1. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113874 by kkant on January 20, 2008 at 8:58 pm

soul_biscuit writes:
I see very little chance this measure will pass.

Would that you were correct. Unfortunately, I think something like this has a significant chance of passing. :(

Brainwashing vulnerable and impressionable children is one of the primary ways by which the religious virus spreads. It is not at all surprising that they want to target history classes in school with their revisionist lies (or delusions, to be more generous).

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

Comment #69536 by kkant on September 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm

J. J. Ramsey, are you a Christian?

3. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66642 by kkant on August 30, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Dr Benway writes:
James Bond vs. Elmer Fudd.

LMAO. :D Now I can't get that picture out of my head.

4. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65931 by kkant on August 27, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I was glad to see so many calm, reasoned, thoughtful responses on the atheist side, over at CNN. The religious responses look so trite and mindless by comparison. I was about to post a long foaming at the mouth rant over there, but the post was fortunately too long so I had a chance to step back and think better (or worse) of it. :D

5. The Out Campaign

Comment #60800 by kkant on August 2, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Henri Bergson writes:
"Suffering is wrong" is unverifiable.

The unverifiable part is the word "wrong", not the word "suffering"--and only because "wrong" is meaningless without context. Words like good and evil and right and wrong need to be referenced to something to have meaning. But happiness and suffering do not. Thus "minimize suffering and maximize happiness" (as was mentioned by Baeoz above in the context of Utilitarianism) can be established as a set of principles without reference to anything--society or God or whatever.

Furthermore, it is ridiculously parochial to depict humanism and utilitarianism as derivations of Judeo-Christianity. The principles of less suffering and more happiness and being nice to each other are certainly not the exclusive province of a bronze age palestinian fairy tale, and can be derived with no reference to it or indoctrination in it. Indeed these attributes were probably present to some degree before we even had a civilization to speak of.

6. The Out Campaign

Comment #60768 by kkant on August 2, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Henri Bergson writes:
Are you the cousin of that 'rage boy' we see everywhere?

Who the fuck is that?

Henri Bergson writes:
Have you heard of the 'Euthyphro dilemma'? –
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

No I haven't, but I like it. Well put.

Henri Bergson writes:
Utilitarianism is an unwitting form of Christianity (why is maximizing overall happiness good? - it cannot be verified true or false).

No I disagree. Just because they (and many other viewpoints) share some concept of happiness, doesn't mean one is derivative of the other. Furthermore suffering and happiness can be verified at least to a certain extent. We need not go into hugely subtle gray areas here. If I pound your face in with a hammer, you will verifiably suffer.

7. The Out Campaign

Comment #60733 by kkant on August 2, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Henri Bergson writes:
If you believe in morality you are just as deluded as the religious.

Fine, but I think it is more important and more useful to state the corollary of this, which is that the existence of a God does not make morals any less arbitrary. Whether you start from society or God to derive morality, you are trying to make an ought from an is. Thus the religious have no claim to morality, either in theory or in practice.

Of course, with murder and genocide and slavery being preached in the Bible, it is clear that any self-consistent discussion of Christianity deals with a level of immorality orders of magnitude greater that any subtle distinctions we discuss in philosophy.

8. The Out Campaign

Comment #60683 by kkant on August 2, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Dr. Benway writes:
I've studied my downy self carefully. I've squinted. I've let my imagination go. Still, your samurai warrior eludes me.

Your ass and eye are the eyes. It falls into place pretty easily from there. Peridolia is such a wonderful thing. :)

9. The Out Campaign

Comment #60638 by kkant on August 2, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Wee Flea writes:
I do not accept that either the Bible or my Church is homophobic. Because we do not agree with something does that mean we are 'phobic' about it?

The Bible is not just homophobic or "in disagreement" with homosexuals; it goes beyond that to advocate (nay, require) the murder of homosexuals. Leviticus 20:13 says homosexuals should be killed. Do you think the Bible is God's word? Do you agree with Leviticus 20:13? Does your church agree with it? It's God's word, remember. If you deny it, you are a heretic and a blasphemer. You sure you want to go there?

