1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165572 by NormanDoering on April 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others.

Stein was only a hired actor speaking the lines given to him by Kevin 11. He didn't necessarily know. Kevin 11, the screenwriter for "Expelled," is the one who did the "research" and crafted the blue print for this propaganda film. He has less of an excuse:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/kevin-eleven-is-lying-sack-of-santorum.html

2. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162207 by NormanDoering on April 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

This part of the article:

Three quarters of Catholics and Protestants could not name a single Old Testament prophet. More than two thirds didn't know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. A substantial number thought that Moses was one of Jesus's twelve apostles. That, to repeat, was in the United States, which is notoriously more religious than other parts of the developed world.

Reminded me of a scene where Mustapha Mond was talking to John the Savage in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." Mond told John that they didn't have to ban books because no one was interested in reading them.

Unlike Orwell who feared people being deprived of information. Huxley saw how we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Everyone is preoccupied with the feelies, the orgy porgy, and centrifugal bumblepuppy.

"Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."
-- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death.

I was also reminded of the scene when I read a transcript of Hugh Hewitt's show where he had Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White debating the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization.

And I blogged on it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-great-art-in-our-brave-new.html

David Allen White was also bemoaning the fact that his religion was failing to inspire art in our culture. He talked about T.S. Eliot calling Dante's Paradiso the greatest poetry that can be written. That religion has inspired all "great" artists isn't surprising if you have defined great art as religious art and all your experts agree with that.

And there's an element of truth to what he says, our inner life is changing: Welcome to our Brave New World. It used to be that religious novels and Hollywood sword and sandal films like "Ben-Hur," "The Robe," "The Ten Commandments" and the like were hot literary and box-office properties. "The Ten Commandments" was one of the more expensive epics of its time. Lew Wallace's "Ben-Hur" was once one of the most important, widely-read American novels of the last half of the 19th century. There are both silent and talky versions of the movie. And it continued to be widely read until the 1960s, when our Brave New World began to take shape. That's a long life for a book. But today "Ben-Hur" has receded into near oblivion. Does anyone read it now? When is the last time there has been a new printing of it?

This may be how religions really die, they degenerate into feel good passivity and egoism while their adherents are preoccupied with television, sports and pop music.

3. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162183 by NormanDoering on April 16, 2008 at 9:34 am

From the article:

Here is a quick list of biblical, or bible-inspired phrases or sentences which occur commonly in literary or conversational English, from great poetry to hackneyed cliché, from proverb to table talk.

And here's a brief, incomplete, list of bible-inspired phrases or sentences just from the new Battlestar Galactica:

"He That Believeth in Me" - an episode title.
"A Measure of Salvation" - another episode title.
"Exodus" - another episode title.
"Rapture" - another episode title.
"the one true God" - god of Baltar's new religion.
"The 12 tribes of Kobol/(Israel).
Commander Cain killing her brothers.
Baltar=Baltazar???

And then there is the ad photo that looks like the painting "The Last Supper."

The show has taken over my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-new-battlestar-galactica-is-more.html

4. The books that inspire me

Comment #157539 by NormanDoering on April 9, 2008 at 8:39 am

clearmind wrote:

Sometimes people see what they need to see.
Sometimes people are unable to see and sometimes they DO NOT SEE.

Ohh! That reminds me... who here has been watching the new Battlestar Galactica on the sci-fi channel:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-frak-is-going-on-with-baltar.html

5. The books that inspire me

Comment #157528 by NormanDoering on April 9, 2008 at 8:30 am

The Black Cloud, by Fred Hoyle? I read that, it was old when I read it a long time ago, and I wasn't all that impressed. It pales when compared to science fiction like Blood Music by Greg Bear. And has Dawkins ever bothered to read William Gibson, especially Neuromancer?

Methinks Dawkins and I have very different tastes in Literature.

6. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157510 by NormanDoering on April 9, 2008 at 8:02 am

Stephen Maxwell wrote:

...the religious experience question, in that you have to accept it for the evil religious experiences as well as the good religious experiences ...

