1. Pascal's Wager

Comment #82539 by rabidchihauhau on October 26, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I believe that you've got to 'talk their language' if you're going to have any hope of success with the argument.

Tell them that its safer to not believe, because the virtuous non-believer will end up in purgatory while heretics end up in the 6th circle of hell: I'd much rather hang out on the green fields with Homer and Ovid, than I would burning in a tomb for all of eternity...

2. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80884 by rabidchihauhau on October 23, 2007 at 10:37 am

Its been my opinion for quite some time that in the world of popular opinion, the religious side of the argument usually "wins" the debate.

Most of the anti-religious debaters are not used to performing in front of an audience. Debating skills are of little value when prior decisions have been made by the audience based on emotion.

The religious side has the easier time of it out of the starting gate; they've co-opted important words (like "believe") they have an inerrant source and can always default to the smarmy side of certainty...while the pro-science/anti-religious gets mired in explaining scientific theory, caught up in rambling on about other religious belief systems or discussing the history of western philosophy - subjects that the vast majority of their audience are ill-equipped to understand or appreciate.

Personally, I think its wrong to debate these folks. No one seriously schedules time and rents a hall to allow both sides of the 'tooth-fairy' question to be heard. I think the standard answer ought to be: when you have a rational subject to debate, we'll be there.

3. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53515 by rabidchihauhau on July 1, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Sorry, but in my opinion, Hitchens lost this 'debate'.

American "news" programs are about entertainment. The entertainer (host) makes points by pandering to whatever he/she believes is their core audience. Matthews' core are "right thinking americans who believe in god".

Hitchens is erudite, forceful, comprehensive and witty - all of which came across as idiotic babbling. Sharpton skewered him with the 'how come you never answer my question directly' ploy and from that moment on, the vast majority of uneducated, unthinking, steeped in superstition audience saw a villinous atheist avoiding the question.

If this were a true debate, I have no doubt that Hitchens would have been the intellectual winner - and 90% of the audience would have turned it off five minutes in.

American TV viewers today do not watch to gain information or insite, they watch for the sole purpose of having their already closely held views confirmed by 'authorities'.

4. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45108 by rabidchihauhau on May 26, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Christian sports:

100 meter Cross-Bearing
400 meter Cross-Bearing relay
Stone Throwing (1/2 pound stone)
Angel Wrestling
Field Gleaning (Team)
...

5. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32801 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 9:28 am

Well, looks like the 'nose' misled me this time. This response from Patrick Clay:

"I represent Lia Boldt, the child's mother, in the appeal pending in the Oregon Supreme Court"

6. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32790 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 8:57 am

If he's trying to raise money for his cause, this is a piss poor way to go about it.

I've since emailed the investigative editor at the Seattle Times and suggested they look into it.

I have had as many as three attorneys working for me in the past and still retain a general counsel/business attorney. There's no need to hedge over whether you are or are not representing a party in a case since its going to be a matter of public record. You would certainly hesitate to respond concerning details of the case, but not your representation or lack thereof.

My return email states that I am only an interested party with no connection to the case. We'll see where it goes from there.

7. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32784 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 8:51 am

I received this a few minutes ago from Patrick Clay, Esq:

"I will be happy to answer you question about the Boldt case if you will tell me who you are."

My question to him was:

"Sirs,

I am trying to verify that you are in fact representing a party in the case cited below:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/appeal.html

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,"

Note that I had no question other than his being an attorney of record in the case. That is a matter of PUBLIC record once a case is filed...

Okay - someone explain why he's hedging? Either he is representing a party or he's not. If he is and is suspicious of someone representing the other side, it holds no water, since he has to deal with the other side anyway. If he believes he;s going to be served papers - he'd be served anyway...

8. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32781 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 8:47 am

Yorker,

I don't want to get into a personal tit-for-tat - but in that and previous posts I explained that I sometimes do investigative journalism and have relied on my 'intuition' - whatever its scientifically grounded explanation may be - to tell me when something doesn't jive. That initial 'it smells' reaction is followed up by proper checking and investigating, which is currently on-going. Had you read the entirety of the post you would have seen that the factual information I provided remained factual regardless of my initial reasons for looking into them. There was no need to comment on my mention of 'vibes' as it is parenthetical to the entire discussion.

