1. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21219 by Tremayne on February 8, 2007 at 4:32 am

Ms. Hunter iterates the same old deluded falsehood that imputes morality with Christianity. I am curious how she would respond to the abundance of evidence that discredits such nonsensical assertions. For example, other than arrogantly dismissing Dr. Lawrence Finer's recent study titled "Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003" (PDF), I would like to hear her response to Dr. Finer's study that, with respect to Christian doctrine, refutes her belief associating morality with religion. Dr. Finer's study reports that in the United States "by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44." If we assume a factor of three times as many atheists as reported on CNN's Paula Zahn NOW program, i.e., roughly 9 to 10 million people (and indulge the Christians by proclaiming all of those atheists to be immoral,) and consider the population of just over 300 million people living in the (purportedly Christian) U.S., then how do archetypical Christians such as Ms. Hunter, Ms. Schlussel, et al., reconcile the approximately 233 million religious adherents (particularly Christians) that willfully and knowingly violate their religious doctrine. On the same topic another study that may be more tolerable to Christians - a Texas survey of Baptist newlyweds (of which 99% regularly attend church,) found that 73% of those respondents had admitted to having been involved in premarital "sexual practices." Add to these findings the pedophile Catholic priest scandal, never-ending political corruption (497 out of 535 members of the 109th U.S. Congress were Christians,) the Christian Identity based Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and on and on and on. It is an egregiously false claim or belief, thoroughly disproved by the irrevocable facts, that theists or religious adherents have a monopoly on morals and ethics let alone a greater propensity.

2. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20918 by Tremayne on February 7, 2007 at 2:54 am

The unilateral reproach targeting non-theists on CNN's Paul Zahn Now program comes as little surprise given CNN's ongoing efforts to take market share away from Fox News' influential conservative viewership. (The most blatant example of CNN's strategy to attract more conservative viewers was the hiring of slightly more restrained 'Bill O'Reilly' alter ego Glenn Beck.) This is a disturbing trend that will continue poisoning the atmosphere of rational discourse.

Televisions aren't called "idiot boxes" without good reason.

3. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #15044 by Tremayne on December 28, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Though I'm unavoidably biased on matters of religion, I interpret the Bronowski quote above as an indictment of religiosity, be it theism, naturalism, etc., without necessarily diminishing the other factors that played a role.

4. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14991 by Tremayne on December 27, 2006 at 11:41 pm

"Atheism... I wonder if it really is the answer to our prayers?"
~ by Rod Liddle (The Trouble with Atheism, part 1)

I hope this paradoxical contemplation was intended as satiric wordplay?

Why should anyone presume that intuition ipso facto induces a person to desire belief in a deity or deities? I find absolutely nothing intuitive about theism or religion.

Like all too many theists (or theist sympathizers) Mr. Liddle misconstrues and misrepresents the majority non-theist position. However, what cannot be misconstrued is that religion, having a consistent and long-proven track record of failure, remains unable to ameliorate humanity's afflictions.

5. The Only One in Step

Comment #14869 by Tremayne on December 26, 2006 at 6:45 am

Sorry I.H. but John Gibson is a very staunch right-wing neo-conservative talking head (not unlike Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Malkin, Beck, Prager, et al.)

The sound bite is the byproduct of careful audio editing.

"Heathens! God Hater Richard Dawkins is shilling for a group called the Rational Response Squad and their new contest, "The Blaspheme Challenge." People are urged to renounce God on Camera and upload it to YouTube to win cash prizes. Gibson speaks with Brian Flemming, from The Rational Response Squad." ~ FOX News

http://media2.foxnews.com/122206/122206_bs_myword_300.swf

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,238417,00.html

6. Atheist Chic

Comment #14839 by Tremayne on December 25, 2006 at 7:37 pm

"I have always found people to be far more willing to take my opinions seriously if I use the soft-sell approach..."

"No one has to go searching for a reason to defend reason."

"And no one, Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, etc, is asking you to be obnoxious. They're asking you to be reasonable."

