1. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196029 by oxytocin on June 19, 2008 at 8:22 am

Here's my two cents for what it's worth:

Dear Governor Jindal,
I am distressed at the possibility that you will be signing SB 733 into law. This is a stealth creationist bill with the aim of undermining science. Despite my Canadian citizenship, I am well aware of the prestige that American scientists have in the world, and what's good for your country is good for mine. The reverse is also true, and that is why I am writing to you today.

Please consider what enacting sectarian laws would mean for the minorities in your State. If you are concerned with equality, this is not the way to go. Please consider the imapct it will have on science, and thus, the economy of your State and your Nation.

Be aware that your State is receiving international attention over this issue, and we scientists are watching, hoping that you will aid our profession in the quest for knowledge that will help everyone in the world, not just specific religious groups with sectarian agendas.

Yours sincerely,

2. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96571 by oxytocin on December 10, 2007 at 6:06 pm

This is some of the most asinine reasoning I have read.

However, like many of you, I too dislike the "body count" argument. Since we cannot know what motivated people throughout history to commit murders, this is an intellectual dead-end [although I'd love to know where he got the number of 100 000 000 from]. The real argument, in my opinion, lies at the beginning, which is: regardless of the "utility" of religion, is the proposition true? All other questions rest on the outcome of this one.

So, here is Father John's email address from the Faux News website. I would encourage everyone to show our friendly man of the cloth how to construct a logical argument.

fatherjonathan@foxnews.com

[oh, and make sure it's at "foxnews", not "fauxnews"]

3. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92341 by oxytocin on November 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

devolve, yes, using the word "accept" is a whole lot better than "believe". No one has to profess belief in gravitation, quantum mechanics, or number theory. We simply accept them.

Annabanana, Canada's a little closer than the UK, so you may want to start here! Although we have our loons as well, I rarely encounter any discussion of religion in public discourse.

We have a lot of work ahead of us...

4. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89688 by oxytocin on November 21, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Walk, my sincerest condolences about your wife. Maybe you might counter with a volley of convincing evidence for why she should be fearful about not converting to Islam, or become a Jehovah's Witness [this should be easy], or see the truth of Scientology. Hell, Mohammad COULD have seen god too. Equate the lunacy of all and you defeat them all. In theory anyway.

Man, we humans are such credulity machines.

5. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89643 by oxytocin on November 21, 2007 at 10:31 am

Will Young & Walk,
In addition to your splendid lists of atrocities inherent to the Mormon belief system, allow me to add the potential coup de grace: the Book of Abraham. Absolutely staggering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham

6. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89599 by oxytocin on November 21, 2007 at 8:08 am

I'm in agreement with Goldy and knutsondc...anyone who hasn't seen the South Park take on the history of Mormonism should get right on that. I think it's one of the most successful demonstrations of the lunacy of religious belief ever broadcast.

7. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87322 by oxytocin on November 11, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Spinoza,
I suspect that your expectations of people might be unrealistic. If you think that the person on the street is going to have anything resembling a rational answer for "why" there is or is not a god, you might be kidding yourself.

I think there's no doubt that it would be better if people had complex and learned reasons for believing what they do. However, if you've ever asked people why they're voting as they are in an election, you will find some pretty disturbing answers, even among the most educated of folks. I honestly wonder if the best we can hope to accomplish is to change the zeitgeist. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to inspire legions of individuals to engage in critical thinking when they are perfectly happy to zone out after a hard day's work.

I think you have a valid concern about the dangers of a cult of personality. We must be ever vigilant to avoid exalting a person of reason above what is reasonable.

8. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86652 by oxytocin on November 9, 2007 at 9:06 pm

notsobad: yes, I find your first paragraph argument very persuasive. If two people who have never communicated in any way come up with a new idea independently, and these ideas are backed by evidence, this interests me. That no two people, living in different areas of the world, ever came up with xianty by themselves, makes xianity [or any religion] a very suspect idea indeed.

9. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86581 by oxytocin on November 9, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Smashing piece, Ms. O'Connor.