I have since sent an email to the attorney supposedly representing the mother (not the DOC attorney of record). That effort has been stopped by a 'please identify yourself spam filter. If the attorney in question fails to respond in a reasonable time frame, he has something to hide. However he responds, I will post it here.

9. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32759 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 7:24 am

Yorker - I very carefully explained where my feelings came from: I offered factual information and identified it as such and offered opinion and identified it as such. I did not ask anyone to base decisions on my opinions, merely asked for additional help in looking into this further.

Citing the website gets us nowhere; this does not necessarily have to be DOC that is playing with the facts. I can't call the named attorney at this point - but someone should.

10. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32744 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 6:47 am

I'm beginning to think this is either a poorly conceived attempt by D.O.C. to gain some PR and/or perhaps initiated by some 'fundie' group designed to embarass atheists in general and Dr. Dawkins in particular.

I get a VERY strong vibe for the latter, seeing as how we are always talking about going with the evidence, verification, scientific method, etc. I can't base the foregoing on anything solid, just that 'bump' of intuition (most likely knowledge of facts not consciously comprehended) that tells me when something is fishy...

Will some others who are better placed to delve into this more deeply please do so and weigh in?

11. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32739 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 6:38 am

12. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32738 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 6:37 am

I'm becoming more suspicious by the minute. Below are links to the Boltd v Boldt decision and quotes from the case:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A99286.htm

(original case July 15, 1998 a reversal of a lower court's grant of a restraining order against James Boldt)

Quotes from the case

"Petitioner (wife) successfully obtained a restraining order against respondent (husband) under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA)"

(She filed for the restraining order one day before its expiry. The alleged abuse was in the nature of an S&M, 'slave girl-master' relationship.) "The "punishment," which had been used before, was for respondent to strike petitioner with a belt across the buttocks. He did so five times, inflicting considerable pain, but evidently no other injury. Afterwards, they hugged, were physically affectionate, and talked about feeling emotionally closer to each other. At the hearing on the FAPA petition, petitioner described such practices and roles as part of the "customs" the parties had followed throughout their relationship"

"After November 1996, no similar physical "punishment" occurred again. Petitioner continued to live with respondent until April 25, 1997, at which point they separated in anticipation of a dissolution"

"The record is devoid of evidence to carry that burden. At no point did petitioner testify or even suggest that she feared a repetition of the conduct in question or that it was part of a cycle of abuse that was likely to repeat itself and from which she could not extricate herself. Nor are we satisfied from the circumstances as a whole that, by a clear and convincing standard, such a conclusion follows inferentially. In the absence of evidence on that point, the restraining order should have been vacated."

Below are two links to cases that cite the Boldt v Boldt decision - apparently its a pretty popular one.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A99286.htm - cite

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A113013.htm - cite

Again - no mention of child abuse, no mention of custody awards, no record of contested custody, no mention of circumcision. Cases do drag on, but this appears to have been settled back in 1997 except for the recently (denied) petition cited in the D.O.C.'s press release.

There is mention of her son who was two at the time (he would be 12 or 13 now), but there is no mention of child custody issues, contested child custody issues or anything relating to that.

13. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32736 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 6:15 am

Upon further checking:

there is nothing on the Oregon Supreme Courts current calendar that refers to this case.

The only other reference to Boldt v Boldt that I can find when searching the Oregon Supreme Court records is a denial for the request of a writ of mandamus, from 10/19/04. Mandamus would be a writ from the court to a lower court to do or refrain from doing something they are required by law to do. In this case the writ was refused.

So far as the court record is concerned, the case of Boldt v Boldt is over - whether it had anything to do with circumcision I still can determine because I can't get to the records of the cases.

14. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32729 by rabidchihauhau on April 18, 2007 at 5:53 am

Thanks for whomever did a brief analysis of the HIV/circumcision so-called study. It definately puts it in better perspective.

I am bothered by one thing regarding this whole case. A google search for both "Misha Boldt" and "James Boldt and Lia Boldt" brings up only a single hit, and that is the D.O.C.s own web page. Clicking on the Oregon state court documents, the title for the Boldt vs Boldt case is NOT the same as is quoted in the press release. Their reference is:

"In re the Marriage of James Boldt and Lia Boldt, Jackson County (Oregon) Case No. 98-2318D3, Appellate Court Case No. A126175." (Affirmed 12/27/2006)"

While the court record simply lists:

"In the Matter of the Marriage of Boldt and Boldt (A126175)".

