Comments by Overmann

Comment #293699 by Overmann on November 29, 2008 at 9:04 pm

"Why is belief in supernatural beings so common? Because of the design of human minds."

The reason why supernatural belief is so prevalent and atheism seemingly "unnatural" in comparison is because superstitious thinking requires much less thought\energy and is therefore biologically economical. We can all guess what sort of benefits superstitious thinking or an imagination provides to a species, so there is nearly no selective force against it. It is merely an unfortunate side-effect that we imagine things that terrify us for no discernible reason, or things that we believe to be true because they're quaint or comforting to some vague degree.

What circumvents this rut of potentially delusional thinking is an even stronger desire for objective truth. We might not be able to ever know exactly how the universe works (arguing about absolute knowledge is always enjoyable), but nothing says we can't put our minds to task and make educated, infinitely practical guesses. I understand why religionists attack the same systematic study that produces very beneficial results in medicine and health fields, but it all seems rather childish and two-faced.

2. Creationists declare war over the brain

Comment #269503 by Overmann on October 23, 2008 at 4:44 am

Should have seen it coming. Anywhere a field of science is at least slightly ambiguous or not easily understood, religious folks will always try to build on the mystery to allow room for the supernatural. Because, hey - establishing the brain and mind as separate entities proves God, no?

3. A 'values' voter speaks her mind on Obama

Comment #267199 by Overmann on October 20, 2008 at 10:35 am

#7,

I'm betting she simply cannot digest the notion (though she seems to have no problem digesting anything and everything else) that some people choose their religion independently of their parents. I'd bet it's a choice she was never allowed to make for herself, and therefore cannot fathom otherwise.

4. Math Skills Suffer in U.S., Study Finds

Comment #263196 by Overmann on October 10, 2008 at 11:46 am

No surprise, really. I was about to raise my fist and stomp my feet that I excel in math and am a US citizen but, alas, I was actually born in Germany.

On a different note, I attend basically an engineering university. It supports various other degrees, but the place is known for its engineering program. So I see a lot of engineers in my math classes, and I'm appalled at how much basic algebra they're missing in my differential equations class, for instance. Fine, they may not encounter DEs in their careers (wouldn't depend on that if I were them, though), but college algebra? Give me a break! Also, there are two females in my DE class, two in my Discrete math class, and only one in my Cal 3 class, whatever that means.

5. Mathematics and faith explain altruism

Comment #255382 by Overmann on September 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

If there's one thing I get out of being a mathematics major, it's that *all* mathematics that is mathematics is sufficiently and necessarily *rigorous*. If this man cannot provide a written proof that stands on its own merits, then his ideas about math and God fail.

"You have never, ever actually proven in science that there is no God."

Seems the man doesn't adequately understand science. No wonder he finds no problem in attempting to reconcile science and religion.

"Ask Nowak for a reason for his belief in God and he answers simply that he has had faith ever since he was a child."

That would do it, too.

6. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253646 by Overmann on September 24, 2008 at 5:35 pm

@ #253642

"Also, I'm sure you did not overlook the fact that I expressly limited my argument to 'elective abortions,' which by definition are 'unnecessary.' Why do you retreat to this canard?"

Now who are you to determine when or whether an abortion is necessary or unnecessary? A doctor assesses whether an abortion is necessary or unnecessary based on the health of the patient, but the patient may not always think in those terms.

7. 'Spore' Its for the Little Guys

Comment #244445 by Overmann on September 8, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Many thanks for that link, vesihiisi. I've changed my mind and won't purchase this game until they fix a number of key issues, especially the DRM.

8. Bettany and Connelly to Star in Creation

Comment #243323 by Overmann on September 5, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Seems interesting enough, except that Darwin isn't the father of evolutionary theory so much as he is the father of natural selection. A nit-pick, but an important one.

9. B.C. health official says mumps outbreak began with unimmunized religious group

Comment #237916 by Overmann on August 27, 2008 at 12:00 pm

It seems to me that any group aimed at the betterment of its fellow man would take every precaution not to do any one of them harm. If your beliefs are harmful, ditch your beliefs - get yourself immunized.

10. McDonald's Makes Jesus Cry

Comment #206422 by Overmann on July 8, 2008 at 11:02 am

...force their lifestyle on innocent children in the public schools...

Which is still completely unlike what your bloc is trying to do with creationism in science class? Hypocrites, but I suppose I should have figured.

The whole article is wonderfully witty and funny, though I especially like the comments in it. If the best defense these people can come up with is a slippery slope (and indeed there are more than a few in there), why are they still so formidable?

11. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198956 by Overmann on June 24, 2008 at 9:32 pm

What are these people, fucking stupid?!?

12. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198398 by Overmann on June 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm

RIP George, you were one of my last remaining role models.

13. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197718 by Overmann on June 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm

"Yes, and it took 475 years for the pope to issue a half-assed apology."

Warning! Warning! Bad arithmetic!

14. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189661 by Overmann on June 6, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Oh, wow. That phrase is remarkably similar to what my atheist group has on its T-shirt. Front side: 'You don't believe in God?' Back side: 'You are not alone,' and of course a link to our site. Corpus Christi Atheists in Corpus Christi, Texas, by the way.

15. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182133 by Overmann on May 19, 2008 at 9:04 am

Not sure if it's been pointed out before, but Dawkins' suggestion of shrieking should be extended to those typing in caps...

16. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80496 by Overmann on October 22, 2007 at 1:54 am

I'm finding it very difficult to listen to McGrath. Not because I disagree with his message, which I do, but because of his mannerisms and speech. I'd rather read the transcript and pour over that.

In any case, of what I am hearing of McGrath's message, I'm beginning to suspect he is no different than countless other religious moderates who've claimed to adequately understood atheism or have made conversions to faith from atheism. He speaks of the existence of an "evidential basis for atheism" which, inherently, is nonexistent. Atheism does not operate on the assumption that there is proof supporting its claims because it makes no claims for itself.

McGrath also spoke of his conversion from the "faith" of atheism to the faith of Christianity, which speaks volumes for how well (or perhaps more accurately, how ill) he understands what atheism is about. It's not a faith, it's a position taken in the service of truth. The only thing atheists need necessarily believe is that there is no evidential basis for the existence of deities. Even so it takes more faith to believe there is a God than there isn't, in my view.

Further, McGrath seems to supply an undue amount of credit to Christianity's ability to explain natural phenomenon. One major goal, whether implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious, is to offer a satisfactory explanation for phenomenon to appease the discomfort or curiosity of those who indulge in it. Christianity is a simplified view of nature and as such, yes, produces a more easily conceivable interpretation for the human mind but that does not mean it is truthful and an assured way of discovering how nature really functions. By believing thusly, McGrath has fallen into the same helpless, redundant cycle of failed logic into which a rather alarming number of religionists seemed to have also fallen.

17. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66826 by Overmann on August 31, 2007 at 4:55 pm

"I fail to see how the mating habits of the Borneo headhunters relate to religion."

I'm not exactly sure from whence you attained the notion that atheists may only criticize ridiculously irrational and absurd tradition if it exclusively pertains to religion. Atheists are not necessarily gunning for religion itself, per se (although religion is certainly the most obvious and popular target), but rather the underlying concepts behind it, most notably how meaningless and superstitious tradition is forced on future generations.

Irrational traditions, regardless whether cultural or religious, are still irrational traditions and thus privy to an atheist's objections.