1. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101335 by ronnieharper on December 20, 2007 at 8:47 am

I watched a show called Zeitgeist (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/) which claimed that the story of the birth of christ is actually ancient astrology repackaged. They showed a diagram of three bright stars lining up in the sky over Judea around that time, and linked the 'wise men' in the texts to these three stars. Other aspects of the story also coincide with astrology, according to the documentarian. The movie is a bit alarmist/conspiracy theory, but interesting nonetheless (and free).

2. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99179 by ronnieharper on December 15, 2007 at 8:15 pm

haha! yeah, i smoke (ugh). some people just really enjoy tabacco. it was his house. . .

3. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99176 by ronnieharper on December 15, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Several points struck me.

1. The question of tolerating faith.
2. Sam's inability to break through on discussing eastern metaphysics.
3. Hitchen's response to Dawkins regarding the role of faith in a secular society.

I'm surprised that Dennett didn't offer some perspective on pluralism, which religious philosophers offer as an alternative to a staunch atheistic worldview (well, any particular worldview for that matter). It sounds as though Sam feels like there is some value in the mysticism that has developed in the East, and he isn't alone in the realm of atheist philosophers. I wonder why the other guys didn't jump at his lead, and at least discuss other religions besides the three monotheistic ones. However, the idea that a universal truth isn't a derivative of any of these other schools of thought doesn't really ring true to me. I think theologians are extending a hand in offering to accommodate multiple interpretations of reality, which would serve everyone involved in that the dialogue could move forward, and the ideas could be framed in terms of science, empiricism, etc. without completely alienating the spiritual person. I'm not completely comfortable with the idea, but it seems, right now, the best alternative for rational debate. I wonder how Dinesh (what a boob in the Dennett debate!) would have responded to a 'metatheory' claim based on pluralism.

This was an excellent 2 hour discussion - I agree, I wish had it been longer. Thanks a ton for all your efforts, folks, especially you Dr. Dawkins. I'm sure every generation has their favorite freethinker, but you really stand out in integrating evolutionary biology into cogent talking points.

Ronnie

4. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98544 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 8:59 pm

'the bible' is periodic. There were many stories about people like those in the gospels. People were crucified regularly, often in long lines along the road from Jerusalem. Crucifixion is a very old form of torture-punishment that the Roman's adopted to quell social upheaval. The bible was a special tool for religious dissidents to communicate with one another while they resisted the terror of Roman occupation. The book of Revelation is a coded military strategy guide for a battle with occupying forces at a place loosely known as Armageddon, in the middle-east. Finding universal truths in 'the bible' is analogous to finding universal truths in 'The Lord of the Rings'.

Atheists don't have any business speaking at funerals or memorials unless they were affected by them in some way. For those not interested in honoring the dead at Virginia Tech in a spiritual manner, they are quite capable of doing so in their way, on their own terms. Perhaps this is why they were conspicuously absent, as D'Souza notes.

5. All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative.

Comment #98397 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 2:46 pm

This observation is useful and in no way supports a religious worldview, or a paradigm of the universe that is supernatural in nature, over any other. It's a difficult concept to integrate into a wholly natural worldview, but certainly a valid concept nevertheless. For instance, civilizations living in remote areas of the Earth could be said to have formed independent worldviews that are valid, contextually. However, as rnewson pointed out, if a worldview lacks empirical evidence, it probably doesn't have a lot of value for the average, everyday person. And we can all see that sometimes these types of worldviews can be dangerous for humanity. There's a difference between knowing about existence and interpreting it (say, via narrative).

'In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism." It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.'

– Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power §481

6. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98362 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 2:14 pm

The debate in philosophy, as far as I can tell from current papers, centers around the definition of 'will'. Assigning a biological definition to the concept of the will decidely moves this discussion out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of behavioral sciences. However, when I made that argument at university, one of my professors became seriously irate and marked me down, claiming that "science and philosophy are not synonomous," whatever that meant to him.

7. World History

Comment #98353 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 2:02 pm

I copied and read this encyclical, and I'm fairly certain that even Ratzinger, deep in his cockels, does not think that most of its finer points have any merit. It is an absolutely absurd document. There is simply no way that a truly rational human being, especially one so well educated, could accept the edicts in this document at face value. In my opinion, this document is clear evidence of a pointed attempt by religionsts to purposefully confound the average, everyday person on matters of philosophical import.

8. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #98352 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Nobody knows anything with 100% certainty, therefore those people who claim unequivocally to 'know god' are experiencing something other than knowledge.

9. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #98339 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Yes, this is simply an error in semantics. Moral law and the laws of science are two completely different concepts.

10. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #98335 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:37 pm

This is the reason that labeling oneself an atheist is a bad idea. Simply don't answer, or when pressed, use the term non-religious. Any label is charged, opening up for conflict the person that assumes it. Agnosticism is just a bad notion - for instance, the agnostic might claim that we are merely a computer simulation, like an MMO, or that we are part of (or living in) some larger organism. Agnostics sit on a fence and only face forward. Some of the atheists in this forum are, in fact, just as dogmatic as religionists. Without dealing in pure pluralism or theosophy, a person can easily rephrase religious notions or terminology into benign concepts (soul = mind, religious text = situational historical documents, prophet = amalgam of historical figures, etc) that allow the discussion/argument to progress.

11. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #98326 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:27 pm

This is a really weird question - a 'sense of community' is entirely too relative a concept to pigeonhole as being derived solely from one set of values. I would just turn the question around and ask how early hominids or some society that doesn't embrace religiosity found its sense of community. This isn't a very good debate point because it loaded, and only exposes the narrow minded nature of people who lay claim to ultimate truths.

12. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98308 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:08 pm

The dertiminist makes the claim that all events are causal, and therefore free will is an illusion. The compatibilist acknowledges free will in so far as people have choice, but otherwise concedes that events are, by and large, caused by others. And the libertarian (not a political libertarian) rejects determinism outright and claims that free will is not an illusion. The compatibilist position seems most appropriate for the non-religious as it ascribes actions that result from psychological states to free will, but 'static' traits, including personality, values, etc., as determined.

13. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #98300 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 12:57 pm

I recently wrote a short paper on this question, although I didn't come at it from an atheistic point of view. Here's my paper, which isn't very concise, but at least provides a starting point for discussion of this topic, which is a very important one, in my opinion. If the non-religious do not answer this question, the religious philosopher will rest on his or her laurels (i.e., will assume they've won the argument about the meaning of life). I think there is an answer external to ultimate truths like god or other supernatural constructs - which is that life itself has intrinsic meaning, and is invaluable in and of itself.

A Short Essay on Philosophical Questions

Introduction and Observations

Over the past several days, a number of people have participated with me in an exercise designed to shed light on the thoughts of random persons regarding philosophy and existence. Specifically, six of my friends, acquaintances, and family members responded to three questions, including 'What is philosophy?', 'What is worth living and dying for?', and 'What is the meaning of life?' As one might suspect, the answers varied to a large degree.

Following are the participant's responses grouped by question.

What is philosophy?
Participant 1 "The study of life and how we live it"
Participant 2 "I don't know what you mean."
Participant 3 "Philosophy is the study of existence."
Participant 4 "The study of thought."
Participant 5 "Wisdom with knowledge put in to words."
Participant 6 "Philosophy is a belief system which attempts to explain an interconnectedness. It is a study and a statement. It is a study and a statement."

What is worth living and dying for?
Participant 1 "Your faith, your family, your friends, and your country."
Participant 2 "I don't know. Nothing is worth dying for."
Participant 3 "Flowers, kittens, sunsets, love, passion, and accomplishment are all worth living for. Freedom, honor, and integrity are worth dying for."
Participant 4 "The joy of living life is worth living for. I'm not sure anything is worth dying for."
Participant 5 "For me living is preparation for eternity, which occurs after death. So my answer is god and eternity."
Participant 6 "Everything functions as a collective physical and metaphysical fraction of larger systems. This continues from the smallest scale to the largest and is cyclic in nature."

