, rather than to dismiss what they (visitors) say outright."

...I am not dismissive I just refuse to be drawn into endless rounds of obcsurantist philosophical debate. Intellectual theists love that approach because they know it means they don't have to engage in the "nuts and bolts" arguments about their own particular brand of whatever theist crap they believe in. In my opinion we are falling into a trap here when we allow ourselves to engage them in this way. It is the intellectual theists like Alistair McGrath, Danielis Georgoudis, the pope, and Thomas Aquinas who have been RESPONSIBLE for the propagation of religion down the ages. They serve to justify the ridiculous superstitious nonsense the average believer down the ages has been told to believe by the likes of them. And when they are challenged? Why, pull out the philosophical mumbo jumbo. I say, NO! Don't fight them on their ground; pin them down on the details of their own faith whatever that may be and take them apart there. What do they ACTUALLY believe? If Catholic, do they accept transubstantiation? Oh really.... proceed accordingly... if not; oh REALLY; why not? Proceed accordingly. If a protestant, what denomination; why one and not another; why accept this part of the bible that this sect agrees with but not this part that another doesn't? And so on... it is in the DETAILS that we find our most effective arguments because there really are NO weasel words or philosophical squirming to help them at that level. In my experience all they ever fall back to at that level is the unanswerable, "FAITH". Well, at that point they have shot their last bolt.

Smart people like to have smart debates because it makes them feel smart. It's human nature and I understand the urge to want to debate certain theists in what seems a rational and thoughtful manner. I don't think it's the way to go. Ultimately a theist can pull out all the theological philosophy in the book but when it comes down to it they are either a strict Deist or not. If not; what system of beliefs are they ACTUALLY subscribing to then? Arm yourself not with arguments for a gentleman's philosophical fencing match but with an anti religion baseball bat with nails in it. Christianity, (for example), is SO EASY to attack if you just read some history of its origins, what pre-dated it and how it was all co-opted for political reasons. This is the kind of place I always like to go with theists.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, (somewhat), I just get annoyed with these endless "debates" that go nowhere without ever pinning the theist down.
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

397. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47509 by USA_Limey on June 4, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Dianelos Georgoudis...

I've just read four pages of your crap; My fellow atheists pain me somewhat when they allow themselves to be sucked into "high brow" philosophical debate.

Can you please just cut the shit and tell us what bullshit myth you subscribe to? Or don't you have the guts to actually plant your flag in any hard theist ground?

398. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46924 by USA_Limey on June 2, 2007 at 8:20 am

Comment 25:

Yes, I voted for Blair first time around and bitterly regret it.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

399. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46917 by USA_Limey on June 2, 2007 at 7:45 am

Comment #46908 by scot wrote:

"Pure hysteria Brian. Really? Take your mature and calm reflection and look at what's going on in the world"

... Scot please. First of all, let's look at the probability of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists actually acquiring nuclear weapons. The article you referenced casually states;

"Williams first presents evidence of bin Laden's purchase of highly enriched uranium in Sudan and nuclear devices from the Chechens and the Russian Mafia."

What rot, can't you see that guys just trying to sell a book. What is this myth that the former Soviet Union is like some nuclear Arab street Bazaar where one can go in and come out with few nuclear devices stuffed in the trunk of your car? Do you really think the Russians are that dumb? The Soviet Union was a highly repressive and bureaucratic system; sure it fell apart but you really think they didn't know exactly where all there nukes where? And secondly, you really don't think that the CIA / ex KGB / MI6 and who knows who else have been infiltrating these so call Russian mafia and Chechen sources for decades now to set up sting operations for anyone even trying to think about even asking about the possibility of getting a nuke? You bet they are.

Ok... so let's say everything I just typed above is crap and your scary Islamo fascists do have nukes well consider this:

The USA currently has 18 Ohio class ballistic missile carrying submarines, each of which can carry 16 Trident missiles, each of which can accommodate up to 8 (though typically only 4) independently targeted warheads. Bottom line, there isn't a nation on earth that the USA couldn't turn into Glass in twenty minutes if they really wanted to. Most Americans, (most everyone), simply has no concept of the absolutely staggering size of US military power. Just ONE of their aircraft carriers has more air power than most nations ENTIRE air forces. The USA has FOUR fleet aircraft carriers. Etc etc...

Well, you might justifiably say where does all that power get them in situations like Iraq? Well.. nowhere to be sure; but what might prompt the USA to unleash those aircraft carriers and Ohio subs? Hmmm... maybe four or five of their cities being nuked might do it. I think that might just make them upset enough to "go ballistic" against any nation that was stupid enough to have anything to do with anyone linked to such acts. Don't you think that secret lines have been drawn? Don't you think that through back channels and indirect means a message has firmly been sent to the effect, "bin laden, you ever set a nuke off in Washington and you can kiss Mecca goodbye it will be glass for a thousand years". You don't think the US would do it? I do. Sure they'd give the Saudis a week to get everyone out. Maybe.

Anyway, to sum up: One, the chances of them getting nukes I consider very small, the retribution should they use them if they got them, too great. The USA can take a hit like the twin towers ever few years and indeed may have to but nuclear mushrooms over NY, LA give me a break that really is hysteria you've been listening to Glenn Beck haven't you?


__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

400. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46807 by USA_Limey on June 1, 2007 at 6:26 pm

I am not Canadian, but I did spend 1.5 years living there, a year in Alberta and six months in Ontario. I found it to be a wonderful country. I met my wife in Stratford, Ontario so for that reason alone it will always have a special place in my heart.

Unless of course I get divored some day and then I will curse it.

Well you never know.