1. Fleabytes

Comment #144472 by queen5102 on March 16, 2008 at 6:54 am

mixmastergaz:

You may also enjoy : Let the Mystery Be by Iris Dement. Lyrics may be found here: http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/dement-iris/let-the-mystery-be-11276.html

2. Fleabytes

Comment #144470 by queen5102 on March 16, 2008 at 6:48 am

mixmastergaz:

I think The Rebel Jesus by Jackson Browne qualifies as an atheist song since he refers to himself therein as a heathen and a pagan.

John Prine's The Missing Years about Jesus may not qualify as atheist but it is definitely a song Christians would consider sacrilegious.

3. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125166 by queen5102 on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 am

What about Sir Harry Kroto? He is very involved in projects to educate the public about science.

4. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #121137 by queen5102 on February 3, 2008 at 1:40 am

In response to Troodon: I am an attorney, although I am not a litigation attorney and I graduated from law school in 1983, so forgive me if I am a bit rusty. There have been and are criminal prosecutions of priests and church authorities who covered up the crimes; however, the statute of limitations has run on many of these crimes which often are not reported until decades after the offenses. The standard of proof in a criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is hard to meet this standard when the crime is not reported for years or decades. Defense attorneys have a field day with late reported crimes which often lack any physical or corroborating evidence. Witnesses have died or moved away or their memory fades or fails. Why was the crime not reported earlier? Also memories that have been allegedly repressed are often not reliable. (Remember Elizabeth Loftus’ presentation in Beyond Belief 2006.)The victims have often not led the most exemplary lives. (This should not matter but it does factor into the decision to prosecute, etc.) As I recall prosecutors may not bring up evidence or suggestions that the defendant has committed other or similar crimes except in very limited circumstances.

The standard of proof in a civil case is “preponderance of the evidence.” The standard is much easier to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is much easier (although not always possible) to get around a statute of limitations in a civil case, especially if the defendants have covered up the offense. Patterns or habit of conduct in such cases are more likely to be admissible in court or at least discoverable (adding to the settlement value of the case.) The rules of discovery are much more lax so attorneys for the plaintiffs can get access to a broader range of records. You can also have more than one plaintiff, while criminal cases usually have to be prosecuted individually.

In Tennessee, where I live, the law has been changed fairly recently to require anyone with knowledge that a child has been abused to report it to the authorities. Because this was not always the law, it has been difficult for prosecutors to charge or convict church leaders who may have covered up the crimes.

Generally, there is no statute of limitations for murder, but there are statutes for most other crimes. I would think long and hard before doing away with these statutes. It may be necessary in these cases, but again, there are reasons why the state should not have the authority to go after people many years or decades after the commission of crimes. People also need to have an incentive to come forth sooner rather than later.

I think Norman Doering is correct that most reported instances in the Catholic Church have been adult males preying on young boys. I think this is likely because priests have more access to young boys, who are often alone at church for their altar boy activities and for church retreats, etc. I suspect, too, that boys may be abused more often because they can’t get pregnant. However, there is also a long history of abuse of girls in the Catholic Church. See the movie, The Magdalene Sisters. I don’t think sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is a new phenomenon. See the book, Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse.

I do find it strange that religious people constantly hold up the good that churches do such as “minister” to the sick, the poor, the distressed and the elderly or providing a community for spiritual seekers (that we atheists never get credit for doing), but no one ever brings up the serious harm that they do such as permitting and fostering sexual abuse and fleecing the congregation of their hard won earnings so they can build bigger and more ornate churches or so that church leaders can live in luxury.

5. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115373 by queen5102 on January 24, 2008 at 5:27 am

I must confess that I have not read The Origin of Species in its entirety. My father read it when I was in high school and we did discuss passages that he recommended to me. It has been on my shelf since then. I thought that learning about the current state of evolutionary theory was more important to read first. I read The Selfish Gene in the early 80s and it changed my view of the world. But I have to say that it was Climbing Mount Improbable that gave me a good understanding of evolution (and better arguments against the creationists in the Bible Belt where I live.) I think the Professor himself recommends this book to those without a scientific background. It is the book I recommend to questioning religious friends to read first along with Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces and his entire Masks of God series. I also recommend Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

However, I think Steve Zara and Richard Morgan are right. We should (but are not required to) read Origin for the classic that it is and because it is the book that changed forever human understanding about our nature and place in the cosmos. It can also help us refute creationist bull hockey like Campolo's.

6. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115291 by queen5102 on January 24, 2008 at 12:27 am

I vaguely recall that the Nazis drew on the theories of Herbert Spencer and others who espoused in the late 19th century what came later to be called social darwinism. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism) mentions some of the people and their theories, although I do not think it is a very thorough treatment of the subject.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the actual science of evolution. Richard, Sam, Dan and Christopher have often commented that the misuse or misinterpretation of science should not be confused with the truth of the actual science. I don't think anyone disputes that the ethics of the social application of science must be taught, complied with and enforced.

I think Tony Campolo's article is just another religious person claiming (without sufficient knowledge or documented research) that scientists and atheists are immoral.

I do hope that someone with thorough knowledge of Darwin's writings can analyze the claims that were undocumented in the article and give us a comprehensive response.

7. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112346 by queen5102 on January 16, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Dear Mr. Scales,

I am American. My uncle fought in France, but became an alcoholic after the war and died young. I wish he had had a bit of your courage after the war and had been able to make the contributions to life that you have made. Thank you.

On the lighter side and to address your current need for cheer to help get through your medical tribulations, I would suggest that someone read to you from the works of the American author James Thurber during your recovery. Unlike most mothers in the American South where I live, I did not read the Bible to my children when they required comfort. When sick, my son requested that I read to him from the Thurber Family Album. If you cannot find a copy, I will be happy to ship one from the States. Laughter is truly the best medicine. I know you will appreciate the stories about Thurber's grandfather who lived with his family when he was a child, who was still fighting the US Civil War, forty years later. Get well soon.

8. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90936 by queen5102 on November 26, 2007 at 6:02 pm

I have been lurking for a long time but the mean-spiritedness that has taken over this site has gotten to me and I must gently protest. Jack, please stop with the Sam bashing. He was clearly saying that he thinks atheists are more moral than Christians and he was clearly making a joke in an effort to get Christians to donate to a cause that he feels very strongly about. I also attended Sam's AAI speech and there was nothing he said to get angry about. He does not deny that he is an atheist, but wishes there was no need to be identified as such, just as we have no need to have a name for people who do not believe in the tooth fairy. He did agree that the times do make it necessary for us to have a name and a banner under which to join forces, just as the abolitionists did. What is there to be angry about? Sam has publicly bashed Christians harder than almost anyone in history has had the guts to do. However, he does see the need to join forces with them on some issues such as Ayaan's protection and global warming, etc. Is it really necessary for atheists to be always angry and antagonistic towards theists or towards Sam who is one of the best champions of our cause? Why can't he do it his way? He has acknowledged himself to be one of us and he is fighting mightily for the cause. Why does he have to do it your way or risk your wrath or annoyance? Who died and left you the boss of the atheists? Save your anger for those who truly offend.

9. The God Delusion One-Year Countdown

Comment #71464 by queen5102 on September 18, 2007 at 8:35 pm

I just bought three more copies on Amazon for gifts. Hope this helps.

10. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #46265 by queen5102 on May 30, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Brian, please do not think of yourself as being a deserter or a destroyer. I, and many others, have found a tremendous joy in seeing the world as it really is and not as a place to suffer before going to what Christians and Muslims call heaven. You are so right. You only have one life to live, such a brief time in the sun. Now that is a truly liberating thought! There are so many awesome things to learn about and marvel at in the universe that you will not miss your religion or the people who were not truly your friends. Many people will like and love you just as you are, perhaps even more so since you have stopped being irrationally religious.

The family is a tougher problem and it may be painful for you to break away; yet in the end, you will be happier. Your family will not stop loving you because of your rationalistic world view. Even if they do, you are of an age where you can choose how to live a life that is rational and happy and yes, moral, even without god or the church. If they fail to rally 'round you, it truly is their problem.

