1. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #164942 by crazy4blues on April 20, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I've listened to part 1, and Mathis is completely "On Message" the whole time. I especially like the bit when he suggests, nay, comes right and says that Ken Miller of Dover trial fame isn't a "real catholic". That's the thing with these folks; if they aren't simply obfustacting, they absolutely stick their feet in their mouths when they get to the heart of their point, which is, 'We want everyone to believe the same lies we do--whether you want to or not!'

2. The atheist delusion

Comment #144627 by crazy4blues on March 16, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Hey, do know who John Gray is? He became well-known in the 80s and 90s by creating the "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus" pop-psychology series of books. He made millions speaking at "seminars" and selling self-help books and audio tapes. He probably thinks he's some kind of an authority on theology only because he made so much money on psychobable! This is a very easy case of considering the source . . . He's merely a fraud.

3. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #135983 by crazy4blues on February 29, 2008 at 11:52 am

Wonderful! Check back with me in about 200 years when some of this might take some effect!

4. Believe it or not

Comment #97915 by crazy4blues on December 12, 2007 at 8:35 pm

crazy4blues, but they are. Most of them are voting against the republicans. Just check the survey, most of the godless are independent and liberals, only 17% in 2001 see themselves as republicans. I'm sure the percent is now smaller after everything that has happened since 2001.

The sad part is that almost all of the presidential candidates are religious.

Well, we don't know that for sure. As RD has suggested, there simply must be a significant percentage of elected officials who're atheists, both Republican and Democratic, but they'll never own up to this, lest they offend reliable voting blocks. Can anyone really think that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were sincere in their tawdry pandering to religious sentiment by saying "faith" as many times as they could in debates earlier this year? Obviously, they were told by their campaign gurus that they need to play the "religious card" more.

Lately, there have been articles popping up about how younger Evangelical Christians are starting to adopt more liberal views on issues like global warming, poverty, and social justice. These folks are "up for grabs" politically, but they aren't about to renounce Jesus as the savior of mankind–far from it. In fact, if it turns out that a significant number of Evangelicals (e.g., 10 or 15 million) "deliver" the vote for the Democratic candidate, then you can bet that there'll be little change in the American epistemological landscape. It'll still be Jesus this and Christ that, and present policies will change little. We'll still have faith-based organizations receiving tax dollars, and there'll be a lot of lip service and token executive orders, further eroding the seperation of church and state.

The reality is, the Christian Right is a very highly organized political machine that has been 20 to 30 years in the making. They started locally, taking over school boards, city councils, and state legislatures; they had elaborate and very duplicitous ways of getting their people elected.

To be sure, many of us abhor these methods, but we are only just beginning to organize into something that could be of measured political significance. It'll take a lot of time and commitment.

5. Believe it or not

Comment #97785 by crazy4blues on December 12, 2007 at 4:13 pm

30m is a HUGE number. For how long are they going to ignore the Godless people?

As soon as it can be determined that we are voting in strong, predictable numbers. Why do you think that the Christian Right is taken so seriously? They are the most reliable voting block in America.

6. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97053 by crazy4blues on December 11, 2007 at 10:50 am

This guy makes D'Souza sound positively professorial! Seriously, this is like a really bad freshman essay that assistants have to suffer trough while doing Eng 101. Frankly, I'd have more respect for a top-shelf Liberty U. student than this simpleton!

7. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85235 by crazy4blues on November 5, 2007 at 10:40 am

Again, D'Souza is an American right-wing errand boy, and has latest mission is to trupment right-wing Christianity of the stripe of George Bush. Like Ann Coulter, this latest writing assignment for the Republican Party is to whip up the ire of "Christian" voters so that they can elect republicans. At this point, exploiting this demographic is the only way Republicans can win.

8. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #83827 by crazy4blues on October 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm

"I'm Catholic. What are you?"

"There are some who call me . . . Tim."

9. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83821 by crazy4blues on October 31, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Finally, an answer to the "That's not MY religion" statement! Nice article!

10. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81253 by crazy4blues on October 24, 2007 at 1:53 pm

While several have pointed out D'Souza's sophistry, there is something else going on. D'Souza is on a greater mission that goes well beyond the mere refutation of atheism; he's "throwing in" for Jesus because that's what the American Republican Party and the conservative movement are about now. He's been writing books and going on conservative tirades (using the same rhetorical tactics) for 20 years now, and it is only recently that he's focussed on Christianity so much. Basically, as an American conservative, he has no choice but to do so because that is the most powerful zeitgeist in that political movement. It's come to this for American conservatives: Jesus = State. No member of the U.S. Republican Party can be elected w/o genuflecting to the Christian Right. It used to be that you could simply say you were the toughest on crime, taxes, and government spending. Now, you must demonstrate how much you believe in end-of-times theology in order to hold office.

