As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, Darrel is either a closet Christian (he does possess a rather fondness for the literature of Christian mythology), or is under the postmodern-esque idea that there is no objective knowledge to be had because everything is based only opinion, that it’s all relative, all that jazz.

Pretty much all empirical evidence we possess for anything and everything would dispel this notion, and although we may never reach absolute truth, we certainly can learn a great deal about the world we live in, and in all practical senses, this is objective and reliable. We cannot be 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow, but it would be rather silly to think it wouldn’t.

We have the right to free speech. It does not mean we can only voice our opinions, it means we can criticize whatever we may deem fit. The idea that you shouldn’t have the right to subject whatever crackpot delusional belief to the harsh and scathing criticism is deserves it ludicrous. If I propose that there is a magical unicorn fluttering about it the sky that is all powerful, invisible, farts sunshine and lollipops, is incapable of being detected by any of our means of observation, and its existence is neither provable nor disprovable, should that be given the same value as, oh, I dunno, the theory of gravity? Should I be given a pat on the back? No, of course not. Not all ideas are created equal. Some are seriously just fucking dumb.

The term “god” is a bit vague, but is generally defined as being a supernatural being, which in the major monotheistic religions, is the creator of the universe, source for all moral authority, yadda yadda yadda. This being either exists or it doesn’t. It’s existence or nonexistence is not dependent on our own existence, or of the earth’s, or whatever. He’s just babbling in semantics.

In addition, he’s claimed to respect all people’s beliefs, ideas, whatever, but of course gets increasingly hostile and will only tolerate his own belief being voiced, that we should all be subject to the crippling indecision he is. Oh, and also: he’s a condescending fuck. Not that that would make his arguments wrong (I wouldn’t wish to commit an Ad Hominem, here), it’s just that he’s a condescending fuck.

Agreed. I’d settle for them not blowing up the planet and killing everyone. As Marcus Brigstocke said;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

And now the bible’s vague prophecies are being called out as having merit. I liked the part about the stars falling out of the sky, sounded like something I’d like to see.

A real threat coming from religious zealots, is self-fulfilled prophecy. Basically some of the more realistic prophecies (People dying everywhere, etc) only come true, because people believe them, and so they act on them. But then it isn’t really a prophecy, it is more like a directive.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

Im not religious Thomas, in the end I dont even care if god does or doesnt exist but as I have read the bible many times it would be nice if god did exist as the bible paints a picture of a wonderful world we could have.

I can understand why some need to believe in god to give them hope, its a good thing. The bad thing is the religious leaders that twist the word of the bible and brainwash their followers, that fact Thomas I find to be unfair to the weak minded.

My point here is that popular culture received the motives behind the work by Russell and the positivists but ignores the failures.