1. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22475 by G Bile on February 19, 2007 at 9:31 am

The 'FixedEarth' link above does not work (there should a space between the com and the comma!).*

Well, the link does not 'work' anyway, because there is some evidence that the earth is really moving, around the sun, around the center of our galaxy and so on.

But then there is Mr. Chisum ...

* Already corrected, thanks.

2. Preaching the word via satellite: Megachurches branching out

Comment #21969 by G Bile on February 12, 2007 at 2:13 am

Today's worshipers, particularly those under 40, are more fickle and demanding than previous generations of churchgoers. No longer satisfied with a lone church organist, a scratchy-voiced choir, and a few Bible stories for their children, they expect a dynamic preacher, polished worship services in an array of styles with slick videos and professional music, along with a well-planned religious education.

Clearly a new juggernaut is taking shape : the Religio-Industrial complex.
I hope the taxpayers who will be unwillingly funding this are going to revolt. Or buy shares and make a profit of it.

3. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21497 by G Bile on February 9, 2007 at 1:28 pm

In his contribution of 2/5 Mr Sullivan makes two remarks that caught my attention and reminded me of a remark of Mrs Hunter, of CNN's 'Atheist discussion' fame.
Mr Sullivan about his belief in God:

My acceptance of God's existence - of a force beyond everything and the source of everything - goes so far back in my consciousness and memory that I can neither recall "finding" this faith nor being taught it

So this belief must have originated when he was very young, say age 5 or so. It was not there when he was born, Mr Sullivan admits this himself when he acknowledges that:
*If I were a pilgrim right now in Iraq, would I attribute this epiphany to Allah? An honest answer has to be: almost certainly*

The conclusion I draw from this is that 'at birth' we don't have a religion (and we are not 'sinners' at that) , but our parents and educators force us to adopt a religion, the one of our parents and educators. So, when the 'default' is that we start as atheists, the remark of our 'Atheism-expert', CNN-discussion panelist Mrs Hunter that, unlike being black, being atheist is 'a choice', is curious (she makes this remark repeatedly in emails to Commentators, who queried here about her opinions vented in the CNN-discussion).

Being an atheist is our birth-right! Theists have made 'a choice', and a very bad one.

4. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20765 by G Bile on February 6, 2007 at 11:04 am

I am not a literalist, nor am I an evangelical. I do not have what many people I know and respect have: what is called "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Apparently what is presented here is Delusion-story Nr. 3982698. Religion seems to be whatever you want it to be, evidence is not important, 'Holy book' is not important, just take your pick. One would almost use the word 'sin' for such a meaningless attitude, but 'delusional' might suffice.

5. God and gorillas

Comment #20271 by G Bile on February 1, 2007 at 11:53 am

Now let me see if I get the story correctly:

God created the universe 13 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Some 10 billion years later, when things had cooled down sufficiently, he started monocellular life on the planet Earth, and set in motion "Evolution" in order to arrive, couple of billion years later, at the "Pinnacle" of creation.
Okay, along the way he had to tinker a little with bacterial flagella and the occasional eye, but finally there it was, the supreme, the unsurpassed, the zenith, just in his image, equipped with the mental tools to worship him:

the Great Ape.

Unfortunately evolution goofed a little and also produced the homo species, who messed everything up by inventing holy books and the friday prayers, but luckily they will soon be extinct, so everything will be perfect shortly.

Is this an adequate assessment of the article, or did I miss something?

6. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19459 by G Bile on January 27, 2007 at 11:18 am

In Sam's Update of 1-23-07 I was struck by this sentence:

*Rather than teach our children to grieve, we teach them to lie to themselves*

Every religious person who realizes this should be cured of his delusion instantaneously.

7. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #19421 by G Bile on January 27, 2007 at 4:32 am

I think it is significant that this praying is done together and LOUDLY. A compromise could have been to introduce one minute (or so) of silence, in which each person could have summoned his deity (or deities) to assist in the subsequent decision making. As an atheist you would probably look around you and be amazed about all these grown (?) men and women behaving strangely.

But the psychology of this praying together, LOUDLY, works , in my opinion, as follows. When you utter the strange sentences of the prayer (f.i.: *And lead us not into temptation* : God leading his people into temptation ?? Is that a possibility ?? Do they have to ask him not to do it ??) loudly, so that your neighbors can hear you, and you can hear them, you sort of become a part of 'something extraordinary', which after a while is difficult to get out off, because you then have to admit to yourself your episode of delusion.