So, you have two choices. Either you are a heretic, or you are an evil and immoral person. Which is it going to be, Wee Flea?

10. The Out Campaign

Comment #60565 by kkant on August 2, 2007 at 9:04 am

Wee Flea writes:
The reason is because you are asking me to defend something which neither I nor my church are doing. It's a bit like keeping asking me why I beat my wife and I refuse to respond other than pointing out that I do not.

If your church believes in the divinely inspired Bible, then your church is homophobic. If you want to claim to not be homophobic, then you have to say the Bible is not divinely inspired (or else you have to say that God tells very immoral falsehoods at least some of the time).

This is one of several places where you shamefully and falsely disavow positions in order to avoid having to face the tough questions about your faith. It demonstrates that you are emotionally attached to a dogma, and you will continue to support it no matter how evil or false it is shown to be. A great illustration of the fundamental problem with faith.

11. The Out Campaign

Comment #60401 by kkant on August 1, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Henri Bergson writes:
The flea has a point; one which I once remarked upon: you play the 'gay card' constantly. In the words of Jack Nicholson, "think straight and get serious"!

No, the flea doesn't "have a point" here. This isn't a point, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. In fact it is a good example of how theists make irrelevant tangential comments about anything they can't answer.

Even if Steve99 really "played the gay card constantly" (he doesn't), what does it matter? The barbaric homophobic bigotry of the church is an important reality that Wee Flea has been unable to answer or defend. It is among many such points that neither Wee Flea nor any other theist here can answer. That's the point here.

Henri Bergson writes:
Secondly, the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than your PC version (which can neither be proved). Both are hypotheses at this stage.

"Seems more likely". Great. Look, it doesn't matter. Irrelevant to the argument.

12. The Out Campaign

Comment #60178 by kkant on August 1, 2007 at 8:36 am

Robert Maynard in comment 60053:

Well said Mr. Maynard.

I wish this would be enough to permanently expose the theists who repeatedly pollute this forum with the same old thoroughly refuted arguments, presenting them as if they were something new and valid.

Sadly I'm sure we'll see Wee Flea and the others again, making the same fallacious comments as before.

13. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #59979 by kkant on July 31, 2007 at 10:05 am

maton100 writes:
Bullshit evolves too.

That's exactly right. Well said. :D

14. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #59977 by kkant on July 31, 2007 at 10:02 am

Wadsworth in Comment 58197:

Excellent post!! :)

I just want to (partially) correct you at one point:

There is the waste of unused sperms, seeds and fruits and massive infant mortality;--and then God condemns Onan for spilling his seed on the ground!

This is a misunderstanding of the text which is used by faithheads to justify the "immorality" of masturbation and other alternative sex acts. In fact, God did not condemn Onan for spilling his seed; he condemns him for *not* impregnating his brother's widow. Far from being an "ethical" teaching for us to follow, this verse is yet another demonstration (as if we needed more) of the incredible *immorality* of the sayings and actions of the supposed God and his supposedly perfect and divine books.

15. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55828 by kkant on July 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm

PaulEmecz writes:
Why not just respond to the questions?

I did. You haven't. Go back and look. You've ignored at least half of what I and others have posted. So don't flatter yourself. If you think you have won this argument, you're only fooling yourself. You are flat out wrong, but you are "deeply committed to an emotionally supported core belief" so you can't see it and you'll continue to dishonestly turn a blind eye to those arguments you can't answer. We've seen it before, I'm sure we'll see it again. Until you answer the numerous questions me and others have posed to you...but I'm not holding my breath. Donald is right. You're moving the goalposts back and forth when you can't find an answer, so this is going in circles.

And if you are offended at my characterization of you, you brought it on yourself in an attempt to win the argument. But you had to say it, didn't you? You were maneuvered into it, and now you're complaining that the logical conclusion of your belief ends up in something completely repugnant. Well, that isn't my fault. If I were in your position, I'd reconsider my assumptions. But again, I'm not holding my breath.

16. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55788 by kkant on July 12, 2007 at 9:32 am

PaulEmecz writes:
Yes, my interpretation is subjective, which explains the difference of opinion about morality. How does that blow the argument out of the water in terms of the existence of objective morality?

For several reasons.

One is that you can't point to the existence of a God who cares about morality, unless you have some evidence that this supposed God has any morality or intelligence at all. Most Christians say the Bible is their "evidence" of God's instructions. That has problems of it's own, as you well know, which is why you deny the truth of the Bible. But now you are left with nothing, no ideas at all about God other than your "feelings". Any kind of God is possible, or no God at all. Your argument for God-given "objective morality" has no basis. God may want people to lie and cheat and steal, for all you know.

Second, even if there was a Celestial Dictator and he was Moral (which is itself a contradiction, but we'll ignore that for the moment), you have simply transferred the question of morality to another being. You have been asking all these "why" questions of us: "why should we prevent suffering, what rational reason is there, why do things for others, why be honest" etc. Well for that matter, why does God say that we should be honest? What reason do you have for following God's instructions, and what reason does God have for providing those instructions? All those questions you raised need to be answered *by us* whether there is a God or not. The existence of God does not help us at all, does not provide any basis for answering these questions.

Once again you are simply ignoring the arguments you can't answer. In other words, you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest. I can't force you to be honest, but you're going to have to live with the shame of it if you choose not to. And you're certainly not going to convince anyone here of anything by doing this. So are you just trying to convince yourself? If I were you, I'd be having serious self-doubts about now. But then I try to be honest with myself.

PaulEmecz writes:
I see it as a much deeper commitment, and it is not because I'm scared of God. My belief in God means I believe that a deeper level of commitment is possible. If your wife was left severly disabled by illness or accident, possibly even with her personality slipping away, would you maintain your commitment on the basis of the agreement you made with her?

The fact that you even ask this question means that your humanity has been corrupted by your faith. Furthermore, you simply assert that a belief in a completely undescribed God makes this type of commitment possible. There is no reason behind this, and no reason to make this completely unwarranted connection. In fact such a commitment is shallower for depending on an imaginary being. By your own admission, you would be more willing to consider leaving your wife or cheating on her if the Celestial Dictator wasn't around. You think sucking up to the Dictator is more important and more valuable and more "objective" than a simple promise to your wife, uncorrupted by third parties. I'm glad I'm not your wife.

Donald writes:
I stop when I detect that either the discussion is going in a circle, or is producing too many red herrings and moving goalposts, or if the other party is so deeply committed to an emotionally supported core belief that the debate has no hope of shifting it.

Spot on. Pewkatchoo had it right a few posts back. This guy is just flailing now.

17. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55584 by kkant on July 11, 2007 at 3:23 pm

PaulEmecz writes:
I agree that people ending up in Hell as described above would be wrong. This is why redemption is so important. Yes, I believe Jesus died for our sins. You can understand that at any number of levels, but it represents my belief that God reconciled humans to Him. If I am wrong, as I am sure I will be about God in many ways (I struggle to understand people and the world, how likely am I to get a great deal right about God?), and it wasn't through Jesus but in some other way that humans are redeemed, that won't matter. However, if I am wrong, and there is no redemption, then it does, as you pointed out, change everything about God. Then He isn't good, there is no purpose to life, no objective morality etc.

If God was not good, there could still be "objective morality". You just might not like it though. It might be the kind of morality that is described in large parts of the Bible. Barbaric stuff. And you have no way of knowing either way. This is completely a guess on your part. Before Jesus there were many people who apparently did not know "God's instructions", just as we do not know them today. They were all presumably boiling in Hell before Jesus came down to rescue them (what a farcical fairy tale, by the way). Pretty immoral to leave all those poor people burning like that for so long, wasn't it. Like I said, no matter how you slice it, if you want to retain your Christianity you're going to have to admit to an immoral God.

Now onto to the next question. Why you believe in Jesus? Where did you get this belief? How do you know Jesus even existed?

