1. Comment #11955 by Seti on December 8, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Nice one! Sometimes it gets tricky to tell the spoofs from the "real" thing (I assume you've seen the evidence from bananas vid?) but this one sails beautifully down the line.

Other Comments by Seti

2. Comment #11958 by LauraG on December 8, 2006 at 2:55 pm

That's a fairly funny spoof. If you watch the version on Youtube, you'll find the author says it's a joke in one of the comments, just to make sure the right point gets across. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgvMh7YjJr4

Other Comments by LauraG

3. Comment #11960 by ImagineAZ on December 8, 2006 at 3:37 pm

I have to admit, for the first 10 or 15 seconds, I thought it was real haha.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

4. Comment #11961 by goddogit on December 8, 2006 at 3:48 pm

Check the comment on the "Dawkins Delusion - same stupid title" thread and behold the wonder of Xians who are "honestly" this stupid, and honestly proud to be so!
The defenses of the "amazin' acc'racy o' Bi'le Proph'cy!" posts are especially disheartening (I do not really find determined stupidity, or envy clothed in "Xian love" for that matter, amusing in the least).
One of those lost, fear-filled mortals retorted to my venting of spleen there with words that belong in this parody, saying something like my comments about the silliness of his beliefs "only made his faith stronger."
Riiiight! The Bible's God hardened Pharaoh's heart, for reasons that still evade me, but nowhere near as hard the fossilized hearts and diseased brains of these sorts of fundamentalists.

Other Comments by goddogit

5. Comment #11962 by Skeptic Jim on December 8, 2006 at 3:49 pm

That was brilliant. I just saw RD on Irish TV. It was a good interview. 95% of the audience were theists with crap arguments that he managed to debunk. Ireland seems to have a very large number of theistic scientists. But that's just my own anecdotal evidence speaking.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

6. Comment #11963 by goddogit on December 8, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Sorry, the rantings I referred to are on the thread "No Delusion" thread.

Other Comments by goddogit

7. Comment #11964 by ImagineAZ on December 8, 2006 at 3:53 pm

I wonder if any Christians could conceivably view this video and agree with it, like "Finally! Somebody has put the truth forth as articulately as the atheists put forth their heresy!"

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

8. Comment #11965 by NormanDoering on December 8, 2006 at 3:53 pm

We need a Deepak Chopra satire now.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

9. Comment #11973 by Jared on December 8, 2006 at 6:04 pm

Re: Comment #11965 NormanDoering
"We need a Deepak Chopra satire now."

We have one. He's called "Deepak Chopra."

/That's right...I went there :)

Other Comments by Jared

10. Comment #11974 by NormanDoering on December 8, 2006 at 6:21 pm

>> "We need a Deepak Chopra satire now."
>
> We have one. He's called "Deepak Chopra."

No, no... not just dumb, but funny -- a Sixpack Chopar or something that even dimwits will realize is a Stephen Colbert version of the man.

> /That's right...I went there :)

Really? Did you go here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-god-delusion-answe_b_35875.html

Chopra's been on Dawkins' case for over seven posts in his blog on HuffPo.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

11. Comment #11976 by Sancus on December 8, 2006 at 8:00 pm

Even the religious are better than Chopra. They are at least atheists of the gods in other religions, but Chopra believes in them all.

Other Comments by Sancus

12. Comment #11977 by Janus on December 8, 2006 at 8:53 pm

Brilliant!

Someone needs to post this on a Christian message board, _without_ telling them what it's really about.


Other Comments by Janus

13. Comment #11979 by Roy_H on December 8, 2006 at 11:14 pm

Brilliant, this is very similar.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/bill-hicks-p1.php

"How do I know Jesus was white?I'll tell yer how I know he was white cos I seen a picture of him in the bible, and yer know what, the camera don't lie!" ( From the sitcom 'Curry and chips ' by Johnny Speight, starring Spike Milligan and Eric Sykes )

Other Comments by Roy_H

14. Comment #11983 by David A Robertson on December 9, 2006 at 12:20 am

Guys,

The fact that you think that this is brilliant, subversive, witty and even 'real' is the best argument yet against Intelligent Design. Do you think that instead of behaving and sounding like relgious fundamentalists you might actually engage in some intelligent conversation rather than this self righteous pompous mockery. It is kind of self defeating. (Ok - stand back and wait for the typical atheist response - you xxxxx! Go back to your fundie hole - dumb, ignorant! What about Michah 5:2 then! Where did Cain and Abel get their wifes! Why did you kill all those witches! Who made God then?! Na na na na na.)