There's an interesting example of the religious experience question going on in the new Battlestar Galactica series on the sci-fi channel:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-frak-is-going-on-with-baltar.html

Has anyone here been following it?

If so, I'd like to invite you to my blog (linked above) to answer whether if you were in Baltar's position you would start praying too.

7. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156511 by NormanDoering on April 7, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Let's see, first it was South Park, now Dr. Who...
So, when does he do Battlestar Galactica?
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-new-battlestar-galactica-is-more.html

8. Expelled Overview

Comment #150190 by NormanDoering on March 26, 2008 at 2:41 pm

If anyone is interested, you can ask the screenwriter for Expelled questions:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/

Can anyone come up with five good questions?

This guy was able to come up with six. But so far no one else has been able to rise to the challenge. And no cheating, folks. Come up with them on your own. I'll respond to them in a blog post. BTW: I won't answer stupid questions I know you're all burning to ask, such as, "Why aren't you smarter and more honest?" Oh, and please e-mail them to me rather than posting as a comment. I don't want to lose them in the shuffle.

9. Expelled Overview

Comment #149420 by NormanDoering on March 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Philosopher Michael Ruse mentions the theory that organic life piggybacked on crystalline structures ... Stein takes the opportunity to ridicule the idea: "CRYSTALS!? On the backs of CRYSTALS!?" The film cuts to B&W video of creepy fortunetellers hunching over crystal balls. Stein's only desire is to oversimplify the theory and make fun of it.

Uh-oh... that actually sounds funny.

Could this be the next "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? A movie so bad it's good?

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149363 by NormanDoering on March 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Diacanu wrote:

Scary thing is, you really can't tell the 3 apart.

I don't think you'll find many cold blooded pragmatists and full blown sociopaths trying to convince us here on message board -- it would have to pay somehow. It's people who believe the BS and many aren't so much lying as repeating what they've been told.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149177 by NormanDoering on March 25, 2008 at 8:22 am

The Reverend Dark wrote:

I will note in Clearthinkers defense that he disavows the last verses of Mark - he mentioned so in the Fleabytes thread.

Oh drat! Someone else got to him first.

So, then, that means he thinks his Bible distorted and deformed and he has extra-biblical sources of knowledge to tell him which passages are bullshit?

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149165 by NormanDoering on March 25, 2008 at 8:06 am

EKinateder wrote:

If they are bribing schools with monetary rewards that equal or exceed the cost of the movie tickets, are they really worried about the film being a commercial success?

It wouldn't hurt.

But they seem to have a primary target to hit first. I speculated here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-never-ending-freak-show-just-goes.html

That their reasons are probably political and have little to do with either improving science or academic freedom. This is, rather, a Swift-boating of science and academy.

Then one of my readers, Tyler DiPietro, linked his blog:
http://canofpowerup.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/the-horrowitz-option/

and he filled in the gaps. Their next step may be laws like Horowitz' "Academic Bill of Rights", which would be more or less attempts to hamstring academics in their teaching and/or force them to adopt anti-evolution faculty.

In Florida, they had a screening just for legislators.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149153 by NormanDoering on March 25, 2008 at 7:37 am

Norman,
That was beautiful, simply beautiful.

Thank you, but I can't take credit for it. You'll find the challenge on this web site:
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/snakebite.html

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149144 by NormanDoering on March 25, 2008 at 7:20 am

clearthinker wrote:

"...it has to be a very distorted and deformed kind of Christianity,..."

"Is there another kind?"

And sadly Norman now demonstrates his motivation.

And you're a "Christian," right?

How exactly is it that you know your Christianity is not a distorted and deformed kind? How do you check it against distortion?

Can you move mountains with your faith? Can you handle snakes and drink poison? Can you heal the sick or cast out demons?

Mark 16:18 says:
"They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (NIV)

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (KJV)

According to the New Testament believers in Jesus can handle snakes, presumably poisonous ones, without harm and drink ANY deadly thing. That makes your Christianity testable.

