1. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202773 by lostpoet on July 2, 2008 at 12:52 am

Sorry to interrupt the troll-thrashing, but I couldn't help but notice the ironic line from the Giberson "interview:"

"In short, intellectual laziness. We're not prepared to do the hard work to make our culture more sophisticated."

Right...

Truer words need not apply in their application to Giberson and the troll's fantasies.

2. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202761 by lostpoet on July 2, 2008 at 12:21 am

Circling back to an earlier line of discussion...

I have to disagree with Mr. Hari's comment, "But you do choose your religion...."

For a vast number of people, religious beliefs are something they are indoctrinated into -- usually by the people they most love and trust. Hence, their steadfast refusal to consider even the mildest challenge to their religious beliefs; to reject these sort of beliefs is to reject those that they love.

Clearly, as adults, people are free to retain or reject those beliefs taught to them by loved ones. And for many, belief-rejection comes at a terrible emotional cost.

Personally, I try to remind myself of this emotional cost faced by others. When offered an opportunity to talk about metaphysical beliefs, I have an unfortunate tendency to act in too smug a manner -- a weakness that I work to correct daily.

3. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190906 by lostpoet on June 9, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Excellent points MaxD!

But I thought your "reasons" line of argument was stronger than your concluding sentence, "People require evidence."

People need reasons for their beliefs -- It feels good; the Bible is truth; my mother said so; my preacher said so; etc....

Scientifically-minded people require evidence -- empirical data that can be independently observed/collected and verified.

Some reasons are more potent, more compelling than others, yes? For so many people, "My mother said so" trumps any scientific evidence. And therein is the frustration.

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

Comment #190723 by lostpoet on June 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Steven Mading...

"Well, to know what's legal and illegal you have to know what the constitution means, which DOES mean delving into the minds of the historical figures that put it together and voted on it."

That's entirely unrelated to why we should care about any of the FFs metaphysical beliefs. Whether Thomas Jefferson was or was not deist should not have any bearing on modern politcal discussions and issues.

Falcon and others on this board who seem to think that it should have bearing have yet to specify why and how.

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

Comment #190426 by lostpoet on June 9, 2008 at 4:48 am

Fighting Falcon...

"If you can't see how our Founding Fathers being Atheist would greatly affect today's political discourse then you seriously need to think about the issue some more.

If proof were found of our Founding Fathers either being radical Christians or god-denying Atheists, you don't see an impact here on current politics? Please tell me that you can..."


You're not answering my question. You're a historian -- I'm interested in HOW you think the FF's personal, metaphysical beliefs has relevance today.

I don't think that their atheism or deism should have any relevance. You seem to think that it should. Again, I'm interested in learning HOW it should.

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

Comment #190250 by lostpoet on June 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Fighting Falcon...

"The statement "our Founding Fathers were Atheists" implies that every single one of them was. In order for that statement to be true, every single one of them would have to be an Atheist. Sorry to be so nit-picky when it comes to the English language but words do have meaning."

OK...so you're nit-picky. And, I guess, an all-or-nothing sort of individual when it comes to matters of historical fact.

But you're ducking the larger point. So what if all or none of the "FFs" were atheists? It's irrelevant to today!! Does it matter that some of the "FFs" owned slaves? Some, who hold the "FFs" to be living deities, would be tempted to suggest that we all (today) own slaves in deference to the greatness of the "FFs."

What do you care if some, none or all of the "FFs" were atheists? How is this fact (once we know it) relevant to today's discussion?

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

Comment #190223 by lostpoet on June 8, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Fighting Falcon...

As a historian, you certainly know that "history" is always a matter of interpretation and narration. The events of history can be (and usually are) treated as "objective truths" as per natural sciences.

The question of whether the "founding fathers" were or were not atheists is an empirical question. First, how may "founding fathers" are you talking about? Next, what were the personal beliefs of each person regarding the existence of deities?

If you found that one "founding father" was an atheist, would you believe that "...our Founding Fathers were Atheists?" If you found that two "founding fathers" were atheists, would you believe that "...our Founding Fathers were Atheists?" How many atheists would you need to find to believe that "...our Founding Fathers were Atheists?"