If we reduce it even further, I think it comes down to this: if indeed we are creatures of such limited insight, sensation, and perception, then why throw caution to the wind? Science is a tool that helps us acquire clues about the nature of "reality". We suspect that we're on the right path because of the track record that science has produced. Its proponents generally construct conservative statements regarding our models of this world. We take cautious, infant-like steps in our attempts to comprehend nature.

Here comes the theist. He or she will criticize the limitations of science by saying that they are poor approximations of reality, and that we therefore cannot know anything...except for the loving embrace of Jesus. Of that, there can be no doubt.

If our grasp on reality is so tenuous, why would any human decide to throw out our humble stabs in the dark for a belief system that seems completely unrelated to the human condition, and utterly discordant with what our models [that produce uncannily accurate predictions] tell us?

I believe it because it's absurd.

10. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85271 by oxytocin on November 5, 2007 at 11:44 am

Janus, I was actually rather impressed with Kelly's scholarship, relative to what I had seen from her previously. I agree that the RRS's methods tend to border on "antics", often appearing amateurish and infantile, but I thought that this piece bucked the trend. I agree with those above who promote the wisdom of accepting all sorts of people from various walks of life who promote reason and education. If we look to history, we will find that many successful movements employed varied strategies. The beauty of the non-theistic position is that we can feel free to agree or disagree with any of our brothers and sisters...since there is [hopefully] no faith involved, we need not be unified in the minutiae of our thoughts. Conversely, disparity between beliefs amongst the faithful is an important problem for any religious endeavor.

11. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83658 by oxytocin on October 30, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Prepare yourselves for this atrocity...Shermer even has a tough time with creationist [and criminal] Kent Hovind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng

12. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81953 by oxytocin on October 25, 2007 at 12:48 pm

decius,
While I agree with regard to the scientific basis for many of the arguments, Hitchens is clearly uncomfortable asserting himself in this domain, and that's ok. I think one of the most powerful things that scientists [and proponents of science] can teach religionists is humility. We need to admit when we don't know something and emphasize that gaps in knowledge don't need to be filled with fluff. We need to refer the questioner to individuals who DO know the answers, and be honest about the state of our knowledge in general. We also need to remind people that even if a scientific answer proves to be wrong, it doesn't prove a religious idea to be right. These are very basic cognitive errors that many religious folks make, and I think that above and beyond our specific arguments, our arguments about critical thinking and evidence-based reason in general are the sharpest tools in our shed.

For example, I understand that Michael Behe makes some pretty ridiculous statements about the irreducible complexity of cells. Even though I have read counter arguments by Dawkins, Coyne, and Miller [amongst others], I wouldn't feel comfortable debating the point with him as a non-biologist. I would defer to the experts.

13. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81775 by oxytocin on October 25, 2007 at 6:57 am

decius,
I totally agree with you about Stenger. I found his book the most enjoyable of the recent literature on atheism. The strength of his book is that he takes the time to really discuss science and the nature of evidence. Also in his favor is the brevity and clarity of his work. It's a quick read, and one that leaves a lasting impression. Highly recommended.

On the other hand, decius, it is perfectly reasonable for Hitchens to refer his opponent to work in areas in which he is not an expert. Hitchens remained with the content that he felt he could contribute to. He has tended to be very humble with regard to his knowledge of science, defering to the experts. We all need to take this as an example of competency: knowing where your strengths and weaknesses are. This is what we do in science.

14. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81513 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Spinoza,
xianity may have done well in Fiji, but the same effect could have been achieved by sending in the police. Again, secular people could do the same thing that any theist could do. That xians show some form of human decency is something they do despite their barbarism, not because of it.

15. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81251 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 1:44 pm

82abhilash,
I hope you're right about that. I wonder, though, if there's a xian forum where your counterpart might say the same thing about a non-theist in the audience. From our position, we find D'Souza's argument's thoroughly delerious, but to many xians, they seem perfectly logical. I think it's really a matter of orthogonal worldviews. I think it's safe to assume that many xians in the audience thought Hitchens was a loon that needed to be saved.

16. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81246 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 1:29 pm

82abhilash,
Sadly, I suspect that the xians cheered for D'Souza, and the non-theists cheered for Hitchens. The likelihood that this changed anyone's opinion is fairly low.

17. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81232 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Mango, I agree with you. This is where the wishful thinking argument for religion comes in [as was briefly discussed in the Shermer debate]. If science does not have answers to a particular question, one gets the impression that that gap in our knowledge MUST be filled with something, even if it's a rice cake. People need to understand that gaps in knowledge are ok and that we are in the business of seeking facts, not pumping Novocain.

18. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81218 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 12:43 pm

D'Souza is the most challenging debater we have thus far encountered. He is extremely intelligent and in possession of superior verbal abilities. He wins many arguments because he is able to assemble a vast array of "factoids" that appear to back his claims. These factoids often have the effect of overwhelming his opponents; since his opponents likely cannot remember all the inaccuracies, and they do not have the time to refute them, he often comes out on top. This may be mendacious, but it also may be that he is so biased that, as Hitchens says, D'Souza actually believes what he's saying.

Often we see D'Souza using a sophisticated "god of the gaps" ideology. For example, his argument that science does not know everything [or cannot prove universal, unwavering laws], and therefore miracles are possible. Ken Miller uses this line of reasoning when he asserts that because there is inherent indeterminacy at the quantum level [and it is impossible to create tools that would eliminate the indeterminacy], this is the space that god can occupy, where the laws of the universe can seemingly be broken.

I think many debaters fail to educate the public [and their opponents] that scientists don't claim to have all the answers and that's ok. We're working on it, as Dawkins says. Most of us admit our ignorance when we don't know something. We must strive to fill in the gaps with facts, not fairies.

19. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80867 by oxytocin on October 23, 2007 at 8:56 am

Troll alert! Methinks ADH is looking for trouble.

20. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80625 by oxytocin on October 22, 2007 at 11:05 am

Michael P., Thanks for posting that article. It appears that Dawkins et al. have another flea.

21. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80573 by oxytocin on October 22, 2007 at 7:43 am

Yes. What makes it all the more mysterious to me is that people like D'Souza claim that science cannot know "everything" [a statement that may or may not be true], but that they claim to know about the existence of invisible people who govern our sexual lives and give us health tips. The leap in logic is staggering. They seek to cause people to doubt science and open their minds to "other ways of knowing". If our perception of this world is truly so limited [which of course, it is...without the aid of science] why does he then throw up his hands and flee to the supernatural, grounds on which we are far less secure? According to his reasoning, since humans cannot naturally perceive x-rays, we would therefore have no inkling of their existence. The scientific method has permitted us to catch a glimpse of things that we cannot normally perceive.

For the record, here's Dan Dennett's response to D'Souza's challenge. I do wish that he would have just provided a couple references for the refutation since D'Souza has now claimed unjustified victory.

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/Dsouza.htm

22. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80566 by oxytocin on October 22, 2007 at 7:17 am

Just in case any of you would like to think even less of D'Souza...

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/19/why-atheists-are-not-very-bright/

23. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80427 by oxytocin on October 21, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I must say that I am NOT a Shermer fan at all. I find his debating skills wanting. This was particularly evident in a debate you can find on YouTube between Shermer and Dr. Dino himself, Kent Hovind. Hovind charmed the audience with his psychopath-like smarminess, and proceeded to out evangelize Shermer with his pre-fab answers that rolled out instantaneously.

I think the nadir of this debate was when Shermer commented that it "didn't matter" how many times homosexuality was mentioned in the bible after insisting throughout the rest of the debate that it did [i.e., only mentioned once, therefore it's of little importance to xian theology]. Even though I was sitting here by myself, I think I actually blushed in embarrassment for him.

Shermer was at his best when citing the literature on the nastiness that is correlated to high levels of religiosity. Sadly, he didn't bother to take advantage of the vast majority of lunacy that spewed forth from D'Souza. Did anyone else have a problem with his argument that the church rationally commented on Galileo's "lack of evidence" and lovingly encouraged him to find some so that they could change their beliefs? What about the trials? What about the threats of death? Great Scott!

In the end, I think that D'Souza was likely perceived to be the winner of this debate, not because he marshaled the forces of reason, but because he's so much better at debate and articulation.

24. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80015 by oxytocin on October 19, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Riley, let me get my quote book out....

25. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80007 by oxytocin on October 19, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Riley,
Hitchens is responding to claims by the faithful that they are morally superior, or at least that morality comes from the clouds. There are some extreme folks who believe that in the absence of xianity, the world would lapse into amorality. I think the challenge is mainly aimed at this latter group. The problem you identified emerges when xians, in their vicissitude, claim that we fail to understand their unique blend of xianity.

26. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79969 by oxytocin on October 19, 2007 at 10:24 am

I'm sorry, but I truly fail to see how the gnostic gospels, written by heretics as they were, are any more "freakish" than the canonical texts. The gospels make Jesus appear like a madman as well...only your preconception of what Jesus must have been like differentiates one type of madness from another. Who's to say a magical person wouldn't speak like in the gnostic gospels? Jesus performs parlour tricks and then convinces people to follow him and leave their families behind. Are we to believe that this is not madness?

Also, the temporal distances between many of the books in the bible and the time of Christ are quite robust. I mean, who would think to write a newspaper article on an event that took place in 2007 in 2157 [i.e., like Titus]? How accurate would that be? Does it make a difference, especially in a largely non-literate culture, how temporally removed the gnostic gospels are? Nearly all the books in the current version of the bible fall victim to this very same phenomenon.

27. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79250 by oxytocin on October 16, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Oh dear. I must admit that I am shocked to read that Brother John has read and enjoyed Lee Strobel, surely one of the smarmiest, self-satisfied, and immoral writers I have ever read. His "Case for Faith" was one of the most excruciating reads of my existence. I actually felt nauseated at some points.

And you're right Brother John, god couldn't possibly be a magician who waves his wand about...we can't pin god down to anything, lest we have some material grounds on which to base a rational argument. No, in fact, god is so mysterious, that whatever numinous, vaporous quality you apply to him must be true, derailing the discussion altogether.

It also reads as though he is saying, if you squint hard enough, and if you look into the sun long enough, you just might see the image of a bearded man on a throne holding a scepter. Then, and only then [having just yielded your incredulity to the principles of gestalt psychology], will you TRULY be wise. It feels like the good Brother has just slapped Philip on the ass and called him a young whipper-snapper.

28. God Hates the World

Comment #79189 by oxytocin on October 16, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Nate, Sincerest welcome to you. I'm sure you've went through a lot.

I hope you enjoy your time here. Your observations on these threads will, no doubt, provide very unique insight. I look forward to reading comments from you.

29. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79174 by oxytocin on October 16, 2007 at 11:40 am

Mr Darcy, what a ridiculous statement you've just made. How can you compare Frum to The One True God [tm]? One's real and the other isn't.

30. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79153 by oxytocin on October 16, 2007 at 10:19 am

I hope that people have noted the ego/ethno-centrism in revcort's words. "The world hates God so much that they try with all that is in them to deny even His very existence…". Wow, the drama. First, revcort, atheists don't hate god…it would be absurd to hate a figment of our imagination. Second, for you to suggest that the whole world is so "in denial" about your fairy that they invent their own out of spite, shows the true mark of delusion. Not only is this belief deluded, but it is insulting to the majority of the people on this planet who have been raised in other belief systems and adhere to them with the same degree of sincerity that you stake claim to. It isn't out of some sense of brazenness that a Hindu endorses Shiva...it has nothing to do with Yahweh.

Now, how you can say with any degree of conviction that "man" [using your archaic, sexist language] doesn't want "god" [which one?] is beyond me. How many people in the US endorse belief in the supernatural? How many deny scientific fact? Why do you insist on maintaining a martyr complex?

And at the end of it all….there's Revcort, yelling from the rooftops that he will "not waver" and that he knows the "real god". There can be no doubt having people mired in their own mess of improvable, exclusionary, sectarian magical beliefs is a boon for our civilization.

31. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79125 by oxytocin on October 16, 2007 at 8:34 am

Philip,
I also think you've made a great point here. While it is assumed that atheists don't understand what xians believe about god, the problem is equally present for xians. They seem to assume that they know what each other are talking about when "god" is invoked, but when you get down to it, everyone has their own idiosyncratic notions about what they mean. So, although they present as a "Christian Nation" [tm], they share little more in common than a believer in Ram and his army of monkeys and a believer in Allah.

Is it just me or is Brother John's excessive use of Caps lock reminiscent of fundamentalists? In any case, the flaw in his argument is that it doesn't matter one bit whether or not people "want" this or that flavor of fairy. Is it our desire that determines reality? I guess it must be for people who ascribe to magic.

32. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78208 by oxytocin on October 12, 2007 at 6:55 am

Mark,
The claim that you change your ideas when people provide evidence is categorically false. The evidence that has convinced scientists the world over [not un-intelligent people, I hope you'll agree] seems to pass your field of vision leaving you unaffected. Further, if your assertion was true, your faith wouldn't be faith, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I think our idea of what constitutes evidence is discordant, and your standards are substantially less than ours.

If people use something as confirmation of the very same thing, it is vulnerable to profound error, and is circular in its logic. If it happens, then people are behaving incompetently. I'm not talking about internal consistency…this is another thing entirely from external validity. Something can be internally consistent [which the bible isn't] and plain wrong [which science shows unequivocally that it is]. In order to show that something is likely, you need to refer to something outside of the bible as a point of confirmation. That Darwin used reasoning in the Origin to justify subsequent thoughts is legitimate, but only as a point of argument; it needs to be verified from an extrenal source. But you must remember something: Origin is not anyone's bible; it is fallible and many assertions have been falsified by external evidence. This is the nature of science…upwards and onwards. This cannot be so for your static and rigid worldview that fights tooth and claw against the pull of modernity.

But what about that internal consistency that you cling to like a suckling child…let's see now…what might be the problem with a book that claims to be infallible and was written over a large period of time, copied and re-copied, and translated and re-translated [from translations]? Again, I will refer you to Bart Ehrman who discusses the inconsistencies between translations, and shows that the bible you read today is different in important ways from the books as they were originally written [both intentional and unintentional errors were made by copyists]. And the fact that there are contradictions in the bible is self-evident to anyone who reads it. Again, I would suggest that you stop reading the fundy writers and start reading people who might have a little perspective on the matter.

But the last point you make is that you compare the bible to the things around you and use that as "evidence". Ok, people have recognized the limitations of the human intellect. We don't process large quantities of data particularly well, and we are ridden with biases that work in our favor [but against reality]. We like to be consistent in our worldview and it is uncomfortable when we're not. The scientific method helps us to overcome our mammalian limitations by introducing technology to help us analyze large numbers of things, and organizing a subset of humanity to work as a biological supercomputer where bits of data are constantly being analyzed and re-analyzed, confirmed or disconfirmed. That you see anything being verified from the bible is experiential and prone to endless bias; it is irrelevant for the purposes of knowing anything substantive about the material world. Any scientists knows this. You live in a world of one big confirmation bias.

33. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78076 by oxytocin on October 11, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Mark [I might be talking to myself since you appear to have bolted from this thread after you laid your last creationist bomb; I think I actually felt neurons dying as I read it],

Wow, I barely know where to begin with your post.

1-Wonderful. You change your opinion with regard to minutiae in the bible. Congratulations. In what way that has any bearing on reality, I don't know. I was suggesting something a little more significant.

2-The fact that you admitted that you NEED to see evidence of the bible's truth has damned your case. You are in no position to judge the validity of a claim if you are motivated to accept the premise before the evidence is provided. Although we are all vulnerable to this, it is the bread and butter of religion.

3-Your research shows the bible is "true"? You have evidence that the dead have risen? I would like to see that evidence…and don't tell me about some account from someone 70 years after it happened. As Sam Harris has stated, you can go and watch Sai Baba perform "miracles" on You Tube. If people are credulous enough to believe that, imagine people's credulity in a less scientifically literate world. May I suggest you examine the evidence of the eminent biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. His book "Misquoting Jesus" might be an eye-opener for you.