So, I think that especially this praying LOUDLY should be discouraged, well, better still, should be stopped altogether.

8. Former exec in Irvine says he was fired over religion

Comment #19023 by G Bile on January 24, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I do not think these kind of stories are interesting. Once the Court has reached a conclusion, it might become something worth knowing about, but now, in my opinion, it is far to vague.
A general investigation of the role of religion in hiring and firing might be interesting though. Anyone ... ?

9. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18209 by G Bile on January 19, 2007 at 2:36 am

Mr Williamson writes:
*There are undoubted psychological benefits of religious belief in terms of increased self-esteem and group solidarity, but they come at great cost*

Let us consider such a group: 'The Exclusive Brethren' , mentioned by mmurray. From his link:

*The Exclusive Brethren, estimated to have an Australian congregation of 20,000, forbids mixing with non-members. Television, radio, cinema, mobile phones, life insurance and university education are banned.*

This is just one of the 'horror stories' that surround us. *Psychological benefits* ? I don't see any. *Group solidarity* ? A spooky notion anyhow. *Great cost* ? Undeniably: University education banned ! How sick can it get ?

10. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17110 by G Bile on January 10, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Not a torturer myself, but I can understand the reasoning done by Pilot22A and 'Fondness For Beetles'.

BUT, an important statement is: *We capture someone who knows where it is*

What if: *We capture someone who might know where it is*. Torture or not ?

11. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16986 by G Bile on January 10, 2007 at 12:56 am

Of course the Design idea is true ! And I think that there must have been an undesigned Designer, who designed a lot of .. Designers.
What we are facing : us, our environment, our universe, might very well be the undergraduate project of one of the tenth generation of Designers and reflecting upon my removed appendix and the HIV virus, I expect that the responsible Designer might get a C-grade at best and it is likely that his designwork will not be classified as Intelligent Design, but rather as 'G'enerally 'O'rdinary 'D'esign.

12. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16317 by G Bile on January 6, 2007 at 3:38 am

Mr Schulman talks about 'the Atheists pain'.
I grew up in a 'religion neutral' way and started considering myself an atheist only after realizing that religion did and does harm people very often and very unnecessary. This realization came from personal experiences (repugnant behavior of 'spiritual leaders'), learning about historic events (a pope ordering the annihilation of a town because the inhabitants worshipped in a slightly different way than the 'official') and such. So no 'pain' in my experience, only the 'gain' of freedom.
Many commentators seem to have been in the sharp-teethed mouth of religion and have escaped. In some of the stories there is mention of the pain of leaving something behind. But I think the realization that what they left was actually a prison must be soothing and eventually lead to an upbeat state of mind.
When I was young, I had a Santa-like believe. Then when my older brother told me 'the facts', I did not feel pain, I was elated! I just learned how things were, in the real world! What could be nicer than that ?!

13. William Crawley, BBC Belfast, names Richard Dawkins as Person of the Year 2006

Comment #15791 by G Bile on January 3, 2007 at 2:38 am

I was intrigued by the third reason for selecting Prof. Dawkins as man of the year:
*For writing a book (The God Delusion) which enabled Terry Eagleton to write the most negative review ever published*
This review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html) is well worth reading, in my opinion.
I understand from it that mr. Eagleton finds that Dawkins attacks the wrong God: the bully/savior God that most believers pray to and want to be loved by.
Mr. Eagletons God is a 'Theologians' God, of whom Dawkins knows nothing.
Mr. Eagleton gives several definitions (descriptions ?) of this God, some are difficult to understand (by me), some seems to be conflicting to me but one looks promising:
*He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing*
'God the Answer', how can we interpret this?
An analogy could be:
The 'Cork' is the answer to why wine will not flow out of the winebottle when we hold it upside down. But this may be to naturalistic, bottle, wine, cork, are all natural things.
So a better analogy may be:
'Gravity' is the answer to why wine will flow out of the winebottle (uncorked !) when we hold it upside down.
Here some 'outside agency' does the work.
With this in mind, I can somehow imagine the 'Something-maker' responsible for there being 'something' rather than 'nothing'. We perceive ourselves (and the rest of the universe) as indeed being 'something', so somewhere 'out there' there must be a Something-maker, who can't be natural itself, so we might call it supernatural.
Of course nothing in this line of reasoning suggests any connection to: a Creator who is 'all-loving' etc.; a divine son of a virgin; or all the myths of Holy Books.
It only suggests a supernatural 'Something-maker'.
But then a further question comes up in my mind regarding the just 'proven' existence of the 'supernatural' with at least one inhabitant:
Why is there something (supernatural) rather than nothing (supernatural)? Could the answer be: the (hypernatural) GOD ?
These are the theological (deological, xenological ?) questions Dawkins did not address !
But likely the theologians will forbid us to ask these kind of questions about the supernatural, because we know nothing about it.