Have a nice day.

Other Comments by David A Robertson

15. Comment #11984 by Macho Nachos on December 9, 2006 at 12:45 am

David A Robertson, I'm really disappointed in you. See, my name is David Robertson. (I registered the account, but my verification email didn't arrive so it's inactive, which is probably why you've included the 'a'). Between you, and the Irish pastor (unless you're the same person), you're giving 'David Robertsons' a bad name.

Go back to your fundie hole. It was a joke. It is funny. It mocks the widely held irrationality that many people cherish. If it chafes because it hits too close to home, don't whinge here. In case you haven't visited the forum, or other threads around here, there is far more intelligent discussion on this website than on the vast majority of other internet sites (as far as I've seen, including religious ones. If you can correct me, feel free).

The religious, anti-evolution equivalent of this video is in Borat. People who have seen the movie will know what I mean.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

16. Comment #11987 by Logicel on December 9, 2006 at 1:10 am

The tone and inflection of the voice in the video was in itself a very effective mockery of Xians. It enabled me to recall the smug, glazed, drugged look in their eyes when they do their boringly familiar lapse into mind-numbing circular nonsense when I have watched them in person or on the TV.

Other Comments by Logicel

17. Comment #11988 by Roy_H on December 9, 2006 at 2:49 am

Looking at the comments on "Youtube" I think this little video will convert as many people as Messrs. Dawkins, Denning and Harris!

Other Comments by Roy_H

18. Comment #11989 by goddogit on December 9, 2006 at 3:07 am

Machos,

I have no idea what you bothered to respond to, but I give you advance warning that you should engage David R. only if you wish an uninspiring target: he is as fine an example of the pompous ignorant Xian ass as can be found on a site that attracts them like ants to honey - better yet, like fireproofed moths to a flame.
It's a bore's paradise to him, and as a bore, and a long-winded one, he intends to take full advantage of it. Since he is uninterested in discussion, which implies an EXCHANGE and HONEST EVALUATION of ideas, and has no interest in learning anything, except that what he already know is right in exactly the way he knew it was, he is best described a parasitical dullard who takes the effort and energy of others, in that vampire-like fashion that defines many fundamentalists, but (in this disembodied medium, the Internet forum) risks nothing himself, and need give nothing but time he has no use for as he waits for his future: loss of consciousness followed by decomposition.
Anyone who dares, however politely, to disagree with his particular ilk on any Xian-monitored forum would find themselves after banned twenty posts, while these creepy "no-alls" realize they can say anything, however stupid or untrue (short of threats, spamming or the release of personal info) and bore us all silly even scanning past them.

"Pass them by, boys & girls! Pass them by!"

Other Comments by goddogit

19. Comment #11996 by Aussie on December 9, 2006 at 4:13 am

It would be beneficial to have at least one exclusive thread where selected people could be invited to contribute once they had demonstrated elsewhere on the site that they had indeed something worthwhile to contribute.

By excluding the obvious nut cases then the resulting discourse could be truly productive.

Other Comments by Aussie

20. Comment #11998 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 4:18 am

19. Comment #11989 by goddogit

Yes, I've been 'preaching' DNA (Do Not Address) crazed godites on this site for some time. It's pointless; debate not based upon the willingness of parties to accept that they may be wrong, is not debate, it's a waste of disk space and effort. I won't debate a fundie unless they agree up front the possibility that their belief is erroneous, I accept such a condition, but they never do, so I don't directly address them.

I see nothing wrong in talking about them of course, open discussion of their psyche, could lead do a better understanding of how they are able to discard their brain when discussing religion.

The Time Magazine debate between Dawkins and Collins is a good example of how even good scientists like Francis Collins, resort to using the silly 'God is outside space and time' cop-out. Something weird goes on in the mind of such individuals.

Other Comments by Yorker

21. Comment #11999 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 5:23 am

21. Comment #11996 by Aussie

Hi Aussie,

I understand your reasons and on principle, I like your suggestion. It would mean however, that someone would have to do the 'selecting' which would raise justifiable cries of 'elitism' from many. I think the best we can hope for is that the example of some may convince others that circular discussion is of little value.