PaulEmecz writes:
By the way, most of my Christian friends, and the Christian books I have read, are clear that Jesus died for everyone, not just 'Christians' (there were no Christians when Jesus walked the Earth). When people say that Jesus is the only way to salvation, they are saying that without redemption we are not reconciled to God. It is not the same as saying "Jews will not go to Heaven" - Jesus was a Jew for a start!

Wait, so everyone gets into heaven whether they believe in Jesus or not? The Jews don't believe in Jesus, but according to you they get to heaven. So Jesus died for everyone regardless. How about a non-Christian murderer, does he get to heaven too? How about the atheists, we're saved by him too aren't we. What a laugh. This is what happens when you try to justify your childhood indoctrination with adult "logic". You end up with gibberish.

And by the way, the supposed Jesus and God are in no position to forgive anything. If a crime is committed, the only person who is in a position to forgive is the victim. The idea of vicarious forgiveness is immoral (just as with many other ideas in the Bible).

PaulEmecz writes:
Can I ask you a question. Given the evidence that suggests foetuses feel pain, would you recommend anaesthetics during abortions? There are also many medical professionals who believe that it is possible to experience pain when someone has been kept alive in order to donate organs. Would you give them pain relief? Please explain WHY.

Those seem like they might be difficult conundrums, so I'd have to think about them. But the idea of God or any of his supposed works does not help us at all in figuring out the right solution. The Christian God who sacrifices whole cities on a whim because its inhabitants believed in another God, is on a whole different scale of depravity and barbarism from any sensitive conundrums you might raise. So, I have to say, are you trying to make a point with these questions?

I go back to my original question: if there was no God, would you be fine letting the dying soldier suffer in pain for no reason at all?

PaulEmecz writes:
Are you asking how I would behave if I believed there was no God? I hope I would continue to be consistent in my thinking, which would mean a radical change as there would be no basis for objective morality. I would search for a meaning in life, and might conclude that the survival of my genes was the closest thing. My commitment to my wife would be less firm. We made a promise before God, but that would mean nothing. Despite what you may say about contracts, what reason would I have to keep the contract if it no longer suited me? Particularly if I could find someone else who could have more children and continue my genes?

Then I think you are an immoral person. If you do the wrong thing when no one is watching, then that is pretty shameful. Good thing you "believe in God", even if it's a wishy-washy meaningless contradictory belief. Meanwhile, the rest of us atheists have already shown that morality and ethics and civilization do not require a dictator. The whole idea of an eternal totalitarian dictator is immoral, by the way. That is something we've learned recently, as with slavery. Both dictatorship and slavery were common back when they wrote the Bible, which is why the Bible is OK with both those things. And this is why the original intended readers of the Bible would not have cringed at the prospect of the neverending unchangeable totalitarianism that is "paradise". Today we live in a different age, a better age, an age where we can read 1984, and know that totalitarianism and slavery are horribly immoral concepts.

18. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55337 by kkant on July 10, 2007 at 4:58 pm

PaulEmecz writes:
Scientists agree far more about the laws of physics than they do morality

That doesn't mean morality comes from god or requires god.

PaulEmecz writes:
I don't decide by chance or whim. I put careful thought into it. Don't you do that? Consider Jesus' instruction to 'turn the other cheek.' Do you just dismiss that because it's in the Bible, like some Christians who just accept it because it's in the Bible, or do you consider it quite carefully, see if it works in practice, before deciding to reject or accept it? I do think there is truth in the New Testament. I also think that some of the writers were sexist and mistaken. Why is that a silly position to take? Ghandi liked many of Jesus' teachings – was that a mistake on his part?

Do you think God wrote the Bible or not? If yes, then you are in no position to make judgements on it as you do above. If not, then the Bible is just another text that we can take piecemeal, and nothing in it is sacred. Sure, there are some good things in the Bible and there are some bad things. We use our own human-created moral sense to judge the Bible. Just like any other book. Once again, you are missing the point and ignoring the arguments you can't answer (and hiding your lack of answers behind these huge wall-of-text posts). You're not going to convince anyone here of anything with this tactic.