What is the meaning of life?
Participant 1 "It is how you live your life. Without faith in God there is no meaning to our time on earth. I would hate to think this is all there is.
Participant 2 "I don't know."
Participant 3 "I'm not sure life has any particular "meaning," unless by "meaning" you mean definition."
Participant 4 "I think the meaning of life is to live happy with love and caring for one another."
Participant 5 "I pretty much answered the question already, but I have more detail. We were made to last forever, and god wants us to be with him in Heaven. This is the warm-up-act, the dress rehearsal. God wants us to practice on earth what we will do forever in eternity. We were made by god and for god, and other wise life just doesn't make any sense. Life is a series of problems: you are either in one now, you're just coming out of one, or you're getting ready to go into another one. The reason for this is that God is more interested in your character than your comfort. God is more interested in making my life holy than He is in making my life happy. We can be reasonably happy here on earth, but that's not the goal of life as I see it. The goal is to grow in character. My example is Christ."
Participant 6 "Ascension."

Philosophy literally means a love of wisdom. Doing philosophy is making an effort to apply wisdom responsibly, such as participating in local politics, deciding what choices to make, and assessing opportunity. To live at all means to have won the grandest lottery ever conceived. Life is worth living for the sake of life alone, because the appropriate arrangement of the constituents of matter coalesced to form an individual in the first place. Each person's life exists in the face of the unlikeliest of odds. A love for wisdom is thusly derived, as peering in to the awesome nature of the universe commands reverence, wonder, and worship. Trembling and wide-eyed, the living person resists death against the inevitable and inexorable laws of thermodynamics. There is nothing more valuable than the seemingly instantaneous and fleeting moment, in the broad context of time, which is life. Life itself is not able to be valued. The only meaning to be found in the random ordering that substantiates an individual life is the unique nature of life itself.

Conclusion

From the exercise we can only surmise that there is an inconsistency regarding the lexical definition of philosophy and that ideas about reality can be discussed and postulated in a rational, civil manner. It's also important to note that based on the thoughtfulness of the responses, people are prepared to discuss philosophy and metaphysics in a forceful and productive way – an expression of the human will that is distinguishing. It is the nature of this expression that is the essence of life and living, and serves to highlight the relative importance of community over dissonance.

14. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #91287 by ronnieharper on November 28, 2007 at 12:46 am

That's a good question to ask at this website, ridelo, because it touches on a pluralistic approach to working with the concept of the soul, which is related to effectively advancing a wholly natural worldview. I am non-religious, but from a philosophical viewpoint the empiricist might read 'soul' as the word 'mind'. It would be my guess that since the creation were a baby, it would thusly have a soul, or mind.

15. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87864 by ronnieharper on November 13, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Kant wrote, " . . . we will show about the moral laws that they not only presuppose the existence of a highest being, but also, since in a different respect they are absolutely necessary, they postulate this existence rightfully . . ." (A634, Critique of Pure Reason)

Transcendental idealism lays claim to truths that are ultimately unknowable, not physicalism, as the original post asserts. While atheism may be self-refuting, because taking ownership of the label presupposes the validity of theism as a valid concept, simply eschewing all supernaturalism neither presupposes transcendentalistic and/or a priori reasoning nor lends credence to the idea that there is a need to refute anything at all.

The rub is in the label.

16. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74391 by ronnieharper on September 28, 2007 at 11:55 am

Someone might point out to Skinner that christians do take non-theists seriously. They construct concepts designed to preempt a worldview based on reason and empirical evidence, and distribute the concepts hierarchically and systematically. Then, with the god hypothesis having been firmly established in this preemptive manner, christians continually build on the concepts to insulate the (nearly self-replicating) preconception. This article is part of that insulation. That christians take non-theists seriously is evident in the fact that the article exists at all. Its title bears the markings of obfuscation, a cornerstone of cultism. I would just echo (again and again) Dr Benway's statement: "Concede that reasonable people ought to require evidence for some entity before believing it exists."

17. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69523 by ronnieharper on September 11, 2007 at 3:30 pm

I read the same article as everyone else. I extend my apologies for the broad and generalized argument.

18. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69489 by ronnieharper on September 11, 2007 at 1:11 pm

"Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith"

So what? Every time religionists are put on the defensive somewhere, part of them peel off, throw up their hands in surrender, and say, "oh shit, that's not me that said 'kill (insert stereotype here)' . . . I'm a different kind of (insert cult here)." No matter how "moderate" a religionist, they will always hate transsexuals. Religionists will always oppress women. There isn't any logic in assigning 'degrees' to intolerance in this context.

The muslims in this article are "young," "in danger," "fighting for rights," and have "faith". Does this soppy description differentiate them from their aging counterparts, in reality? No.