All true, though even positing a non-theist argument or worldview frequently provokes responses that range from indignation through vituperation and rebuke from (devout) religious apologists. It amazes me how often the sociological analog of Newton's Third Law rears its head whenever the discussion or debate turns to evolution versus creationism. Even what begins as a civil debate will too often deteriorate into vitriol, obloquies and ad hominem attacks.

7. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14826 by Tremayne on December 25, 2006 at 4:02 pm

"When people cease to believe in God, they come to believe not in nothing, but in anything."

Utter nonsense. Reiterating inane aphorisms demonstrates that the unenlightened Mr. Cornwell is blinded by his own blind faith. The word skeptic is quintessentially non-theist.

"...blind laws" versus "blind faith;" (for the sake of argument let's assume "blind laws" is an accurate description, though 'undiscovered natural laws' or perhaps even "pre-eminent mystery" would be more appropriate terms,) the better choice should be intuitively obvious.

"Nor are most children so credulous as to actually believe that they will be eaten by bears if they tread on the pavement cracks. They can, and do, distinguish between the real and the imaginary at a very early age."

Such myopic statements underestimate the power of a naïve or superstitious mind, which all too often persists well into adulthood.

"What breathes life into the equations, and actualised them in a real cosmos. Such questions lie beyond science, however; they are the province of philosophers and theologians."

Would Mr. Cornwell completely forego science on matters of mathematics and the cosmos in favor of philosophical hypotheses and speculation? Such anachronistic attitudes are the provenance of Dark Ages mentality.

"Imagine a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts . . . no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland Troubles . . . No Taliban to blow up ancient statues.""

"Your list, which includes conflicts that are blatantly secular, omits two catastrophic eras in recent history: Stalin's Soviet Union, and Hitler's Germany. So how do you attain a world without them? Are you not aware, Richard, that Stalin's brand of communism found its origin in an idea called dialectical materialism — a self-proclaimed "scientific" and atheistic ideology?"

Mr. Cornwell's unmitigated aversion to dialectics is unmistakable by his bellicose 'guilt by association' retort.

That Mr. Cornwell would have any rational person believe his assertion that 'suicide bombers, 9/11, 7/7, the Crusades, witch-hunts, the Israeli/Palestinian wars, the Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, the persecution of Jews, the Northern Ireland hostilities, the Taliban destroying ancient Buddhist statues, as well as the Thirty Years War, the democides of Armenia, Darfur, and Rwanda, etc.,' were "blatantly secular" and devoid of any ascendant religious component is incredulous and utter propaganda! Any rational person could not help but conclude from Mr. Cornwell's statements that he suffers from delusion and self denial. Furthermore, Mr. Cornwell, those leaders or countries that have (or had) the power to intervene militarily (when appropriate) and choose (or chose) to remain uncommitted must bear much guilt and shame for their apathy and inaction.

Mr. Cornwell demonstrates a particular fondness for historical revisionism...

Regarding Joseph Stalin he was first and foremost a paranoid ideologue, oppressive totalitarian and despot. The famine that resulted from Stalin's failed institutionalized collective farming, nor the forced famine of the Ukrainians, or many of his "murderous purges," of which intellectuals, scientists and non-theists were equally made victims, was neither motivated nor justified by his absence of religion. Like most unyielding extremist autocrats he had a pathological obsession for power and control (sound familiar?) and anyone who opposed his will often paid a heavy price.

Hitler is hardly the "atheist" that Mr. Cornwell desires. Unlike many of his fellow Germans Hitler was not personally religious, (he himself had great disdain for Christianity believing it to be an invention of the Jew,) however he was unequivocally a deist and he believed in an almighty Creator.

"One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretize the feeling they have of supernatural realities."

"Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that almighty being whose law he worships."

"We do not want to educate anyone in atheism."

~ Adolf Hitler

It is lamentable that we must once again bear witness to further subterfuge and sophistry by the self-righteous status quo as embodied by Mr. John Cornwell's inurbane demagoguery.

8. The Only One in Step

Comment #14676 by Tremayne on December 24, 2006 at 6:20 am

A couple of others in the fine line of Creationists masquerading as scientists:

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics - An anti-evolution, young earth dogmatist who exploits his multidisciplinary professional training and expertise to promulgate the teleological arguments of Creation Science specializing in the Old Testament account of a cataclysmic global flood.