So, here are the questions again, since you didn't answer them the last time: In what sense are you a Christian? Do you think Jesus died for our sins, and believing in him is the only path to salvation? If you are willing to discount those "rough" parts of the Old Testament, are you really willing to credit the New Testament (which reads like any other fairy tale) as truth?

PaulEmecz writes:
It would be quite possible for there to be a God who was not the source of morality, but this is a less acceptable explanation of the way things are. I experience the reality of morality. A God that is immoral would not make sense of this experience. Occam's razor requires me to believe that if there were a God, God would be the source of morality.

Yes, you "experience the reality". That is a totally meaningless statement, and it doesn't prove or suggest anything. You "feeling" something doesn't mean there is a God or a God-given set of morals. The idea of an immoral God (or a non-intelligent God) is perfectly compatible with the existence of moral people. So I return to my point. You have no idea if your supposed God is moral or not. You have no evidence, only "feelings". The existence of God does not imply that that god has a mind or is "good". Therefore the existence of God alone is insufficient to supply a moral code. You're going to have to do better than that.

PaulEmecz writes:
Not true. I am a teacher, and I write reports about students based on the work they produce. My comments aren't always accurate, but I can say a lot about a student based on what he or she has produced. Likewise, if this universe is made by God, then Hawking had a point when he said:

So you are a deist and you admit God doesn't communicate with us? You think we have to figure out the nature of reality and morality on our own (and I agree). Then I'm going to ask you again, and maybe this time you'll answer: Is your God going to judge us when we die? Don't you think it is extremely irresponsible of him to *not* communicate with us clearly and directly? In fact, it would be extremely *immoral* of Him to leave us in the lurch and cause us to suffer eternally in Hell, since he is at fault for miscommunicating with us. Therefore your supposed God is immoral. No matter how you slice it.

PaulEmecz writes:
On your world view, why waste morphine on someone who will soon be dead? They won't remember their suffering, so what difference will it make? And yes, that does then apply to all cases of suffering. If we all wind up dead anyway, what difference does it make? Why do anything?

So if there's no God, no Totalitarian Dictator in the Sky, you'd be fine letting the dying soldier suffer in pain for no reason at all? Frankly, I think this is despicable behavior. You sure you want to go there?

PaulEmecz writes:
Rationality is your stumbling block. I have the ability to look past my instincts and question my actions. What RATIONAL justification is there for me to consider anyone but myself? If your answer is some form of "It's in your interests to help other people" then you haven't read the question.

If you are unwilling to accept that answer, then you haven't considered the question properly. If you're going to make an argument like this, then you fall into a trap (yet another hole you've dug for yourself). You have to answer this question: if there was no God, would you behave differently? Would you behave immorally? What exactly would you do?

19. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54826 by kkant on July 9, 2007 at 3:52 am

PaulEmecz writes:
'My' God made the physical world and all its laws. Sadly, as a deist, he cannot communicate them to me, so how can I know the laws of physics?

We figure out the laws of physics ourselves to the extent that we can, same as with morality; no God is necessary in either case. If your God is not communicating the laws of morality to us, don't you think that is highly irresponsible behaviour on his part? He *is* planning to judge us based on our morals, isn't he?

You claim to be a Christian, but you seem to be embarrased by your own scriptures (as well you should be). And you're pulling back to a deist position. So in what sense are you a Christian? Do you think Jesus died for our sins, and believing in him is the only path to salvation? Who exactly do you think you are to be able to arbitrarily validate or invalidate large sections of the Bible? If you are willing to discount those "rough" parts of the Old Testament, are you really willing to credit the New Testament (which reads like any other fairy tale) as truth?

PaulEmecz writes:
I agree [that humans MUST for themselves determine what is moral]. The existence of God merely means that there IS such a thing as morality.

Nope. The existence of God itself is *not* enough to claim that there is morality. For all you know, God has no code of conduct at all. Or he might have (what we would consider) an evil code of conduct. In fact, you don't even know that your God is intelligent or has a mind. You know nothing at all about your God, because as a deist he doesn't communicate with you. Your supposedly unique claim on "integrity" is meaningless and baseless. How do you know suicide bombers are bad? How do you know that "God" really isn't on their side in moral terms?

