Comments for Todd H Dow

Comment on Todd’s Search for Meaning by Types of Blog Posts Day 3 of 5: Link Posts « Wirepaper

Types of Blog Posts Day 3 of 5: Link Posts « Wirepaper — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:33:19 +0000

[...] Todd’s Search for Meaning – A personal link to give you a bit of insight into who I am. [...]

Comment on Tension in Tolerence: A Review of Brian McLaren’s “A Generous Orthodoxy” – Part IV by Fiona

Fiona — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:11:47 +0000

I know you posted this some time ago – but thanks for doing so. Much of the comment on McLaren’s work is one sided in one direction or the other, whereas you’ve written in a balanced way. I’m prepping for an assignment on Christianity/postmodernity and wanted an idea of this book whilst I wait for it to arrive in the post. Thanks for your summary and comments.

Comment on Dawkins Part 7: The Slippery Slope of Abortion by Anaheim Locksmith

Anaheim Locksmith — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:41:21 +0000

Good Post. I have read many posts on this topic and you done the best job. Keep it up!

Comment on The Atheist Delusion – Why I don’t agree with Richard Dawkins in 10 parts by Neil C. Reinhardt

Neil C. Reinhardt — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:09:48 +0000

To HELL with being the least bit nice to any and all Programmed Religious Robots! They treat we Atheists like shit and then want us to be nice to them?

They can kiss my 75 year old All American Airborne Agnostic Atheist Activist Ass!

———————-

“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.”

Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991
——————–

“The theory that you should always treat the religious convictions of other people with respect finds no support in the Gospels.”

Arnold Lunn (1888-1974), British author

Comment on Dawkins Part 4: The Objective Roots of Morality by paranormal romance books

paranormal romance books — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:09:29 +0000

Hello, really liked this article! Wonderful writing. Thank you.

Comment on The Atheist Delusion – Why I don’t agree with Richard Dawkins in 10 parts by Ivor Planelli

Ivor Planelli — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:13:37 +0000

You credophiles are arrogant enough to try to force your superstitious rubbish into a science class room, and you think that Dawkins is arrogant, ha!
You credophiles are busy hiding children raping priests from the full weight of the law, and then you have the arrogance to call atheists immoral.
Godbotherers, you need to take a long good look at yourselves before you criticise anyone else, believer or not.

Comment on What Are We Fighting For? by self defense tactics

self defense tactics — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 13:58:36 +0000

Excellent site, I have learned more through this site than I have through months of reading elsewhere

Comment on Responses to Dawkins Comments – Part 4 of 4 by Faustina Sosh

Faustina Sosh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:25:32 +0000

I adore your blog a lot. Will read more. Keep up to great writing on it. Gracias

Comment on Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and Concluding Thoughts by Jamie

Jamie — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:22:23 +0000

Firstly i would like to state that although i do not agree with the opinions of Mr Dow, i respect how he has approached his response to Dawkins and the fact that he was prepared to admit to some of the problems facing orgainised religion and past mistakes made in the name of religion. I also respect the fact that he has questioned his own faith in the past to be sure of it’s validity, although i would of course query the results! lol