Take care.

14. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15456 by G Bile on December 31, 2006 at 12:53 pm

In the European country where I live, many members of 'Parliament' are atheists. No one pays special attention to them. So I am amazed about Dennets repeated statement that in the US *It is still too early, probably, to elect a bright to Congress.*
It looks like the US is going backwards in time, ending up in the 'Middle Ages" perhaps ?

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

Comment #15269 by G Bile on December 30, 2006 at 5:01 am

Binx Bolling talks about 'morality' and his penchant to 'burn' things. At one point he says (comment #85):
*Suppose I have considered all possible outcomes and still decide to take the risk and burn the neighbor's house down. We take risks all the time. If I get away with it I win.*
What if he had said:
*Suppose I have considered all possible outcomes and still decide to take the risk and burn a pile of wood in my fireplace. We take risks all the time. If I get away with it I win.*
So his penchant is not 'burning things', but 'hurting other people and causing them misery'. Many of us would regard this as immoral.
Of course 'morality' is an abstract thing and does not 'exist'. What exists is behavior of a person that he himself would say is led by moral considerations he has.
Now it could well be that Binx Bollings neighbor's house is a house where 'crack' is sold, so burning the joint might not be a bad thing.
Does immorality now become morality ? What we feel to be moral or immoral, beautiful or ugly, etc. is personal and varying. It could not be otherwise in my opinion.
With regard to BB's 'house burning urge': If you don't know how this fits in your own 'immoral-moral' scale, try this: before you start burning a neighbor's house, first burn your own house and see how you like that. It is from these 'thought experiments' that we develop rules about what we will do, or not do.
The quote above ends with *If I get away with it I win.* This is a strange remark. First I don't understand what 'win' means in this sentence. Is there a contest going on? But more importantly: You will never get away with it ! Unless you develop complete amnesia, you will always remember what you did. Now you could say, theoretically, that this remembrance will not bother you, but you cannot be sure about this unless you have acted, otherwise you are back to non-exsistent abstract morality.

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

Comment #14805 by G Bile on December 25, 2006 at 8:49 am

God quotes:
*"The pre-eminent mystery," Rees has stated, "is why anything exists at all"*
Nothing wrong with this statement, in my opinion. The only thing that can be remarked is: let us be happy that 'something' does exist and just forget about the 'why', because that is completely irrelevant.
But God knows more (another quote):
*"Such questions lie beyond science, however; they are the province of philosophers and theologians."*
Boy, is He wrong. Whatever theologians may say: 'There is a God, there are many Gods' or whatever, even they will never, ever answer the 'why - question' because there will always be a further 'why'.

17. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14801 by G Bile on December 25, 2006 at 7:12 am

Graham, in comment #14 already mentioned the parade of 'evil ones' at the end of the clip. To my surprise I saw 'Dr Phil' included in this parade !
Can anyone give a hint why this may have occurred ? I find Dr Phil, in general, someone with an open mind to the problems that people can have. Maybe his mind is too open for Christian tastes ?

18. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14423 by G Bile on December 22, 2006 at 11:43 am

Like the rest of the 'tales' in 'The Ancestors tale' , the Komodo dragon tale gives yet an other insight in what is going on in our world and has been in the past. It is nice that Dawkins shares his knowlegde with us in this way.

It is also so much more interesting than all the 'religious tales' we have to wrestle through and have to waste our time with. But, alas ...

19. The problem with secularism

Comment #14414 by G Bile on December 22, 2006 at 10:47 am

Misters Blond an Pabst argue that 'blah bloebie blubla baleblue bie ba'. This in the context of 'boloe hublai bilohahi boe'. Of course we could say that this is not always true, but then they counter 'baraloeira blibli beodebla blibo'. Well, I dont know about that so let's end this discussion.

20. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10474 by G Bile on November 28, 2006 at 7:26 am

A fact about the 20th century:
*In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just two years short of today's life expectancy*

Science can lead to many things.

21. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9856 by G Bile on November 26, 2006 at 8:24 am

I am an atheist and .. I have 4 children.

Am I starting something new here ??

22. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7327 by G Bile on November 18, 2006 at 8:31 am

In a comment to Mr. Robertsons essay (elsewhere on this site) I stated that I am convinced that "Nobody is born as a sinner, and most will not become one in their lifetime". (This effectively discards the Christian faith). In his answer mr Robertson accused me of *living in a fantasy world* ! I suspect that many believers (I think that the from atheism 'converted' Prof. McGrath is one of them) indeed think that religion is necessary 'to tame the masses' (a little bluntly put). This is all insulting to mankind. Atheists know better. So I agree with Dawkins that we should never accept *I believe in people and people believe in God*.

23. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6261 by G Bile on November 13, 2006 at 12:27 pm

One could take the position that one should not be concerned with what others do in their Sing and Pray Club (church), Bow and Pray Club (mosque), Shake and Pray Club (synagoge), or where-ever. As long as they don't harm anyone with that behavior, who should care? But, like Dawkins and also Harris state, they DO hurt others, and very much on the basis of their Club-rules.
Mr. Robertson actually reads our responses and answers them to. I appreciate this very much because something like a real discussion is going on here.
So I wonder whether Mr. Robertson has an opinion on the matter of 'Man as a sinner'.
The Christian 'package deal', as far as I understand, goes like this: Adam and Eve, freshly created, became sinners (by eating an apple !?). This was real bad, so not only they had to move, but they had to wear clothes as well. And: all of their offspring (by default) became sinners too! So now every human being, 80 years, 40 years or ONE DAY old is a sinner. Sinners are not worthy of going to heaven, where they would be reunited with their loved-ones and live (be ?) happily forever (and ever and ever and ....). That sounds tough. So Jesus showed up, got crucified, and provided a means for redemption. Join the cause and Up you go.
Christians take this very seriously. One problem they have with evolution is that there is no Adam and Eve this way, so no apple-eating, no sin (unfortunately the clothes did actually make it). This would make Christ appearance rather inconsequential. Of course this has been repaired by explanations, which perhaps only theologians can understand and the 'Sin-circle' is still very much believed in.
Now the serious part of my comment: It is my opinion that considering human beings, from day 1, as a sinner is an inexcusable insult to humanity. Nobody is born as a sinner, and most people will NOT become one during their lifetime. Maintaining this name-calling in religious talk hurts people, impaires their wellbeing and degrades them in an unwarranted way. So I think that Dawkins and many others are right in their questioning of religion on basis of the apparent harm that they do.
Mr Robertson ... ??

24. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5818 by G Bile on November 11, 2006 at 9:02 am

This article by professor McGrath presents the lamest 'excuse' for religion I ever read.
Consider:
*Suppose Dawkins were to have his way, and that religion were to be eradicated. Would that end the divisions within humanity? Certainly not. Such divisions are ultimately social constructs, which reflect the fundamental sociological need for communities to self-define, and identify those who are "in" and those who are "out"; those who are "friends", and those who are "foes".*

From this I conclude that prof. McGrath probably does not believe in God, creation, afterlife etc., but wants to keep religion, and its conduct-shaping tools of fear-induction and heaven-promising, in order to 'tame the masses', who would otherwise start killing each other without delay.
This attitude would be an insult to most inhabitants of the planet, in my opinion, and is unnecessary pessimistic.
Once the ultimate divisionary influences of religion are eradicated with religion itself, the remaining divisions of humanity will manifest themselves on the Soccer World Cup !

from an optimistic atheist.

25. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5813 by G Bile on November 11, 2006 at 8:12 am

William, your recent comment reminds me of a little story about the 'consolation' provided by religious belief:

Mary, age 10, rides her bicycle when she is fatally hit by a drunken driver. Her parents are devastated.
1. The next morning the Pastor comes to visit and talks with the parents. "I am sure Mary is a little angel now, and is playing happily with God in heaven".
OR:
2. The next morning the Pastor comes to visit and talks with the parents. "Let us pray together, because God must be angry with you to let this happen".