PaulEmecz writes:
Why is it bad [referring to pain]? It is essential, and certainly has an important evolutionary function.

Yes, in many cases pain is helpful to avoid breaking things in your body and telling you when something is broken. But you want to remove the causes of suffering to the extent that you can, both in the short and long term. And there are cases when you *do* want to remove the suffering itself as well. Would you deny morphine to a dying soldier with no hope, because suffering is "essential"?

I just got back, so I'll re-read the rest of the responses to see if there's anything else in your (long) post that hasn't been dealt with by others in this thread.

20. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54435 by kkant on July 7, 2007 at 4:20 am

Sounds good Paul, I (we I daresay) await your reply.

21. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54249 by kkant on July 6, 2007 at 6:09 am

Dr. Benway-- I'd add something about the minimization of human and animal pain and suffering (thanks Sam H). That's a pretty good principle, since suffering is something concrete and bad. "Suffering" does not necessarily mean in the immediate sense only, of course. Although it is perhaps the case that this principle can be derived from the Golden Rule.

22. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54230 by kkant on July 6, 2007 at 4:55 am

PaulEmecz writes:
I believe that God designed the universe, and is the author of morality, and that sometimes if I search my conscience I find that the right thing is different from the pragmatic approach.

Finally, an answer to the question. OK, then. I've already responded to this point above as well, but you ignored it. How do you think God communicates morality to us humans? Are you a Christian, and do you believe in the divinely-authored Bible? What makes you think the voices in your head telling you your morals are any more correct than the voices in other people's heads telling them different morals?

PaulEmecz writes:
What you describe, the 'greater good' approach to morality, is flawed. It is wrong to see it as morality (you cannot achieve 'ought' however hard you look at the 'is'), and it leads to some very wrong decisions.

In your opinion. The evidence I have alluded to in my previous posts disproves this. The presence of an eternal totalitarian dictator does not improve our ability to develop morals, and is further an immoral and evil idea in itself.

PaulEmecz writes:
If I believed in a 'greater good' morality, I would have to sacrifice my integrity, and I am not prepared to do that.

Two centuries ago, the people of the greatest "integrity" and faith in America were the ones holding slaves. It sounds like what you mean by "integrity" is really just "stubbornness".

23. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54227 by kkant on July 6, 2007 at 4:31 am

PaulEmecz writes:
Please point out these unanswerable arguments.

Please read the thread. Many people have answered your questions. You've ignored most of it, as is usually the case with theists. Are you trying to convince people of something here? You're doing a pretty poor job of it.

PaulEmecz writes:
My parents live in Hungary. The communist government is back in there. They don't see it as an improvement, but maybe they're just 'faith-heads' and therefore unable to comment on politics.

So where is your evidence coming from? Personally, I think ignorance, selfishness, unquestioning adherence to a set of beliefs etc. cause the problems. You get that in religion, but it is not a necessary part of religion.

I already answered this question above, but I'll repeat myself. The problem with dictatorships isn't "lack of God". The problem is the faith-based instinct to worship someone and put someone else in total charge. No society went nuts being reasonable and asking for evidence to support their beliefs; in fact the evidence shows the opposite correlation (e.g. the recent study of societal health done by the UN).

24. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54154 by kkant on July 5, 2007 at 4:59 pm

PaulEmecz writes:
People on this thread seem perfectly happy explaining the evolutionary origins and benefits of morality, and hold morality in high esteem. However, if I started talking about religion in those terms, and these are beliefs that have evolutionary origins and benefits, would religion be held in such high esteem?

Please, let's not talk in these terms. Many, maybe most atheists believe in morality, and there really isn't, can't be, a shred of empirical evidence for morality (you can't move from is to ought). So let's not pretend that somehow the 'religious mind' accepts things without proof, while the 'non-religious mind' is above this!

