1. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20810 by CrysOdenkirk on February 6, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Ok, this is just stupid.

I might, MIGHT admit there are some questions about whether religions should be able to claim artifacts that had belonged to their religious forebears in the way countries can claim artifacts taken from them. I would probably come down against them, but it would MAYBE be worth discussing.

The modern "druidic" orders are, at their oldest, less than 150 years old, cobbled together with little regard to any kind of real history. Even calling themselves "Pagan" demonstrates a lack of understanding of history and religion. The modern druidic orders have as much in common, genetically or religiously, with the pre-Christian peoples of Britain as I have with a cactus. That is to say, I am somewhat round, generally prickly, ocassionally wear green and I love sand. That alone does not a cactus make!

If you could somehow prove literal direct descent, that might be worth something. But this is ridiculous.

2. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17302 by CrysOdenkirk on January 12, 2007 at 7:26 pm

why is he obsessed with the "bad America" thing?

It's because that's the way anyone who's not right-of-Bush is perceived. We're not Americans or fellow citizens. We're "America Haters". It's just as dogmatic as "There's no such thing as global warming because the Bible says so".

3. The New Atheists

Comment #16483 by CrysOdenkirk on January 6, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Now a look at some of the new criticism of religion.

Criticism of religion is new? Gee, guess somebody better let them US Founding Fathers know that so they don't write it into their Constitution... oh wait...

Comment #16290 by aikideshi
Isn't that convenient, can I use that as well in my daily life?

hahahah No kidding!

IRS: We need documentation of your income.
Me: Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved.

4. God-less

Comment #16476 by CrysOdenkirk on January 6, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Here's another take on explaining morality. Maybe I can make it a little simpler.

We want to be treated as individuals and to have the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want.

So does everyone else.

On some level we recognize the only way to get the majority of people to let us do what we want is to let them do what they want to do without interfering with them.

This is where the morality comes in, the interaction. If your desire interferes with someone else's desire, then you learn to recognize that particular desire as being counter to getting your way _most_ of the time.

Rape, being the example used in this thread, is a perfect example of that. If you want to have sex with someone, and they do not, you recognize that acting on that desire interferes with them. You recognize that this will therefore probably lead to a greater number of your desires being denied by this person and a greater amount of interference from other people who then think that you will probably interfere with them too if you get the chance. It's basic cost/benefit. You can act on this one desire and face greater interference, or you can self-censor this single desire in exchange for less interference on your other desires. Even if you choose to pursue this desire, you recognize that it is wrong or "evil". Those who do not are generally classed as sociopaths.

This is why we consider self-defense or defense of another to be ok, but the same action NOT in self defense is not ok. We can interfere with someone who wants to interfere with ourselves or someone else, because we're removing that person, one way or another, from the reciprocation pool.

The problem with "morality by authority", whether it's gods or police, is that it short circuits the reciprocation. If your god tells you to kill, or your President tells you to torture, you can lay the blame for your lack of reciprocation on the authority figure and thereby continue to think you and those acting under that same authority are good. Those who act contrary to that authority become "evil" and fair game because you see them as interfering, even when their interfering is a form of defense against you or your authority's lack of reciprocation with them.

5. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #16127 by CrysOdenkirk on January 4, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Ugh!

Speaking as someone who was nearly burned at the stake (well, a tree, not a stake) by children whose Fundamentalist parents and priest lauded them for it, I tell you, I'm ready to do a little violence to that article! Christians as a whole aren't violent but Muslims are? Frankly, I don't see much difference between them!

But I could go on at length about that and I won't.

My real comment is a response to scooternyc's question about citation. I remember watching one of his hare-brained speeches to the country and hearing him say that God had chosen him for "this fight" I think is the exact phrase. I don't remember exactly. I'm digging through speeches to find it. When I find it, I'll post it to:

http://del.icio.us/CrysOdenkirk/god_made_me_do_it

I'm in the process of reading through the millions of stories I found when I started looking for that speech. I think I'm going to start collecting examples of the "God made me do it!" defense, and they'll be at that link as I find them.

6. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15323 by CrysOdenkirk on December 30, 2006 at 11:12 am

The only way I can imagine it is if they live in a fuzzy haze where they refuse to examine the evidence in front of their eyes.

Welcome to the USA, land of the tied-on stereoscope.

You have to acknowledge the evidence is in front of your eyes before you can refuse to examine it.