1,311 Comments on “Atheist Threat”

1. Oigal says:

   June 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm

   About the Shroud, it is important or it would have never survived all these centuries

   huh?

   I admit I cannot prove that fairies don’t live at the bottom of my garden, please Patrick this circular ‘logic” of the impossibility to prove a negative is not a proof of anything. Although I am still running with the carbon dating as better proof of a con job.

   As for miracles Patrick please refer to earlier picture.

   Forscenic scientist investigated the Sudarium and concluded that blood type was AB and when the facial images of both the Shroud and the Sudarium were overlayed it was discovered that they were a perfect match and were therefore from the very same face.

   Really that is interesting, do you have link? I would hate to see vested interests involved.

   Now just because I had some time Patrick, I did go and do some research. As we all know we need to be wary of wild claims so as you brought up the subject of pollen as a “definitive proof” can you confirm the following for me

   It is claimed that the cloth has some pollen grains and images on it that are of plants found only in the Dead Sea region of Israel. Avinoam Danin, a botanist from Hebrew University of Jerusalem claims he has identified pollen from the tumbleweed Gundelia tournefortii and a bean caper on the shroud. He claims this combination is found only around Jerusalem. Some believers think the crown of thorns was made of this type of tumbleweed. However, Danin did not examine the shroud itself. His sample of pollen grains originated with Max Frei, who tape-lifted pollen grain samples from the shroud. Frei’s pollen grains have been controversial from the beginning. it is claimed that the cloth has some pollen grains and images on it that are of plants found only in the Dead Sea region of Israel. Avinoam Danin, a botanist from Hebrew University of Jerusalem claims he has identified pollen from the tumbleweed Gundelia tournefortii and a bean caper on the shroud. He claims this combination is found only around Jerusalem. Some believers think the crown of thorns was made of this type of tumbleweed. However, Danin did not examine the shroud itself. His sample of pollen grains originated with Max Frei, who tape-lifted pollen grain samples from the shroud. Frei’s pollen grains have been controversial from the beginning. Frei, who once pronounced the forged “Hitler Diaries” to be genuine, probably introduced the pollen grains himself or was duped and innocently picked up pollen grains another pious fraud had introduced

   Ok, I confess I laughed when I read about the Hilter Dairies thing, oh the same sort of thing is available for the so called blood stains but I would hate to bore you.

   So tell me is it the same Frei?

   To be fair Patrick, I am only have fun with you. If you so to choose to believe that the Shroud is the real deal and it is important to you, that’s fine but remember that is a faith call alone. Faith does not necessarily (or even rarely) equate to fact and it would seem that science would be tilting the odds against you.

   By the way, it would seem then that you disagree with the that other mob of intense faith as they believe in Jesus but not the crucifixion.

2. BrotherMouzone says:

   June 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm

   @ Patrick

   was a burial cloth of a Jewish man who left blood stains and a three dimensional negative image that no one can properly explain given the technology available at that time.

   Do you need those 3D glasses from the cinema to see it? Or was it a hologram?

3. Patrick says:

   June 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm

   Ok skeptics you do not want to accept the pollen samples, you cannot properly explain the technology that formed the image whether it was done in the first century, as I believe, or the Middle ages as you believe. The vanillin found on the sample used in the carbon testing is conclusive it was not representative of the main body of the Shroud but for now let’s us forget that and concentrate on the blood sample which is AB and while remembering blood typing was developed in the 1940s. As we stated, both the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium blood samples were AB. Now I will introduce a third miracle from 8th century Italy involving the Holy Eucharist. As you may know, Catholics believe that the blood and wine offered during Mass is turned into that actual blood and flesh of Christ. The miracle of Luciano is said to be a Divine response to a Catholic priest’s doubts that the Eucharist was indeed changed into the actual body and blood of Christ during the mass. As the priest was consecrating the bread and wine, human blood and flesh appeared. This miracle has been investigated as the Eucharist can still be seen to this day. Scientists have confirmed that it is human flesh and blood from the heart muscle and it is blood type AB. Now we have three blood samples from three sources and all from time periods where blood typing is an unknown science. As type AB is the rarest blood type, about 3% of the world’s population has this blood type what would Oigal, Stevo and Brother Mouzone calculate the odds that these three alleged hoaxes, as they believe,would have the same type AB blood?