So, if your Christianity isn't distorted or deformed you should be able to drink a bottle of hydrochloric acid.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148983 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Richard Morgan asked:

I confess I hadn't thought about "The China Syndrome....
Do you think that "Expelled" is in the same category?

I doubt if it will be, especially after Dawkins' review. But I don't know how stupid the great monkey mass of America is.

There have been other movies, we'd all find them boring, that have changed the world in a bad way. Ever heard of a film called "Birth of a Nation"?

How about "Triumph of the Will"?

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148971 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Richard Morgan wrote:

Nowadays it's "Normandoering the pants off (to whom it may concern)."

Okay, the post about Edward Blyth and natural selection before Darwin was overly long and drifting -- and worse patched together from wiki and Ed Bryant sources.

It could have been shorter and to the point.

But if you really want to be bored just keep thinking like you do. You asked: "when was the last time you heard about a film making any significant, long-term impact on the way people think about things?"

How about the "The China Syndrome" -- the nuclear power industry pretty much stalled after that and has never recovered. (Of course three-mile island and chernobyl helped.)

I think a lot of movies and books have changed the world. Sometimes in the most subtle ways. Sometimes dramatic. Not all scandals are forgotten -- like Watergate or Tea Pot Dome and they become reference points for current and future scandals.

And if you find me boring, well you don't have to read me. If I hadn't noticed my name in your post I would have skimmed right over it.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148920 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Vadjong wrote:

Hitler was (clearly, I hope) a racist.

Some would say the same about the Old Testament Hebrews.

He and his cronies often talk (shout) about purity and dilution of the Arian master race. This he might have considered micro-evolution.

No, no -- those modern concepts like micro-evolution will mess you up. You have to think like they did before Darwin.

The concept of racial purity is not evolutionary, even in the micro-sense. It's not entirely religious, but it may have religious origins. Pure according to what? You need something like an original, a god's design, to start with to have purity and pollution of a race. It shows up in a different way in Leviticus where the blind and the lame cannot serve in temple, because they are unclean, and only unblemished lambs can be offered to God. The inferiority of the imperfect is part of the Bible.

Purity makes no sense from an evolutionary view point. It makes sense from a religious one.

In discussing racial purity and "race-mixing," Hitler chooses not the words of evolutionary biology or eugenics, but of religion without even a light touch of eugenic pseudo-science. Aryan blood, lower peoples, racial mixture, racial poisoning, those are the concepts you find in Mein Kampf. If you think they have any origin in ideas about evolution, you don't know what the theory of evolution is.

Neo-Nazis in America also use God and the Bible in support of racism. The Aryan Nation group wants to "serve the Lord of Glory and His Holy Race." The Ku Klux Klan says that only those of "Christian faith" can be members, and asks every new recruit "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?"

The connection of Darwin to Hitler is very round about and dishonest and it goes through eugenics. Ann Coulter's book Godless (chapter 11, "The Aped Crusader") is about Darwin and Hitler. Coulter wrote:

"The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable, but it is more ineluctable than the evolutionary path from monkey to man. Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality. Instead of honor they mother and father, the Darwinian ethic was honor thy children. Instead of enshrining moral values, the Darwinian ethic enshrined biological instincts. Instead of transcendent moral values, the Darwinian ethic sanctified death.

So it should not be surprising that eugenicists, racists, and assorted psychopaths always gravitate to Darwinism. From the most evil dictators to today's antismoking crusaders, sexual profligates, and animal rights nuts, Darwinism has infect the whole culture. And yet small school children who know that George Washington had slaves are never told of the centrality of Darwin's theory to Nazism, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, "racial hygiene" societies, genocide, and the Soviet gulags.

In his magnificent book From Darwin to Hitler, Richard Weikart documents the proliferation of eugenics organizations in Germany around 1900, all of which asserted their "scientific imprimatur by claiming harmony with the laws of evolution."
-- Ann Coulter, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"

You don't need Darwin to have eugenics and in fact, Darwin cuts away at many eugenic concepts. Eugenics would have been better off if science had stopped before Darwin's theory became accepted because the creationist scientists before Darwin had a more eugenic-friendly idea of natural selection.

