Skip to main content

CFI events at Oxford Lit Festival


Ben Goldacre speaking this afternoon for CFI at Oxford Literary Festical to an audience of 500. Any suggestions for next year?
Labels:

Comments

DM said…
Crystal Night, Atheists!


FINALE:



Have I said this before?


http://nostraamerica.atspace.com/


PULLING THE PLUG on atheism


http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp




http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3228845133_3599f8108f.jpg



bye


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090126/as-indonesia-solar-eclipse/images/c52d9d50-7ca2-4c3a-b13c-c866836298c8.jpg





Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism...


*************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

*************************************



atheists deny their own life element...




LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?


********************************
***************************LIGHT*********
************************************



add comment moderation your blog of blasphemy...

and you're the troll, fucker...
March 27, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Peter Phisher said…
Nice to see David Mabus has been released into the community again.
March 27, 2010 at 10:25 PM
DM said…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtK-X_MV0k&feature=fvw
March 28, 2010 at 2:49 AM
Kosh3 said…
"add comment moderation your blog of blasphemy..."

I don't understand -- what does this part mean? Does it mean he wants himself moderated? Wouldn't that be counterproductive???

/confused
March 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM
DM said…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtK-X_MV0k&feature=fvw

HAHAHAHAHA
March 28, 2010 at 10:24 AM
DM said…
___________


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtK-X_MV0k&feature=fvw


DOWN THE TOILET!!!
March 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Josey said…
DM (aka Dennis Markuze), you need to work on your schtick. Googling every atheist site then posting some cut-and-paste template of rant just doesn't cut it.

There are some good IRC atheist forums you can troll but they have high standards on acceptable trolling.
April 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o...
151 comments
Read more