4. Oigal says:

   June 27, 2012 at 9:46 pm

   Actually Patrick pretty well all of the above has been debunked. I will chase some references for you tomorrow but they are easy to find if you wish to look yourself in the meantime.
   Sorry the pollen thing didn’t work out, hey it might be still true but you will excuse us if we don’t take the word of a bloke who verified the Hitler Dairies nor those who use him as reference.

5. Patrick says:

   June 27, 2012 at 9:55 pm

   @Oigal – nice try to spin your way out of addressing the Blood samples all being AB for the three miracles. As far as the pollen goes I already put that aside for your benefit and without agreeing with you. Read my previous post : )

6. Patrick says:

   June 28, 2012 at 11:46 am

   Marzia Boi, from the University of the Balearic Islands, studied pollen found on the Shroud and found that the samples were consistent with the flowers and oils typically used in burying the dead in the region of Palestine at the time of Christ. The pollen samples “capture the image of a 2000-year old funeral rite,” said Boi.

   The pollen evidence creates enormous difficulty for researchers who have claimed that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. It is highly unlikely that even a skillful forger of that era would have known which pollens to us, had access to the pollen samples, and thought to embed them in the cloth.

7. Oigal says:

   June 28, 2012 at 1:41 pm

   Oh Patrick I never did spin out of anything unlike your “literal” self. Oh alright if you insist in confusing faith with fact, while I go and chase some references for you.

   Indulge me, lets for fun say the Catholic Church has managed to preserve some human flesh for hundreds of years (Yes, I know its nonsense but as I said just for fun). How does that prove your miracle. If I cut off a thumb and tell you it used to be a Oreo biscuit that is the same “proof” you are offering here isn’t it?

8. Oigal says:

   June 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm

   The shroud, however, has many defenders who believe they have demonstrated that the cloth is not a forgery, dates from the time of Jesus, is of miraculous origin, etc. It is claimed that there is type AB blood on the shroud. Skeptics deny it. Blood has not been identified on the shroud directly, but it has been identified on sticky tape that was used to lift fibrils from the shroud. Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. Other tests by Adler and Heller have identified it as blood.* If it is blood, it could be the blood of some 14th century person. It could be the blood of someone wrapped in the shroud, or the blood of the creator of the shroud, or of anyone who has ever handled the shroud, or of anyone who handled the sticky tape. But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity.

   There are a gazillion more out there Patrick and even if it was really blood, don’t you think it is curious that the Vatican has not submitted the blood for DNA testing now it can be done. How cool is that tracing his bloodline and what a great idea for a movie.

   The point remains nothing you are submitting is proof anything even if you accept the claims are true (i.e. it is blood for instance). Of course, we all know there was a roaring trade in religious relics in the middle ages, how many slivers of the cross and the arc could there be really?

   Patrick, its fine to have Faith and have fun with it but its not science. Science says pretty doubtful, faith says there is no doubt it is not the same thing.

   I guess my skeptics heart tells me to question why in world where millions die of hunger every year why does the big guy chose to prove his existence by his image in a toasted cheese sandwich. Where little children are hacked to death by the thousands his use of blood is a couple of tears on statue. Seems a little underachieving to me and don’t get me started on names of the big guy appearing on Gold Fish.

9. Oigal says:

   June 28, 2012 at 2:32 pm

   Dr. Rogers estimates the actual date of the shroud to be between about 1,000 BCE. and 1700 CE. Still, all the evidence points toward the medieval forgery hypothesis. As Nickell notes, “no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave” (1998: 35). “In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.”*

   Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood” stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. (Nickell 2005).

   Patrick, For every one of your cut and pastes I can give you two back but its pointless. Let’s say I concede yup it is the shroud and yep it is his shroud. Big deal, doesn’t prove he rose again and nipped up to heaven, proves a dead guy was wrapped in a cloth a few years back. The rest is just Faith and that fine but don’t try and tell me is is scientifically proven because that is just not true.

10. stevo says:

    June 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    Patrick, on the previous page I was enquiring as to which bible passages should be taken literally. In response you made the following remarks:

    Well Stevo – when you say politically correct and socially acceptable in the 21 st century are you saying we should all approve of homosexuality? Pre-marital sex? Same sex marriage?

    A curious repy given that I never mentioned any of those things and gave no hint as to what I considered moral. My question is; Why do theists devote so much attention to what others are doing in their own bedroom?

    I am puzzled because I would have considered things like war, torture, starvation and poverty to be much more worthy of the churches attention. Am I missing something here?