The creationist Edward Blyth had already in the 1830s, many years before Darwin, written about natural selection as a mechanism that weeded out the defective individuals, those who deviated from the species. He included a concept of God ordained perfection (purity) that Darwin eliminated. The aim of Darwin's evolutionary theory is to explain the origins of biological diversity. Edward Blyth and Hitler just credit "God" for that.

Blyth's version of natural selection was a mechanism to conserve the species, like most biologists believed in the generations before Darwin. Natural selection sustained what God created individually. What fell by time's decay, individuals who did not have the required strength, swiftness, hardiness, or attractiveness, fell without reproducing. They fell either to predators or disease or malnourishment. Their place taken by the more "perfect" of their own kind.

The idea of eliminating the sub-standard to keep the standard was there long before Darwin. Darwin's addition was that natural selection could even improve a species. The idea of species being created perfect in a creationist mind would not lead to Darwin's concept of evolution.

Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse, but with a crucial difference from Darwin's version. For in Blyth's interpretation natural selection was part of an argument for created permanency. Natural selection, in this negative formulation, acted only to preserve the type by eliminating extreme variants and unfit individuals.

Darwin saw past that and realized that the variation could create new forms. Darwin changed natural selection around to mean evolutionary descent of all beings from a common ancestor, which was never Blyth's original contention at all.

It's Blyth's ideas that led to Eugenics, not Darwin's. And It's Blyth's ideas that modern creationists and Intelligent Design proponents still believe.

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148916 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Bonzai wrote:

Since obviously you are not stupid you must think that we are.

I use to think that.
Now I know it.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148899 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Bonzai wrote:

Hitler was no more motivated by Christianity than Stalin was motivated by atheism.

Did I ever say otherwise? Only Hitler said otherwise and I quoted him. I didn't even mention Martin Luther's anti-semitism like Richard did.

I said I don't think you can define Christianity, which is a very broad term, in such a way that it excludes Hitler. And we do have to admit that Stalin, no matter how screwy his other ideas, was probably an atheist (motivated or not by that). Those are their apparent beliefs.

It is unnecessary to try to pin Hitler's atrocities on Christianity. It just make the people who do that look desperate and simplistic,

Do you really think Richard Steigmann-Gall's "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945" is merely desperate and simplistic?

Do you know of it?

Do you think Richard C. Carrier's work is desperate and simplistic?
Google JSTOR, "Hitler's Table Talk": Troubling Finds, Richard C. Carrier.

Even if Hitler did consider himself a good Christian, which I strongly doubt, it has to be a very distorted and deformed kind of Christianity,...

Is there another kind?

...if one insists on latching on to such flimsy connections to argue that Hitler was somehow the product of Christianity,

So, direct quotes from Hitler are flimsy?

Do you have any direct quotes from Hitler endorsing evolution or Darwin?

there is a much stronger case to link him to Darwin.

Prove it. Provide any evidence you've got.

What does Edwin Black, "War against the weak" actually say?

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148870 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm

MPhil wrote:

However, we can say that he was neither an Atheist nor a Christian (except on paper).

I'm not so sure you can accurately say that Hitler was not a Christian. It hinges on what you mean by "Christian" and what exactly makes anyone a Christian. Hitler self-identified as a Christian. He seemed to believe in Jesus (as a fighter) and it's not like anything American Christians believe today -- but you're going to need a weazily definition of what a Christian is in order to exclude him.

So, what definition of Christian makes Hitler not one?

Also, you might want to check out "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, by Richard Steigmann-Gall.

For many of its leaders, Nazism was not the result of the 'Death of God' in secularized society, but rather a radicalized attempt to preserve God against secularized society.

Yes, they used anything they could to justify what they did, but underneath most of the Nazis seemed to be theistic.

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148862 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 11:12 am

bibanu wrote:

Do you guys honestly believe that Darwin did not have a considerable influence on Hitler and the scientists working for him?

