1. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30836 by Joadist on April 10, 2007 at 3:37 am

Why Athiests are more intelligent than Theists:

Atheists are the result of untold thousands of years of evolution in which each new generation was an improvement on the previous one.

Theists, by their own admission, are the defective product of poor design which has remained unchanged in the less than 6000 years since their creation.

2. U.S. 'Satisfied' With Religion's Public Role, But More Want Less

Comment #20545 by Joadist on February 4, 2007 at 2:37 am

We have to remember that this poll uses the word 'religion' to refer specifically to 'Christianity'.

I doubt it reflects a desire to have Scientology or Satanism be a greater influence.

3. Massachusetts Atheists?

Comment #20355 by Joadist on February 2, 2007 at 12:55 am

Liveliest Crib,

My understanding is the Clarence Thomas takes issue with the 14th amendment.

I believe I have seen arguments that while the Federal Government may not establish a religion, any state may do so. South Carolina considered such legistslation if memory serves.

4. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #19963 by Joadist on January 30, 2007 at 10:10 pm

A trickster exposing a trickster!

What next?

Will Depak Chopra expose Benny Hinn?

5. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19530 by Joadist on January 28, 2007 at 1:09 am

The height of the basketball player is not what gives some people an advantage. It is the rule which sets the height of the basket which makes the determination.
Change the rule and you change the advantage.
There is no genetic predisposition to arbitrary rules.

6. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19071 by Joadist on January 24, 2007 at 4:22 pm

I prefer the term Atheist because it describes what I am. I am a-thiest -- without God.
I am atheist -- against theistic religion.

I am not a scientist, or a genius, or a brilliant thinker.

I did not arrive at my atheism by a cold, calculated intellectual exercise.

If Atheism is just a club for the intellectual elite, then I'll find something else that is a bit more moral.

7. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #19069 by Joadist on January 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Lord Asriel,

Thanks for the laugh :)

Magical thinking is an irrational view of reality.

Religious thinking is an irrational view of the imaginary.

Since the imaginary can be 'imagined' in any form, it takes a lot of effort to make it irrational.

Imagining a God is easy. Imagining him irrationally is quite an accomplishment.

8. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #18968 by Joadist on January 24, 2007 at 4:12 am

Lord Asriel,

The underlying principle is only the same in the broadest possible interpretation.

Magical thinking isn't as much irrational as it is just 'bad science'. It is a blind guess as to whether a certain action can produce a certain result.

Our magical thinking ancestors tried to make fire by doing all manner of strange things to wood.

Our religious thinking ancestors tried to make fire without having any wood at all.

Ignorance and irrationality are not the same.

9. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #18919 by Joadist on January 23, 2007 at 4:23 pm

There is a very important distinction between magical thinking and religion.

1: I do not change my socks because I believe that "MY" actions can alter the outcome of the game.

2: I do not change my socks because I believe that my actions can influence God to alter the outcome of the game.


Magic is based on the belief that we have power over the events in our lives. Religion is based on the belief that we have no power over the events in our lives.

Magical thinking is the opposite of religious thinking. Magical thinking is 'cause and effect'. Religious thinking is an appeal to divine intervention.

10. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18597 by Joadist on January 22, 2007 at 12:42 am

Duff,

I am a Redneck. I have more manners and social graces than you have shown.

Only the uneducated would insult the people who put food on his table.

The redness of my neck comes from doing an honest day's work. It also provided me with funding for an excellent education as well as the opportunity to spend my leisure time in some of the world's finest museums.

11. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18448 by Joadist on January 21, 2007 at 12:36 am

I'm a Redneck and I'm OK. Nothing makes god look less significant than watching crops grow.

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." Oscar Wilde

12. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #17999 by Joadist on January 17, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Anyone remember the one about "Lightbulbs eat Darkness"?

13. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #17997 by Joadist on January 17, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Anyone who thinks 9/11 was religious is too stupid to spell O-I-L.

Unless one considers that the World TRADE Center is the Vatican of Mammon.

14. A deadly certitude

Comment #17924 by Joadist on January 17, 2007 at 2:50 pm

The St Anselm proof is false on its face.

Can you conceive of something of which nothing greater can be conceived?

It is sophistry. It cannot define 'greater'.

Is the greatest Apple Pie greater than the greatest DVD player?

The Greatest God is not greater than the Greatest Human. It is a common fallacy to assume that because two things are different, one can be superior.

Is God greater at dying than we are?

15. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17196 by Joadist on January 11, 2007 at 4:26 pm

I began by asking for a 'legal' definition of homosexuality.

Consider the phrase "Gay Marriage".

If we ban Gay Marriage, then Gay Joe cannot marry Gay Bill. But would we allow Gay Joe to marry Gay Mary?

What about Hetrosexual Bob who wants to marry Hetrosexual Jim? Could Hetrosexual Bob marry Gay Mary?

The fact is that marriage laws do not discriminate against gays. They discriminate based on gender. The Marriage license application doesn't even ask about sexual orientation. It asks about gender. It forbids same-gender marriage to both homosexuals and hetrosexuals. It allows different gender marriage equally to both.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Religious Right has abandoned the 'Gay Marriage' phrase. The are using "One Man, One Woman". They have analyzed the problem in depth. The last thing they want is to have homosexuality legally defined.

I never understood why same-sex couples who wanted to get married would ever allow homsexuality to be mentioned in their court cases.
It is legally irrelevant.

16. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17086 by Joadist on January 10, 2007 at 4:45 pm

JohnC,

Well, that certainly clarifies the issue.

It is a thought crime.

Whether or not a person is a homosexual is not determined by their sexual behavior, but rather by how someone else guesses they have sex.

If I accuse someone of discriminating against me because of my age, gender, or race, then I produce a legal document, such as a Birth Certificate.

How does a homosexual prove his status to a court?

I cannot simply assert my age, race, or gender and expect a court to accept it.

17. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17069 by Joadist on January 10, 2007 at 3:19 pm

I'm not familiar with British law.

Would someone kindly provide me with a reference to the law which gives a legal definition of homosexuality.

How does this law determine if a same-sex couple are homosexual or hetrosexual?

Is there an AIDS tests that determines homosexuality?

I fail to see how they can legislate that which has no legal definition.

18. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16979 by Joadist on January 10, 2007 at 12:16 am

Al A,

You are correct. Just tone down the parody. Within a few years you will be their foremost expert.

Then declare it a hoax. Meanwhile, you will get $millions in funding from the Religious Right.

19. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16945 by Joadist on January 9, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Design requires intent.
What is the intent of an Intelligent Designer?

Whatever it is, it IS NOT our intent.

It can hardly be considered intelligent to design something that does not conform to the intent of the Designer.

Why would we design a car that went where it wanted to go?

If ID was proven absolutely true, then I would be compelled to destroy all evidence of it.

It would be far better that we have a false sense of being alive than to submit to the absolute nihilism of being a manufactured object.

If ID is true, we have no reason to exist.

20. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16825 by Joadist on January 9, 2007 at 2:39 am

How soon we forget.

A little more than a century ago, the Catholic Church was still castrating young boys for their choirs.

21. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16436 by Joadist on January 6, 2007 at 3:20 pm

This is simply a problem of being in the media spotlight.

If you want to find out if a new John Travolta or Tom Cruise is worth watching, you have to read a movie critic's opinion of Scientology.

Torture and ESP are not religious issues. Our sensationalist media doesn't allow us access to the podium unless we agree to allow all the random potshots.

22. God-less

Comment #16433 by Joadist on January 6, 2007 at 3:07 pm

gimlibengloin,

You are making the typucal theist mistake of confusing morality with obedience.

An absolute morality would be AMORAL.

The simple fact is that if there is a God, there is no morality.

Ever play "Simon Says"?

23. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16309 by Joadist on January 6, 2007 at 3:22 am

"you're supposed to believe in nothing"

Religion allows the belief in Jehovah, Allah, and even Satan.

The only thing religon considers a belief in nothing is any belief in man.

We are permitted belief in anything, as long as it isn't a belief in ourselves.

24. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16225 by Joadist on January 5, 2007 at 4:19 pm

It is the depth of meaning in atheism that allows it to reject the shallowness of religion.

To quote an old song "Is that all there is?"

The best of all arguments against God is that he is insufficient.

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

Comment #16202 by Joadist on January 5, 2007 at 1:27 pm

David,

God is a spirit. Great!

Now I know what God is. Unfortunately, I no longer know what a spirit is.

Would you please define spirit for me?

26. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16180 by Joadist on January 5, 2007 at 9:27 am

Ian Armer,

Great Point!

Did Abraham Lincoln think he was evil when he caused the deaths of 500,000 Americans?

Did Andrew Jackson think he was evil when he order the elimination of Native Americans?

