1. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96528 by Mroberts3 on December 10, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Donohue concluded: "Let this be a lesson to militant atheists like Pullman: keep your hollow beliefs to yourself.

The same could be asked of him. They are only "hollow" because they aren't HIS beliefs. He wasn't out protesting the Narnia movies, but a movie that is basically just a mirror opposite is somehow evil.


what angers me is the way these people are out to ruin even something as simple as a children's movie.

I am an atheist and I loved the Narnia books. I saw the first movie, and will almost certainly see the next ones. You don't see me having a fit and boycotting them because of the religious symbolism. Why can't they do the same, and just let people who want to see a movie have a good time?

As a side note, these complaints remind me of the Islamic groups who scream and yell that cartoons, or naming a teddy bear is an affront to Islam. Why is every little bit of criticism (even in a children's movie) so bothersome?

Reminds me of how I (and probably most others) get most offended by criticism or rebuke when it is TRUE. If someone criticizes me, but I think its unjustified, I just ignore it and let it go.

2. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67192 by Mroberts3 on September 2, 2007 at 2:59 pm

As for the pseudo-history of the Gospels: "history" wasn't invented when they were written. "History", as we know it, is a wholly modern concept. For the ancients, a history would be a mixture of reportage, received wisdom, narrative and story.

3. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65707 by Mroberts3 on August 25, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Nice job everyone! It seems likes half of the responses they posted spoke eloquently against religion.

Who needs a shepherd to herd a flock of sheep when you can have a "self-herding" group of cats?

4. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51389 by Mroberts3 on June 22, 2007 at 3:05 pm

While I find the ring as silly as the rest of you, there are larger issues at stake.

1) the treatment of religions differently.

Who is the school to decided what is "required" by a specific faith. (again, as stupid and nonsensical as that may be.) As someone else said, either no uniforms and allow religious (and other) symbols, or a uniform code that treats all religious/non-religious students the same.

2). Free expression itself is more important than any particular viewpoint.

Some here have said that perhaps banning all religious symbols would be a good idea. I disagree. This will only increase resistance and galvanize the faithful. The best way to counter speech you disagree with is more speech. The point is that this girl has a right to express herself, especially if that protection is made to others.

In short, we must err on the side of expression and allow all viewpoints to be voiced. That does not mean I must respect the arguments themselves. I must, however, respect the individuals right to make said arguments.

5. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35774 by Mroberts3 on April 28, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Don't know where I heard this...

America:

"Show us your boobs!"


Iran:

"Show us your face!"

6. God Is on Our Side. Does That Mean War?

Comment #28339 by Mroberts3 on March 28, 2007 at 8:06 pm

I just don't understand how this would affect nonbelievers in the same way. He suggested that they don't really not believe. For me that is just not true, I don't think I have ever been even tempted to think god exists.

Maybe this is like that experiments where people would hurt others when the scientist running it told them to. God is the ultimate figure of authority, so what he says seems more acceptable...even unconsciously among those who don't think he exists. (The idea being that even though I don't believe god exists, I have to allow him to, in abstraction, for the story they read me to make sense.) So he is an authority figure, and gets credibility, even to those who really don't believe.

7. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26950 by Mroberts3 on March 22, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Also, I wish people would read other comments before posting. I made the point about understatement after Norman's remarks, and yet others posted the same thing, and more people were forced to make the same point I did, only more elegantly.

8. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26947 by Mroberts3 on March 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Eggplant: "By saying there is evidence for it, you are saying that is testable and has been tested. That's what evidence is. Whether the evidence is strong enough to elevate the hypothesis to near certainty is a different and important matter, of course."

So you are using the second meaning of testable I wrote at the end of my post. That is you "test" something by comparing the evidence.

I am not sure that the original article meant it in the way you did. I read it to mean that the God Hypothesis is not lab testable, as it were; there is no scientific test we can do now to prove it one way or the other. So the original article meant that it is not scientific method testable, AND is unsupported by other kinds evidence.

In that case I don't see a logical conflict.

9. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26825 by Mroberts3 on March 21, 2007 at 9:06 pm

On the debate about judging this book:

Both sides have legitimate points and I think there is a middle ground here. It is true that we should needlessly avoid insulting the author and work before it has even been written. In a strict sense we should be agnostic to its contents :)

More practically speaking, however, the statement: "I have seen a lot of books attacking RD by name, and the synopsis of this one makes it seem like the others. I suspect it will not have much to add," is not wrong in principle. We do it all the time, to all kinds of books, movie trailers, etc etc etc. It is not being an "irrational atheist" to make such a prediction.

What would be irrational is to say that Cornwell is a stupid person for writing this book and is clearly a lesser person than myself, without even reading what he has to say.

10. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26818 by Mroberts3 on March 21, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Gelf, I think I understand why you see it this way. Let me try and help.

If I were to make a hypothesis, such as: "There is a teapot orbiting the Earth, that is too small to see with modern human technology," would you accept this as true just because I say so? Since I assume not lets move on. And if you do, then that is a problem I can not fix in this (short?) post.

The point here is that although you don't see the "science" behind Sam's argument, you don't have to. If you accept that Andrew's position has no evidence supporting it, thats really all there is too it. Sam is simply trying to explain that fact.

Modern science, going back hundreds of years, has continually proved religion wrong where it was possible to do so. Most rational people out there don't dispute these scientific findings. This is why you don't see Sullivan arguing for the literal creation story as I assume he would if this debate had taken place pre-Darwin.

It has gotten to the point where science has done enough. Specific, tangible religious claims have been proven false over and over and over. Religion has to some extent retreated to where science (as of right now) can't touch it.

As such, Sam is forced to rely on elementary logic to explain to Andrew why he is wrong. (Sam's idea's are wonderfully insightful and well presented, but at the core he is essentially writing a book entitled "Logical Thinking for Dummies" -- Do I get royalties if he uses this in the future?)

In other words, to combat a very literal religious person Sam would use scientific findings to prove that evolution is true, the Earth orbits the sun, intercessory prayer does not work etc etc etc. Sullivan is not that person. In this case, Sam is appealing to logical consistency to try and shake Andrew from his fog.

In addition, some of Andrew's claims are not really testable, so we can't go on "science" to prove them wrong. (you can't put the divinity of Jesus into a lab test) You have to rely on critical thinking for these kinds claims, which are different than "man was created whole in his current form."

Did that help?

11. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26810 by Mroberts3 on March 21, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Norman, it "probably" not flat... phrase was trying to use understatement to highlight the point. Saying the Earth is "probably" not flat grabs your attention because we know the Earth is certainly not flat. It's just there to grab your attention, I think. Same goes for the babies thing.


Eggplant:

I was thinking about your second post and I am not sure you are 100% right. For example, it is not "testable" to know that Caesar said "Jacta alea est" and crossed the Rubicon into Italy. There is, however, some evidence for it.

Whether or not there is a god may indeed be testable, but I do not think it is a contradiction to say something is untestable, but also unsupported. Evidence need not come from some kind of devised test, study, trial etc.

In this I am assuming you mean testable in a strict scientific sense. Or are you using it in a more general sense: that we "test" a hypothesis by looking for evidence against it, and if none is found it is said to pass--unless new info comes along?

12. You can't trust science!

Comment #24843 by Mroberts3 on March 8, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Funny because it's true. When you step back and look at things like this you realize what a gigantic joke we-ahem-some, of us all are.

13. Atheists come in last

Comment #22840 by Mroberts3 on February 23, 2007 at 2:25 pm

When talking about someone like Obama, my concern isn't if his faith is real, but rather how he puts religion as a whole in the context of our democracy. In other words, I don't care about how religious a politician is as long as he upholds the separation of church and state, and doesn't make policy decisions for all of us based on his own faith.

In addition, I hold no grudges against people who fake or embellish religious belief to get elected. First off, its about the only way to get a rational thinker in office. Not all politicians are just power hungry, some really want to serve their country but couldn't even dream of getting elected without professing SOME religious belief.

