HughCaldwell-

You are wrong to claim agnosticism on the issue. Agnosticism follows from full knowledge of the facts.

Does it?

hungarianelephant-

I was wondering; do you know of any good articles that discuss the legality/illegality of the war? There's a lot of rhetoric about it being illegal, and I must admit I don't know if that's true or not.

The Plc-

At a bookstore signing in Dublin he had been pelted with shoes and other objects by a mixed mob of anti-war types, stiffened with some gaunt lads from the periphery of “the Real I.R.A.”

This is evidence free bullshit, and it is typical Christopher Hitchens' bitter and depraved attempts to defame people who he disagrees with on the Iraq War atrocities. Disappointing. Face it, Hitchens just has no integrity here.

Googling "Tony Blair Dublin" got me a list of articles, of which this article was the first. It mentions that one of the groups present was the "32 County Sovereignty Movement".

Checking on them gave me this article in which they are referred to as being regarded as "the political wing of the Real IRA". Thus, Hitchens' reference to "gaunt lads from the periphery of the Real IRA" is hardly "evidence free bullshit."

Finding this out took me five minutes using Google. Just saying.

snibbets-

After all, atheists have no basis for morality whatsoever. It is entirely consistent with atheism to do whatever you fancy, whether it be abusing children, killing the unborn, killing the infirm, killing people who are 'less evolved'. Let's be honest - this is precisely why atheism is so appealing, because people think they can do whatever they want. Time to face up to the conscience. Humble acceptance of the sacrifice made on the cross is the only path to peace with God.

This has been refuted so, so many times. I can't work out whether you're trolling or whether you genuinely think this.

My condolences for your loss, Richard.

Czar.Bernstein-

The prayers are not unconstitutional. The U.S. Congress, every single day, begins each session with a prayer, usually from a Christian chaplain or priest.

So you're saying that, because the US Congress begins every day with a prayer, that means that they're not unconstitutional? Is that requirement actually IN the constitution?

sacredceltic-

What disgusts and appalls me is the fate of this poor soul and of her damned family, victims of these bastards. You should rather direct your indignation at them.

Oh believe me, I am no fan of those calling for Asia Bibi's death. That does not, however, mean that I will look upon someone calling for the murder of those people with anything other than the contempt they deserve. "Assassination by committee" is an appalling suggestion, it puts you on the same moral level as they are, perhaps even lower since you pretend that you are acting to "reverse fear" yet call for such measures anyway.

sacredceltic-

I hope you're joking in extremely poor taste, but if not then I am disgusted and appalled that you would make such a suggestion. Your comment has been flagged and reported to the moderators on this site.

Ignorant Amos-

Ha ha...are you really surprised Quetz? It's his form and has even drew comment from RD himself.

True, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me any more!

pfrankinstein-

Suppose for a moment that i am correct in the assumption that evolution/selection started with the big bang. It then becomes clear that if one filters out the in-between states with regard to consciousness, then the three chapter types of selection can be labeled.

Except that your assumption is flawed, as has been pointed out in numerous different occasions by others.

Primal selection. Unconscious. Natural selection. Subconscious. Cognitive selection. Consciouse.

Please give me your definition of subconscious and how it differs from unconscious.

HughCaldwell-

You're taking the line of the climate warming denier who says, " If there is global warming, how come it was freezing in Wolverhampton this morning. Explain that. HaHaHa !!!"

No, I'm not. You made a statement that had nothing to do with what is going on in the article.

Unless you have reasonable grounds to think that this particular cleric would not have called for the execution of this woman, a citizen of his own country, but for the actions of American foreign policy, then I stand by my comment.

HughCaldwell-

The growth of anti-Western,religious-political fundamentalism has a simple explanation -- American foreign policy.

Oh of course. This Pakistani Muslim cleric would never have called for the execution of this Pakistani Christian woman for the "crime" of blasphemy were it not for the depredations of the evil America.

Or not.

pfrankinstein-

Is it fair to say that the tradition come to be by passing through the frame of unconscious subconscious conscious.

"Unconscious subconscious conscious". What a wonderfully meaningless phrase.

EphremtheSyrian-

If the mind is material, its output can only be a product of its input. If its input is the physical world around it of which it is a part, its output must be limited to relating to the physical world.

Its output is a product of the input in the sense that obviously it's all matter and energy. But your assertion that outputs "must be limited to the physical world" is incorrect, and a failure of imagination on your part. It is imagination that allows us to consider concepts that do not "really exist" such as the idea of a "perfect square". That does not imply they exist, or that there is input from some other immaterial plane.

You are essentially suggesting that if we are physical alone, then we shouldn't be capable of imagining things around us as being better than they are. Or if we can do that, why can we not imagine them as having no flaws at all?

You have offered no evidence to support your assertion; continually repeating it does not make it true.

There is no evidence that the concept of perfection exists anywhere in the animal kingdom, which suggests that it is not necessarily a materially evolved trait, but exists as further evidence that the human mind contains features which transcend the physical three-dimensionality of our current spacetime.

We can imagine things that don't exist, therefore god.

This is laughable reasoning.

EphremtheSyrian-

An abstraction is something separate from physical existence. Because mathematics and logic are abstractions, they do not rely on the physical laws of our, or of any other, spacetime in the multiverse. By being independent of the conditions of spacetime for their existence, they can be said to be independent of spacetime itself.

Abstractions do not have independent existence.

If you don't understand what they are, you're really in no position to start talking about them.