Did Saddam think he was evil when he built schools and hospitals?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Evil doesn't exist. It might like to exist, but stupidity doesn't leave it any room.

27. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16106 by Joadist on January 4, 2007 at 3:51 pm

The US executes murderers because they broke the law. They took a life in violation of the law.

Saddam was executed for the opposite reason. He killed people in compliance with the law.

I might change my opinion on Capital Punishment if Capital Punishment was used to show that Capital Punishment is wrong.

We could have Capital Punishment, but only for people who use Capital Punishment.

Hitler used Capital Punishment to kill 6 million. Stalin used it to kill millions more. Saddam certainly took full advantage of it.

Does anyone seriously argue that the need to execute the occassional serial killer justifies the executions of 10's of millions?

Saddam has been executed. Capital Punishment is now a fact of life (or death) in the new Iraqi government. Now it is just a matter of counting the number of deaths that will follow.

28. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15940 by Joadist on January 4, 2007 at 12:13 am

Fanusi Khiyal,

And after the new Shia Government has killed hundreds of thousands, will their replacements cheer their execution also?

29. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15932 by Joadist on January 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Why did Hitler, Stalin, Saddam,,,etc Kill so many people?

I know! I know!

They lived in nations that had Capital Punishment.

When the next leader of Iraq decides to begin mass murdering his people, his legal justification will already be in place.

There has never been a mass murdering leader in a nation without a death penalty.

30. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15616 by Joadist on January 1, 2007 at 3:56 pm

I do not like God. I do not want to be anywhere near him. I demand to go to Hell in order to avoid God.

However, if God sends me to Hell, he would be rewarding me for blasphemy.

I fear I am condemned to Heaven. But to look on the bright side, I will have all eternity to torment God.

31. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15465 by Joadist on December 31, 2006 at 3:41 pm

I detest the term 'brights'.

I'm not interested in being seen as a member of the "Cult of Intelligents'.

I have no interest in replacing the Atheist/Thiest division with the Bright/Dim division.
If we must have a dehumanizing label, at least pick one that unifies.

Personally, I like the term 'Humanist'.

"I'm a Human. Wouldn't you like to be a Human too?"


Whoever chose the term 'Bright', wasn't very bright.

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

Comment #15216 by Joadist on December 29, 2006 at 3:56 pm

Alex Staton,

I really despise the 'we can't disprove God' fallacy.

We have disproved God countless times. Every time we do, the Theist change the definition of God.

We cannot disprove tomorrow's definition of God. But it is a simple matter to disprove any definition of God that exists today.

Define God, and I will disprove it.

IE: God created the Universe. Therefore God is a PHYSICIST.

God created the Universe out of nothing. Therefore God is a really talented Physicist.

33. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15214 by Joadist on December 29, 2006 at 3:18 pm

So, what is wrong with the correct term 'Humanist'?

After all, we are humans. We do human things. We love and we hate. We kill and we care.

Theism is a denial of humanity. It asserts that there is something innately wrong with being human. It is a search for something better. Not to find something better, but to prove we are lesser.

34. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15120 by Joadist on December 29, 2006 at 3:07 am

Of all the things we might try to explain, the Obvious is always the most difficult.

35. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14697 by Joadist on December 24, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Denoir,

You were quite correct about the key sentence.

Islam doesn't deify any nation-state. It would continue to exist, even if Islamic nations failed.

America, on the other hand, sees a failure of itself as a nation as absolute failure of Christianity. Or vice versa.

It is the most dangerous of all ideas, that a world without America is unthinkable. That removes all inhibitions about nuclear war. The risk of destroying all life for all time is far less than risking that a destroyed America might never rise again. And a world without America isn't worth having.

36. The problem with secularism

Comment #14645 by Joadist on December 23, 2006 at 10:33 pm

John Phillips,

you said 'often'...you know about an exception that I don't?

37. The problem with secularism

Comment #14605 by Joadist on December 23, 2006 at 4:03 pm

If we must have religion, shouldn't we manage it?

Aren't we better off it the Pope is the sole authority for Christianity, rather than having people like Jerry Falwell inciting the masses?

Religious totalitarianism vs religious anarchy.

Most especially, from the atheist perspective. If theists are irrational, then they need strict supervision.

38. The Only One in Step

Comment #14526 by Joadist on December 23, 2006 at 2:25 am

I try to find time to laugh at Creationists who claim that the earth is 6000 years old.

But I cannot. I am too busy laughing at American Jingoists who believe the earth was created on July 4, 1776.

