If god did not want us to masturbate, he would have made our arms shorter, and not given us opposable thumbs, surely?
Richard Dawkins visits a anti-masturbation course:
There are two types of people in the world…wankers and liars. So come on you liars now that you know that wanking is the devils work…how about a little poll to find out how much lying you’ve been doing: Read more »
James Delingpole celebrates the collapse of a wind turbine:
Richard Dawkins you are WRONG. There IS definitely a God – and for proof, look no further than His decision to topple a ruddy great wind turbine at Bradworthy in Devon just a day before my first ever appearance on Question Time.
With luck, this will mean a wind turbine question pops up. I do hope so, for it will give me the perfect opportunity to the point out yet another of the myriad reasons why wind turbines are such a monstrous and utterly indefensible blight. Apart from being ugly, noisy, expensive, inefficient, destructive to wildlife and incapable of doing the one thing that notionally they’re supposed to do – “reduce CO2″ – they are also BLOODY DANGEROUS. Read more »
via Andrew Sullivan
Reza Aslan thinks atheists are so like evangelicals that they have in fact become evangelical.
Of course, positing the existence of a transcendent reality that exists beyond our material experiences does not necessarily imply the existence of a Divine Personality, or God. (In some ways, the idea of God is merely the personal affirmation of the transcendent experience.) But what if did? What if one viewed the recurring patterns of religious phenomena that so many diverse cultures and civilizations–separated by immeasurable time and distance–seem to have shared as evidence of an active, engaging, transcendent presence (what Muslims call the Universal Spirit, Hindus call prana, Taoists call chi’i, Jews call ruah, and Christians call the Holy Spirit) that underlies creation, that, in fact, impels creation? Is such a possibility any more hypothetical than say, superstring theory or the notion of the multiverse? Then again, maybe the patterns of religious phenomenon signify nothing. Maybe they indicate little more than a common desire among all peoples to answer similar questions of “Ultimate Concern,” to use the Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich’s famous phrase. The point is that, like any researcher or critic, like any scientist, I’m open to possibilities.
The new atheists will say that religion is not just wrong but evil, as if religion has a monopoly on radicalism and violence; if one is to blame religion for acts of violence carried out in religion’s name then one must also blame nationalism for fascism, socialism for Nazism, communism for Stalinism, even science for eugenics. The new atheists claim that people of faith are not just misguided but stupid–the stock response of any absolutist. Some argue that the religious impulse is merely the result of chemicals in the brain, as though understanding the mechanism by which the body experiences transcendence delegitimizes the experience (every experience is the result of chemical reactions). What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims–be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth–are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. That may not be a slogan easily pasted on the side of a bus. But it is the hallmark of the scientific intellect.
Heh. There is a god, one who delivers smack downs like this.