Dr. Baumgardner: "I would say my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of God's Word, plain and simple."

Apparently he isn't held in very high esteem by several of his colleagues at LANL; very amusing:

Los Alamos Origins Debate

http://www.globalflood.org/letters/letterindex.html

---

Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., stationary-earth geocentrist (!?) Biblical astronomer

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/index.html

http://www.fixedearth.com

"Despite the testimony of all the equations, and despite the published testimonies of top scientists to the viability of geocentricity as a model of the universe, and despite the inability of experiments to establish its truth or falsity; some will still scoff at geocentricity. How can one ever determine which is the truth? Only by going outside the universe and taking a look around can one ascertain the truth of the matter. Without that ability to "look around outside," physics cannot resolve the debate."

Stupid me, ...and to think that I thought this had been settled long ago.

9. The problem with secularism

Comment #14671 by Tremayne on December 24, 2006 at 5:10 am

Hallelujah! I'm grateful (and not the least surprised) that these philosophasters of inane babble and convoluted thought are proud members of the theist camp.

For future reference: a comparable effect can be much more easily achieved by repeatedly striking oneself on the head with a large cudgel.

10. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #14514 by Tremayne on December 23, 2006 at 12:05 am

"The Harris Poll - While Most U.S. Adults Believe in God, Only 58 Percent are Absolutely Certain"
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=707

Based on the Harris Poll data above it seems that a surprising number of religious adherents have varying levels of 'agnosticism' within their own faith.

11. The Only One in Step

Comment #14507 by Tremayne on December 22, 2006 at 9:52 pm

"Other supposed "pro-avis" creatures (half reptile/half bird) have never been found. The evidence is overwhelming that birds have always been birds, and is entirely consistent with their being created right at the beginning on Day 5, just as the Bible says." ~ Andrew McIntosh

Perhaps Dr. McIntosh is unaware (or refuses to candidly acknowledge) that several Archaeopteryx fossils have been unearthed within the last two centuries. The Archaeopteryx is considered by a substantial number of evolutionary biologists as one of any number of predicted transitional forms that provides compelling evidence in favor of evolution.

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html

12. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13876 by Tremayne on December 19, 2006 at 11:19 pm

Joadist,

Your first two assertions are thoroughly speculative. There is no scientific consensus on what may or may not have existed before the Big Bang. The most truthful answer science can offer at this point in time is that 'science does not know.' Hence the latter part of your statement more accurately reflects our lack of understanding at the present time.

13. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13874 by Tremayne on December 19, 2006 at 10:51 pm

Dembski's spiteful simulacrum of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones is undoubtedly the pathologically infantile response of someone frustrated and emotionally tormented.

14. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13865 by Tremayne on December 19, 2006 at 8:51 pm

Only fools and (self-proclaimed) prophets assert that the universe began from "nothing."

Within the constraints imposed by humanity's limited knowledge at the present time the best that science can proffer is that science does not know what if anything existed before the theoretical Big Bang. For theists and scientific illiterates to erroneously purport or misstate scientific claims such as the universe evolved from "nothing" is naive speculation at best and extraordinarily ignorant at worst.

15. Public school teacher tells class: 'You belong in hell'

Comment #13836 by Tremayne on December 19, 2006 at 4:08 pm

I would not be surprised if, as a career choice, Mr. David Paszkiewicz deliberately targeted the public school system for the purpose of proselytizing his Christian doctrine. Mr. Paszkiewicz's mendacious behavior is deplorable and Matthew LaClair was well justified in surreptitiously recording Mr. Paszkiewicz who willfully violated United States law. By all appearances Mr. Paszkiewicz sounds like an aspiring puritanical Christian Recontructionist (Recontructionists being the Christian analog of the Islamic Taliban.)

To have a captive audience of minors in a taxpayer-funded setting and persecute them with anti-science Christian dogma is unconscionable. Such behavior from a teacher is undeniably stressful and anguishing and could be considered a form of psychological cruelty to non-Christian and non-theist students who may be in attendance.

David Paszkiewicz should have very little problem finding a well-paying 'teaching' job at a private Christian school; he has absolutely no business in any public school system.