The whole German society was heavily influenced by Darwin and by the philosophy of Nietzsche (atheist).

Do you know anything about the Nazis besides the lies you've been fed?

If Hitler and the Nazis were so influenced by atheism why did Hitler say:

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Read more quotes like that here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html

If Hitler was a Darwinist...
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-darwinist.html

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148811 by NormanDoering on March 24, 2008 at 1:40 am

kluv0008 wrote:

Is 'Expelled' the new Paris Hilton? The thing we all love to hate, but can't take our eyes off of?

I compared it to the biggest freak in the freak show:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-never-ending-freak-show-just-goes.html

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148736 by NormanDoering on March 23, 2008 at 5:38 pm

If anyone wants to tell the screen writer for Expelled what they think, here's the post on his blog where he says he wants to give PZ and all his followers a hug:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/03/chris-mooney-ge.html

24. No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

Comment #148105 by NormanDoering on March 22, 2008 at 4:58 am

steve8282 asked:

Don't we stand to end up looking like Fleas through all of this?

Only if the movie is a hit. Remember, Dawkins' fleas were trying to cash in on a share of his sales. Odds are that will not happen.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-never-ending-freak-show-just-goes.html

25. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147955 by NormanDoering on March 21, 2008 at 4:38 pm

SilentMike wrote:

OK. The movie is stupid and we've all had a good laugh, but one question remains. Will it be effective?

It will probably be effective in a limited way. It will increase the divisiveness of the theist/atheist debate and push a certain group of theists deeper into a delusional interpretation of science, history and the nature of the current culture war. Atheists will be provoked into becoming more insulting and dismissive of all theists.

This works to the advantage of the Republican think tanks that want to prevent the political compromises some evangelicals might want to make with the Democratic side.

It looks Rovian.

If anyone wants to answer the charges about Darwinism lead ting to Hitler, here is some information you might use:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-darwinist.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html

26. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141061 by NormanDoering on March 9, 2008 at 11:51 pm

You cannot make this stuff up. Can you? Please tell me you can!

Yes, you can make it up. The Onion does it all the time. And if you watch "Little Bush" on the Comedy channel in one show that's the argument for being religious -- you don't have to study as hard.

27. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138008 by NormanDoering on March 3, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

I am currently researching and writing a review of Vox Day's book, ...

Please drop a link onto the comments section of my blog post about Vox Day here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-one-more-of-vox-days-lies-andor.html

I haven't yet seen a good atheist review of Day's book.

28. Leaving the Faith

Comment #136570 by NormanDoering on March 1, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Sorry, my link didn't work. Maybe this will:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/ben-stein-admits-he-has-only-little-pea.html

29. Leaving the Faith

Comment #136562 by NormanDoering on March 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm

julianstirling wrote:

I find it hard to take a site seriously that has Deepak Chopra as one of the 3 "experts" displayed in the science section.

Be thankful they don't have Ben Stein listed as an expert on anything.

30. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133880 by NormanDoering on February 27, 2008 at 2:07 am

Diacanu wrote:

if an aspiring Stalin came along, would you follow or oppose him?

Before you can decide whether you would follow or oppose him don't you first have to know how you would recognize an aspiring Stalin?

31. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133495 by NormanDoering on February 26, 2008 at 8:41 am

A future argument against the fleas:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/02/religion-as-force-for-ignorance-and.html

32. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #132826 by NormanDoering on February 25, 2008 at 8:48 am

Geoff wrote:

Good news for the future choirboys.

Not necessarily. Not Catholic ones. It won't be the pedophiles who leave the Catholics to get married.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-pedophile-priests-really-believe.html

33. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132818 by NormanDoering on February 25, 2008 at 8:31 am

In ALL other areas of thinking, in their day-to-day living, for the sake of practicality and convenience etc all of these people are very happy to use the scientific technique and wouldn't for a moment claim it was false or flawed.