For me, Christianity is no more than a cult that is so old it’s believers dare not question it. What is the difference between Christianity and Scientology? Scientology is the biggest load of hog wash i’ve ever heard, but if it was preached 2000 years ago you could bet your life it would a lot more credibility today then it does. The fact the Bible is 2000 years old means nothing, it just creates another convenient situation where it’s origins can’t be proven and faith is required. It’s old so it must be true has so little credibility it’s untrue. The Bible is full of ‘conveniences’ to suit itself and avoid explanation. For example when presented with the question ‘If god created everything, who created god’, i was told god is eternal. This is just a cop out of the highest order. No rational or plausable explanation, just the perfect answer to avoid any further explanation other than that’s just the way it is. The Bible is undeniably the greatest story ever told, but it is just that, a story told a long, long time ago. I admit that religion had a place at one point, when many of the happenings in the world couldn’t be explained due to lack of scientific knowledge, and many of the population of the world lived in such hardship that faith was important to provide comfort. Put that isn’t the case anymore, and religion is now an outdated concept. Despite what Mr Dow claims, Science has never claimed to ‘have all the answers’. It merely asks the questions and seeks the truth, rather then accepting the truth without asking the questions. Science doesn’t have all the answers now, it cannot explain everything, but that doesn’t mean it won’t. New discoveries and being made every day, and it is only a matter of time before the truths about the origins of the universe and the origins of man are so 100% transparent that no doubt is left. And guess what? There will be no mention of a creator. The Bible is already been contradicted by it’s followers. Comments by Mr Dow such as ‘god using Evolution as his tool for creating life’ totally contradict the theory of the 6 day creation. Has this part of the Bible suddenly been forgotten due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary? This is also the same for the comments made above by Gabriel Somoza. At exactly what point was it decided that the 6 days were a metaphore for thousands of years? I’d bet all the money i own that it wasn’t prior to the discovery and understanding of dinosaurs! There’s that convenience rearing it’s ugly head again. Interpretations of the bible cannot be altered to suit as more and more scientific evidence is produced. If these parts of the Bible are inaccurate, then the rest of it has no basis for credibility whatsoever. There is also the point of Geography. By this i mean that the majority of religious folk only follow their particular faith due to their location on the planet and their subsequent upbringing, and not due to their own free will. Your just believing what you’ve been told to believe. Isn’t that called brain washing? Hardly thinking for yourself is it. At least Atheists challenge this.
There comes a point when you have to acknowledge that you have wasted your life worshiping nothing more than a story book. I’d of picked Harry Potter personnaly.
I’d like to finish by saying these are my thoughts on all religions, not just Christianity, and i apologise if my opinions offend anyone. They are just that, opinions, and it wasn’t my intention to offend. I just feel very passionately about the subject at hand. I apologise for my dire spelling too! I’ll leave you with a favourite quote of mine.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts

Comment on Should atheists have children? by Joe Bigliogo

Joe Bigliogo — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:46:10 +0000

You know Toddy, – the pile of shit you just wrote, disguised as serious inquiry, is simply a poor attempt to trash atheists. It is interesting to me that the moral obtuseness you exhibit is typical of the lunatic fringe of the fundamentalist movement in your gratuitous demonstration of false premises, mischaracterization of atheism and poor reasoning skills.

Those of us who do not believe as you in no way possess a “negative world view… that lacks meaning”. Your transparent bigotry toward ideas that don’t fit in with your pinched view of existence demonstrates a seriously jaded and distorted perception of reality. Your rational faculties are quite seriously damaged by fundamentalist ideology. if you actually believe atheists are too dangerous to raise children I sincerely think you are in need of serious clinical help. Fortunately your views, seriously disturbed though they may be, are extremely rare in civilized societies so they are of no real threat.

May the god you invented help you.

Comment on The Modern Crusader ethic by Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:08:48 +0000

I think this really sheds light on the real cause of all these conflicts. People form herds like sheep around their religion and fight each other because of it. what we need is a new spirituality that teaches how there is one God for all of us and all the fundamentalist nonsense is garbage.

Comment on Dawkins Part 1: Straw Men by D

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:40:04 +0000

I hate to break it to you but you calling Dawkin’s logic flawed is flawed. You claim that Free Will undoes the burden of God’s intervention, however if God is omniscient, he knows what we do, creating a locked chain of events which is the opposite of Free Will.
Free Will and Omniscience cannot logically exist together.

Comment on Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and Concluding Thoughts by Jim

Jim — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:08:34 +0000

I have read most of the God Delusion and tend to agree with Mr. Dow on many points and thank you Mr. Dow for your excellent rebuttal. I also have a youtube website that defends the Christian faith and find that it is true, most posters tend to be hostile and they make a common assumption that all Christians are Catholics and also generalize everything that extremists or misinformed or just plain wrong-headed Christians do is why Christianity cannot be correct. Another sad phenomenon is that Christians do not post. I think a generality that is true about Christians is that we are too complacent. We need to wake up and support our beliefs and the apologists on the web.

