1. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77979 by CDG1 on October 11, 2007 at 11:57 am

Phil,
Also, if you haven't read PZ's column about "cult", please do so if you can find the time. It is linked by Crucifiction in post #66. He says it better than I.

Chris

2. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77974 by CDG1 on October 11, 2007 at 11:21 am

Hey Phil,

I appreciate your comments but we are just not gonna see eye to eye.

When someone wants to tell me there is a Pink Unicorn right in the other room, and that I cannot disprove it...I do KNOW the truth.

I guess you and Sam are ok with telling them that there is a chance that they may be right. The Pink Unicorn could be there. I do know and I do not pretend to be so open minded as to allow for this kind of nonsense. Especially when we are talking about the sacrificing of human beings.

I agree with you, I am a complete and utter fanatical fundamentalist when it comes to that Pink Unicorn. No apologies for that.

Cheers.
Chris

3. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77942 by CDG1 on October 11, 2007 at 7:37 am

Phil Rimmer,

The "evil of certainty" is no evil at all when true. Even RD allows for a strictly agnostic position when contemplating a supernatural god. One without definition.

The Gods that humans worship and then sacrifice other humans to are defined...Sun God, Jesus, Mohammed, Rain God, and humans are said to know their gods mind and desires. These are the Gods that Sam Harris declares as "almost certainly fictional". Sorry, that is not good enough.

If the truth hurts, too bad. Once people start defining a God, its fictional. Sam should know better.

In this debate the " evils of cetainty" are superceded by the "evils of pandering"

Chris

4. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77827 by CDG1 on October 10, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Sam wrote the following in an article titled The Sacrifice of Reason.

"Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as offering to an invisible (and almost certainly fictional) God."

"almost certainly fictional"?????!!!!! What is up with that? Almost? Those are just the type of statement theist will take and try to drive a truck through it. I feel Sam tries to hard to seperate himself from others like Dawkins and Hitchens by trying too hard to find an original thought.

Dawkins and Hitchens keep it simple. They are right on the issues and drive them home in a simple manner no matter if the truth hurts. While I feel Sam tries to be too intellectual. But I still love him...

5. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72707 by CDG1 on September 22, 2007 at 11:50 am

Thats like asking if TRUTH is good to advance the cause of Humanism...Duh.

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

Comment #71417 by CDG1 on September 18, 2007 at 6:11 pm

I clicked on the link that RD supplied reading "affection I still retain for the Church"

And it stated that Richard Dawkins is an

"evolutionary theorist"

Is this accurate or is it an attempt by Creationist to redefine a whole class of scientists? I thought RD was an Evolutionary Biologist...

I know this is off topic somewhat but am I wrong here?

Thanks.

7. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68316 by CDG1 on September 6, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Dr. Benway, Cornwell is attacking Dawkins because he has the audacity to say "we doctors"? What is the reasoning behind this? Does it address any of the underlining arguments? No it does not. It is an underhanded tactic designed simply to try and discredit Dr. Dawkins for simply being wholly educated on a array of topics. He asserts so much intellectual prowess that people like Cornwell cannot win on the mertis of their arguments and must therefore claim him an elitist.

It is a dirty tactic and will receive no quarter from me.

Chris

8. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68297 by CDG1 on September 6, 2007 at 4:42 pm

RICHARD:

The "we doctors" misrepresentation is not "trivial", its typical. This slight of hand is an an attempt to make you out as an elitist. He is preaching to his choir and they prefer the tactic of discrediting intellectuals as pompous and arrogant...then they can all shake their heads and write you off. But its not trivial I am sick of it.

It reminded me of the scene in the Root of All Evil, when Ted Haggard tried to describe the complexity of the Eye as reason for a designer, and you rightly said (I am paraphrasing here) "You obviously know nothing about the workings of the eye" And he labeled you Elitist.
Its not trivial and it must be called out everytime!

And Regarding the switching of Karamazov to Dostoyevsky: Have you ever once heard of a reviewer mixing up a character with the author. JK Rowling never has to perform or defend magic, just because of Harry Potter. Clearly dishonest.

Chris

9. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67879 by CDG1 on September 5, 2007 at 4:04 am

Dawkins and Toynbee's

"attacks on the evils of state-sponsored religion is unattractive, at best. They may be intellectually rigorous, but they do not win me over."

Thats your small minded problem.

10. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67381 by CDG1 on September 3, 2007 at 7:07 am

Oh Chezzyd, I think you made this Monday one that she is gonna remember.

I suggest we all make sure of it.

Chris

11. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67371 by CDG1 on September 3, 2007 at 6:25 am

I think the author gets it about right here with this sentence:

"Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao were driven to genocide not by religion but cold, cruel power."

It is true the actions they took were to build up and then preserve power for themselves. And they accomplished their goals (to some degree) not because of Atheism but in spite of it. As Richard Dawkins has said in the past, their Atheism had as much to do with their atrocities as did the fact that they had mustaches (he was referring to stalin and hitler only)

But instead of letting the above sentence stand on its own (which would have been fine) he adds this manipulative and deceiptful sentence:

"None of these men feared God."

As if that has ever stopped anyone from murder, rape, genital mutilation, genoicide, sacrifice etc...In fact, for the very God fearing these things are done because they know the mind of God and it is his will that they strap on a bomb and walk into a school.

12. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #67039 by CDG1 on September 1, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Sam states in the first paragraph, last sentence "to an invisible (and almost certainly fictional) God."

I love Sam but what is the deal here??? Almost??? I have heard him speak and read articles where Sam has a tendency of being too considerate of his audience. In this case Newsweek readers and editors who are believers. I know Sam is as hard hitting as we have, but Almost????

It gives believers the wiggle room and space needed for them to drive a semi truck through...as they always do.

Almost????