11. Patrick says:

    June 30, 2012 at 11:27 am

    @ the skeptics – so here we have it from our resident expert Oigal, who knows what he knows, and can back it up with science or can he? Here are some questions that are in dire need of your wisdom to be explained to the rest of us who lack your lucid mind and all knowing intelligence:

    1. How difficult is it for an artist to paint a human form in negative?

    2. If a medieval artists somehow managed to create a negative forgery of a face that could not be seen clearly until a photographer took a picture in the 19th century, what would have been the purpose of the negative painting?

    3. As you may know, Dr. Raymond Rogers was the chemists who found no fault in the scientific method used in the carbon 14 dating completed by the 3 labs but fount fault in the piece of material used as it was chemically different than the main area of the shroud. Do you find fault with Dr. Rogers research and why?

    4. Dr. Rogers was a pure scientist that kept an open mind about the Shroud. When he was first approached about the Carbon 14 dating possibly being flawed because of the sample piece he thought he would be able debunk that theory in five minutes. Instead he proved that the sample caused the mistake. Rogers was said to have cringed when wild and crazy ideas appeared about the Shroud that did not have the benefit of science to support them. It did not matter which side of the fence these ideas came from. My question to you is are you one of the nutters, as Rogers called them, who continues to declare the Shroud a fake,in spite of solid science, that declares it anything but a fake?

12. Oigal says:

    July 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Really Patrick, why is it you must be time again called back to the truth? Continually stretching what is said only damages your position in logic and let’s face it, that particular pond is pretty shallow anyway.

    so here we have it from our resident expert Oigal, who knows what he knows, and can back it up with science or can he?

    In fact, what I said was the scientific evidence and logic would seem to come down on the side of the Shroud being a religious fake. Bit like the science would come down the moon landings actually occurred. However, if you recall I did actually state hey against all logic, lets assume this piece of rag did survive all that time and the imprint occurred as the shroudies would want us to believe. What does that prove? Well, nothing really, except a piece of rag lasted a long time and maybe covered an impossibly out of proportion human body. Anyone see a miracle yet?

    However, I am of course coming down on the side that the shroud is pretty unlikely. There were of tens of thousands religious relics forged during the Middle Ages as the church fleeced the gullible. It is curious that there is little history of the Shroud prior to this period. You remember the time Patrick? When Crusaders were offered a free pass for all Sins, past, present and future (Not a bad lurk really) as long as they wandered off and slaughtered Muslims in a country thousands of miles away (Don’t feel too bad Patrick, the Muslim’s had their own little oppression of masses going on).

    Now because you insist upon pretending that pseudo science is actually fact, don’t you think we should at least be a bit honest. Let’s see;

    “Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud) and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s. He accepts all the shoddy work that STURP passed off as science two and three decades ago (Well, he had too, so of it was just plain funny!) . As is well known, STURP’s analyses on image formation, identity of the blood, sticky tape pollen, and history were hopelessly incompetent and unscientific, despite their claims and posturing to be rigorously scientific. There is no real blood of any kind on the Shroud. Both the image and “blood” were applied by an artist. These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone, whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide (red ocher) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. He published the photographic and chemical evidence in his papers and book. Joe Nickell first showed that the quality of the Shroud image could not be a direct image transfer by any natural mechanism from a human body due to inevitable distortion, and so must be an artistic rendition, and he demonstrated an easy way that the Shroud could be created by molding a wet linen cloth over a bas relief carving or cast and daubing or tamping red ocher pigment on it that makes an image appear that is very similar to the Shroud’s image. , , Palestinian pollen fraudulently applied to sticky tape samples, supposed but non-existent photographic negative quality, alleged 3-dimensional quality, and other anomalous features, and to explain how the STURP members went wrong. All of these facts are by now well known among informed scientists and are completely accepted.”

    That took about a nano second to find Patrick, once again if your psych needs to believe the Shroud is real then by all means have Faith but don’t wade in pretending that science and rational logic supports your position.

    Of course, anyone who starts proclaiming articles of religious faith as scientific fact should be challenged as failure to do so leads to that slippery slope where creationists are demand that nonsense is taught as a regular science subject and the bible (or its partners) are a literal guide to life.