Comment on Should atheists have children? by J Hulka

J Hulka — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:16:15 +0000

That didn’t come out quite right. Atheists must see some purpose to their existence, or they wouldn’t bother arguing the point. What I am curious about is what an atheist might base that purpose on, and whether that gives atheists and non-atheists any common ground for discussion.

Comment on Should atheists have children? by J Hulka

J Hulka — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:20:18 +0000

I’m curious what morality and ethics might mean to an atheist. A non-atheist would base their view on the notion that there is a purpose to existence. It just seems to me that these two views cannot even have an intelligent dialogue on the subject.

Comment on Should atheists have children? by Cameron Lero

Cameron Lero — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:30:56 +0000

So Mr Isom would you like to say anything in your defense? (wow a Christian who criticizes an Atheist for “avoiding an argument and then does the very same. Didn’t see that coming.)

Comment on Should atheists have children? by T.L.

T.L. — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:21:34 +0000

What? This is highly offensive and this website should be blocked.

I cannot believe the ignorance……

Comment on Definitions by Reg Gilbert

Reg Gilbert — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:20:20 +0000

Defining atheism a the belief that religion should be suppressed is false. There surely are atheists that believe that, since atheism is often accompanied by the belief that religion interferes with rational thought and is accordingly a source of war. But many atheists have full respect for religous belief — many once did believe, continue to seek to believe, and will believe again (indeed, this process, which can also be called conversion, is an integral part of many evangelical autobiographies). to define athesim as a belief that religion should be suppressed is in effect a smear — an attempt to define by falsehood in order to achieve an aim. The aim in this case is to demonize atheists in all cases as not only wrong but oppressors. I would argue that smearing atheism in this blanket way is not only mistaken, it is in fact blasphemous. Doubt is an integral part of the Christian experience. Doubt can and does cross over to pure unbelief. But God has given us the right to doubt and to not believe. To deine atheism as the desire to suppress religion is to assert that God was not sincere in offering men and women this choice, implying that if they take the choice, they work at cross purposes to his will. Yet it is his will that people be able to take the choice. Those who cannot feel comfortable with this choice could at least take comfort in how often the choice is temporary, and in how often the choice, both in its availablity and in its being taken, has in fact strengthened faith.

Comment on Dawkins Part 2: The Ultimate 747 – Is that the best he’s got? by James

James — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:01:52 +0000

You have not understood Dawkin’s arguments at all:

1. Evolution is today an indisputable fact, doubted by no honest educated person. Furthermore, the utter falsity of creationism follows from its incompatibility with simple observations and is independent of the truth/falsity of evoultion.

2.Dawkins never said that since the universe is complex then god, having built it, would have to be more complex and therefore would not exist. That is absurd. He was showing that the claim by creationists that that the world is complex and therefore designed is self-contradictory, because the same argument would apply to the designer to demonstrate that something must have designed the designer.

3.Design and the anthropic principle are clearly mutually exclusive. They are different explanations for a given phenomenon. They are mutually exclusive in the same way the sky can not be both blue and green at the same time. Your argument is that competing arguments can coexist in politics, and therefore the sky can be both blue and green? Your completely mad.

Comment on The Atheist Delusion – Why I don’t agree with Richard Dawkins in 10 parts by rafael

rafael — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:17:58 +0000

PROSECUTION
Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say “no.” I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.
THE UNIVERSE
First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.
ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS
The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God?
CHANCE EVENTS
What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance.
CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION
Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother’s womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year’s calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.
MICROORGANISMS
Let us turn to the micro-world or quantum mechanics. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro (the whole universe and galaxies) and micro aspects (quantum), is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.
CHANCE OR DESIGN
The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.
A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT
One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man’s heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as “man.” At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.
THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART
Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving –God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.
NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?
Once, an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: “You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it.” I said, “Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.
“THE WORDS AND THE HEART”
A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, “Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already.” He said, “What do you mean?” I went on to explain: “Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side.” He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, “You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?”Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God.
Finally is there is a God. Who is he? Who among the most ancient religions claim to be God’s son?
As well there must be a written record of God and God’s son. Among all the ancients’ written records is there such a book?