I was chronically depressed when I believed in god, or to put it more accurately, when I thought I was supposed to believe in god. Since I gave up any attempt at believing in god, I have truly felt liberated and joyful. Now I know I have only one life and I try to learn as much as I can and I don't have to worry about eternal damnation. I try to treat the people I am with including my family and friends as if we have only one life to be together. It truly puts life and relationships into perspective. Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I am in awe to think that someday I will be stardust again, yet my molecules have been graced to evolve for a brief time into consciousness. No religious feeling can ever compete with that.

Make your choice to live rationally with your head held high. Treat your family and former "friends" in the church with kindness for they are still living with their mental illness of believing in irrational things. Maybe some day they will see the truth and be set free from such beliefs due to your example.

You are not alone. You have found atheists and rational thinkers in this online community who think like you and who will be supportive of your struggle to break away from the chains of your religious upbringing. You were in a sense abused. Be kind to yourself and think of yourself in more positive terms than deserter or destroyer.

11. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33742 by queen5102 on April 21, 2007 at 1:24 pm

While I do not think a father should be permitted to circumcise his 12 year old son when the son does not want it, I do not think it is child abuse to have an infant circumcised. I think there are hygienic and medical reasons to have it done. I had my son circumcised because 11 months before my son was born, my uncircumcised 53 year old father died of penile cancer. Almost no one who is circumcised ever gets penile cancer. It was a very horrible way to die. So those of you who say there is no medical reason to have it done are wrong. I think there is also a reduced risk of disease transmission under certain circumstances. I do not regret my decision and my son has suffered no ill effects from it as far as I can tell. I also had a childhood friend who died a few months after her mother of a very virulent hereditary form of breast cancer. Her widower is faced with the horrible task of having to discuss with their two daughters the choice of possible prophylactic removal of their breasts when they become teenagers. Not all tissue removals are based on religious or cultural beliefs. Evolution does not produce perfect bodies or there would be no evolution.

12. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29938 by queen5102 on April 5, 2007 at 3:22 pm

"Comment #28952 by larrysul83 on March 31, 2007 at 10:05 pm Concerning post ##27264, why can't atheists develop an organization that offers the social attributes of a religionless church, including fellowship; morality; a reverence for life, Earth and the universe? An organization that does in fact offer the same consolation and comfort provided by religious belief?"

Many American atheists attend a Unitarian Universalist Church for these reasons. The only problem is that they accept everyone: atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, psychic mediums, etc. It can be rather annoying to have to be tolerant of the very irrationality one is trying to escape. But at least atheists are accepted there, which is not true in most other American organizations.

13. Religion and Politics

Comment #24303 by queen5102 on March 5, 2007 at 6:59 pm

I recommend the book Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening by Stephen Batchelor for those who are interested in an explanation of how to be a Buddhist without believing in reincarnation or the supernatural.

14. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21108 by queen5102 on February 7, 2007 at 3:17 pm

"I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist."

From what I have seen and read, Professor Dawkins is immune to arguments that are not based on evidence, unlike Professor McGrath, who appears to base his whole life and career on a lack of evidence. I don't think McGrath has even read Dawkins' book.

15. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19405 by queen5102 on January 27, 2007 at 12:27 am

Andrew actually proves Sam's point about one of the dangers of religious moderation when he said,

"Some of us have come out of fundamentalism ourselves. In my book, I describe my own fundamentalist periods in the past. As a gay Catholic, I know what the cold draft of fundamentalism is like; I've felt its dogmatism and dismissal and denial close at hand. So spare me the thought that you know it better than I do."

Sam should point this out to Andrew: As a moderate, it IS too easy to slip in and out of fundamentalism. If Andrew, who considers himself to be very moderate and tolerant, slips in and out of fundamentalism, then how can he be sure that he will always act as a moderate in future? He can't, because the temptation for moderates to slip into fundamentalism is strong because the basics of their irrational beliefs are the same.

16. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19093 by queen5102 on January 24, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Why don't we just take back the word "Right" since that is what we are? Instead of being people "on the right", we can be the people "who are Right" and just call ourselves Rights. Think about all the levels of meaning the word has and how the word has been misappropriated by people who are usually wrong. I guess that Rights may be considered to be more arrogant than Brights. ;)