4-You doubt the timescale. There is no evidence that weighs against the age of the Earth. None that any scientists takes seriously. You can't observe vast passages of time…this is why humans have a tough time accepting and understanding concepts like quantum theory and evolution: they're not processes we observe in our everyday life. Science makes it possible for those processes to be revealed. In so doing, we become humbled by the grandness of the universe and we realize how little of it we actually interact with.

5-You can't use the bible to confirm the bible. Any scholar knows that's a laughable practice. If I submitted an article to a reputable journal and I referenced the article that I was writing as evidence in support of the article I was writing, I can't even imagine the thunderous laughter that would erupt.

6-Your argument about the shape of the eye demonstrates your solipsism. We evolved because of the world we live in, not the other way around. You sound like Ray Comfort and his banana; it fits so nicely into the human hand therefore design is the only "logical" conclusion. Natural selection doesn't "go to extreme lengths"…it is a mindless process of adaptation that is inherently goalless. It's something that happens over vast time scales…"climbing mount improbable" as Dawkins would say. Mark, read a book. Seriously. You need to start reading books by honest people who submit their data to other honest people. People who will rip the ideas to shreds if they're not sound. Lift your head out of the bible, click away from Answers in Genesis, and read a book by a scientist who may or may not be religious. It doesn't matter if they are or they aren't. We need to stop pretending that we don't know the things that we know. You benefit from the advances of science, but your negation of the parts you don't like would have us back in the dark ages.

You obviously haven't done science before…if you think that people go around simply accepting ideas because it's the status quo, you're sadly mistaken. The best scientists are iconoclasts who want to make splashes in their chosen field. The fact of the matter is that no matter how hard these scientists have tried, they haven't been able to disprove evolution [disproving something is the orientation of science, by the way]. The evidence is too consistent and predictive. I don't think you lack imagination…you believe in fairies. I think you lack gumption. You lack the gumption to really challenge your ideas by reading science and considering the possibility that the hard, verifiable evidence, might just trump your conception of the universe that robs it of its majesty and beauty. Worst of all, you argue from willful ignorance. In our civilization, that's the worst crime of all.

34. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78021 by oxytocin on October 11, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Transplant "Zeus" for "god" in revcort's last message. It makes me wonder why we're even having these conversations.

35. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77994 by oxytocin on October 11, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Mark, the only "mighty miracle" we're witnessing is the olympic level cognitive gymnastics performed by creationists. How you can look at the evidence and dismiss it is beyond incomprehensible. But then again, you won't look at the evidence, I suspect.

It is most unfortunate that the more you are criticized, the more entrenched you become in your non-evidence based belief system. We might come to some very sad conclusions about your ability to grow as a human being from your statements. The good thing about science is that by learning its methodology, humans can come to understand how tenuous our knowledge is, and how important it is that we remain open to new data that might change how we view the world. How sad that you won't be able to partake in that noble pursuit.

Perhaps you could clearly outline what points you believe that people have ignored. Since we're not in your head, we may not see the exclamation point you silently put at the end of your assertions.

36. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77928 by oxytocin on October 11, 2007 at 6:18 am

Mark Taunton,
That you adhere to your belief system while essentially throwing out all of science is nothing to be proud of. You are spitting in the face of physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, and geology. Ah, sorry Dr. Darwin, Dr. Hawking, & Dr. Einstein but uh, you've all got it wrong. Sure thing. For a discussion of the sheer lunacy of what you're suggesting, I refer you to Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" where he takes YEC seriously and plays it out to its staggering conclusions.

The fact of the matter is that evolution enjoys scientific consensus. Our free society grants you the freedom to choose any belief you want, and I'm quite sure most of us here would defend this right to the death. Unfortunately, the cost of choosing your particular belief system is your intellect.

37. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77763 by oxytocin on October 10, 2007 at 12:28 pm

revcort, I think you're taking LOTR and Star Wars too seriously. The spiritual aspects of these films are fantasy and I think you're perceiving a threat where there isn't one. I crack up everytime I hear someone moaning about the spiritual implications of Harry Potter.