There are clearly a few people coming here who are driven by understandable youthful impetuosity. It's understandable because they have probably felt downtrodden by the boots of religion for a long time. This site; created and fronted by a distinguished professor who is likely a hero to many, has given them a place to unite and a measure of freedom.

We need to encourage them; remind them that our position is the strongest and does not require anger as a support, we have the trump card. All of us — including fundies — live our day to day lives based on evidence, those who didn't, would live short lives. The simple fact that those making claims must provide evidence is all we need. Claiming the existence of an all-powerful god is as Sagan said, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence; so far, none has been provided. If it ever were, atheism amongst intelligent people would be replaced by a million questions as to why God's ways are not mysterious, just absolutely insane.

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #12001 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 5:50 am

Those who want to see David A Robertsons "reasoned and inconsistant debateing style" (aka advoidance, bullying, ridicule, inconsistency, irrational, ad hominem style) should check out his thread here http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson#11993

POT - KETTLE David

I wish I had met him a long time ago then I would have beccome an atheist a lot sooner.

Other Comments by BillySands

23. Comment #12005 by Roy_H on December 9, 2006 at 7:14 am

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
An excellent site if you want to see how absurd the Bible, Koran, and The Book of Mormon really are

Other Comments by Roy_H

24. Comment #12011 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 9, 2006 at 8:33 am

>>Comment #11983 by David A Robertson<<

Okay then David.

As we are 'created in God's image'

God must, therefore, be a Christian, Muslim, Sikh, hindu, Homosexual, Atheist!

Or are only Heterosexual Christians created in his image?

I don't know. Neither do you. You just WANT God to be real. You have ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of such a being. The Bible is laughable. We're asked to believe that God is SO CLEVER that he can create planets, stars, galaxies and diverse lifeforms... yet he can't author a book that makes ANY SENSE.

Example: Matthew 15:4. Is killing right or wrong? And what light does this shed on your wonderful Jesus? A man that condoned killing? How can killing EVER be morally justified?

Ludicrous.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

25. Comment #12014 by Logicel on December 9, 2006 at 8:44 am

Hi Aussie,

If a poster at this site has worked hard--and many such posters abound here, using their time and effort to further the critical thinking approach--by providing proof via their posts that they deserve the privilege of being in a 'special' thread discussion then setting up such a thread is not elitism but the encouraging of the learning about and improving of reasoning skills.

The quest for quality should not be sacrificed for ungrounded fears of elitism. Elitism is when you have neglible recourse to accessing what the elite can. This special proposed thread would not be a closed one, but more like an advanced course in reasonable discussion. I like this idea and support it becoming a reality.

Other Comments by Logicel

26. Comment #12015 by Logicel on December 9, 2006 at 9:03 am

One has to first go through the introductory and intermediate levels in order to justify one's entry to an advanced level in any discipline, so should be the guidelines for what we do here.

I, for one, take what is being done here very seriously, and pursuing quality is a very purposeful and positive endeavor.

If there are any budding-to-be deconverted posters and readers, then the lure of an advanced discussion thread could be the motivation for such posters to tow the rational discussion line enough to qualify for this special thread.

Other Comments by Logicel

27. Comment #12026 by Roy_H on December 9, 2006 at 11:38 am

Deuteronomy :-
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: (21:18-21)
If you have a "stubborn and rebellious son," then you and the other men in your neighborhood "shall stone him with stones that he die."

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Well I suppose it would have a bit more effect than an ASBO!

Other Comments by Roy_H

28. Comment #12027 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 11:43 am

Roy,
I think the prospect of getting stoned would appeal to the neds and chavs. Could solve certain social problems. I blame the church for failing society. Oh well, it had its chance, usher in the humanist age

Other Comments by BillySands

29. Comment #12031 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 12:32 pm

28. Comment #12015 by Logicel

>>If there are any budding-to-be deconverted posters and readers, then the lure of an advanced discussion thread could be the motivation for such posters to tow the rational discussion line enough to qualify for this special thread<<

My fellow non-believer, I cannot agree with you on this point. It would look elitist to many, but worse yet, it would be divisive, and the last thing we need is division. If rationality is to eventually defeat the forces of ignorance and superstition, then we must unite. We see the sheep-like characteristic of the religious as a weakness and I think it is, but it is perhaps also the main reason for their continued presence; there is always strength in numbers, even when the numerous are wrong.