The above is also not an active link to the case matter, so nothing beyond the above can be 'verified'... AND an explanation regarding the 'partial sealing' of records because it involves a minor child is provided.

The links provided for verification of the Attorneys in question are to general websites for lawyer searches and anyone could choose a name from the site and 'have it verified' by going there...

Furthermore, a search of google for "oregon" and "circumcision" provides several links but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them that refers to Misha's case uses the DOC press release as its source.

There are NO stories in the press about this. None. Don't you find that a bit strange?

I'll admit to being a bit of a paranoid newshound - but I do do investigative journalism (for a specific industry) and I will tell you know that my suspicion meter is pegging on high. When all 'sources' come back to a single one, there's reason to check further. I'd urge caution on getting behind this particular case until some verifiable source NOT linked to D.O.C. can be provided.

That's for this case - not the general subject of the invalidity of religiously forced genital mutilation.

I find it a bit - I'll use the word 'strange'

15. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32631 by rabidchihauhau on April 17, 2007 at 5:58 pm

here's the name of the org that did the AIDS/circumcision research:

"Anne Buve, an epidemiologist at the Insititute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, said: "We did find that circumcision confers certain protection against HIV, in that it seems circumcised men do not get HIV as easily as uncircumcised men.""

I have no idea of the validity of the study and other's comments about suggesting the use of condoms instead of circumcision were good ones - but this does put a point or two against the 'absolutely no medical benefits' side.

I'm circumcised. I don't remember the pain. I'm also adopted and chances are I was adopted out of a home that would not have circumcised me into one that did.

C'est La Vie foreskin. Not having had it I don't miss it. However:

the case in question states that the father is under going conversion to judaism and, although it depends on the sect involved to some degree, if the child was born to a non-jewish mother, he is not a jew and does not become one simply because his father converts. He would have to undergo conversion himself and I'm not aware of any synagogues that would countenance a 'forced' conversion (in fact, one of the requirements of converting is to state on three separate occassions that you want to and I don't think the kid has...)

I think the attorneys are missing the mark here. If they throw it back on religious law, the kid and his foreskin are safe and it doesn't effect the 'parent's medical rights regarding minor children' in any way at all...

16. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #32240 by rabidchihauhau on April 16, 2007 at 10:44 am

I haven't read all the commentary, so sorry if I'm reiterating someone else's point:

ummm - maybe one of the reasons that so many folks have trouble dealing with 'data dumps' is because they've been taught to think (if you can call it that) in a non-critical, religion has all the answers way.

The whole argument in this piece strikes me as putting opinion on a par with fact. And that's the problem - almost all of the societal and cultural issues are being influenced and decided by people who have opinions and no facts.

Lets pander to the least common denominator - they're talking about marketing here, not science!

17. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #31550 by rabidchihauhau on April 13, 2007 at 8:13 am

I know there have got to be some game designers/coders out there. Can you get ahold of this game engine and re-work it so the objective is blowing away fundies?

18. Then Call it God

Comment #31545 by rabidchihauhau on April 13, 2007 at 7:57 am

'Because my espousal of things religious demonstrates that I don't understand anything...'

'Call me Idiot'

19. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26131 by rabidchihauhau on March 17, 2007 at 6:16 am

I have to admit I haven't read all the comments (only the first 50) and have yet to see this issue raised:

have any of the 'prayer-healing' experiments been conducted with members of different religions doing the praying?

In other words, has anyone studied the effect of muslims praying for christians? or Voodooists praying for jews?

If, I'd expect it to be double-blinded with due consideration for placebo effect.

Then, turn it around and see what happens when the subject of the prayer is INFORMED that a non-co-religionist is doing the praying.

'Father Don, today, we're bringing in a bunch of Baal worshipers to pray over you. Let us know as soon as you start feeling better...'

20. Blame Abraham

Comment #25143 by rabidchihauhau on March 10, 2007 at 11:22 am

re comment 4:

In the long run, I think it will turn out to have been market pressures that are responsible.
If you look at things today, you'll see that commerce goes through regular phases. A 'new thing' starts out as a specialty business. If successfull, competitors will join in. If growth continues, the market begins to consolidate and the product itself begins to get 'dumbed down' in order to have wider appeal. Ultimately, it turns into a mature and ossified industry, at which point specialty companies come back into the picture, in effect 'customizing' the (successful) cookie-cutter products for the 'true fans', the 'hooked' and the 'fanatical'.