As I had mentioned in a previous post, you may want to check out Ken Miller and Francis Collins if you want to read something on evolution that is Christian-friendly but accurate. The way you phrase your statement about not being able to accept the theory is telling; remember that science isn't here to make you feel comfortable...it's here to enlighten us to the facts of the material world. Our feelings about the theories are irrelevant. I may dislike the theory of gravity when I take a nasty spill out of an airplane. Sadly, my dislike of the theory doesn't change the fact that I'm about to become a nasty stain on the surface below. Similarly, you need to understand that evolution enjoys scientific consensus. This means that it is about as solid a theory as you're going to get with current technology. In fact, it's a more complete theory than our current understanding of gravity; the interesting thing is that you don't find Christians jumping all over that. Asking yourself why that is might reveal a whole lot.

Check out this site for facts about evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Here's an interesting lecture by Ken Miller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

38. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77606 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 8:26 pm

BAEOZ, you're referring to a "confirmation bias".

And thanks for the offensive label, my friend! I'm gonna be in Dawkins' black book now. My life's over. Wah.

39. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77602 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Thanks for your personal story revcort. I hope you can appreciate that this is a story that has been told by Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, and others, the world over.

Most of us have had epiphany-type moments like the one you describe. The attribution of the cause is what makes us different. For you, being raised in a Christian environment predisposed you to attribute your feelings to god, and, because humans like to appear consistent, you've likely made links with previous points in your life so that it gives the illusion of something supernatural and purposeful. Many of us here have had similar experiences, but attributed that feeling to something else [maybe we don't know what it is]. I've had several experiences that sound very much like yours, but never once did I even think for a moment that it could be a supernatural entity knocking on my door. It wasn't out of some willful defiance of any supernatural force; it just didn't even occur to me.

This is what psychologists call the "availability heuristic". It is a rule of thumb where we attribute causation to what is most often in our minds.

40. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77594 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Yes. This is extremely twisted. Even a lowly human parent knows that children cannot, and should not, be punished for simple rejection of any authority figure. Again, further evidence that our moral feelings and the evolving moral zeitgeist are categorically superior to the musings of the bible. I see nothing in revcort's god that warrants even an iota of worship. Fear, yes. This represents a longing to be part of the tribe that has the big guns.

41. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77584 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 7:13 pm

With regard to "The Golden Compass", apparently the religious stuff has been watered down considerably. Kidman's a catholic.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070821g.php

I don't think many of us will be surprised to see revcort endorse the "surly fairy". Literalists are hard pressed not to when they honestly read the bible and take it seriously. Dawkins' description of the "...megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriociously malevolent bully" is actually believed by some folks. For those so-called sophisticated theologians who criticize Dawkins for his alleged lack of knowledge of "real world belief" should visit this message board. We won't even need to invoke the Courtier's Reply.

No, what we see in revcort's version of god is the idea of forced adherence; failure to comply will result in a trip to the eternal furnace room where you'll shovel celestial coal. This type of thinking reveals the all too human nature of religion. All this sounds like is a really bad version of prison and torture. This is the best that god can come up with? If anything about christianity shows just how human made it really is, look no further than the lack of creativity [and mercy] in how "god" handles people who do not follow his law.

42. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77513 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Brother John, I am most pleased to read that you reject the notion of a capricious and "monster" god. May I suggest, however, that this might be because you yourself are a good person and you are electing to see the best aspects of the bible? You assert that this isn't the god that was revealed in scripture...I must say that many of your fellow christians would wholeheartedly disagree with you.

The problem is that you'll all agree that god is loving and a completely smashing chap, pat each other on the back in recognition of your wisdom, and then likely fail to consider the definition of what that means. Some people attempt to contort the notion of a monstrous god into a "loving" entity. Again, we need to collect data on this, but I would say that in my experience, many christians I know describe a horrific, power hungry beast.

In regard to your plea that revcort re-examine his beliefs because he's overly fundamentalist, may I suggest that you read Sam Harris' commentary on religious moderates enabling fundamentalists. If we endorse belief in the absence of evidence, how can we ever say whether your view of "god" is any more valid than his? To me [even as an ex-catholic], based on the evidence, your interpretations appear equally [in]valid. I would prefer your notion of god to win out but I don't think there's any REASON it should beyond the utilitarian reason of getting along with others and science.