Not necessarily:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/02/religion-as-force-for-ignorance-and.html

34. The coming religious peace

Comment #132684 by NormanDoering on February 25, 2008 at 6:01 am

I made use of that chart on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/02/religion-as-force-for-ignorance-and.html

Here's a taste:
Many of the countries where acceptance of evolution is high are those same high GDP western European countries on the first chart, like Sweden and France. Japan is also high in accepting evolution and high on GDP. And the low GDP countries are also generally there, like Turkey, low on accepting evolution and low on GDP.

It's not hard to see why and predict it will get worse. We're now living in the 21st century and our economies are going to be more and more scientifically and technologically driven. It's not just the obvious new fields, like biotech and genetic engineering, which are only recently becoming economically important enough to significantly effect GDP. It's also older scientific knowledge bases, like geologists hired by the oil industry to use a knowledge of Earth's deep history to find oil.

While there are indeed Christian biologists, for example, Francis Collins and Ken Miller, who can accept the theory of evolution and remain self-identified as Christians they are not typical of either Christians or scientists.

While scientists are more atheistic than the rest of the population generally, those who publish in peer reviewed journals, the serious hard core scientists, are even more atheistic than those who merely have a degree. The more "hard core" the scientists the more atheistic.

I offer this to you as a question: Is atheism economically important?

35. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132481 by NormanDoering on February 24, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Paul Campos wrote:

The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?

...

After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick â€" in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.)

Invert that.

What would happen to Paul Campos or Stanley Fish if an Angel of a different religion came and told them their beliefs were wrong, that it was the Muslims or Buddhists who were right, or if advanced aliens from another star system came saying neither they nor any other galactic civilization have ever considered a God and found the notion rather crazy?

Actually, things like that do happen. I remember reading about how Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean tricked the local Indians when they were getting pissed at the Europeans. Columbus knew there was going to be a lunar eclipse and used that knowledge to convince the Indians that their god was angry at them and was taking the Moon away. The only way to make God happy was to give the Europeans everything they wanted and the Moon returned once they agreed to this.

Neither Dawkins (nor I) would be convinced right away by an angelic visit, but if the angel stuck around and was really willing to make a case and demonstrate specific abilities I might be convinced enough. I imagine Dawkins might also be convinced with the right evidence. Thus the fact that such an angel hasn't appeared is just more evidence God isn't trying to convince us he exists and that's probably because God doesn't exist.

36. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #127796 by NormanDoering on February 15, 2008 at 3:54 pm

APPlet wrote:

I whole heartedly support the idea of using humour to portray the foolish things people are asked to take on faith (as opposed to directly mocking the person).

I think foolish people like APPlet should be mocked for foolishly thinking that foolish believers in the absurd won't take it just as personally to have their beliefs mocked with or without names attached.

37. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #120860 by NormanDoering on February 2, 2008 at 5:36 pm

A couple days before I saw this article here I wrote this:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-pedophile-priests-really-believe.html

Here's a taste:

What's interesting about the pedophilia scandals that made national headlines over the last few decades is the large amount of homosexuality rather than just pedophilia. The scandals had some people speculating that there was more pedophilia in the priesthood than in the general population. However, according to Wikipedia, a report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found accusations against priests was about equal to such abuse in similar institutions such as education. I suspect that's only because we haven't caught them all yet. However, you will, of course, find pedophiles seeking access to children in the same way you'll find more necrophilia in funeral parlors and forensic labs than in high school education or computer programming. While the Church's own findings may or may not be honest we can still see that the church's scandals don't fit the usual pattern of pedophile crimes that get reported in other institutions. Outside of the church pedophilia is far more varied. It's still usually adult males, but they're usually victimizing young girls and there will be some adult females victimizing young boys and fewer instances of homosexual pedophilia. With the church, however, it was mostly homosexual pedophilia and the perpetrators were 100 percent male, a male-only Roman Catholic priesthood, and in 90 percent of these cases, the victims were boys, either prepubescent or teenage.

