1. Terrorism That's Personal

Comment #294590 by justaperson on December 1, 2008 at 7:34 am

Keytard:

How can people do that? I could never imagine throwing acid into another human beings face.

2. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283559 by justaperson on November 13, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I wonder, also, what Waterstone's did with Rushdie's _The Satanic Verses_?

3. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283555 by justaperson on November 13, 2008 at 3:05 pm

God damn all these so-called Christians to Hell!!!! (wait--there's no god and there's no hell!)

This immediately makes me want a copy of the book!

4. Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas

Comment #277440 by justaperson on November 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm

RE: Comment #276294 by TouchedbytheBishop on November 1, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Why on earth are there THREE creationist blockheads on a science committee?! More to the point, why on earth are there THREE creationist blockheads dictating which parts of science children are allowed to learn?!

5. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271821 by justaperson on October 26, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Well, I like what the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF, located in Madison, Wisconsin, USA) puts on its billboards that are gaining in number around the country: a mock stained glass design that says "Imagine No Religion" (from John Lennon's song).

6. Legal case against God dismissed

Comment #265363 by justaperson on October 16, 2008 at 2:03 pm

I have lived in Nebraska since 1980. I don't know Ernie personally, but have followed his career. He is in fact an atheist, and his lawsuit had less to with God's existence, but to prove a point about how easy it was to file frivolous lawsuits (see the Wikipedia entry on his name.)

7. Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day

Comment #260525 by justaperson on October 5, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Nails:

Whilst it is wrong to legislate againt non-believers, isn't this just being a bit silly?

8. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259902 by justaperson on October 4, 2008 at 6:11 am

As I see it, the whole problem with religion in the first place is that it actively discourages critical thinking, which is ultimately based in doubt. Instead of saying, "this is so," a critical thinker asks "how can I determine whether this is so?" A true Christian university would only ask its students to question in a biblical context--the Bible itself is off limits to criticism. Or if it isn't, the only acceptable criticism would be that which "confirms" its truth.

9. Which science book should the next US president read?

Comment #257952 by justaperson on October 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

I might suggest Natalie Angier's The Canon. It's well-written, humorous, and factually accurate.

10. Sherri Shepherd, Bill Maher Spar Over God: Bill Tells Sherri She Should Go To Psych Ward

Comment #257942 by justaperson on October 1, 2008 at 9:23 am

Comment #257689 by Tumara Baap on October 1, 2008 at 1:04 am

It sickens me how many women get fuzzy over Jesus despite the fact this is one group that has been historically most subjugated by the clutches of religion.

11. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255771 by justaperson on September 28, 2008 at 7:09 am

"What is the point of being a materialist when we are not sure exactly what matter is?"

12. Extinct Galapagos Tortoise Could Be Resurrected

Comment #253294 by justaperson on September 24, 2008 at 9:22 am

I believe that in the not-too-distant future this sort of thing could become commonplace, as important extinct species' (and who's to say which species are 'unimportant'?) DNA is analyzed and compared to that of closest living relatives.

13. Without God

Comment #252871 by justaperson on September 23, 2008 at 6:21 pm

All the talk about fearing death etc. reminds me of when I had my colonoscopy/upper GI exam. I had been told that a kind of anesthetic is used that doesn't make you unconscious, so that you can hear what the doctor is saying and can respond, but that you don't remember anything afterwards. I was on the examination table and they put an IV in my arm. I asked "how long does this take to work?" I don't remember anyone answering. A moment later I asked "are we ready to start?" The doctor said "you're done!" I had absolutely no sense that time had passed, and no recall of anything between those two comments. It was as if my mind wandered for a moment, is all, but there seemed to be no break in the continuity. I think this must be what it is like to be dead--except that you don't wake up. There is nothing--no time, no dreams, no feeling. no thinking. How can that be a bad thing?

14. Hadron Collider halted for months

Comment #251884 by justaperson on September 22, 2008 at 9:37 am

Simple answer: GOD DID IT!!!! ;)

15. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250530 by justaperson on September 19, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Garbage. Utter garbage. Never trust any surveys sponsored by Baylor Religion dept. ggab7768 makes a good point. People make up stuff just to throw a monkey wrench in the works. And while I am disappointed to learn of Maher's beliefs about medical science, WilliamP astutely notes that this doesn't invalidate his arguments against religion. The whole thrust of the article--that religion is better at squelching superstition than atheism--rests on the shakiest of grounds. After all, they are just replacing other superstitions with another, badder one. I'm against all superstition and supernatural belief, which includes theism. What's this bozo trying to prove, anyway?

16. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #227417 by justaperson on August 9, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Laurie Fraser #226892:

A film which is satire/comedy, on the other hand, has no such restraints. ridicule IS the weapon of the satirist, and so long as the viewer is aware of the context (and if he's not, then he needs education), there is no harm done, except to the egos of those who demonstrate their own stupidity/incompetence.

17. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225901 by justaperson on August 7, 2008 at 1:35 pm

"Evolution is a theory -- it is not a proven fact and we are quite happy to allow our views to be subject to scientific scrutiny just the same as his views are subject to scientific scrutiny."

18. Fury at funeral songs ban

Comment #211264 by justaperson on July 15, 2008 at 5:11 pm

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of nothing. A quick cremation, no ceremony, no tears, no sappy speeches. Let those who knew me remember me as I was and get together for a drink if they wish. It won't matter to me.

19. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #210348 by justaperson on July 14, 2008 at 9:59 am

I looked in my 1950 edition of Merriam-Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged) for "address." It appears that "address" as a verb had by that time also the meaning of directing the attention, energy, etc. to something, as in "address oneself to the problem", but with the reflexive pronoun. So the more current usage has precedent, and it seems like all that has happened is that the reflexive pronoun (and the preposition "to") has become superfluous. Does that make sense?

20. Degrees of religion

Comment #206256 by justaperson on July 8, 2008 at 7:45 am

The author writes: "While extolling the virtues of God, some seem to forget that only He is a position to judge."

The problem with following any holy book, which after all is the instruction manual for its religion, is that the supreme being has provided such a garbled message that its interpretation is solely in the mind of the reader and enforceable only by mortals having sufficient power to do so. In such a situation, how is it possible for that Being to judge one "fairly" for his beliefs?

As Bertrand Russell and others have said, "If there IS a god, he's got a lot of explaining to do."

21. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #203832 by justaperson on July 3, 2008 at 6:54 pm

It's really been that way for the past half century at least. The school system isn't geared toward the Richard Feynman types--but maybe we'd have a few more of them if there was less emphasis on method and more on discovery.

22. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201774 by justaperson on June 30, 2008 at 8:54 am

One of the finest examples I've seen of faith-based, tortured attempts at justifying the truth of one's own belief system. It's worth studying carefully just to be able to experience the depths to which fatuous "reasoning" can plummet.

23. The $10,000-a-Month Psychic

Comment #201244 by justaperson on June 29, 2008 at 1:25 pm

HELP!! We are in worse shape than I even imagined. . . .

24. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200077 by justaperson on June 26, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Comment #199844 by Am I Evil? on June 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I read that reply last night, grinned a lot so I did!

Wonder if Schlafly will shut it now?

25. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199126 by justaperson on June 25, 2008 at 8:05 am

"'The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," the church's governing First Presidency said' . . .

So why are the Mormons trying to force their beliefs on everyone in California? Can't they just excommunicate people of their own faith for disobeying doctrine?

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

Comment #199122 by justaperson on June 25, 2008 at 8:00 am

To reply to Comment #198669 by mejdrich:
The irony, yes. The same people who force women to cover their entire bodies because no man can be trusted not to have lustful thoughts.

And hey, why stop at age 1? As soon as the fetus is determined to be female, sign the papers!

27. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #196026 by justaperson on June 19, 2008 at 8:16 am

Ken Ham is being disingenuous when he says people want "answers" and the bible gives them whereas evolution does not. I am not certain whether he thinks "answers" is synonymous with "explanations"; I suspect not. If I thought as he does I would probably argue that an "answer" (a la Genesis) is always true (because based upon some authority, e.g., God) but an explanation can be anything someone makes up--a rationalization, a guess, etc. But I say it's more the other way around. An answer is true for whomever can be convinced, but an explanation is basically a scientific hypothesis based on evidence, which can be changed when better evidence is found.

28. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195134 by justaperson on June 17, 2008 at 7:29 pm

1. Shows like the Colbert Report are entertainment.
2. Celebrities like to be on them because they get air time which in turn will increase book sales.
3. Sometimes people who previously didn't know anything about a guest or his or her beliefs will learn something that will make them think. So they serve a small but significant consciousness-raising function.

29. Rare dinosaur mummy's arm and tail unveiled

Comment #194922 by justaperson on June 17, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Here is a CNN story with a slideshow (and sound).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/18/dinosaur.mummy.ap/index.html

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

Comment #190755 by justaperson on June 9, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Complete and utter rubbish!!

31. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #74823 by justaperson on September 30, 2007 at 4:37 pm

I may write in more detail on the iPod tutor later, but here are some initial observations:

1. Incredible hubris from an intellectual zero. Example: [p.7]". . . in the days before the iPod, you would pick up a book like _The God Delusion_ and be on your own, and if there were any logical errors or factual mistakes in the book, they would enter your mind as sound information were you were [sic] not aware of them. Consequently, the chances of being misled by essentially counterfeit information would be extremely high, since very few of us have the time or the inclination to spend time on this analysis, and in fact may not even have been aware that analyzing for logical validity was required, erroneously thinking that an editor "took care of that". Too frequently, they don't.

"But all that has changed. . . ." Enter the Intelligent Community Initiative, which among other things promises that with iPod technology and a manual by your side, you can systematically examine everything you read for errors of logic and fact as well as biased arguments! Whoopee! This is what we've all been waiting for, right? Someone to do our critical thinking FOR us!

2. Hypocrisy. He says "we" are going to be "less concerned about which point of view [Dawkins's or theistic] is true . . . and instead focus on the quality of the thinking around the issue . . ." But that's not what he winds up doing at all.

3. An annoyingly supercilious tone of voice on the recordings. I realize that has an ad hominem smell to it, but hey, I was annoyed!

4. Totally unorganized concept. First I am supposed to mark up my copy of Dawkins to identify the "flag points" he addresses on the audio tracks (I did not), then read the flag point and listen to the audio track. There are many problems with this approach, but one of the biggest is that Dawkins's overall argument is never addressed. None of his points around which each chapter centers gets criticized--the iPod guy just picks away at what he sees as bias, fallacy, etc. on a short excerpt. Result, no coherent criticism.

5. Irrelevant or at best tangential material in the book. Beachbum has alluded to the Spinoza/Einstein discussion above, so I won't add to that now. The problem for me is, he has quoted some books I know and respect, such as Raymond Smullyan's _This Book Needs No Title_ and George Lakoff's and Mark Johnson's Metaphors we Live By. Also quotes Darwin, Bentham, Freeman Dyson, and others. However, I am betting that he picks a few things selectively and gets way off base (as if he were ever on).

6. Dawkins is only a bait to the unwary, a vehicle for allowing the author to grandstand about his pet project, the Intelligent Community Initiative. This becomes obvious to me at "Reading 8: Excerpt from What Is The Reason For An Intelligent Community?" If this book were all I had to go on, I would imagine the thinking behind "The Intelligent Community" to be a mix of theism and crackpot libertarianism. When he brings in a lengthy discussion of Bentham's Panopticon and its implications for a "Big Brother" Technological spying society, I realized we were no longer discussing the Dawkins book!

7. Truly weird stuff. He has a reading from Finnegans Wake, with excerpts showing how important the number 111 is in that work, and then how it shows up in the first verse of Genesis too! Wow-ee! Of course he points out that "Elohim" is plural, so it's "G-Ds" not singular; however, according to Wikipedia Elohim was singular when it took a singular verb form, as it does in Gen. 1:1. He either doesn't know that or doesn't believe it.

I could go on and on, but I'm tired. If I've saved someone the trouble of dissecting this turkey, I'm glad.

Live well,
jp

32. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #74515 by justaperson on September 29, 2007 at 8:09 am

I decided that in the interest of fairmindedness that I would get a copy of the materials and go through them. I have done about as much as I care to with them--I didn't make it through all of it, but I am confident that I understand the guy's real intent and approach. I have written most of a review of it, and if anyone registers interest in reading it, I'll post it when I'm done with it.