13. Patrick says:

    July 2, 2012 at 9:15 am

    @ Oigal – Now you really have out done yourself when I was beginning to believe you had already peaked. You now introduce us to Mr. Joe Nickell as the man who has proven all the scientists involved in the Shroud of Turin Research Projects were Christian conspirators with the goal of fudging data or relying on sloppy scientific methods to prove the absolute authenticity of the Shroud. But what are Mr. Nickells’ credentials? Is he a scientist? Are his research methods concerning the Shroud peer reviewed such as those who participated on the Shroud of Turin Project? How exactly does Mr. Nickell’s explain why the Jewish members of the Shroud of Turin team would want to go along with the conspiracy? I can’t wait for you explanation dear boy as this should be interesting to say he least : )

14. Oigal says:

    July 3, 2012 at 11:06 am

    No No Patrick, I don’t have to prove anything as I am already a skeptic. Tis you that is making the claims and needs to justify them as there seems to a plethora of people suggesting it is a nonsense. Are you suggesting STURP is not an organization dedicated to proving the Shroud’s authenticity? Should I reproduce some of STURP’s earlier work as examples of laughable research? Please say yes?

    Are you serious? Peer reviewed? Do you really want to go into peer review??? Let me save you some embarrassment, you don’t really want to go quoting “peer review” and Ray Rogers (google it and let me know if you want to go there?).

    Funny I would have though you would have more concerned about Walter McKrone and his position that the so called blood is an fraud seeing how that was central to a number of your allegations.

    Not sure what you problem is with Nickell? You demanded to know the image could possibly be reproduced by an artist or someone else. Ten minutes research later, it was demonstrated to you that it is easily done. Anything else?

    Sorry Patrick, you really are on a hiding to nothing here, your attempts to define faith as science is failing pretty badly. Oh why doesn’t the Vatican release the ..ahem..blood samples for DNA testing?

    However, yet again you have avoided the central point (it seems to be a habit). Let’ say, against all the information available and logic, the Shroud really is that old and yes has…ahem…blood still on it. What does that prove? A piece of rag can last a long time. Certainly, doesn’t prove anyone, came back to life, rose and went to heaven. There is no use claiming holy scriptures as I have another set of holy scriptures who absolutely deny the story. So I guess we are down to proof versus faith.

15. Oigal says:

    July 3, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Not sure what you (r) problem is with Nickell? You demanded to know the image could possibly be reproduced by an artist or someone else. Ten minutes research later, it was demonstrated to you that it is easily done. Anything else?

    Should read.. You demanded to know HOW the image could be reproduced by an artist or someone else.

    Sorry, traveling..small screens 🙂

16. Patrick says:

    July 3, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Yes Okgal, I was so impressed to read about how an Italien scientist using pigment made from nitrous oxide was able to reproduce the image of the Shroud. It was already demonstrated years ago the Shroud contains no nitrous oxide particles and therefore no pigment was used to create the Shroud. Also, he was only able to place the blood on his shroud after first forming the image and the original had blood first before the image was formed. But you were always one to never let details get in the way of explaining your wild assumptions. Anyway, the reproduced image was never peer reviewed and this so called scientist tried to explain the lack of nitrous oxide on the original due to it being removed from the fabric over the centuries. This point certainly raised more than a few eyebrows as that was an impossibility. All you have dear Oigal is a clear fake that does not come close to explaining how the Shroud was formed.

17. stevo says:

    July 4, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Patrick…. for the second time, this does not prove the existance of Jesus or God. You have failed to join-the-dots on this.

18. stevo says:

    July 4, 2012 at 9:08 am

    Patrick to save you looking, I will re-post it here:

    Ok Patrick, you have failed to answer my important questions, but I will answer yours.

    Even if we accept the evidence you quote, it would only prove that it may have been a burial shroud from that period and location. It does not prove the existence of Jesus, the resurrection, and especially not the existence of God (your God of course)

    It is also noted that you are willing to reference science in support of your faith based position, but dismiss science when it works against your beliefs. The balance of scientific evidence does not support your belief in God.

    I could go on at length about the evidence against the shrouds authenticity, but it is not relevant to the question “Does God Exist”.

    I am still waiting for an answer, or shall I take your avoidance of the question as all the answer I need?

19. Oigal says:

    July 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    It was already demonstrated years ago the Shroud contains no nitrous oxide particles and therefore no pigment was used to create the Shroud.

    That would seem to be at odds with any number of available references Patrick. One assumes you can provide some verifiable and independent links to your assertions.

    Speaking of assertions, time and again you keep attributing to me things I have not said. All I have done is provide some quite reasonable links to justify a large degree of skepticism to any reasonable person to things you are erroneously presenting as scientific fact. Unlike yourself, my friend I am not presenting personal opinion and/or faith as undisputed fact, can you perceive the difference or perhaps no?