39. The Only One in Step

Comment #14429 by Joadist on December 22, 2006 at 11:58 am

The ideas of Burgess and McIntosh are not radically new. They have been accepted scientific views for quite some time.

Wm Jennings Bryan explained them quite eloquently nearly a century ago.

When asked how God could have created the Universe in a period of Seven 24-Hour days, he explained:

God's Days are not the same length as Earthly days.

When man tries to apply his science to the works of God, he creates errors of magnitude.

40. The problem with secularism

Comment #14421 by Joadist on December 22, 2006 at 11:40 am

I found his article very understandable and straightforward.

The problems we face today are the result of allowing man to pray directly to God. Such important scientific endeavors should remain in the hands of Intellectual Theologians.

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

Comment #14307 by Joadist on December 22, 2006 at 1:56 am

Paul Creber,

You fail to understand God's universe. In that universe, time runs backwards.

It is a universe where roads were created after the car so that the car would have a place to be driven.

It is a necessary condition when the simple derives from the complex.

42. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13881 by Joadist on December 20, 2006 at 12:12 am

Tremayne,

The most difficult thing to explain is that which is most obvious.

43. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13873 by Joadist on December 19, 2006 at 10:43 pm

Tremayne,

Either the Universe always existed, or it came from nothing, or there is some other explanation.

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

Comment #13522 by Joadist on December 18, 2006 at 4:45 am

David,

Thanks..you provided me with two of the best laughs I've had in ages.

1: God announced his intentions to create life on earth...Really? To Mrs God?

2: Angels exist but no longer have wings...Guess God pulled off their wings like a kid does to houseflies.

BTW, yes there are many genres..but only TWO catagories...fiction or non-fiction.

Howver, no matter how you define it, the Bible still remains a comic book.

45. Lunch with the FT: Richard Dawkins

Comment #13434 by Joadist on December 17, 2006 at 4:56 pm

Denoir,

Americans are even more confused about the status of religion in America.

Our Founding Fathers deemed it necessary to mention religion in our Constitution, and created much unnecessary confusion.

They seperated the church from the state. Great idea, but then what? They created an entity outside the law. Religion became an activity within the state over which the state relinquished control.

Can you imagine 'Seperation of Science and State'?

Would we allow Scientists to experiment on young children in laboratory sanctuaries?

46. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13276 by Joadist on December 16, 2006 at 4:15 pm

---Swinburne: "[Dawkins] writes that 'a God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple'. And why does he think this? He doesn't say"---

This is the result of an ambiguous statement.

I can start a fire. I can monitor and control it by adjusting fuel and air. It isn't necessary for me to monitor every particle individually, since I control them as a group.

If God uses gravity, then he doesn't have to take each apple off the tree and place it on the ground.

I think it is a moot point.

47. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13254 by Joadist on December 16, 2006 at 12:31 pm

Theology is a non-subject. Not exactly. Theology is the study of opinions about God.

Free Will is a self-referential term within Christianity. It does not mean freedom to choose one action over another. It means that we have Will which is seperate -or free- from God's will.

A subtle, but important distinction.

Free from X is not freedom to do Y.

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

Comment #13128 by Joadist on December 15, 2006 at 5:47 pm

David wrote:

"I'm afraid that that is your faith. The bible was written for grown ups – it is really hard to discuss with someone who reads it like a child. "

Thank you. That clarifies many things. A child would read the Bible as a literal truth. An Adult would read it as an ALLEGORY. No adult would read the Bible as Non-Fiction. No Adult would believe in talking snakes or people turning into pillars of salt. Glad we agree.

"Or are you an Athiest on non-christian topics?"

Perhaps you ought to consider your use of the English language. An atheist is someone who does not believe that there is any God. Your question above is meaningless.

No, my question is quite clear. Do you believe in Zeus, or Allah? If that leaves you confused, then I'll submit a follow up. Do you believe that angels come down from Heaven? Do they have wings?
Do you believe that people can actually channel the power of God and heal the sick?

Just want a clarification as to where you stand on the issues of mysticism.

49. Grandparents linked with church-going

Comment #13085 by Joadist on December 15, 2006 at 9:58 am

Yorker,

I think we have the same Grandmother.

Mine taught me morality, forever removing me from Christianity.

50. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13080 by Joadist on December 15, 2006 at 9:45 am

The Liberal Left are not Marxists. Their spokespeople include Rev Jesse Jackson, Rev Al Sharpton, Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Berrigans.