11. A Revelation

Comment #78250 by crazy4blues on October 12, 2007 at 9:28 am

I think that 'Bama has it about right, but I'd add, from my experiences in South Carolina, that religion as a cultrual trope is simply more visible. It was in the South that I first saw a sign in front of a church decrying the evils of Holloween! You'd never see anything like that in the liberal San Francisco Bay Area, but sentiments like that are very public in the South and the "fly-over" section of the U.S.

As the U.S. economy continues to worsen, the only cultural identifiers that people have are religion and political conservatism, Rush Limbaugh style. Neither one requires much thought or soul searching, if you will; it's simply the easy way out for someone suffering from the fact that the "American Dream" is no longer accessible for the middle class.

12. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68556 by crazy4blues on September 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm

From the theist's manual for debating Richard Dawkins:

Step 1. Don't read TGD. Or just read the first 10 pages or so . . .

Step 2. Say Richard Dawkins lacks a "sophisticated view of religion".

Step 3. Simply make up shit that Dawkins never said and refute that.

Step 4. Keep smiling while you're lying . . .

13. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68550 by crazy4blues on September 7, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Bunting seems to have adopted the one tactic any loser in a debate ultimately resorts to: just lie. Look, we're so used to this in the US, it hardly seems remarkable. Conservatives have conflated politics and relgion (or is it the other way around?) so that, now, you have lies supported by other lies.

Funny, there was that article in which RD exposed Cornwell's dishonesty, and Bunting cheerfully commits the same crime--as if knowing, like Cornwell, that an audience sympathetic to her simply cannot distinguish between fact and fiction! This is cynicism at its deepest.

14. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66109 by crazy4blues on August 28, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Sooooooo . . . I don't suppose there's a Camo version of The God Delusion in the works? No? Okay, how about Letter to a Christian Nation then????

15. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65896 by crazy4blues on August 27, 2007 at 9:37 am

Ha! The University of Phoenix is a "degree mill"--it's below a "safe" school! So Mr. Haggard has descended from the highly exalted to the utterly ordinary. Hmmm, one wonders if he'll have to study evolution to fulfill the science requirement! Actually, probably not. Check the Wikipedia entry of the above named "university" and you'll quickly see that it's just a way to get a ticket punched. Folks, this is a wonderful example of bottom feeding in American education. Just perfect for this guy, particularly since he plans on applying his newly gained knowledge at a "faith-based" center. Ah, some things never change . . .

16. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61880 by crazy4blues on August 7, 2007 at 9:05 am

In trying to account for the innanity of this article, I, like others, did a quick google of Melanie Phillips. It turns out that she is nothing other than England's version of America's Sean Hannity (google it, and you'll see very quickly).

The neo-conservative rhetorical technique is to repeat lies over and over again until they take on a life of their own--hence her highly predictable positions on science, religion, and society in general. In fact, the more outrageous the lie the better.

Neocons have a great interest in the well-being of religion because they know how effective its techiques of persuasion are. Basically, they play on peoples' worst fears of terrorism, foreigners, and whatever bogeymen they can create. Ever heard of the "War on Christmas"?

So, Mother England, I must ask: Is Phillips one of a kind? Or is she part of a vast right-wing network of neocons spreading lies just like O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, and, well, all of the folks on Fox News?

17. The New New Atheism

Comment #56570 by crazy4blues on July 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Typical Hoover Inst. tripe. Condi Rice, anyone? We see how well that kind of thinking is working out!

18. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55640 by crazy4blues on July 11, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Great point, Antonio.

Here's one of my favorites: What in the OT or NT prevents me from marrying and impregnating my 12 year old cousin? There's nothing, of course, and the 10 Commandments fall completely flat. Indeed, the Bible would actually condone such an abomination!

When present-day theists are gently reminded that it is, in fact, our evolved knowledge of modern psychology and medecine that provides the *authority* for the inherent immorality of marrying and impregating an adolescent, it boggles the mind how quick the "faithful" are to run to the Bible as the "authority" to disallow a union between two consenting *adults* merely because they are of the same sex!