YouAreFrightened-

For example, there is something currently happening in the world that is very close to the bone of a prediction made 31 years ago by Vanga in 1979. She predicted that world war 3 would begin in November 2010 and last until October 2014.

This is the 2nd of December. Prediction disproved.

SoHelpMeReason-

You may be on to something here. Maybe that's why God put that stupid apple tree in the garden of Eden.....he knew they couldn't get to the apples because in microorganism terms the fruit was miles and miles above them.....it's all making a strange kind of sense. And that's the only kind of sense I need to find religion. Praise the Lord!

JohnnyBosc-

...and the point which still eludes you is that in this bread-and-butter populated-by-humans-marinated-in religion world it is a "something." With rules. I mean its very name contains "god" ferchrissakes... Pretty please with sugar on top, don't reply with "Duh? what rules?"

So, basically, you want to be able to keep repeating the same claim over and over again, but not to have to substantiate it? I'm afraid that's not really how a discussion works.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Or, put more bluntly: put up, or shut up.

pfrankinstein-

On the contrary, a fuller broader understanding of the processes of evolution leads to the very real possibility of God.

How?

JohnnyBosc-

See, if Quetzal had been less concerned with being upset... Thank you for clarifying the issue. Just amazing how quickly a serious concern morphs into bickering.

I wasn't upset. I wanted you to substantiate your argument. That's not unreasonable in a discussion. In fact, it's pretty normal. Now dilated_in_disbelief has demonstrated that it isn't that hard. Perhaps you could bear that in mind for the future.

dilated_in_disbelief-

It would be accurate to say that atheism actually does have a tenet as a form of philosophy. It is principally based on using reason and evidence to refute claims of the supernatural, most specifically theistic deities. That is a wonderful tenet. After all, you can't responsibly say that a God exists for no reason after all, or would you?

The point is that atheism is an absence of belief, nothing more. One does not have to have used reason or evidence, all they need "do" is simply not believe.

hungarianelephant-

How about the one where Superman helped the United Irishmen rout the English at the Battle of Kinsale?

A dark day for the English. But the kryptonite-laced guinness soon put paid to him.

JohnnyBosc-

Sorry Quetzal, I don't respond terribly well to aggressive baiting. Character defect, I know. Was actually hoping you'd got that by now so I could hide my shame. I'm going to have to pass. Profuse apologies.

What "aggressive baiting"? I was simply asking you to substantiate your claims. You were the one who talked about the "tenets of the atheistic void", not me. I simply want to know what you think they actually are. It's starting to look as if you don't know, which renders your whole argument moot.

And no offence; but if you class what I've said as "aggressive", then you've led a very sheltered life.

dilated_in_disbelief-

JohnnyBosc isn't saying there are tenets of atheism.

Yes he is. From comment 113:

My point is that as soon as the ateistic void starts implementing its tenets in ways that will land you in the gulag archipelago or the killing fields, then it has ceased to be a void and instead become as much of a tangible tool for implementing ghastly stuff --for which we humans are so notorious-- as organized religion. It does walk like a duck occasionally, you know.

JohnnyBosc-

Guys, not trying to be contrary here, or slip into sophism. This is a bona fide concern with me. But for some reason I'm getting stronger and stronger "swear in church at your own risk" vibes. Say it ain't so.

You keep saying it's a concern. We get that. But without any concrete examples, your concern doesn't look like anything that should be taken all that seriously.

So please, answer my question. What are these "tenets" that you're referring to?

JohnnyBosc-

A vegan meal can so include meat. All it takes is for the target vegan to not know that meat has been snuck in there, or for the the vegan to firmly believe there is no meat there, because there can't be, because it's a vegan meal, and as such cannot contain any meat, since a correctly constituted vegan meal contains no meat, and I'm a correctly constituted vegan, and I say there is no meat there, 'cause otherwise it would not be a vegan meal a.s.o. Get the drift?

Like what? Without examples, this is essentially meaningless.

So, what are the so-called tenets of atheism?

Tanweer-

But time must be more than a dimension. Indeed, it is a prerequisite for all dimensions.

Why?

Moreover, insubstantial things like thought can exist in time even though they have no other dimension (no spatial dimension).

Erm.....the brain?

But dimensions such as length are formed by time. Moreover, we can account for spatial dimensions and their causation, whereas we cannot account for time.

Why?

JohnnyBosc-

What are the tenets of atheism, then?

JohnnyBosc-

My point is that as soon as the ateistic void starts implementing its tenets in ways that will land you in the gulag archipelago or the killing fields, then it has ceased to be a void and instead become as much of a tangible tool for implementing ghastly stuff --for which we humans are so notorious-- as organized religion. It does walk like a duck occasionally, you know.

How can a void- an absence- have any tenets? Atheism is an absence of belief, a void just as you said. You're not making sense.

Valis-

What a bunch of hypocrites you people are! You seem to think it's okay for the US to terrorise and slaughter millions of innocent people,

Millions of people? Really? Who said that was okay?

but when these same people have the temerity to fight back you all want to "hang-em high".

Has the US been terrorising and slaughtering a lot of Somalians lately? I had the impression they were mostly doing that to themselves.

And you call yourselves rational thinkers? You make me sick.

Well you sure showed us with that concise, reasoned and well-supported post.

Simply making the blanket statement that "religion is immoral" seems to me to be too much of a generalisation. The problem becomes when religion intervenes on the public sphere; as in the example of a politician's decision-making. But if someone recognises the need for using reason in certain areas to make decisions rather than religion, it is reasonable then to say that their religion still remains immoral?