Simple answer, Paul. Morality is demonstrably good, and the *evidence* shows it. Religion is demonstrably bad. And the evidence shows that too. The less religion, the better off society is. When the evidence shows that some moral precept is causing harm, we re-think it to gain a better understanding of it. We're not stuck in evidence-less dogmas, like religion is.

It looks to me like you're ignoring all the arguments from our side that you find inconveniently unanswerable. This is typical theist behavior, and it seems to me therefore that you are not looking for an honest discussion, but trying to make some kind of cheap shot to discredit atheism and thus bolster/defend your own childhood indoctrination. Very typical, we see it all the time here. But, just in case you actually are looking for an honest discussion, I will ask you this question (again): Where do *you* think you get your morals from?

25. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54054 by kkant on July 5, 2007 at 5:58 am

Macque writes:
Dr. Dawkins, as much as I enjoy your scathing attacks on these people, I think it's about time to stop reading Behe, and stop giving him credence (and no doubt extra sales) by acknowledging him. His theory was publically torn to pieces, he has absolutely no credit among people with an IQ of over 80 and now you are simply kicking a man while he's down.

No, I disagree. We might feel sorry for him, as atheists; but I'm sure there's *plenty* of people who still think Behe is right, even after all the pathetic backpedaling he has done. Some of them are probably posting in this thread, actually.

26. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54052 by kkant on July 5, 2007 at 5:53 am

Bizarro Dawkins writes:
Actually, in a Godless world ethics have no meaning or relevance in that morality implies choice. If I murder a toddler, you would all deem it "bad" and say that I ought not kill innocent children. However, "ought" implies "can", and "can" implies free will, i.e., the ability to choose. However, if we are naught but chemical masses, then I fail to see how any such choice isn't anything less than a logical absurdity. My "choices" are merely complex chemical reactions that were inevitable since the beginning of the Universe. In light of the scientific challenge to free will, the concept of "choice" becomes silly, and with it, the idea of morality and ethics.

Our brains function in such a way as to give us at least the illusion of free choice. That in and of itself removes the entire basis of your argument. Furthermore, the idea that we need to live in an eternal totalitarian dictatorship in order to have "morals" is (1) an immoral idea itself, and (2) a contemptible reason for being "good". Once again it is shown that religion is manmade: it borrows both its morality and immorality from human beings.

Now explain this, Bizarro: where do you think you get your morals? Do you get them from the Bible?

27. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53870 by kkant on July 3, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Dr Benway writes:
If "absolutely wrong" means "wrong for everyone in all times and places, end of discussion," I have to question that. Why must we insist upon a position that removes any form of discussion from the table?

Not at all. There's no reason to stop discussing morals. My point is that we continue to develop our understanding of morality with time, as individuals and as societies. I think we are in agreement.

28. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53798 by kkant on July 3, 2007 at 8:03 am

PaulEmecz writes:
Here's a different question, then. Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, by the majority of any population could have a negative effect on human development?

It's possible. But the evidence goes the other way. Religious governments are the ones that have generally gone to Hell (and this includes both supernatural religions and man-based religions such as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Imperial Japan, and all the rest). Whereas secular governments based on reason and evidence (such as the US and other secular democracies) have done pretty well. In addition to that, the evidence of the UN "societal health" report (someone help me out here, it's the one Sam Harris always brings up) shows that there is a *strong* positive correlation between a country's societal health and the percentage of atheists living there.

29. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53796 by kkant on July 3, 2007 at 7:58 am

PaulEmecz writes:
Accepting this explanation would change my understanding of morality. It would amount to having to admit that if Hitler had been more successful, he may have been right. I don't want to hold Hitler wrong because it was scientifically a bad thing to reduce the variety in the human gene pool, I want genocide to be absolutely wrong.

Umm, no. You're not getting it. You can still think of genocide as being absolutely wrong, and be an atheist. Our moral *instinct* comes from our genetic and evolutionary past, but as we think and develop our moral *philosophy* on our own, we do not derive it from genetics. At any given time, we have an certain set of morals: for example, in Biblical times, slavery was not considered immoral (certainly the writers of the Bible were perfectly content with slavery, and recommended it with certain restrictions). Today slavery is considered immoral, and what makes it non-relative is that we say "it was NOT ok for those people to hold slaves back then; it was wrong to do it then, and it is wrong to do it now". The immorality of slavery hasn't changed, but our own knowledge and understanding of it has.

