1. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190316 by arthursanford on June 8, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Cool. If we want a Christian president then we can vote for Barack Obama!

2. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190313 by arthursanford on June 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Hey guys,

Just a note that the link up top carries the full article. Just in case you didn't know...

3. The day of judgment

Comment #189479 by arthursanford on June 6, 2008 at 10:38 am

Ian McEwan is a genius.

4. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125094 by arthursanford on February 11, 2008 at 12:29 am

Jeffersonian-Marxist I like your login name. Influenced by IF Stone, no?

Hitchens is in top form here. I can see why Dawkins complements his "Richard Burton voice" and "broad grasp of history."

5. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117668 by arthursanford on January 29, 2008 at 10:51 am

Did anyone notice that that Vox Day sounds like vox dei in Latin, which would mean "The Voice of God."

Both pure arrogance and piffle...

6. Interview with Ian McEwan

Comment #114177 by arthursanford on January 21, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Ian McEwan rocks! I wish I could make love to his brain...

7. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114173 by arthursanford on January 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Just remember that every time the parties of God have a success they are then thoroughly debunked. Remember Scopes? Most Americans find creationism to be ridiculuous, particularly here in the Pacific Northwest, arguably the most secular part of the country.

If this bill makes it into law it will be another demise for the parties of god.

8. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #96048 by arthursanford on December 9, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Everything you'll ever need to know about Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0748,tomorrow,78489,9.html

9. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86992 by arthursanford on November 10, 2007 at 9:23 pm

If anyone believes that Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge or the Soviet Union they may want to consult an excellent Hitchen's article called "The Chorus and Cassandra." It makes a good case that he never did any such thing.

It is, of course, impossible to agree with- much less believe- everything that Chomsky claims. But, for all Chomsky's faults there is little to no reason to believe Chomsky ever defended totalitarian murders. If it matters, I don't trust the likes of David Horowitz and the radical right or movement conservatives on these matters.

10. The US map of faith

Comment #55572 by arthursanford on July 11, 2007 at 2:49 pm

I moved from Virginia to Portland, Oregon in my Toyota Yaris and it was one of the best decisions I have ever made. I have lived here 8 months and only seen one street preacher! I was glad to come across confirmation about the un-religiosity of my new home state.

I have always suspected that the NE is at least as religious as the South, so I was glad to see evidence, merely because I have always hated the piece of snobbery that only evangelical rednecks come from the South.

11. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55037 by arthursanford on July 9, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Sorry guys, I messed up. It's actually a discussion between Robert Trivers and Noam Chomsky. oooopppssss...

12. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55036 by arthursanford on July 9, 2007 at 7:45 pm

There is a good talk between E.O. Wislon and Noam Chomsky on YouTube. Look it up.

13. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52326 by arthursanford on June 26, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris are conservatives-- puhleeze!

Liberalism is a religion-- And conservatism isn't?

Whatever...

14. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51749 by arthursanford on June 24, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Fanusi,

So that I will be polite to the administrators of this website by not taking up to much space (we cannot write essays here, no?) I will say only this: you accuse me of things I haven't said. I now realize I can't lead you to think otherwise, so I'll let it alone.

In any case, I did not post comments here to "prove" that the rational actor theory is false, just to open a discussion about criticisms of it. For instance, criticisms of Rand and rational actor theory do not merely say, like hollow straw men, that people sometimes act irrationally. That is obvious and requires no further observation. The criticisms are something quite different and you may either research them or spit them out--that's all...really!

Anyway, I hope in the future that you can make your postings with a less obnoxious tone and try to appeal to something other than the supposed ignorance of other posters.

Incidentally, your petitio principii comment relies on a tu quoque. Maybe it is the case that I am so ignorant and my arguments so full of holes that I just can't understand you. But obviously your superior argument for the Randian absolutist code of ethics has not yet convinced me. Were we really making philosophical arguments?- I had hoped to keep it lighter.

Incidentally redux, "absolute" suggests immutable, omniscient, etc. Systems that thought they were absolute have suffered the worst ignominity. We may not want to go back there.

15. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51616 by arthursanford on June 23, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Fanusi,

I would like to know what objectivists would really think of your calling objectivist ethics "absolute." Such a term seems to miss the point entirely. And Nozick was saying that if ones own subjective standard is the source of ethics then other standards of ethics can stand on the same ground equally. Thus we need to redefine the rational self.

If you want a rational argument from other posters you may want to criticize their posting with something more than your own disagreement, as I cited a body of evo-psychology data that suggest the rational actor theory is false. See Pinker, Ekman, and even many liberal economists who have alot of data on the subject.

A last personal note: your assertion that Rand founded an absolute system of ethics that has not been refuted is amazingly absurd. There is an argument to be had. Very few economists think Ayn Rand is worth more than straw for very good reasons. Please try not to insult our intelligence.

16. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51466 by arthursanford on June 23, 2007 at 2:35 am

Peter and Christopher Hitchens dislike each other and did not speak for many years until recently. PH is a major conservative figure in England, though he was leftist when he was younger. CH has always been leftist, and still is despite what some claim.

I would have liked for PH to offer the set of rules that constitutes "absolute morality" in order that there is no confusion on the issue. He might have me on the grounds that it must yet be discovered. But I would in turn argue that he then offers a slippery, unknown thing.

Exodus 21:22 can be translated as "premature birth" or "miscarriage." That being said I think that we might be splitting hairs if we speak as if the ancient Hebrews really understood either. It was common in the Ancient Near Eastern world to discard malformed babies.

My two cents on Ayn Rand: I have read Atlas Shrugged and IT IS A HACK WORK. Her characters are tortuous...so sophmoric and shrill. Early on she assumed the rational actor theory-- which she provided no evidence for-- and claimed, pseudo-Nietzsche, that it is ethical to operate qua personae in suscipens. She later rejected this, not convincingly, to argue that exchange is voluntary-- and thus she ended up agreeing with the very Immanuel Kant whom she previously hated. It seems that it took her a while to notice this irony. Robert Nozick makes a fine point about her ethics: Her claim that each individual's own life is the only ultimate value because it makes all other values possible has no ground. Nozick argues that to make this argument sound she still needs to explain why an individual could not rationally prefer dying, suicide, and/or no values at all. Thus her rational self-interest argument remains to beg the question. [I would add that on the same ground one could equally argue for universal charity...also, vis-a-vis Wittgenstein, her rational self-interest is a private language, a beetle in the box.]

Her views on sexuality were absurd and are now fully refuted. Once again, she provided no evidence or even a good argument for her conclusions. She also enjoyed her cult following which schismed quicker than any church in history.

Evolutionary psychology has nearly disproved the rational actor theory. All "libertarian" economic models have failed. As she claimed to not have been a libertarian, she escapes that critique only in negative self-nomination.

I recommend reading all of the book reviews on her works (almost all claim she is an awful writer, incidentally). She is not taken seriouly in literary or philosophical scholarship. There are only three colleges that offer credit for work in objectivism, the same departments that offer credit for Lacan, Butler...just go to the Postmodern Generator to get my point here. Ok. She did give lectures at distinguished universities, I admit. Oh, but so have other refuted and absurd "academics."

17. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46276 by arthursanford on May 30, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Peacebeuponme-Pope Benedictus and monk are also relevant as far as I know.

You also might want to think about phrasing your question so that it makes sense next time...

18. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46269 by arthursanford on May 30, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Funny how the christians begin their careers in government as mud-diggers. Apparently, it is God's will for us to become Republican party employees through faith in his only son, Jesus Christ, and a piece of paper from the Regent University degree mill.

As it happens, years ago I took two classes from Regent because I needed certain credits to teach special education at a state high school. Today I find it gross that a taxpayer supported school would support Regent. The classes were the worst education experience ever. Half the time they babbled about "God's Will" and the other half I was trying to figure out what they were doing and how to submit my assignments. They claim to have never recieved any-- a lie, in my opinion. I complained to the professor and she told me that they had done everything right and I everything wrong, and that after having said that they did not expect to hear from me. The christians are so meek and humble, you know.

I never responded and quit my lame job. But I feel that I made the right decision. My vindication has come from this community so apt to expose Robertson's lies.

19. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46122 by arthursanford on May 30, 2007 at 9:33 am

Hitchens views on Iraq are as relevant to the topic as high criticism of the bible because, more than anything, it is religious fanaticism that had gotten us into this debacle in the Middle East.

Though obviously some are bound to phrase in a way that makes their post hopelessly ireevelent.

20. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #45977 by arthursanford on May 29, 2007 at 11:37 pm

delusion: a false belief or opinion
deluded: to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive

It is the context that makes the charge insulting. Calling someone a deluded psychopath is stringent. Calling a belief a delusion is a standard criticism.

21. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42259 by arthursanford on May 18, 2007 at 2:08 am

And I just looked at the web-zine this came from-- it is a bloviated and utterly rhetorical Christian nationalist site. Check it out if you want to see what nonsense on stilts looks like.

22. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42256 by arthursanford on May 18, 2007 at 2:04 am

This piece is analogous to those reactionaries who say atheism is as fundamentalist as religion.

What a bloviated mess of an article.

23. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41584 by arthursanford on May 16, 2007 at 11:06 am

We should give credit to James Carroll for writing a decent book about the long history of persecution and pogroms inflicted on Jews by Christians. He traces the urge back to the foundation of Christianity and the early church fathers.