And from a practical standpoint, I would rather have intelligent and capable people in office regardless of how the campaign played out. Sure, I'd rather them not lie, but we have to be realistic in our religiously dominated political arena.

14. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #22676 by Mroberts3 on February 20, 2007 at 4:45 pm

BTW, I found the video funny in a "Saturday Night Live" way. It's premise was so silly, and the impersonation was mediocre at best, but somehow that made it even funnier. Sorry to see RD didn't like it, but I guess its not fair to expect one to be as objective as the target.

15. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #22675 by Mroberts3 on February 20, 2007 at 1:38 pm

"You grossly misunderstand my argument. It's the other way around. I was arguing that although we cannot know for certain that our Universe did not create itself (or exists eternally, as some believe, although I don't think Dawkins holds this position), it is simply not a reasonable idea to accept. Sure, the Universe could have created itself, but this is not a concept supported by any good logic or experience."

If you have a convincing explanation as to why "God" is more likely than "The Universe" to spontaneously appear/have been there eternally, then you have a reasonable start on the path for an argument in favor of "His" existence.

Of course, you don't have one so I guess I'll just take it on "faith."

16. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22094 by Mroberts3 on February 12, 2007 at 10:43 pm

I saw this on the times website today and it got me into insta-letter-to-the-editor mode. I just can't believe the stuff that passes for thinking these days.

I don't see how you can deny him a Phd though based on his personal beliefs. Luckily he found a place at Liberty "University," so hopefully he will remain outside the modern scientific world for the near future.

17. Massachusetts Atheists?

Comment #20328 by Mroberts3 on February 1, 2007 at 9:48 pm

I'm studying at Boston University right now. Maybe I should seriously look into this...

18. Questionable Mission

Comment #16668 by Mroberts3 on January 8, 2007 at 1:52 am

Looks like I'll be heading to Europe permanently in the next decade or so. anyone got suggestions on where to live? I might as well start learning another language now...

19. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #16144 by Mroberts3 on January 5, 2007 at 12:20 am

Calling Dawkins a militant Atheist is like calling an out of the closet homosexual a militant one.

at least they are not banning "Atheist marriage"... yet

20. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #16143 by Mroberts3 on January 5, 2007 at 12:17 am

"It's annoying to see Dawkins and Harris characterized as "militant". Where have they tried to incite violence like the christian right? "Militant" is a word I would reserve for extremists. Dawkins has NOT demonized individuals or spread hatred. These are the methods of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Look at the way the christain right has personally attacked Judge Jones in the Dover Intelligent Design case."

Exactly. While I think this article gives a good summary of what is going on to someone out of the loop, militant is certainly not the right word. I bet this is unintentional on his part. My this is one of the things we need to change about people's perceptions. A fundamentalist Christian and a very outspoken Atheist are NOT the same thing; they are not poles on a spectrum. One is a fundamentalist in the way it should be defined, and the other is not.

21. Now we know how to make the IDists dance in their petticoats: blaspheme.

Comment #14158 by Mroberts3 on December 21, 2006 at 10:15 am

I am no longer a teenager, (Oh my GOD, if you'll pardon the expression, I'm 20! AHHH quarter life crisis!) but I still probably fall into the same demographic. I would rather see a more serious from young people towards religion, but I think thats asking too much. This project doesn't hurt anyone and its clever so I say kudos. However, I hope sometime in the future we see a more concerted political effort, especially in schools and universities, from the youth of our world.

22. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14157 by Mroberts3 on December 21, 2006 at 10:08 am

Great, here I am laughing to myself over the sheep comments and now everyone in the airport terminal thinks I'm a weirdo. I guess it wouldn't help to try and explain it to them...

Seriously, the sad part of this is I saw this elsewhere before seeing it posted here and didn't even bat an eyelash of surprise. My reaction was more like, "Yeah, so? What do you expect?" Of course the fact that religion causes violence might still be news (pun intended) to some people.

23. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12420 by Mroberts3 on December 11, 2006 at 10:37 pm

Well at least they are aware enough of their PR reputation to distance themselves from Andy.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/