Comments on: Did He Think We Wouldn’t Catch Him?

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:33:22 +0000

Colson is quite a hero in the evangelical Christian community. He’s very much admired for his work with inmates in prison, though I’ve never seen any good stats on how effective that program truly is.

By: Polly

Polly — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:33:11 +0000

Colson is on the radio – KKLA – every weekday (in LA) for a 5-minute spoken blurb about various subjects. Sometimes, he talks about causes I can agree with in general: the poor or the forgotten, modern day slavery, etc. I don’t know anything about him outside of that except that he was in jail and has a prison “ministry” which may or may not INCREASE recidivism.

In general, xian “leaders” and apologists are liars. Everything they say is deceptive advertising for their religion. I’m talking about the nationally known ones, not the pastors in the churches just struggling to get by. The poor ones are usually honest, maybe a couple of the well-off ones, too, maybe.

By: stogoe

stogoe — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:04:22 +0000

The odds of Colson correcting himself is roughly equal to the chances of Mickey Kaus coming out on national TV as a goat-blower.

And Colson is still big in the West.

By: Mikayla

Mikayla — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:30:07 +0000

What!! No, what Dawkins said that there is a 1-7 scale from abolutely certain theism to abolutely certain atheism. A person who is at 1 on the scale is abolutely certain god exists. Someone at 7 on the scale is abolutely certain god doen’t exist. Someone at 4 thinks it is equally likely that god may or may not exist. Someone at 6, such as Dawkins, admits the very slightest possiblity a god could exists, but that is about the same possiblity that fairies exist.

This is all in The God Delusion, and it would do Chuck Colson some good to read it.

By: HappyNat

HappyNat — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:08:41 +0000

He simply chooses to take, as he sees it, the six-in-seven chances that God does not exist. That’s a bad bet.

Him misrepresenting Dawkins is bad, but not understanding that a 6 in 7 cahnce is better than a 1 in 7 chance might be even worse. This makes the gambler in my heart cry.

By: John Waterman

John Waterman — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:44:46 +0000

And being a “6, leaning toward 7″ is exactly the right position for a scientist. Never certain. Ready and hopeful that the evidence will show us something new.

By: Spanish Inquisitor

Spanish Inquisitor — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:22:30 +0000

Who listens to Colson anyway? He became irrelevant in 1973, when he said “Grab ‘em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.” Of course, he worked for Nixon at the time.

Now all he can do is shill religion.

Ptui.

By: Mriana

Mriana — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:19:39 +0000

IMO, what Dawkins said is akin to my saying, “IF there is a god, it’s part of nature, much like the wind.” Science has yet to find it IF that is true. He is denouncing the traditional concept of the invisible old man in the sky, but not denying the possibility that there is something about nature we haven’t explained yet. His thoughts leave room for what science may discover.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:32:55 +0000

Yeah like winning the lottery – I either win, or don’t. Sweet, 50% chance I’ll win!!!

By: t3knomanser

t3knomanser — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:24:03 +0000

That’s a sadly common misinterpretation of porbability theory. I think it arises from the most common examples- dice, coins, etc. Things where the each item in the set of results has equal weight. A die has six options, and that means a one in six chance of a specific number coming up. It’s an easy (and wrong) jump in logic to expand that to any situation where there’s a finite set of options.