I will also take issue with your statement regarding Dawkins' "faith". I can only assume you're referring to all of our "faith" as non-believers. It doesn't take faith to reject a notion that has no evidence. Otherwise, we'd all be faithful regarding the swift negation of Zeus, Shiva, the Celestial Teapot, and the thousands of other dead gods.

43. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77471 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 11:51 am

SRWB, well yes, but my comment was meant to allude to the absurdity of believing one's magic book is inherently superior to another's magic book [although the Greeks didn't have a magic book per se].

phasmagigas, this is something that I also discussed in post 1130...I think it would be a grand experiment!

44. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77435 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 9:47 am

Ah yes. And from the Zeus-ist perspective, the bible has no eternal significance. And the hits just keep on coming.

45. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77397 by oxytocin on October 9, 2007 at 7:49 am

You know revcort, there is music and literature out there that has nothing to do with religion and spirituality. Sounds like you could do with a little variety in your life... It's rarely psychologically healthy to focus your entire existence on one thing.

46. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77065 by oxytocin on October 8, 2007 at 10:51 am

CHeard, I don't think that most atheists are angry. But, there certainly are reasons for some atheists to be angry, such as being condescended to, being assumed to be immoral or amoral, and being assumed to be incapable of appreciating mystery and beauty. How about being considered "fools" ["the fool says in his heart there is no god"], or the assertion that it takes "faith" to disbelieve? Or being labeled militant or fundamentalist when passionately tackling the argument against religion.

47. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76780 by oxytocin on October 7, 2007 at 8:34 am

Veronique, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I think that unless the underlying premise can be shown to be probable, then any discussion regarding what's been built upon it is immediately relegated to the area of literary criticism. I think things get muddled when you enter a debate with someone in an environment that is based on such shaky ground. Up is down, left is right...there are barely rules to follow save for those of the particular believer, which may be entirely inconsistent with any other believer, even within their own sect.

With regard to what revcort said before about believing in the bible literally and permitting the holy spirit to guide him: I would propose some sort of scientific study where certain basic tenets of Christianity are taken, presented to literal adherents of the faith, and then ask the proponents how they are to interpret these concepts. My hypothesis [based on the existence of myriad Christian sects and the incredible variability within sects] is that they would interpret things in wildly variable fashion. If we find that people interpret the bible in disparate ways, straight away it makes it illogical to believe that one's interpretation is inspired by supernatural forces [unless we are to accept that the holy spirit permits this to happen under the guise of providing unique insight]. If people within the sect are divergent, how can literal faith be justified? What is the utility? If there is any variability between people, the very concept of literal faith becomes irrelevant.

As we know from research methodology, the more degrees of freedom you add, the more unlikely it is that you will replicate a finding. The millions of "facts" in the bible makes it highly improbable that adherents will endorse and replicate the specifics. There would be reason for pause, however, if all adherents of, say, evangelical Christianity, interpreted the bible in exactly the same way.

48. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76697 by oxytocin on October 6, 2007 at 6:39 pm

revcort,
My apologies if you've been asked this before [I don't have the will to go through this whole thread] but have you read books by any of the prominent Christian proponents of evolution? I'm thinking in particular of Ken Miller's "Darwin's God", which is actually one of the most enjoyable accounts of evolution I've read. In this book, Miller attempts to show how his Catholicism and his endorsement of science are consonant. Joan Roughgarden's "Evolution and Christian Faith" is a wee primer that might also interest you. Finally, although I personally haven't read it, the evangelical Francis Collins has written "The Language of God". I wonder if reading these authors might help you to understand how the majority of the world's Christians navigate the waters of science and faith.

49. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75846 by oxytocin on October 3, 2007 at 8:53 pm

For any of you who missed the "debate", someone on Pharyngula has provided a link to an .mp3 of it. RD did his best with the atrocious format he was given.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CGH5YY2Z

50. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75598 by oxytocin on October 3, 2007 at 5:39 am

I'm not sure why this website didn't link to it, but Sam Harris posted this other gem recently:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/09/religion_as_a_black_market_for.html