However, perhaps there are some here who would partake in such a thread but I would not, I see no need for 'advanced discussion', the issue is simple. Any would-be atheist or even just an inquisitive person, can read the material here and make up their own mind, they should not require lengthy coaching. The advice I would give them is to read before posting, that's the biggest problem here. It will be interesting to see how your idea turns out; perhaps you might call for a poll or something.

I await the outcome with interest.

Other Comments by Yorker

30. Comment #12038 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 1:31 pm

Yorker,
I think the main value with discussing things with theists is that it gives them enough rope to hang themselves with - like our compatriot David Robetson. Part of the arsenal against the forces of ignorance is to let others see the insubstantial nature of faith.

Here is some of the wisdom of David robertson to make the point.

""…as I listened to the sound of the plain singing of the psalms of the Bible, and heard the waves of the sea splashing against the walls of the church, it struck me what a fool I had been. Of course God existed. Nothing else made sense. You cannot explain beauty or evil, creation or humanity, time nor space, without God."

"There is not a single commentator who would understand prophecy as limited to the individiual and immediate context to which it came. "

Give them the rope and let the potential converts see the intellectual poverty of the theists reasons to believe

Yours in reason
Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

31. Comment #12047 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 3:42 pm

32. Comment #12038 by BillySands

Billy,

That was my point about reading before posting, if people did that they would see how theists are non-rational. If you look at past threads you'll see I've had some input in the Robertson fracas, but I try to be economical, I hate to parrot the writings of others. In addition, I'm under no illusion that I or anyone else here can say anything that will change his mind, he is TFG (Too Far Gone) or BER (Beyond Economical Repair), like any theist who comes here to challenge; he is impervious to reason.

If our aim is persuasion of the unsure, the job is already done, all the main arguments have tabled and discussed to the point of boredom; we could all stop posting right now and it would not in any way be detrimental to an unsure visitor. If the aim is to piss theists off, then carrying on in the current vein though boring, will work; however, I think the number of converts will be zero.

As a matter of interest, when this site started, I made a comment defending Jonathon Miller against a statement made about him. We got our wrists slapped by Josh for not staying in-thread, well, look at the place now, completely out of control! This site seems to have 2 forums, the original and this one which has become the free-for-all forum! What will Josh do, delete all these posts and ban everyone, or just delete this one and yours for being out of thread? I think not, at least not without being forced in the interest of fairness, to delete many others, no; he'll let it slide.

Other Comments by Yorker

32. Comment #12048 by Yorker on December 9, 2006 at 3:46 pm

33. Comment #12041 by Heatnzl

>>A Gullibility Test would be good. Fail it and your posts are marked with a symbol to indicate you are an idiot and are to be ignored.

Nothing elitist about that.<<


Hmm...are you sure??

Other Comments by Yorker

33. Comment #12053 by Aussie on December 9, 2006 at 7:19 pm

It will no doubt not have escaped your attention that various disruptive contributors to this forum are employing the same tactics as those that have characterised the Wedge strategy of the Intelligent Design movement. Their intent is to so disrupt and confuse discourse on this site that the forum becomes virtually useless for the purpose for which it was created. Unfortunately, well intentioned contributors ingenuously accept these people and their posts at face value and waste valuable time and effort attempting to reason with them. This, in fact, unwittingly achieves the goal of these vandals.

Indeed there do exist some theists and deists who have very worthwhile things to say and who can make valuable contributions to these discussions. My brother, for example, is an academic theologian who has written 28 books and he and I have frequent fruitful and stimulating discussions. I have just now returned from my weekly game of 2 hours of singles tennis with my opponent who is a close friend and a devout Ba'hai. We regularly exchange ideas and information in a most constructive and non-confrontational way. The disruptive elements on this site referred to in the previous paragraph do not fall into this category.

I urge all genuine contributors to this website to ignore totally the posts of the disruptive elements and not give them the time of day. If you do you will assist them in achieving their subversive objective of undermining and rendering this site useless.

I further urge admin to seriously consider my suggestion above of creating an invitation only thread exclusively for those who have demonstrated their bona fides (on the public threads) as being people with a genuine commitment to high quality constructive discourse.