Just judging by the priests caught (who knows how many haven't been caught since no other institution worked so hard to hide it) it seems abundantly clear that the number of homosexual pedophiles is much higher in the Catholic Church than in the general population. Even higher than the percentage of school teachers, music teachers, athletic teachers who also have a lot of contact with children of both sexes.

38. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120433 by NormanDoering on February 1, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Andrew Brown wrote:

Really really amatuerish!!!

If anyone writes a detailed review of what's wrong with the book, please drop onto my blog here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-one-more-of-vox-days-lies-andor.html
and leave a link to your review.

39. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119428 by NormanDoering on January 31, 2008 at 3:24 pm

ianmkz wrote:

I bet the hits on richarddawkins.net are at an all time high thanks to the banal input of our theist friends. Advertising revenues should be good this month.

Nope, but if you want to get it to an all time high I suggest bringing up the subject of pedophile priests.

40. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118574 by NormanDoering on January 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Becomethearrow wrote:

... I see things you can never see ...

That's a common phenomena with schizophrenics and psychotics.

41. Belief in Belief

Comment #117734 by NormanDoering on January 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm

I explored the question "Do pedophile priests really believe?" here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-pedophile-priests-really-believe.html

Here's a taste:

Remember, in Christianity people are saved by faith, by believing, not by how they act in this world. Jesus forgives sins, as long as you believe in Jesus.

Also, many forms of Christianity define "sin" very broadly. It's not just the things we do that might harm others (or ourselves), it's every primitive emotion, from jealousy to anger to lust (even merely "lusting in your heart" as Jimmy Carter would say) to pride to being selfish, that is also a "sin." Since we can't control how we feel, we are all sinners. You are also supposed to "love your neighbor as yourself" which is almost an impossible dictate if you take it literally. Obviously my Christian neighbors don't love me as much as much as they love themselves else they'd buy me one of those high definition TVs too or, if not me, at least go off to India or Africa and help all those poor people who really need it. Very few Christians do this even if the religion does produce a few who go that far.

Every bit of selfish self interest in your thoughts and actions, such as taking any pleasure or pride in having done something good rather than an egoless pleasure in the fact that good was done, is sin. Some forms of Christianity create as much guilt as possible because it intends to exploit feelings of guilt and thus people with more genuine guilt to feel are going to be more attracted to the religion.

I can brush off that kind of extreme guilt tripping and not feel guilty about my pride, anger or jealousy. Those emotions are just human and they usually serve a useful function. For me, a more or less normal heterosexual male, there's not much sexual guilt to exploit (I'm more inclined to feel guilty about not feeling sexually attracted towards nice people who are attracted to me which is something Christianity doesn't even acknowledge) but if you're out of the normal loop, such as a homosexual or worse, a pedophile who can't help but possibly damage kids should they give in to the desire, then there is more real guilt to exploit.

If you're a pedophile it's a lot harder to brush off the guilt tripping when your desires give you something to really feel guilty about. Thus you'll be more attracted to the cure Christianity promises. The New Testament explicitly promises to change you once you accept Christ and that's something we atheists can't honestly promise yet with all our scientific knowledge.

42. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117521 by NormanDoering on January 29, 2008 at 3:06 am

Here's my take:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-one-more-of-vox-days-lies-andor.html

Here's a taste:

Vox claims that award winning "new atheist" writer Sam Harris was flat out lying in his books. But doing a minor bit of research I found out that it was Vox who was doing some lying. One factoid Vox used in that early draft was to claim that it's a "lie" or "factual error" in Harris' book that Sam "claims" that most suicide bombers are Muslims. This is what Vox wrote:

In his two books, Harris commits dozens of easily demonstrable factual and logical errors. While detailing these errors in their fullness would fill a book in its own right, perhaps highlighting a few of the more obvious mistakes will suffice to illustrate the case.

1) Factual error. Harris begins "The End of Faith" by claiming that most suicide bombers are Muslims. Jane's Intelligence Review reports that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who are not Muslims, but a Marxist liberation front, committed 168 of the 273 suicide bombings that took place between 1980 and 2000.