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

Comment #190213 by lostpoet on June 8, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Fighting Falcon:

"I don't let anyone get away with distorting History to suit their political agenda."

Hmmmmmm...does "anyone" include yourself?

Historical facts are what they are. But "history" is a narrative interpretation -- always subject to and dependent upon the agendas of those who are doing the telling. That itself is a fact!

It's always instructive to show how personal agendas influence interpretation and narration of agreed-upon historical facts.

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

Comment #190200 by lostpoet on June 8, 2008 at 2:12 pm

mordacious1:

"Don't read Darwin either, he's dead, can't offer advice, so why bother..."

Exactly!! Darwin is dead. He can't offer any advice. And thus, we should not treat him as a living deity -- invoking his name as if he were still alive.

That's my point.

And Maybeline's point is spot-on! We in the States tend to treat our "founding fathers' as if they were living deities -- all that they say is good and rightous...damn you to hell if you even have an inkling to disagree with what they said or wrote some 200 years ago.

Obviously, the writings of people who are dead can clearly inspire and motive people today. But that doesn't mean we need to treat them as living deities.

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

Comment #190178 by lostpoet on June 8, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Fighting Falcon...

I find your comments here oddly agitated and dangerously close to the hyperbole you claim to despise.

Why should you (or anyone, for that matter) "...take offense at either side trying to tell me that the Founding Fathers were either hard-core Christians or Atheists opposed to religion?" What??? Are you related to one of the "founding fathers?" It's just an idea -- for discussion and conversation. Lighten-up!

And as per Maybeline's post, why should anyone care about what the "founding fathers" had to say on religion? These people are dead and buried -- long gone...never to return. They and their 200-plus old views are completely irrelevant to our current situations -- they are dead...they can't hear us...they don't care about us...they can offer no counsel or advice.

Stop treating the "founding fathers" as deities. They're not!!

11. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175156 by lostpoet on May 4, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Fight...that's what we need to do...fight! Write letters to every paper that you can as often as you can; call the legislators and talk to them...be persuasive.

To our friends from other countries -- you can help us! Please write letters-to-the-editors. Mock us...laugh at our stupidity; I love the name The United States of Jesus...use it frequently. Maybe it'll start to make a dent in the thick skulls of these morons.

12. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170418 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Bizarro...

OK, I'll take a bite from your metaphysical bait.

However, the God of the Bible is defined not simply as being perfect in the moral sense; rather, He is defined as the essence of morality itself.

13. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170322 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 3:47 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad

re. Goodall's views (e.g., "When I was a child, born into a Christian family, I accepted the reality of an unseen God without question.")...

For me, this comment is particularly telling and goes to the crux of why it is so painfully difficult for people to surrender their belief in god, scientific advancement and knowledge notwithstanding. For so many people, supernatural, religious and superstitious beliefs are among the earliest, most deeply embedded and often most cherished of their beliefs. To surrender their belief in god means that they have to admit that they were duped (knowingly or not) by the people they loved and trusted the most.

For many, holding onto beliefs that they suspect to be false is a rational response to the alternative -- admitting that their loved ones and teachers are fools and/or liars.

14. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170261 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Does science make belief in god obsolete?

I think the answer is painfully and obviously, "No." So long as we have people like Drs. Miller and Phillips -- supposed scientists and people of intellect who steadfastly continue to cover their ears and shout "lalalalalalala...I can't hear you" in response to the overwhelming lack of evidence for anything even remotely resembling a deity, then belief in god will continue...sadly and unabated.

People like Drs. Miller and Phillips remind me of those delusional Americans who still refuse to admit that voting for George Bush was an incredible mistake.

Does anyone here know Dr. Miller or Dr. Phillips? Where does their delusion come from?

15. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170220 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Dr. Ken Miller writes, "The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself."

Again, another stunning statement by someone who is supposed to be a scientist. On what basis does Miller, or anyone else for that matter, put god outside natural phenomena? Presumably, god affects the natural world (universe). So clearly, these effects can be investigated scientifically.

Dishonest. Yes, Dr. Miller is unbelievably dishonest!

16. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170096 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 11:22 am

Dr. William Phillips writes, "On the first question: a scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter."

Stunning!! He merely "took the matter off the table." Reminds me of the line from the Godfather movies: "It's not personal, it's business."

Compartmentalized thinking like this really takes my breath away.

17. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170089 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 11:02 am

Steve Z.

Thanks. Ahhhh, yes...the "orginal causal agent" requirement.

Funny how people treat metatheoretical assumptions as "evidence."

18. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170081 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 10:50 am

Steve Z.

What do you mean, "The requirement for a creator" serves as evidence for god/gods?

Not criticizing, just curious...

19. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169684 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 2:45 pm

AllanW

Well-said! Interesting points and perspectives.

One idea -- I try to feel solidarity with people rather than causes. Supporting people who feel humiliated and are in pain is always right. And "might" isn't even needed.

20. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169678 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm

AllanW

Consciousness-raising becomes particularly powerful when we stand-up with the "target" and refuse to let them be intimidated, wouldn't you agree?

I don't know how much mental torture the "Day of Truth" and the t-shirt are inflicting upon our gay friends and neighbors. But the very idea that there are people who WANT to inflict torture upon them is reason enough to oppose their efforts.

21. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169665 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 1:55 pm

prettygoodformonkeys

You're not reading my posts. Obviously AGAINST the t-shirt!!

And your term "psychobabble" is not relevant, unless you merely mean to insult.

22. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169654 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 1:31 pm

prettygoodformonkeys

"Not being gay gives us the luxury of producing psychobabble about it. Left-handed? Ginger-haired? Being a girl? Please."

If you're saying that my not being gay means I have nothing productive to add to the conversation other than "psychobabble," I heartily disagree. If you don't like the sub-topic AllanW and I chose to discuss, say so without resorting to the dismissive "psychobabble" term.

"We should at least stand up, and very clearly and unambiguously so, for the basics. I know these people, they live in fear and rightly so - you can still be killed for this in many places in Canada and the US."

I completely agree!! And do stand up every day...clearly and unambiguously so, for the basics. As should we all -- you included!

23. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169645 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm

AllanW

'People control whether they experience emotional pain, humiliation and suffering as much as they control whether they experience physical pain and anguish in response to an assault.' Interesting; I can see that the electrical stimulation of pain-receptors can be analogous to the electrical signals passed to the brain from speech and sight organs so there could well be a likeness in that way. However I'd need to have it spelled out to me more fully that the way the brain processes these two inputs is very similar before accepting that idea. I have nowhere near enough understanding of this science to even venture a guess either way but I'd be willing to listen if you have anything that can provide guidance?


My point is that most people do not "control" their emotional and sensory experiences to assaults (verbal or otherwise). They simply have these experiences.

Your original comment about "control" sounded, at least to me, a lot like these kind of admonishments -- "man-up," "shake it off," "take the pain," and "stick & stones will break your bones, but names...." I think we can and should do better.


"Yet while being swayed by this view it raises problems; do we therefore build rules (blasphemy laws, hate laws etc) that penalise proponents of any ideas that affect those who lack (and it's a 'lack' because we accept that they are possible to construct or learn) the ability to be uninjured by the spoken or written word?"



"...does society want to legislate in this area at the risk of causing injustices and possibly widespread effects when a more positive effect could be achieved by using these instances and examples to teach more robust and healthy alternative strategies?"


I am not advocating any sort of legislative activity here. I am advocating respectful conduct...good manners...civilized behavior. The t-shirt is yet another example of disrespectful conduct, bad manners and uncivilized behavior. School officials should be able to prohibit its wearing on those grounds. Simply put, school officials should be able to prohibit their students from insulting others in such a deliberate and premeditated manner.

24. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169556 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 9:43 am

Blieskies

I disagree. The t-shirt is not "first and foremost a pun." It is an insult aimed directly at homosexuals under cover of a pun. There's a big difference between the two.

That's how teasing works -- hurl an insult, and then laugh while claiming, "Hey, I was only playing."

Teasing -- "Death by a thousand cuts." Check out Gordon MacKenzie's book "Orbiting the Giant Hairball" for an excellent treatment on the effects of teasing in institutional environments.

25. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169552 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 9:31 am

AllanW

Beg pardon, all, if this reply is a double-post. I wrote a reply earlier, but don't see it here yet.

I understand the point about these words causing pain, humiliation etc as they can but as we were discussing earlier is this not in the control of the receiver of the message not the transmitter?

People control whether they experience emotional pain, humiliation and suffering as much as they control whether they experience physical pain and anguish in response to an assault. But I suspect that some are more skilled than others at controlling what they experience. I also suspect that children, generally speaking, are less skilled at controlling what they psychologically and physically experience in response to an assault. Hence, I believe that we should side with those being disparaged much more often than those doing the disparaging.

26. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169494 by lostpoet on April 26, 2008 at 7:50 am

Allan W.

Back on the point in question; 'Which is why we have to work to limit verbal abuse.' Please explain why we have to do this?

27. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141933 by lostpoet on March 11, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #141925 by Epinephrine

God is the biggest sufferer of Munchausen by proxy EVER.

28. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141918 by lostpoet on March 11, 2008 at 11:43 am

Comment #141911 by epeeist

Something I've always been unclear about -- did God create hell, as he supposedly created the heavens? Why would some entity, supposedly so loving and caring, create an eternal torture chamber?

29. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141908 by lostpoet on March 11, 2008 at 11:16 am

Isn't it interesting that JEALOUSY isn't a "mortal sin?" It's a nasty emotion -- a wicked amalgam of pride, greed, anger and envy. Oh wait, the 5th Commandment sayeth..."For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me." God would have to send himself to hell.

But wait again, "...punishing children for the iniquity of parents...? Pretty clear example of "social injustice!" So it looks like God is going to hell after all.

Damn...there goes the neighborhood!

30. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141445 by lostpoet on March 10, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Appalling...truly appalling!!

But not surprising either. Here in Tennessee, teachers routinely refuse to teach contemporary scientific accounts of astronomy to their students because those accounts don't square with their superstitious, Christian beliefs. But what should we expect? Plastered all over the hallways in middle schools and high schools are invitations to Christian bible clubs, not invitations to science clubs.

31. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111319 by lostpoet on January 14, 2008 at 10:35 am

Awesome site al-rawandi!!!

One of my favorites...

"...all the evolutionists, tell me something. i know how the big bang "has happened, but tell me, wouldnt an explosion, especially one that size, take away life instead of allow it? think about it."

Idiocy...pure idiocy!!

32. Changing my Mind

Comment #106131 by lostpoet on January 2, 2008 at 11:56 am

I am somewhat surprised at the number of fanatical Christians who "accuse" me with the comment, "atheism is a religion."

Huh?? Say again???

Is this some grand strategy of the zealots? But to what purpose? It makes no sense at all!

33. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64270 by lostpoet on August 19, 2007 at 6:46 am

I've been looking over the website maintained by the OSU nutheads (osutour.org). They list some corporate sponsors:

SUBWAY
Network Funding Bank, LLC
Interstate Batteries
Photostat - Medical Records
Frito Lay
Coke

Yes, I think contacting these companies will be worthwhile. I think I'll ask if they really want to be openly associated with these kind of loonies.

34. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57653 by lostpoet on July 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm

What we desperately need: courageous journalists who will press the candidates' religious statements at every turn. If the candidates claim to receive wisdom and guidance from God, press them for proof -- How (what communicative method) did you receive this wisdom and guidance? How do you know that you are, in fact, communicating with a deity? How do you know that your supernatural guidance isn't, in fact, merely the product of your own thinking?

Journalists should press the candidates to divulge the name of the deity (or deities) with whom they have a relationship.

Don't let them get away with all of this superstitious nonsense!

35. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50541 by lostpoet on June 18, 2007 at 5:10 pm

I call upon atheists everywhere to stand up and be counted.

36. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47673 by lostpoet on June 5, 2007 at 8:49 am

Praying in school -- fascinating topic!

If prayer is, in fact, communication with a deity, doesn't praying during a test constitute cheating? Thus, shouldn't students who are found praying during a teast be punished as cheaters? Even if the deity doesn't provide any answers to those students who pray during the test, their praying is still attempted cheating, and should punished.

37. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47485 by lostpoet on June 4, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Was Carl Sagan a religious man? He was so much more. He left behind the petty, parochial, medieval world of the conventionally religious; left the theologians, priests and mullahs wallowing in their small-minded spiritual poverty. He left them behind, because he had so much more to be religious about. They have their Bronze Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the universe.

38. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47159 by lostpoet on June 3, 2007 at 8:08 am

To be "godly" means (as per RD) to be...

misogynistic,
homophobic,
racist,
infanticidal,
genocidal,
filicidal,
pestilential,
megalomaniacal,
sadomasochistic,
capricious,
malevolent,
and a bully.

Wear the adjective "ungodly" with great relief and courage!

39. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46942 by lostpoet on June 2, 2007 at 10:27 am

the correct default position in response to an unsubstantiated claim of existence is not disbelief, but non-belief

40. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46929 by lostpoet on June 2, 2007 at 9:19 am

Some commentators have gone so far as to label the current crop of atheist books as "dangerous",

41. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44884 by lostpoet on May 25, 2007 at 12:57 pm

13. #44765 briancoughlanworldcitizen wrote: "God is a tyrant can't be said often enough."

Yes indeed! Even if such a being existed, I could not worship something that would happily torture his beloved (though naughty) children for all eternity in a place called Hell.

And what are we to make of a god who can't even lift a finger to help 6 million jews (his supposed chosen people) escape being brutally murdered at the hands of the Nazis?

A tyrant of universal proportions!

42. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44384 by lostpoet on May 24, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Despite a promising beginning (god is a rhetorical construction), Hedges pulls the sissy-switch and settles for the ever conventional "force" line of discussion. He notes that god "...is that mysterious force,and "...the life force." He finishes by claiming that "...the greatest force in life is...love." So god, the verb, is now love -- "a process accomplishing itself."

Apparently, "faith" is also a force in our lives. So, the faith-force allows us to trust in the mysterious love-force process, accomplishing itself? According to Hedges, "...we alone can measure the quality of faith," however, "[F]aith can neither be affirmed nor denied by scientific, historical or philosophical truth."

Mind-numbing...staggeringly stupid.

My favorite quote from Hedges' "tool-of-bondage": "...all human institutions, including the church, are inherently demonic."

What a tool!

43. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43692 by lostpoet on May 22, 2007 at 9:49 am

# 43592 Wee Flea wrote: "I believe in the God of the Bible for the same reason that I believe that the world is round, it is and He is."

Brilliant...simply brilliant! Bravo!!

"Why," we might ask. "Because...just because," you answer.

What's next? Holding your breath until you turn blue?

44. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43446 by lostpoet on May 21, 2007 at 1:26 pm

# 43270 Adrian wrote: "With faith, there is no reasoning possible, therefore you only need to know that 'the others' have different faith, to hate them."

I certainly agree with the spirit of your post! But wouldn't you agree that the religious-minded do use a reasoning, of sorts? It seems to me that religious folk use a type of reasoning that is best described as "deferral to authority." That is, they believe what they believe because their holy book, or their holy men, or their holy teachers, or their parents told them so. Their reasoning is the ultimate "frightened child" reasoning -- "Because my Mommy and Daddy told me so!!!"

While we prefer reasoning based upon evidence, logic, and argument, they prefer reasoning based upon a simple-minded, childish acceptance of authority.

45. A meeting of unlike minds

Comment #43357 by lostpoet on May 21, 2007 at 7:04 am

"English's God allows people to chart their own destinies. This freedom makes faith flexible, allows it to evolve with human knowledge and experience -- to accept Darwinism, the Big Bang and the changing role of women."

Ahhhhhh...apparently, English's god has grown-up, seen-the-light, and now, as per Hitchens, enjoys "the blessings of secularism and Enlightenment values."

46. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #41934 by lostpoet on May 17, 2007 at 10:17 am

I think it's time for "broad-reach" media outlets to showcase these nutheads, and air the insane rantings of their so-called interviews. Perhaps another "Tom Cruise effect" will happen, and people will finally see these cranks in their full lunacy.