    Again, on numerous occasions, for the sake of discussion I have even conceded that against the plethora of evidence weighing against the shroud being genuine, it may be so.
    Even so that would prove nothing except an old rag managed to defy the odds and survive.

    Some research along with your avoidance of some central issues (as opposed to personal mantra) has stirred my curiosity however.

    Why was there seemingly little record of the Shroud until the Middle Ages (the peak age of religious icon scammery), surely after all those witnesses watching some rise from the dead and suddenly an image on the cloth would have been worth talking about?

    Why doesn’t the Vatican release the “blood” for DNA testing and settle the issue once and for all?

20. Oigal says:

    July 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    It was already demonstrated years ago the Shroud contains no nitrous oxide particles and therefore no pigment was used to create the Shroud.

    Patrick, you wrote

    1. How difficult is it for an artist to paint a human form in negative?

    I provided proof with about a nano seconds research, the answer is pretty simple actually.

    As for you lead on statement about oxide (the one that addresses none of the issues) that too would seem to be at odds with any number of available references Patrick. One assumes you can provide some verifiable and independent links to your assertions.

    Speaking of assertions, time and again you keep attributing to me things I have not said. All I have done is provide some quite reasonable links to justify a large degree of skepticism to any reasonable person to things you are erroneously presenting as scientific fact. Unlike yourself, my friend I am not presenting personal opinion and/or faith as undisputed fact, can you perceive the difference or perhaps no?

    Again, on numerous occasions, for the sake of discussion I have even conceded that against the plethora of evidence weighing against it, the shroud may be genuine. Personally I think not a hope but still…

    Even so, that would prove nothing except an old rag managed to defy the odds and survive.

    However, some research along with your avoidance of some central issues (as opposed to personal mantra) has stirred my curiosity.

    Why was there seemingly little record of the Shroud until the Middle Ages (the peak age of religious icon scammery), surely after all those witnesses watching someone rise from the dead and suddenly an image on the cloth would have been worth talking about?

    Why doesn’t the Vatican release the “blood” for DNA testing and settle the issue once and for all?

    Why does Patrick refer to peer review and the church in the same paragraph, surely he must realise the trap he is setting for himself?

    Oh and in regards to blood, I thought the good chemist demonstrated there was no blood, particular red blood (Besides, does anyone know any blood that retains its colour once split?).

    Sorry Patrick, duty calls shortly and I cannot promise to keep playing for a couple of weeks but I will try as it is fun. Call it a personal quest to try and get you to answer a straight question with a straight answer. In the meantime feel free to attempt any of the above.

21. Patrick says:

    July 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    @ Stevo -You said that I failed to join the dots that the Shroud of Turin points to the existence of God. This is “classic Stevo” put on the blinders and forge ahead despite the incredible amount of evidence that supports the Shroud favorably in terms of being both authentic and unexplainable in scientific terms in how it was created. From an historical context it closely matches the description found in the bible concerning what Peter found when he first entered the tomb of Christ. Are there some gaps between the time it was created and when it showed up medieval Europe, then the answer is yes, but there is at least some evidence that it was brought to Turkey by Peter along with other artifacts. It is thought that the crusaders seized the Shroud as a spoil of war prior to bringing it to Europe. Then of course there is the matter of the blood which has been tested to be type AB and that is consistent with all miracles attributed to Jesus’ blood type.

22. stevo says:

    July 7, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Patrick, you claim the shrouds authenticity is confirmed by science. You also claim the shrouds existence as evidence of God. I would like to test your claimed confidence in the scientific method with a question; If science proved the shroud a fake, would you become an atheist?

    If not, why?

23. Patrick says:

    July 9, 2012 at 8:32 am

    @ Stevo – You ask a very good question and my answer is the Shroud wasn’t meant for me but for those who doubt Jesus. Just as Thomas the Apostle insisted on putting his hands into the wounds of Jesus many won’t believe on Faith alone so Jesus leaves us these signs of His real ness in the world. There are so many miracles accumulated over the centuries that we have barely scratched the surface.

24. Oigal says:

    July 13, 2012 at 7:01 am

    Hey Pat, Sorry been traveling with decent connections few and far between. However, as much as I enjoy our to and fro we have had the discussion many times about being honest. You and I both know that repeating the same claim many times does not make it true. It is evident to anyone that the Shroud’s authenticity is not proven by science, in fact science would tend to cast much doubt on whole thing not the least being the so called blood.