Other Comments by Aussie

34. Comment #12060 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 2:02 am

I do practice what Yorker preaches--I have not directly engaged any 'toxic' poster on this site. I avoid such people in the real world, and I certainly avoid them on the Web.

However, Yorker and I seem to be in the minority, and Yorker's occasional admonishing to let the toxcity just ooze on past us, is not being heeded. I do not even admonish, because besides it not acheiving the sought after effect, it is somewhat like scolding.

To have a thread that is protected and monitored via more academic quidelines where basic reasoning is following, I repeat is not elitism--as long as you have the opportunity to join that thread.

As far as such a thread would cause the perception of elitism in the opposite camp, seems to be the least of our worries, just as long as that thread is not elite in the sense that it is only open to a chosen few with no recourse for new and rejected posters to be eventually allowed to join the discussion.

As for it being divisive, there would be countless of other less monitored threads on the site. At those sites, atheists can tussle with whomever they want.

The Brights is a case in point. They have been accused of being snobs, egotisical intellectuals that look down on others, who are meglomanical, etc. These critics claimed that their name itself is indicative of all of these traits--although their name does not signify that they all think they are MENSA material but that they are simply supporters of the LIGHT of reason.

Atheists grouping together is important as Yorker pointed out, and we all need to work together to increase that force of our collective power. I particularily enjoy when posters recommend to do specific political actions like writing and visiting our political representatives to hammer out our viewpoints, needs and objections to current policies.

And though a poster could possibly be encouraged to embrace rationality enough so that he/she could join this quality (I repeat the pursuit of quality is not elitism) thread and therefore eventually be deconverted is not the main motivation for this thread to be created. The main motivation is for atheists of all stripes (closet, apologist, borderline) possessing various levels of reasoning power to be in a position to learn how to do it better. These include the atheists that want to wrestle with the truly infected with the religious virus in the many other threads on this site.

I agree with Aussie, that this suggestion should be considered by this site's staff in a manner that does not conflict with their goals.

Other Comments by Logicel

35. Comment #12064 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 3:19 am

Yeah it was funny... until it got boring. I don't want to be a party pooper but even a satire should be made well. The serious (and boring I know, sorry) problem with this one is that it really makes atheists look stupid because it does just what all the deepakchopras are saying that atheists do i.e. atheists attack straw men. I know people who are christian and 1) whose conception of god is not a dude on a cloud and 2) who know the bible is just an old book. If they were to see that clip they'd just think atheists are stupid.

Other Comments by ei muista

36. Comment #12068 by CitizenPaine on December 10, 2006 at 5:55 am

"The Atheist Delusion" video reminded me that an awful lot of people accept religion through sheer laziness. Example: A relative of mine failed to get accepted for medical school. Another (older) relative remarked that God knew best - that the younger person would not be able for the strain of medical training. In my experience this is a fairly standard, ultimately well-intentioned response from casual and/or lazy believers. The problem is, a few years ago I attended the funeral of a suicide victim who, it was accepted, had killed himself because he could not accept the loss of face that would result from his imminent failure to qualify as a doctor. Why did God not know best in this case and prevent him from making medical school? To bring it to its logical conclusion, did God "know best" and contrive for this young man to commit suicide? Even for a believer, this is ludicrous.

Other Comments by CitizenPaine

37. Comment #12069 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 7:04 am

Well, the last few posts have certainly been made by people who read first, and I commend you on it. Not only that, but the amount of forethought applied has shown a sharp and welcome increase.

I'm still not in favour of a special 'no idiots allowed thread', but if site management agrees, then those who want it may get their wish. Evidently some additional password control would be needed to prevent 'undesirables' disrupting the special thread which of course, would be like a magnet to them.

Has anyone approached Josh or RD about this? As I said before, I await the outcome with interest.

Other Comments by Yorker

38. Comment #12072 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 7:18 am

39. Comment #12064 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 3:19 am/...The serious (and boring I know, sorry) problem with this one is that it really makes atheists look stupid because it does just what all the deepakchopras are saying that atheists do i.e. atheists attack straw men. I know people who are christian and 1) whose conception of god is not a dude on a cloud and 2) who know the bible is just an old book. If they were to see that clip they'd just think atheists are stupid.