The younger generation that they in turn indoctrinate will have an article written about them, as well, in 20-30 years, excoriating their own righteous brand of islam. And the cycle will continue. I reject out of hand the assumption made by this author that, aside from the issue of apostasy, this newest group of religionists is any more tolerant than their mainstream counterparts.

When criminals get busted they change their modus operandi. The apologist angle to this article is ridiculous, as Jami himself indicates that the only aspect of his ideology that he absolutely rejects is suicide bombing. What a loser. I wager Jami has hardly considered the apostate turned antitheist, who might well be cannon fodder even in his candy land version of islam.

19. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69303 by ronnieharper on September 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm

HAHA! Very clever, I love it. Forum religionists - just try to remember it's not a mean-spirited comparison between facism and religion, but an intellectual experiment/exercise in critique.

Here's the witchcraft one, also very funny ~

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1338,In-Defense-of-Witchcraft,Sam-Harris

20. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68741 by ronnieharper on September 8, 2007 at 11:34 am

pewkatchoo ~

I don't think that's the golfer in his avatar, I think that is the gay reverend that was outed in the news recently. Whatever the case may be, I'm glad he changed his avatar because his pic was too hot and distracted me every time I saw it in a forum.

21. Bible Belter

Comment #68557 by ronnieharper on September 7, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I wanted to agree with the poster regarding the capitalization of the word god. It's important to not assign authority to the construct as a result of capitalizing its name.

As far as Hitchens' comment about boys' asses is concerned, I think it significantly less "crass" than the lowliest religionist sentiments (I, for instance, caused 9/11 because I'm queer.) In any event, the stigma of sexual indiscretion is steeped in the very religious machine against which we are fighting. Part of the underlying goal here is a reconsideration of millennia's-old notions of propriety, which hopefully bring to the average thinker a new understanding of sexuality and sexual expression. With that being said, I'm sure we all agree that protecting youth from predatory sexual practices by adults is our duty. I think Hitchens may have been driving home a similar point when he equated the U.S. education policy and abusive clergy.

While I disagree with a number of Hitchens' political viewpoints, his underlying argument here is sound. Frankly, I'm surprised it was not more vitriolic than it was, as he certainly deserves to unleash his polemics unrestrained after all that he has witnessed in his life as a writer, backed up, as they are, with facts and observations from personal experiences, some of them quite horrifying, and sad.

In the end, his book might change the lives of millions of children for the extreme better, as it opens up an opportunity in some families around the globe to present their children with the gift of allowing them to leverage their free-will in creating a value system for themselves. In light of this, Hitchens has not only remained cogent in his pointed attack on catholic clergymen, but also champions basic human rights for children in the process.

22. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16494 by ronnieharper on January 6, 2007 at 11:46 pm

HAHA! Might try a threaded forum here. Because of the sheer amount of information people are repeating other posts. Although, a better way of denoting links in the articles might help, as well. Or maybe a reference/rebuttal page after articles with resources and links. Or an articles forum with discussions nested beneath the article posts. I sure do love this website, I can't express how happy I am that this issue is finally getting some real time around the world. I've been waiting for years; I hope it just keeps going. We need this so very badly.

I swear I didn't /bold my post !

23. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16466 by ronnieharper on January 6, 2007 at 5:22 pm

I think most people in this thread (but not all)have misunderstood Sam Harris' line of reasoning regarding torture AND mysticism. Suffice it to say, I think, somewhere we have to come to a meeting of the minds, those agnostics and we. There is a reasoned philosophy somewhere in there, where the meetings of thinking minds, (i.e., say, an atheist and an eastern mysticist,) are at peace. Let the spiritualist find respite in a singularly, personally defined god-concept, instead of mass organized religion. Kind of a baby-steps approach to wheedling religion down to a manageable social norm.

As far as the torture issue goes. . . If I were a head of state (commander-in-chief), I would exact information and a guarantee of my citizens' safety out of my enemies, and it would be a private, succesful meeting with each and every one of them as needed. I wouldn't have to tell anyone, except for the suboordinate(s) that carried out the task. That's how I interpret his stance on torture, and I fully agree, somewhat unfortunately. But that is reality, which we can never marginalize with fantastical hopes that everyone will be manageable forever.