The lie, or very stupid logical error, is not Sam's but Vox's, because when Sam's book came out, in 2004, Sam was right. What Jane's reported in 2000 is irrelevant because it is too dated a source to contradict Sam. Vox needed a 2004 source and he didn't have one -- so he misled people lazy or stupid enough not to notice the difference in dates. He can not call what Sam wrote an error, but he did.

The problem was that the Jane's factoid was for 1980 through 2000, and Sam's book came out in August 2004 after the suicide bombing by Muslims went way up. Remember, since 9/11 the incidents of suicide bombings perpetuated by people who would identify themselves as Muslims, has gone up dramatically, in a large part due to Iraq. He would have had a point had Sam's book came out in 2001, but not 2004. Since then however the picture has changed completely. Today's numbers will show, 95% - 97% of the suicide attacks in the last 5-6 years have been carried out by Islamists, with a large number against civilian targets.

43. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114526 by NormanDoering on January 22, 2008 at 11:16 am

Once we can start "sniffing" the atmospheres of Earth-like planets (i.e. rocky worlds in the habitable zone), and we will in a decade or two, then we'll be able to start to hone in on the correct values for the equation's terms.

How do you sniff the atmospheres of Earth-like planets? I assume you're not talking about physically sending probes to those planets to physically sample them.

44. The New Theology

Comment #113202 by NormanDoering on January 18, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Van Till isn't necessarily a deist. All that has been described for him is deism, but he might still be fitting in those "biblical stories" -- like Jesus dying for your sins. It's simply unclear what Van Till believes about the Bible.

45. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112057 by NormanDoering on January 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

Here's another Huckabee quote:

"When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go," he said. "It's no longer your life; you've signed it over."
...
"When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ," Huckabee told the enthusiastic audience.
...
Likening service to God to service in the military, Huckabee said "there is suffering in the conditioning for battle" and "you obey the orders."

More context can be found on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html

46. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109327 by NormanDoering on January 8, 2008 at 9:21 pm

AndreG wrote:

I personally lived through the atheistic brain washing, government sanctioned in former USSR. Therefore, what is an urban myth for you, unfortunately was a reality for myself and other soviets.

How old are you? They haven't actively attempted indoctrination (re-education) in decades. The KGB decided it was easier to just infiltrate the church leadership.

And what exactly do you consider "brain washing"?

47. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109291 by NormanDoering on January 8, 2008 at 6:41 pm

AndreG wrote:

Back in a 'good' Soviet days, somewhere in a Russia, an atheist propagandist was talking to a crowd of a peasants. The atheist was a very skillful one, outlining a good case why the peasants should cease to believe in God. In the end, to demonstrate his point, he asked peasants to raise their fists and shake them towards the heaven to prove that they will not be strike down by the lighting and therefore should not be in fear of God anymore. Some enthusiastically, others reluctantly, but all, except of one, raised their fists and shook them. The atheist then approached the peasant who did not raise his fist and enquired as to why he did not. The peasant's answer was a somewhat unscientifical but nevertheless logical. He said, 'Well, you made such a good case that there is no God, then you have asked us to shake our fists towards him. If God is not existent, then who do we shake our fists against? But if He does exist, then I am scared to do that.'

My question is, who do atheists shake their fists against?

Does AndreG really miss the point of his own story?

Does he know How the religious mindfuck really works:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

48. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108881 by NormanDoering on January 7, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Of course, both parties pander -- but only one party has a candidate who will say this:

"When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go. It's no longer your life; you've signed it over... When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ... there is suffering in the conditioning for battle... you obey the orders."

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html


.

49. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108775 by NormanDoering on January 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Glen wrote:

I doubt that saying we're "doomed" if the US votes in a creationist is any help to the political debate.

How about pointing to Huckabees authoritarian mentality and fundamentalist psyche:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html


.

50. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107597 by NormanDoering on January 4, 2008 at 7:47 pm

You guys do know that Karl Rove created Mike Huckabee in a high voltage lab, don't you? If you doubt it, I have a picture that will prove it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/roves-frankenstein.html