______________

Since not all Xians are the kind that do believe in a dude in the sky and know that the bible is just an old book, and not the ABSOLUTE, NEVER CHANGING truth, then if atheists challenge that kind, they are attacking straw men? I doubt these kind of Xians would agree with you--they are the definition of Xians to themselves, and certainly not straw men. They are loudly vocal and very well organized. It is fitting for them to be the subject of certain attacks just as loud and organized--a taste of their own medicine.

Just like the Babble is cherry picked for the decent bits, the stuff that make mild sense, so are the ranks of Xians. Apparently the Xians that believe in a supernatural being, even it is not just a sky dude and do not follow the babble, should be exept from criticism.

The new atheists, the ones that are making the tide change, attack superstitions, regardless of the degree with which they are practiced.

I know a Catholic who does not believe in the babble, nor believes that the pope is infallible, nor believes that pre or extra martial sex is sinful, nor believes that the Pope would not consider him a bona fide catholic.

Supporters of religious superstitions cherry pick all the time.

Atheists have no need to be concerned that their intelligence is lacking or may be misconstrued as lacking--check out any celebrity atheist list found on the web.

Other Comments by Logicel

39. Comment #12073 by Jared on December 10, 2006 at 7:23 am

On the topic of having a "no idiots allowed" thread, I'm going to have to say that I also disagree.

I support the banning of any idiots who make themselves extremely troublesome. Anything further than this, I see as counter to the purpose of having a website such as this one.

I do not think that we stand to benefit. While I recognize that the many people who come here have many differing points of view, I think that we would be doing ourselves a disservice by isolating the "logical" amongst us from the illogical. We'd be narrowing the breadth of opinions to which we are exposed. Again, I'm not saying that all Dawkins fans, all atheists,all Brights, etc. think the same way...but we would by definition have a narrower perspective than the many other sorts of people who come here.

I'd be afraid that, regardless of how "logical" their points are, we'd still end up excluding the faithful in such a discussion. At least, it would CLEARLY be seen as an attempt to do so. And even if all reasonably logical people, regardless of faith, managed to get into the thread after proving themselves, what of the newcomers?

What of the people who, say, will be receiving TGD as an Xmas present, the people who haven't yet made up their minds on how they feel and would like to read and interact to come to an informed decision? If we are keeping our best thinking to some sort of exclusive thread, what good will it do those people?

I, for one, would rather suffer several fools in this case for the possibility of helping even one more person learn to use logic and reason and think for themselves. But that's just my 2 cents. I'll keep coming and posting on these articles either way.

Cheers!

Other Comments by Jared

40. Comment #12075 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 7:58 am

43. Comment #12073 by Jared on December 10, 2006 "... doing ourselves a disservice by isolating the "logical" amongst us from the illogical.
________

All of us, atheists and theists can be logical or illogical. My proposition is to have just one thread among the many here at this site to be a quality one, where we can all learn how to reason better. I do not see myself as a completely logical person, but one who is focused on continuing that process, which will be lifelong. I need help and am not afraid to ask!

"And even if all reasonably logical people, regardless of faith, managed to get into the thread after proving themselves, what of the newcomers?"

______________________________

My proposition included that this special quality thread, almost of an academic nature, would be open to both new and previously rejected posters.

"What of the people who, say, will be receiving TGD as an Xmas present, the people who haven't yet made up their minds on how they feel and would like to read and interact to come to an informed decision? If we are keeping our best thinking to some sort of exclusive thread, what good will it do those people?"
_______________


I, myself, will continue to venture into the other, many threads because they are interesting, informative, and worthwhile.

Other Comments by Logicel

41. Comment #12076 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 8:02 am

39. Comment #12064 by ei muista

>>I know people who are christian and 1) whose conception of god is not a dude on a cloud and 2) who know the bible is just an old book.<<

So do I, but they are the minority, certainly in the USA.

A colleague and I, once carried out our own personal survey in a large South Florida mall. We asked passers-by two questions:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Why do you believe in God?

We spent an entire Saturday asking 167 people these questions, I know that figure isn't large enough to be statistically significant, but is nonetheless instructive; we found the following:

91% Professed Christianity.
51% of Christians believed because of the Bible.
39% of Christians believed because of upbringing.
10% of Christians believed because of thought.