Well crap, the link at the bottom of the article explains everything perfectly. I spent so much time at alternet I didn't even notice that link (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/)

Sam Harris is an incredible philosopher, a gift to us today, in my opinion. Here's a good example: http://edge.org/q2007/q07_5.html#harriss.

I guess the specific moral issues here are a little more fleshy, than they are black and white. Don't hang on the word torture, maybe? It's more about guaging responsibilities as a commander-in-chief, or anyone who makes war.

Just my two cents, sorry it isn't too terribly cogent.

Ronnie Harper

24. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16418 by ronnieharper on January 6, 2007 at 2:36 pm

"I am committed to die for the sake of my religion, and the al Qaeda deputy's speech only encourages me to go ahead with my holy war," 18-year-old Sahal Abdi in Mogadishu said in a phone interview.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/06/somalia.ap/index.html

With gall, God is permitted.

25. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16250 by ronnieharper on January 5, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I can't believe all the points Richard makes weren't immediately recognized by all the authorities involved. And immediately acted upon - I was immediately shocked at the behavior of Al-Maliki, as he quickly ushered Saddam to his death. No fair appeal process, no trial for the thousands of other victims, no recompense except in the hateful minds of religious fanatics. Imagine the resource that Hussein would have been in prison. He would have been a fascinating person in his 80's, after a couple decades in a cush American prison (just a hypothetical).

Besides that, I think there is a compelling argument that a life of solitude would have been even more effective. But above all is our duty to respect human life. It was a hideous event, and even though I hate that guy with all my will, it really stunned me in a surprising way to see the indignity, and the wastage, and the utter cruelty and depravity of his captors.

This is a central philosophical concept related to atheist reasoning, in my opinion. You can't kill a person because they killed a person. Just that basic maxim, a duty I think, is part of the foundation of the other way of thinking that we want religious people to enjoy. Isn't it? Why would it be? Because we have to respect people's lives, treat them with dignity and respect so that we set examples for others. It's the only way a Jihadist would ever learn to put down his guns, by watching his Crusading enemies do the same thing, even at great sacrifice. Like the guy that burned himself at the White House during Vietnam - What lengths do people have to go to in order to make warmongers and fanatics recognize that all murder is inane and horrible?

These are all reasons why Saddam Hussein should have been executed respectfully as a deposed head of state instead of a depraved, embarrased fool in his own dungeon. But they are also the same reasons why we shouldn't execute anyone at all. You can't kill someone for killing someone. Read Italian blogs and newspaper articles - they are outraged at this miscarriage of justice, and it is a duty of all progressive thinkers to support the total abolition of the death penalty. I agree with and appreciate their opinions - they know (even though they were pretty nasty to Mussolini back in the day).

America is like a young buck in a sea of old men compared to the older EU nations - they have seen these atrocious periods in history that our countrymen couldn't even fathom, from the Inquisition back through the ages, and they tire of it. But Americans keep on truckin' along with their Guns -n- Beer, and lynch mob mentality, numbed to the horror of death like their Jihadi counterparts but in a different way - by our capitalist society and youthful recklessness as a nation. The death penalty is religious retribution incarnate, not any sort of Justice or ethical reparation. I maintain that all people that shephard and support capital punishment have not created values regarding Justice for themselves, but rather have assumed them from someone else (probably a religious relative). They mistake Justice for Retribution. This fine line is one of many that make distinct an atheist from a person that abscribes to the God concept.

On a side note, anyone that finds Richard Dawkins controversial, in my opinion, isn't a very progressive thinker. That's a narrow and irrelevent way of looking at the over-arching philosophy and scientific issues at hand. Don't forget to see the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter how he says it - someone has to say it and he needs support. It's our duty to humanity to support a peaceful humanitarian approach to resolving conflict and tension in the world, part and parcel of a natural worldview.

Ronnie

26. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16139 by ronnieharper on January 4, 2007 at 10:19 pm

What a hateful, little man. He is THE biggest asshat in US organized religion today. His hate speech regarding gays is offensive to the core - it makes me nauseous everytime I come across his vomitous rhetoric. His disservice to so many American citizens is basically a crime against humanity, as the fear and ignorance drives them to make war and repress liberties as we speak (type).