1. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #96007 by Nathan Lewellen on December 9, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Encore, encore!!! Once again, reason beats theology. I've had a hard time arguing about religion lately because I feel like I'm repeating myself over, and over again, but now I see why. Theology and idiocy are one in the same, no matter who you are...

2. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95324 by Nathan Lewellen on December 8, 2007 at 2:20 am

I expected some response to the word. As per The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary Third Edition (I know it's a little lacking in the prestige department but for all intensive purposes it works.), the term inoculate means to imbue. Whereas the definition of indoctrinate is to imbue with a particular belief or principle. Either way, I think it can be expected that people like Christians would have found the best terminology for force-feeding information to kids, seeing as how they've been doing it for 2000 years. As I see it, it doesn't matter how you say it, what matters is the principle that they get imbued with. We will be doing well to teach freethinking no matter what you call it.

3. The God Delusion in Turkey

Comment #95320 by Nathan Lewellen on December 8, 2007 at 1:56 am

The fact that Turkey is in such an area that hostilities are so common to will hopefully deter RD from going there. Just when you think you're getting a good message across to some people who could use some secularism, another Muslim blows himself up and gets his 72 crystal-clear raisins.

But on a much lighter note, for RD to be invited to Turkey would at least be a sign of secular movement towards an area of the world that seems to deplore any idea that doesn't come from a raving lunatic. Intelligence may be slipping into the middle-East by means of a Turkish back door. Better than not at all I would say.

4. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #95314 by Nathan Lewellen on December 8, 2007 at 1:29 am

I would like to point out that marriage, as it has become, is increasingly irrelevant in today's society. I cite the well-known fact of America's divorce rate.

The Darwinian examples of penguins and other birds and animals that have life-long partnerships could attribute testimony to every case of jealousy by way of genetic necessity. For genes to be passed on in the most 'selective' way, humans, like the aforementioned animals, have developed a habit for monogamous relationships.

Enter consciousness. Or at least the ability to chose whether or not to follow in monogamous relationships in a life-long manner. I'm sure it was probably a man who first 'cheated' on his mate as it is a natural occurence for males to 'spread their seed'. Sexism aside, it happened. Which brings us to, as RD puts it, today's Zeitgeist. I only ingore the development of the monogamous ideal for times sake.

I think that it is completely up to the individual as to whether they want to 'overcome nature' and look past the jealousy issues. One can easily argue that since life-long monogamous relationships are seen in nature, that religion has little or nothing to do with causing poligamistic jealousy issues. However, religion can easily be blamed for what may be unnecessary guilt after having 'cheated' on a mate. As religion crosses into the realm of nature in this issue by requiring a promise of monogamy, this arguement stands to reason, at least somewhat.

Feeling guilt and/or jealousy may not be avoidable. We as conscious beings have the ability and, if I may say, the right to overcome them just the same as we have the ability and the right to allow ourselves to be overcome by them. I think that in today's societal view, it is virtuous to stick to monogamy if for no other reason that it is considered difficult to do. However, I think that it is no less virtuous to be one who denies society the ability to demand it of him. It is nowadays, a personal choice that no one should ever be judged upon. It is obvious that Richard Dawkins sees himself as not being held prisoner by the emotions of guilt and jealousy. Whether or not one sees this as 'thinking with his little head' or not should mean nothing to anyone but the mate(s) he chooses.

It is a private matter and should not be used to judge a person unless you are attempting to determine that person as a mate or not. Politically, sex should be left alone with the only exception being that it should somehow influence an officials decisions as pertaining to his office.

5. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95301 by Nathan Lewellen on December 8, 2007 at 12:13 am

I think that Islam as a religion has made one mistake: it grew up in the wrong time.

It appears to me that Islam is in the same stage of development as Christianity was back during the Old Testament times. Unfortunately, for Islam, today's world society is, in my opinion, incompatible with it's Old Testament counterpart and thus Islam's current stage of development. Imagine if you will that in today's society, every Christian became fundamentalist and readopted the Old Testament ways of stoning to death anyone who broke any of the Ten Commandments. How much different would it appear compared to today's Islamic fundamentalism?

"They try to explain away some of the more uncivilized aspects of their religion as part of an old custom, rather than actual tenants of their religion." - 82abhilash

How is this any different than todays moderate Christians? Assuming we could go back in time and find that some of the stories of Christian fundamentalism that are told in the Bible were true, do you think that we would find moderate Christians acting in much the same way that moderate Muslims are acting today? I think we would.

Finally the point. What do we do about the monstrosity that is "Islam (or Christianity, for that matter) taken literally"? That would be up to the experts and people with power to decide. I can only throw out a suggestion. Which I admit is a radical and, by sheer magnitude, probably impossible. We must, as an enlightened, reasonable, and critically-thinking group, fight to educate the world's population and, I daresay, indoctrinate children with the free-thinking skills that every human possesses before religion can infect them. It may not be the answer to delivering the entirety of the human race into freedom from religion, but by coming into politics and fighting for secular laws on every part of the globe, it would definately help to curb at least some of today's, and hopefully tomorrow's religious violence.