The most common replies we heard were "Read your Bible man, it's all in there" and, "I was raised that way". The small percentage of thinkers gave reasons like; the beauty and diversity of nature, the Sun, Moon and stars, influence of religious intellectuals.

The unspoken body language and looks we received were very revealing, many looked at us as if we were slightly nuts, a look that said: "Why would you NOT believe in God or the Bible?"

Other Comments by Yorker

42. Comment #12077 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 8:06 am

37. Comment #12055 by Heatnzl on December 9, 2006 at 11:53 pm/"Clear-thinking." Obviously, sometimes not... How to deal with this? I would suggest a section that is a tutorial in how to recognise the difference between clear-thought and the rest. How to avoid falling into the fruitless theist traps. How to enjoy yourself. So what if it appears elitist? I do not follow the PC dogma. We are all different. Evolution is about diversity; let's encourage it!
______________

Yes, this would be helpful. I do not know what would work, just that as this site is evolving, that perhaps we can play an active role in shaping its form and content even more than we do now--intentional learning.

Other Comments by Logicel

43. Comment #12079 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 8:16 am

Log-in Timeout

Has anyone else noticed that if you log-in and don't post for a time, when you do post, the comment gets dumped and you're auto logged-out?

Perhaps this is an intentionally programmed characteristic of course.

Other Comments by Yorker

44. Comment #12080 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 8:22 am

Yorker, that log-in timeout problem has not happened to me (yet).

Regarding notifying Josh about this thread concerning the provision of a tutorial about honing reasoning skills either in the form of an essay or an ongoing protected thread, I have not done that expressly, but I will.

Other Comments by Logicel

45. Comment #12081 by Roy_H on December 10, 2006 at 8:57 am

"Read your Bible man, it's all in there". If you read all the bible word for word, it would put you off Christianity for life! I honestly did not think much about it until I looked in the God is Imaginary and Skeptics Bible Website (and of course read Richard's book). However I have been an atheist since age 11. I think my parents buying me a book about pre-historic animals put paid to that!

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.godisimaginary.com/

Other Comments by Roy_H

46. Comment #12085 by BillySands on December 10, 2006 at 11:15 am

Yes Yorker, that happens to me too

Other Comments by BillySands

47. Comment #12087 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 12:03 pm

45. Comment #12076 by Yorker
>>>>39. Comment #12064 by ei muista
>>>>I know people who are christian and 1) whose conception of god is not a dude on a cloud and 2) who know the bible is just an old book.<<
>>So do I, but they are the minority, certainly in the USA.

Well, Yorker you're hitting the nail on the head because I think that the number of Jesus freaks in your country has caused another group of fundamentalists to arise as a counter force. Between these two fundamental groups there is little intellectual open-mindedness. Both of these groups exaggerate what they know and they need to be reminded of Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum". The real point of Descartes' statement isn't that it's a fact, but that it's the ONLY fact.

Other Comments by ei muista

48. Comment #12091 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 1:59 pm

51. Comment #12087 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 12:03 pm/"...there is little intellectual open-mindedness.
_____________

Paraphasing some clever person--can't recall the name at the moment--who once said open-mindedness is fine unless your mind is so open your brain falls out.

Other Comments by Logicel

49. Comment #12094 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 2:19 pm

51. Comment #12087 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 12:03 pm/Both of these groups exaggerate what they know and they need to be reminded of Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum". The real point of Descartes' statement isn't that it's a fact, but that it's the ONLY fact.
__________

Jonathan Miller's Shadow of a Doubt and The Atheist tapes and Nought and Crosses are all now downloaded on Youtube. Many hardworking atheists are making available great videos presenting the atheistic view--just go to youtube and search for atheism.

In Miller's Shadow of a doubt, he discusses how thinking and believing are not equivalent.

I think therefore I am is not equivalent to I believe therefore I am.

Other Comments by Logicel

50. Comment #12096 by NormanDoering on December 10, 2006 at 2:25 pm

Sancus wrote:
"Even the religious are better than Chopra."

You may have a point:

"The brain contains an enormous amount of water and salt. Are we to assume that water is intelligent, or salt is conscious? If they aren't, then we must assume that throwing water and salt together--along with about six other basic building blocks of organic chemicals--suddenly makes them intelligent." ~Deepak Chopra

I propose quoting Deepak Chopra as a form of satire.

Other Comments by NormanDoering