This is not to say I agree with him, but I do like that he offers another perspective. He is still far from from any nonsense spouting preacher.

24. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39462 by arthursanford on May 10, 2007 at 6:37 pm

masterchief,

There are many but differing accounts about Paine's last days. Some believe his last words were, concerning salvation through Jesus Christ, "'I have no wish to believe on that subject." All of the sources do agree that he never recanted his freethinking arguments. I'm sure he made the Popish stuff quip in the same breath as he ralated his wish not to believe on the subject of vicarious salvation.

If you Google 'Thomas Paine's last words' then you will find relevant material. Part the history from the swill as you choose.

Incidentally, I only responded as I did because your comment was such a syntactical nightmare that I decided not to say, "Do your own research!"

25. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39432 by arthursanford on May 10, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Thomas Paine's last words:

"Be away from we with your Popish stuff!"

He directed the comment to two Presbyterian ministers who barged through his door, pushing his servant aside, in order to convert him before he died.

26. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37699 by arthursanford on May 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm

BaronOchs,

That story about Diderot is widely circulated, but not true at all. Diderot had a very good education and was very competent at mathematics. He would have called Euler out there on the spot.

No enlightment scholar takes that story seriously for two reasons: 1) Diderot was good at Math along other subjects, 2) the story itself is too apochryphal.

27. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35998 by arthursanford on April 29, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Shall we go protest a chruch sermon by leaving en masse and then pouring water on the minister's notes?

Anyone up for it? Come on! let's protest a church gathering by looking like a bunch of assholes!

Surely, if they are obligated to protest over the word "fuck" and the mention of sex with Paris Hilton, then we are obligated to disrupt a church service when they claim that everyone who does not agree with them will be tortured forever in hell. Oh wait... that wouldn't be very good of us would it? Never mind.

28. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35341 by arthursanford on April 26, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Bill Maher vs. Joe Scarborough... who cares?

Although, I will add that Abe Lincoln is a confirmed non-Christian. To his credit he used to quote Thomas Paine in dealing with religious sectarianism. His abolitionist views, though not consistent, were certainly based on steadfast ethics, achieving a world changing end. The ethics were, however, only remotely related to any providence.

29. Jesus 'Love-Bombs' You

Comment #34994 by arthursanford on April 25, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Reminds me of the time my then girlfriend and I decided to join a Baptist church-- a very Baptist church where followers pushed copies of Tim LaHaye and spoke the most solipsistic platitudes imaginable.

The minister came to her house to tell us about the church and what we must do to be Christian, and proceeded to name about forty things that I must-- must!-- do to be such. I think it was within a day after that I knew what I was getting into to: an anti-mind apocalyptic cult who wallow before a petulant otherworldy fascist, arrogant in their facile surety enough to tell me that these things I was told are beyond dispute.

30. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34383 by arthursanford on April 23, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Last, last thought:

O"Reilly said that Dawkins can't prove his belief in Jesus wrong. Very true, indeed, in the same way that you can't prove wrong the fact that my wife dislikes brocolli.

The belief is entirely subjective. O'Reilly is claiming that his private truth is above a routinely tested scientifically theory. Where his private truth is not even subject to any test, what he argues against has withstood that very test. That is what makes it scientific.

31. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34381 by arthursanford on April 23, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Last thought on the "interview":

How is it exactly that O'Reilly, the "fact based guy," can say he is going to go with Jesus until the biologists prove how it all happened? It doesn't even really even seem like faith, just BS. Reasoning like O'Reilly's is a leap of something else.

Shall I just shrug my shoulders to an unanswered question, then go "Hmmm. Must've been Jesus who made it happen." Shouldn't the burden of proof be on a religious article more than a validated scientific theory? I personally would not go to O'Reilly for answers.

Let's just reverse the reasoning: I'm going to go with evolution until the creationist-ID-whatever groups prove that their "god" made it all happen.

The line of reasoning is just as valid, except that evolutionary theory is the model that best fits the facts.

32. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34360 by arthursanford on April 23, 2007 at 9:41 pm

O'Reilly is entirely wrong about Hitler's religious beliefs. Hitler grew up Roman Catholic and practiced various religions throughout his life. The swastika, in fact, was an ancient Hindu symbol for power. Hitler was a practicing occultist for at least the last decade of his life. The SS staff had various rituals grafted from Catholicism and quite a few occult sources. One included making a Nazi flag sacred only if it touched the original from the infamous bierputsch.

Ceteris paribus, Dawkins did ok. Fair and objective is not in the playbooks in the no spin zone. You should have seen how O'Reilly mowed down Sam Harris- just embarrassing.

O'Reilly is a pretty typical traditionalist who has a typical conservative viewpoint: things are better, status quo, religion or not, than if they progress liberally. A Joseph de Maistre for the sound-bite age.