1. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61469 by Mash on August 5, 2007 at 9:08 am

This is exactly what we need here in Norway. Can someone make the producers of The enemies of reason persuade a norwegian tv-channel to air this show?
As some of you may know, we've had a little trouble with this new-age crap in norway lately, with our "princess" claiming to have special powers. For example, she believes she can communicate with angels. Very embarrasing for norway indeed..

2. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #47275 by Mash on June 3, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Maybe such a debate would result in reasonable religionists (the vast majority in my experience) understanding that atheism isn't about attacking the idea of God it is about finding meaning without God?

Atheism isn't about anything, it is simply the lack of belief in god. The worldview amongst atheist is highly diverse as far as I know.

3. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46530 by Mash on May 31, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table

I'm extremely curious what people of faith can bring to the table. Bible lines? A how-not-to-do-it? Tea?
I can't see them being anything else than annoying--

4. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41543 by Mash on May 16, 2007 at 9:26 am

After the second sentence I scrolled down to see if I could have the first go at it, I was too late:/
Can anyone tell my if it's worth my time?

CJ22
You have got to post the answer you get (if you get any)

5. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41162 by Mash on May 15, 2007 at 3:01 pm

The thing that bugs me, is that he's stonedead, and not able to realize how utterly wrong he was about gods exsistence..

[Sarcasm]So, when are we fundemental radical militant atheists going to spread the rumour of a last minute atheism-conversion[/sarcasm]

6. Unintelligent Design

Comment #40166 by Mash on May 13, 2007 at 1:09 pm

[blockqoute]Are you saying the science of Social Darwinism was sound?[/blockqoute]

No.
I couldn't come up with an other example of a study showing something that one wouldn't base ones moral views on. It might be because there arn't any examples, can anyone think of anything?

7. Unintelligent Design

Comment #40112 by Mash on May 13, 2007 at 6:41 am

So, yes, science does aid morality by clarifying reasons why something is right or wrong.

I do agree, however, I'm a little skeptic.
The embryo-example shows us how science helps us justify what, I think, most of us think is the right thing to do. Embryos doesn't suffer and stem-cell research can help millions.
On the other hand, probably no-one here would be social darwinists because of the theory of evolution.
Isn't this like when the christians cherry-pick bibleverses?

8. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39872 by Mash on May 12, 2007 at 6:44 am

"Science DOES give us morals. The recent knowledge of common ancestry, 99% genetical overlap, and Jared Dimaond's geographical basis for differential development, gives us a firm empircal basis to discredit racism."

I do not agree at all. If we found it to be opposite, that the genetical overlap was extremely small, it wouldn't credit racism in any way. It would have shown us that we are geneticly different, but it wouldn't justify racism. Science tells us how the world works, we make up morals as we go.

9. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39355 by Mash on May 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm

From devolved's link " But there is no evidence for such a fourth domain of organisms, and this new idea unfortunately appears to be another ‘just so’ addition to help patch up an ailing hypothesis."

I don't know whether this is creatonist propaganda or not. Eventhough, I find it pretty darn ironic that they manage to pull the "they've got no evidence" argument whilst remaining serious. Have they completely forgotten that their "theory" is backed up by no evidence at all, what so ever?

10. A Bunch of Monkeys

Comment #38317 by Mash on May 7, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I laughed. I feel pretty dumb laughing whilst being alone, but I had to.
"That's all pretty impressive... for a bunch of monkies"
Just great.

11. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38163 by Mash on May 7, 2007 at 6:41 am

"This isn't the kind of debate that the New Atheists are interested in (...); theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding."

Why can't you try to advance human understanding in a political debate?
In an attempt to advance human understanding, atheists have to overcome a massive political opposition in order to, for example, keep ID out of schools.

12. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33156 by Mash on April 19, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Hm, I disagree LDmiller. I'm very exited on how Dawkins will do in this interview. If anyone can have a civilized conversation with that guy, it's gotta be Dawkins. (Not saying that a civilized conversation is possible though)

I could guess what the interview is about, but www.foxnews.com won't load for me, so could anyone enlighten me?

Good luck Dawkins!