So the Bible is the authority for morality?

19. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55623 by crazy4blues on July 11, 2007 at 6:08 pm

So Wilson's rhetorical strategy is to keep demanding an answer for the question: What is the color of water?! When Hitchens responds with the subtlety required for such an answer, Wilson reponds, "Ha! You refuse to tell me the color of water! I win the argument because God has told me this answer! The color of water is that Jesus died on the Cross!" This is how Wilson seems to reason everything.

I think that Hitchens didn't really bother to "get into it" with Wilson because it's rather like Mohmmad Ali against a child in a boxing match; it simply would be *immoral* to carry on in such a contest! Yet, it's the child who insists that fight go forward. Wudda ya gonna do?

20. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52204 by crazy4blues on June 26, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Paul:

Your mad scientist example would appear to be the god of the old testament, no? As such, it's not really a good rhetorical device, as it can easily be turned back on itself to argue against a belief in God--assuming yo mean the God of the old testament, who is only too happy to give a "helping hand" to the races of people he doesn't much care for. Could one who believes in God say that this is morally wrong?

21. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52137 by crazy4blues on June 26, 2007 at 9:26 am

I work in the US federal prison system as a teacher, and there is an fact a faith-based initiative housing unit in the medical facility in Carswell, Texas. Here is how this thing will fix itself. If there is a perceived inequality among the christians and non-christians in the prison, the prisoners themselves will most likely "handle" it with law suits or even violence.

The other side of the coin is this: any program such as this, be it secular or overtly religious, actually helps to make the prison easier to run safely, both for inmates and staff. The inmates are occupied by a guided activity of some type. It's very pragmatic, actually. The success of the program is really measured on these terms. I would be most skeptical about your garden-variety recidivism study; they are often quite flawed, and almost always keep track of the inmate for no more than one year after release; often it's for only 6 months.

22. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #51859 by crazy4blues on June 25, 2007 at 12:06 pm

So, if you're unfortunate enough to be in need of charity, you can have it, as long as you are christian (the right kind of xstian, of course!). What's that? You need medicine? No, my child, all you need is the Lord!

Yup, we're there now. My tax dollars are being used to respect an establishment of religion, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I reckon I can always pray for a change . . .

23. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39036 by crazy4blues on May 9, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Bonzai:

For the sake of argument, simply holding a sign that says, "Death to the Infidel" is probably protected speech, as the threat isn't very specific. Obviously, there are a lot of legal nuances here (which I meant to suggest with the "fire" comment), so I think that it's a relevant question, especially given the recent attempts–many successful–to ban ANY criticism of Islam (and usually ONLY Islam, not other religions). To be sure, if anyone, under the colour of Islam merely *suggests* that all infidels should be killed, the person who expresses such a notion ought to expect that he'll be met with the harshest criticism for espousing such an idea. And that is just the beginning. If such a person continues with such sentiments, further investigation needs to ensue. The law is pretty clear about inciting riots, after all. Isn't it interesting that the 1st Amendment to the American Constitution includes the protection of both religion and free speech? I think that the two are inextricably bound. Perhaps this American perspective is irrelevant . . .

24. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39022 by crazy4blues on May 9, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Now that he's an American, I wonder how Hitchens would treat the demonstrators' rights of free speech? Perhaps saying "Death to . . ." anyone is the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Of course, if this were protected speech, any political cartoons about a self-proclaimed prophet would be almost trivial if they're weren't so insightful. This should be part of the debate, too.

25. The Moral Necessity of Atheism

Comment #33965 by crazy4blues on April 22, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Well, Hitchens has got it right on atheism, but some of his other positions are founded on hot air. The Iraq war, for instance. Did you see him on the Daily Show about a year and a half ago? In argument, Stewart handed him his a$$!

Here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.wonkette.com/politics//hitch-v-stewart-stewart-tko-122400.php

Of course, it's very difficult to find Comedy Central video those days, and it's too bad. Hitchens positively wilts under Stewart's logical assault.

26. Mozart doesn't make you clever

Comment #32586 by crazy4blues on April 17, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Nepeta, not all top 40 is bad. Remember, Lennon and McCartny had some top 40 at one point.

27. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #30798 by crazy4blues on April 9, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Now, this article just goes too far! Comparing Ann Coulter to a drug-addled, recovering albino blues guitarist! That just isn't fair to poor Johnny Winter!!!!