If you look at western polytheistic religions, you can see the consolidation going on. Much easier to obtain profitable revenue from the worshipers of ten gods than it is the worshipers of one.... Ultimately, you end up with one and, uh oh, here come the customizers...

21. Religion and Politics

Comment #24390 by rabidchihauhau on March 6, 2007 at 11:15 am

nvlawyer said "If a man believes in a higher power, you assume that he is dumb. That is a real stretch and lacks any support in reason."

No, I don't - that person may be very smart, but they're misguided and have allowed at least one aspect of unreality to creep into their reasoning process, which means that they are capable of making the same kinds of mistakes in the future and should therefore be watched VERY carefully.

You have also (deliberately?) made a classic faux connection between religious 'faith' and the more common use of the word.

Religious 'faith' is defined as "belief without evidence" (or, more to the point, belief despite idiocy), while the 'faith' you ascribe to Sagan is most definately 'hypothesis and investigation'. Sagan believed that there are mysteries out there AND that we are capable, in the fullness of time, of investigating them and achieving greater understanding.

The ultimate message in 'Contact' was not mutual respect for different 'magisteria', it was that we must give up 'faith' in order to find any answers.

22. Atheists come in last

Comment #22917 by rabidchihauhau on February 24, 2007 at 10:47 am

23. Atheists come in last

Comment #22916 by rabidchihauhau on February 24, 2007 at 10:46 am

Bizarro:

I liked your comment about the new testament being the 'covenant' we're now living under. It strikingly reveals your mindset and instantly warns the reader that everything to follow is sheer nonsense.

A 'covenant' is a contract. The only one that Jews accept is the original one - and it just so happens that your messiah didn't fit the bill so far as the Old Testament definition goes - so what you're basically advocating is a religious schism that the owners and originators themselves rejected. But then, it wouldn't be the first time that the masses went for the shill...

Furthermore, as anyone familiar in any way with contracts must know, in order to be valid, there must be acceptance of the terms by BOTH parties, and those terms must be equitable ones.

Your convenant fails on both counts - there are tens of millions of people in the US alone who have not signed on with your vaunted contract, and I doubt that even Johnny Cochrane could make the case that its equitable...

24. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15725 by rabidchihauhau on January 2, 2007 at 9:38 am

David has not grown up; he refers to everyone here as 'children' and no doubt includes himself as a 'child' of 'god'.

David - we've all grown up. What you've been reading is not blasphemy, its people's attempt at humor - some of it good, some of it bad, MOST of it poking fun at the method.

You obviously don't get it. So, in short sentences and with words of one syllable:

You can NOT (what's a one syllable word for blaspheme?) blaspheme against some thing that does not exist. Get it?

No god - no blasphemy.

The entire exercise was created to upset people like you who take insults hurled at non-entities seriously. Watch out - I'm going to offer you some alternatives:

the easter bunny does not exist
santa claus is a myth
the tooth fairy is really your mother

While you sit there and WORRY about whether you've followed all of the instructions in the proper order, (presuming you're reading the proper instruction manual) hoping to get your ticket into cloud cuckoo land, fearful that maybe you forgot some little thing that's going to consign you to an eternity of suffering, the rest of us here have been enjoying the presents we got for gift-giving day, pocketed the quarters we found under our pillows, transformed the rabbit into a marketing icon and have moved on to maturity.

25. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12930 by rabidchihauhau on December 14, 2006 at 12:53 pm

my worries run deeper;

over the past decade or so, the fundamentalists 'discovered' business and realized that there was a ready-made market for anything labelled with fundamentalist origins. There are now so-called Christian radio stations, television stations, news broadcasts, publishing houses, toys, educational materials, food, clothing, rock bands - you name it, someone is marketing a religiously oriented brand of it somewhere.

There is nothing out there to stop te Discovery Institute and their ilk from deciding that 'peer review by obviously biased Darwinists will never allow their theories the light of day': soon they will establish the American Academy of Christian Scientists', establishing their own peer review board, and a host of other labs and foundations; the courts and the every-man in the street will be hard-pressed to understand why one science academy is legit and another one isn't...