    Never the less, the reluctance of the Vatican to release the Shroud for proper testing (DNA for instance) leaves the believers with something to have faith in. That said, as repeated many times lets assume that the shroud is actually from the time it is supposed to be. What does it prove…well that it is an old piece of cloth not much more.

    Of course, the whole Jesus on the Cross thing is seriously disputed by another major Religion in these here parts and they are just as sure they own the truth. Gee what is a guy to believe, I guess it just comes down to faith vs proof.

25. stevo says:

    July 14, 2012 at 5:28 am

    Patrick, you have defended your beliefs on the basis of science. I questioned that approach and suggested you just admit your beliefs are based on faith. You stubbornly declined and continued to reference science.

    The problem for you is this; if you use science in support of your beliefs, then you must allow science to disprove those beliefs. If you do not allow a negative result, then you are not using science at all. To cherry-pick evidence is not how science is done. (Unless its climate science, then its ok, you can use computer models and stuff)
    If you had taken my suggestion and just admitted you believe because it “feels right” and helps you give context and purpose to your existence, then you would be on solid ground. There is an evolutionary explanation as to why people develop beliefs such as yours. Those theories are about as close as you will get to gaining support from “science”.

    I invite you to read Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. I do not expect that you will change your position, but you will at least understand the position of many atheists. Dawkins will address all your arguments far more clearly than I ever could. This will give you some (much needed) insight when engaging non-believers. In a similar way, it helps atheists understand theists.

    You will also gain some insight into why people support (other) clearly false ideas.

    Religious folk are not the only offenders. Much of the “politically correct” & “Progressive” ideology that infects the West, is based on theories that are not supported by empirical evidence and observation. However to suggest this to them will invoke cries to have you silenced, severely punished and for the faithful to “do something”. Just like religious folk, that crowd will also say you are ignorant and evil. This is why I am tolerant of religious people and seldom debate the issue in day to day life. At least with you Bible-bashers I know where you stand, unlike the lefty progressive freaks and their moral relativity.

26. Patrick says:

    July 14, 2012 at 11:54 am

    @ Stevo and Oigal – I suggest that your last several postings are not new arguments but examples of tautology. Please don’t rehash your past arguments but do try to come up with new fresh ideas. As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned we have already addressed him in the past, and by my recollectioned, he didn’t fare well then so he likely won’t now : )

27. madrotter says:

    July 14, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Just finished this one and I can really recommend it, for sale in Indonesia now:

28. stevo says:

    July 15, 2012 at 7:13 am

    Thanks Madrotter, but you are probably casting pearls to swine.

    Patrick, have you actually read The God delusion?….

29. madrotter says:

    July 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    I absolutely loved The God Delusion, had me in stitches from laughing at times:) He also made a series where he went after all these beliefs, myths, people that talk to the dead and stuff, really good shows to watch, loved the one where he had all these dowsing rod folks doing their thing and getting nowhere:-) After they were totally debunked they still held on to their beliefs but that was no surprise, most of them had build their whole lives (and sometimes income) around it….

    I’ve said it before in this threat, these discussions about religion can be nice exercises but usually go nowhere, I’ve got no problems with religious people, it takes all sorts lah….

    Gotta say though, after living in Indonesia for 16 years, a country where you can’t really discuss religion with anybody ‘cept the few exceptions it’s nice to see how you guys are discussing it, you Stevo, Oigal and Patrick too, no heavy insults, I like that:)

30. stevo says:

    July 16, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Madrotter, Dawkins has a number of good television series, which I have watched on YouTube. Enemies Of Reason is one series in which he explores belief in mystical forces generally rather than just concentrating on the religious. He is a great communicator and I am pleased I tend to agree with him. I would not enjoy being on the opposing side to Dawkins !

    Speaking from personal experience, I find the “new age” types are often less tolerant than religious people, in spite of having no coherent doctrine one could subscribe to. I find my new age “spiritual” friends tend to be rather shrill and belligerent. By comparison most religious folk (Indonesians included) regard my atheism with a mixture of pity and compassion.

    One thing Dawkins demonstrates is that belief in higher powers/ mystical forces is a very “human” thing. Alienating these people is not an approach I approve of. I think it is better to oppose any specific examples of wrong doing, rather than attack their faith in general. Attacks on faith only tend to make believers more entrenched and less open to constructive debate.