1. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239654 by SPS on August 30, 2008 at 6:20 am

It appears to be a recurring theme of religious apologists that scientific understanding is to be excluded if scientific understanding doesn't explain and precede every aspect of existence, somehow requiring an understanding and explanation of mechanism, else demanding that 'religious faith' and 'god-given' is the answer. And, then there's the other recurring theme, where, if there is a great deal of understanding through science with 'x' explaining 'y', the apologist will credit god for both. But, as far I know, existence always precedes understanding, understanding itself being subject to evolution.

2. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237928 by SPS on August 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm

al-rawandi,

You make a good point, but I was speaking generally. I wouldn't dismiss anyone's opinion just because it's an opinion, especially if they are likely to be effected by a course of action, but I may weigh the opinion of someone generally considered knowledgeable in a particular field more heavily. For instance, if diplomacy with a foreign nation was my aim, I may weigh the opinion of a journalist who has lived in that country for decades more heavily than someone who has studied it from afar through books, etc. Another example may be that of opinion leading to questionable action by those who have a vested interest in a particular outcome, such as the recent push to have creationism, or 'alternative' explanations to evolution taught in a science classroom, justified by there being 'doubts' about evolution or labeling it 'only a theory'.

-Edit for spelling.

3. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237854 by SPS on August 27, 2008 at 10:09 am

I agree that opinions should be expressed, and the right to do so is a vital part of freedom. However, transitioning from opinion to a course of action should be handled more carefully. If I were seeking medical treatment for a sick child, I may listen to the opinions of well-studied amateurs, but would likely defer to the options made available by professionals in the field. Confidence is fine, but the well-studied amateur, as well as the professional, should be open to the possibility that they are mistaken in their view, and the amateur, perhaps, much more likely to be so.

4. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237284 by SPS on August 26, 2008 at 10:02 am

I think both sides of the reason, opinion, learning argument have valid points.
I do think there is a certain degree of humility necessary to effectively continue the learning process, as you are likely to find that you are wrong quite a lot along the way.

5. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236832 by SPS on August 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm

huzonfurst,

Of course the real solution to illegal immigration is for the government to enforce existing laws, but it refuses to do that in deference to large commercial interests who like having cheap labor to mercilessly exploit. The fascist pigs (always loved that term) then point to the squalid conditions in which the grossly underpaid workers live and blame it on them, since they aren't "like us (wink, wink)."

6. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236440 by SPS on August 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I've posted this quote before. Maybe it's appropriate for this thread...and I like it:

The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right...
- Judge Learned Hand

7. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236401 by SPS on August 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I didn't care for or agree with his answer regarding the science vs. religion issue, but aside from that I thought Campbell did well in championing evolution in a challenging situation. Given his own religious views, the way he conveyed the science vs. religion issue was not ideal (though to him it was honest), it appears to have been an effective way of reaching some of the students who have religious objections to evolution.

-Slight edit for clarity.

8. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236368 by SPS on August 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Read this yesterday. Nice article.

9. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236156 by SPS on August 24, 2008 at 10:02 am

Just another thought, about the emotional element, I suspect this thread, and any other, wouldn't go very far if we were indifferent or apathetic about a given subject. Emotion is motivation.

10. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236126 by SPS on August 24, 2008 at 9:27 am

What is to stop the religious interests of our respective countries from replacing 'muslim' with 'atheist' in regard to dealing with 'extremism' in some of these ideas that have been offered, and using Stalin, Hitler, China, etc., as justification? And, as far as an atheist running for political office, there are U.S. states with constitutions that 'require a religious test'
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists ), though the Supreme Court decided in 1961 "that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override the state requirements".
As regards evidence and guilt, consider the follow scenario:
An engineer is kidnapped by an extremist group.
The engineer is required to transport a briefcase to a destination, and comply with all demands on threat of the killing of his/her family.
The engineer does not know the briefcase's contents.
The briefcase contains a bomb, which will be placed in the locker of a busy commuter terminal.
The engineer is caught before being able to comply with this order.
There is no evidence tracing the bomb back to an extremist group.
Prior to complying with the extremist group's demand, the engineer is required to videotape radical extremist rhetoric.
Would guilt be clear in this scenario?
Just a thought.

11. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #236057 by SPS on August 24, 2008 at 5:30 am

Thanks, Steve. I have to say that I didn't see Richard's comment, but jumped to Joe's from the latest comments section on the main page. Sorry, Richard.

12. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #236054 by SPS on August 24, 2008 at 5:18 am

Joe,

Please explain the confidence you have in knowing something that, to you, cannot be explained.

13. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233949 by SPS on August 20, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Here's an article about the Q&A by a christian on HuffingtonPost.com:

Obama vs. "Oh, Bomb 'Em" --Who's the Christian?

14. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226083 by SPS on August 7, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Someone once said something to the effect that women bring the 'civil' to 'civilization'.
I tend to agree.
I agree with the another poster's point stressing the importance of education, which should start with the right of free inquiry without fear of retribution. I'm hopeful that action taken through solidarity can bring positive change.

15. Embracing goodness, without God

Comment #223927 by SPS on August 3, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Ideally, I'd like to see 'atheist' replaced with 'person'.

16. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #223759 by SPS on August 3, 2008 at 11:21 am

The Guardian could have gotten the title for this directly from the article:

The obliging Balls...

17. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221827 by SPS on July 30, 2008 at 7:25 am

al-rawandi,

Thanks for your response.
I apologize if I'm not able to get back to you in a timely fashion. I work at a constant time deficit, and there is virtually no gap from one thing to the next, but I'm on a short break.
What concerns me is that the 'interest of the wealthy' is always the prevailing and growing force. I'm not sure we can always count on society beginning to object (though I hope we would), or that society at large will be at any great advantage to oppose the prevailing forces, or for that matter, society knowing there is something to object to in the first place. If it would happen as you describe, would this be cyclical, or would society call for permanent change?
As far as state ownership, the phrase itself doesn't sit well with me. I certainly think fairness is a reasonable and worthy goal.
Break over...more to come later, time permitting.

18. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221625 by SPS on July 29, 2008 at 11:22 pm

I don't get to keep up with some of these discussions as much as I'd like.
Regarding the discussion about hard work, I'd like to say that hard work in itself isn't meritorious (I'm sure the Discovery Institute has a hardest working employee), though the reason for doing it (feeding your family, paying your bills, etc.) may be. Most of us are order takers at our jobs, and as such have little say from one day to the next what our work will consist of, or what will be given priority.
If we're paid according to how hard we work, then the CEO of the company I work for apparently worked 693 times harder than I did last year.

Post 627
al-rawandi

The singular problem with capitalism is congealing capital at the top of society. This happens at different rates based on a number of factors.... tax rates, interest rates, industry, political theory, etc... But the redistribution of wealth will soon be in the interest of the wealthy (redistribution to a degree) because inherited wealth threatens the notion of earned capital.
Economic theories have been tested, and none are perfect. The least imperfect seem to be strong capital markets in a system that keeps both spending and taxation to an absolute minimum...

If capital is allowed to congeal at the top of society with no turnover (this isn't necessarily and unavoidable outcome, but potential) without redistribution in the form of taxation or reinvestment, then the flow of capital is disproportionately headed north. So a progessive tax is one way to deal with this, estate taxes, luxury taxes. These are in the interest of the wealthy precisely because it will slowly become a controlled market.

19. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221076 by SPS on July 29, 2008 at 10:16 am

Regarding the removal of children from the parents' home, I've known people who have gone through this. I also knew someone casually who worked in this area. While I don't know all the ins and outs of it, I am aware that there is an ongoing interview/review process involving repeated visits to the home before a decision is made as to whether a child should be removed. In some situations, circumstances prevailing, more immediate action is taken for the removal of children from their home. This may be similar to someone reporting domestic violence to the police, and the abuser's subsequent arrest. These processes may not be applicable to all states.

20. Toward a Type 1 civilization

Comment #218756 by SPS on July 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Type 0.4

...non-producing upper-class members.

21. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217909 by SPS on July 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm

http://cectic.com/ext/159.png

22. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217903 by SPS on July 24, 2008 at 6:39 pm

http://cectic.com/ext/159.png

23. 'Condoms won't change HIV rates'

Comment #212080 by SPS on July 16, 2008 at 3:14 pm

On a related note:

Pathologists Believe They Have Pinpointed Achilles Heel Of HIV

24. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211501 by SPS on July 16, 2008 at 5:03 am

Joe,

I have gone into detail regarding what the Muslims achieved...

25. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211230 by SPS on July 15, 2008 at 4:15 pm

The comments from the mouth of western historian regarding Greek or Muslim science which i have presented, speak for themselves

26. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209611 by SPS on July 12, 2008 at 7:50 pm

As I understand it, economies and trade depend on representation of assigned value.
The fact that so many of us live and die, prosper and dwindle by this is a bit of an absurdity. Economic systems of all kinds that put the priority of the system before the people are all lacking. I would like someone to point out to me the part of the capitalism handbook where altruistic largesse is part of the formula. Can't buy food for your kids? It's because you don't have enough of those paper things we like in your wallet. Can't send a manned mission to Mars? Not enough paper. How about deflecting those asteroids headed towards earth? Nope. Not enough paper. Should we also measure which is the 'true' religion by how many people have benefited by it? Or maybe the winner will be declared by how many scientists were christian or muslim or whatever. Or maybe by how many believe it, agree with it. Surely, that would make it true? Then we can dedicate ourselves to it for all eternity with unbiased attention and devotion, and not worry about what is a better way to arrive at truth. Surely, there is nothing better.

27. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209568 by SPS on July 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Here's a recent article about capitalism from washingtonpost.com:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002264.html

28. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208157 by SPS on July 10, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Email sent.

29. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206720 by SPS on July 8, 2008 at 5:25 pm

ertu, joe, clearmind, and the like,
If your aim is to convince, compel, and defend, you have done nothing in service of that here. If your goal is to serve your god honorably, what have you achieved by carrying on the way you have? Would your god approve and be honored? I ask that you consider this before your next post.

30. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204654 by SPS on July 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #204650 by Steve Zara

Well said, Steve.

31. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202624 by SPS on July 1, 2008 at 5:48 pm

From the article:

,,, and the fact that they seem complicated and hard to explain through evolution doesn't suggest for one second that we ought to invoke the supernatural finger of God.

So I'd say to Dawkins, until you explain to me how human beings interact with the world, don't tell me that God couldn't interact with the world in the same way we do.

...but something that we don't understand at all is occurring. I don't think it's supernatural. I think that someday we may understand this.

I think it's a very reasonable belief that God interacts with creation and that experiences people have of interacting with God are profound and deeply meaningful.

32. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201458 by SPS on June 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I skimmed through most of this article and the phrase 'intergalactic jihad/crusades' comes to mind. Here's to hoping advanced alien species are atheists.

Layla,

You may be thinking of this episode of Star Trek TOS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses_(Star_Trek)

33. God hates Mars

Comment #199486 by SPS on June 25, 2008 at 8:25 pm

sent2null,

Yes, but what are your thoughts on candy?

The Skor bar is highly underrated, and is a good use of taxpayer money.

34. God hates Mars

Comment #199434 by SPS on June 25, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Mars addict lives on chocolate for 17 years

35. God hates Mars

Comment #199395 by SPS on June 25, 2008 at 5:14 pm

...no need in wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money...

36. What Happens When a School Board of Religious Zealots Will 'Lie for Jesus'?

Comment #197316 by SPS on June 21, 2008 at 5:50 pm

This is the link to the PBS program, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, referenced by Shemp333.

Creationism is like weighing yourself on a broken scale. You may like what you see, but it doesn't make it true...results may vary.

37. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #196119 by SPS on June 19, 2008 at 10:21 am

Great post, irate.

clearthinker,

What is the difference between the supernatural and what you imagine it to be?

38. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195487 by SPS on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 am

A little late...welcome Oystein!

39. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195193 by SPS on June 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm

"In brief the argument is that explicability itself requires explanation"

40. Only a Theory

Comment #194056 by SPS on June 16, 2008 at 10:47 am

I enjoyed listening to the talk wit Dr. Miller.
Am I wrong in thinking that 'strengths and weaknesses' of religion will be taught as well? <--(joking). Agenda driven initiatives closed to being challenged often don't apply to themselves the same rules they would have others follow.
In the talk Dr. Miller spoke briefly about the non-literal interpretation of the bible by christian scholars, but why then is 'god' not excluded from literal interpretation?
Following the discussion about limitation, my thought is that limits first have to be observed to know they are limits. Realization of limitation is the first step in overcoming it. To me, religious belief is a roadblock to the genuine pursuit of understanding. All forthcoming answers and solutions to problems are either truncated, assumed without question, credited, stifled, or given their possibility through the 'god' answer to whatever might or might not come along. Surrendering knowledge to the incomprehensible is no solution, because it is no different than surrendering to the non-existent or the rules of the imagined.
I think there may be more than one intersecting path to religious belief, but my speculation about the nature of religion is that it is a placebo for commonplace phobias - death, uncertainty, etc. Phobias can reflect actual threat, but also allow for compartmentalization to tend to the actions needed to sustain daily life. Widespread, the importance it's given is in equal measure to the cure sought out. Its application finding necessity in imagination, used to smooth the powerful and potentially debilitating to survival, emotions such as grief, desperation, and fear of finality. Its implication matching its need. Imagination and reality met by mortality run towards unconditional survival, but religion stops in the dream.
(Pardon some of the wording.)

41. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193918 by SPS on June 16, 2008 at 8:06 am

Is it too early to have my thumb out?

42. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193849 by SPS on June 16, 2008 at 6:14 am

For some reason I picture the pope doing magic tricks at this meeting, a few "is this your card" tricks, followed by a game of 3-card monty, and rounded off by pulling a coin from behind Bush's ear, a stunned Bush throwing his hands in the air, "Wow, this catholic stuff is cool!".
A robe and pope hat Bush could play pope in would seal the deal.

43. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193127 by SPS on June 14, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Pardon me for recycling part of my post on Dinesh D'Souza's blog entry with a slight edit:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/06/12/can-a-darwinian-be-a-christian/27#comments

I know some here have been making assertions about science in defense of their faith. I am curious. Would you be as comfortable making these claims in an auditorium full of evolutionary biologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc? Would you be open to being shown incorrect?
Some have posed that intelligent design/creation make sense, because certain things are 'impossible'. Why do you then credit a creator in doing the impossible whose methods you do not know, and who believers readily admit they cannot comprehend? Why do you not allow for the first, and allow for the second? Why are you searching for an evidence based god? If evidence is important then where does that place the importance of your faith? Would you still believe without "evidence". If you would believe without evidence doesn't this reveal you as biased against it?
A yes or no answer will suffice for most of these questions, but answer as you wish.

44. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192923 by SPS on June 14, 2008 at 9:02 am

jdbartlett,

You make some good points, and I think I agree in part with the basic thrust of what you're saying. Speaking for myself, I generally formulate the gist of what I want to say for a first post before reading anyone else's. We should also guard against agreeing to be in disagreement as a virtue in itself. After all, putting forward any argument comes with the expectation that someone will agree with/challenge what you have to say, doesn't it? Religion can have valuable traits, though the traits should stand on their own, and can lose their value when enforced by the "reasoning" behind religious mandate.

45. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192881 by SPS on June 14, 2008 at 5:56 am

If the issue is maintaining tolerance among religions, the trouble is differences and unknowns when translated into religion become absolute certainties, when peace can require an attitude of 'let's wait and see/let's find out', and honestly answering and challenging the question 'how do we know?'. It would seem that the goal of diversity in coexistence may necessitate religion's removal from the equation.

46. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191391 by SPS on June 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm

clearthinker,

Thanks for your response. However, my name is not Brian. Maybe you confused my post with that of Brian English's, which is above mine. No matter, though.
I posted this on Dinesh D'Sousa's blog in response to this entry of his:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/06/08/what-science-cannot-tell-us/

I think some of my questions/responses may be applicable to your stance. Feel free to ignore the parts that are not, or answer them if you like. Some of what I wrote on his blog I have already posted here before in part. I see some posters here have already put similar thoughts to mine more eloquently in their own posts. Here it is :

You suggest that atheism allows for no meaning in life. This is only in contrast to what you already consider criteria for meaning. You write about the limits of science to provide answers. What do you consider knowledge? How do you arrive at it? Do you see that the shortcomings you assert are only in relation to what you already consider unchangeable proper measurement? Why do you value answers given over answers discovered? I have heard you speak about the limits of our senses. What would your thoughts on god be without your senses? How did you arrive at this observation of limitation? Divine inspiration? You write about what it would take for an atheist to be convinced of the supernatural. If you were raised in a village that was not technologically/scientifically advanced and had no contact with the outside world, would you consider it acceptable for a villager to believe a plane writing in the sky is acceptable proof of the supernatural? If acceptable, would the villager be correct based on his/her belief? Would this observation by a villager qualify as one of the "things that science cannot possibly tell them"? What do you consider an acceptable limit to seeking answers through scientific inquiry? Would you apply the same limit to medicine? Meaning, applied to an area of life, changes, and does not need permission to exist or change. Surely, you have experienced this even in your supposed christian view of life and experiences? Tell me, do you and your religion value the truth, or only being 'considered' correct? I know which science values. If interested in the truth, how do you plan to arrive at it? Have you held a point of view only to find that you were incorrect? How did you come to this conclusion? Was it by logic, observation? When was the last time faith proved you wrong? You believe the bible correlates well with science. No doubt you have seen religion and faith re-defined to fit science? Tell me, have you ever given a subject serious thought and observation and not found some degree of correlation or similarity with someone else's thoughts on the same subject? As for what is good, bad, etc. If you were poked in the eye, would you have to experience divine inspiration or accept jesus as your personal savior before deciding if this was something you actually wanted? Would your ability to observe consequence be effected by your ability to memorize the ten commandments? How do you explain other animal's behavioral norms? Why don't they fall into chaos? Clearly they are not believers, and don't have a soul for that matter. I see you like to associate faith with science. One values evidence and results, the other is faith. Oh, and by the way, you forgot to apply skepticism to your skepticism of skepticism.

::Edited for clarification, redundancy, spelling, and some grammar correction.::

47. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190639 by SPS on June 9, 2008 at 10:12 am

I have yet to meet an atheist who can make even a feeble argument to counter any of these points...

48. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190307 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm

moderndaythomas,

My guess is what is probable is what is profitable unless unavoidable.

49. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190291 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Has anyone seen the documentary The Future of Food? Worth a watch in my opinion.

By the way, how did all those prayers for world peace go?

Edit: Just saw Barry Pearson's post. Glad to hear it. On to the next world crisis!

50. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190047 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 9:26 am

Another disturbing result of superstition:
Albinos, Long Shunned, Face Threat in Tanzania