And the simple answer to your questions is, where do you think *you* get your absolute morals? Do you think these absolute morals are given to us in the Bible or some "revealed" text? I certainly hope not, given what the Bible says. If you are just a deist, then your God doesn't get involved in his creation--how then can he communicate his morals to us? If you think he is providing morality to you via your conscience, then this is just a voice in your head and you have no claim on objective truth as you would like to think. Besides, look at the terrible morals which have been advocated in the past: if God is giving you an absolute moral standard for genocide, he clearly gave a different moral standard on the same subject to the Biblical writers. :D

30. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52645 by kkant on June 27, 2007 at 3:48 pm

PaulEmecz writes:
Personally, I don't think that morals, or any statements about what you 'should' do, are compatible with atheism.

Simple question then: do you think we get our morals from the Bible?

31. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52627 by kkant on June 27, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Deicide writes:
Kerry King, guitarist for Slayer (one of the biggest metal bands of the last two decades), writes openly satanic messages but in interviews says it is all because "religion is the biggest bullshit story ever told."

Exactly. None of these folks believe in Satan, any more than Jesus. The point of the Satanic lyrics is to say, "We know all of religion is bullshit, and just to stand behind our words we're going to say 'Hail Satan' as a big Fuck You to all the religious frauds out there." It's kind of like the Blashpemy Challenge by that Rational Response Squad website.

Thumbs up to this S. African metal band.

And LMAO at the theist PaulEmecz who posted above. These guys are just determined to misunderstand or write off atheism, aren't they. They keep criticizing the minor scratches in our paint (if indeed they are not misinterpreting even their nitpicks), while ignoring the huge elephant sitting in their own living room.

32. The Great God Debate

Comment #50163 by kkant on June 15, 2007 at 11:21 am

"Uh-huh. Onward Christian soldiers. Well, that has a wonderful history."

zzzziinggg. :)

Once again, we have here a situation where the moderator takes the Christian's side in the debate. And Hitchens owns both of them.

33. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48887 by kkant on June 9, 2007 at 10:47 am

Veronique writes:
kkhant, I will read Wheless first. I don't know how much I can take of christianity but thank you for the reference.

You're welcome. Yeah, the Doherty book is good stuff. I haven't finished it yet, but the first couple chapters very concisely and clearly debunk the myth of Jesus as a historical figure.

Veronique writes:
How did you 'blue' my name?

You can use the "font" html tag. In the opening tag with the angle brackets, type "font color=blue". Then close the text with "/font". :)

34. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #48603 by kkant on June 8, 2007 at 1:55 pm

RabbitDynamite writes:
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, kids.

Nice. :)

k1mgy writes:
Anyone have a clue as to what the "wholesome doubt" in "it forbids wholesome doubt" means?

Indeed. Good catch. Even at his most reasonable, Lewis betrays his agenda.

Despite that, though, this little quote should be spread far and wide to the Xtian fundies who all seem to hold Lewis in the highest esteem. Maybe it will get them to start thinking.

Steven Mading writes:
Anyone who rejected him inevitably ended up being a horrible, bad person in the end. This theme gets really strong in the last book of the series, "The Last Battle", which is obviously modelled after the end of days biblical stuff.

The worst part of this section IMO is the part where the morallly good Tash-worshipper (Tash being the analogue for Allah or Mohammed in the Narnia world) ends up raptured into the Aslanic heaven, and is wondering why he's there. And Aslan says "since you were a good person, when you were worshipping Tash you were really worshipping me, so now you're in heaven." What amazingly unmitigated arrogance.

35. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48588 by kkant on June 8, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Heheh. http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/

That and the Noodly Appendage justify, I think, a complete case on their own. :)


This is definitely one of CH's better interviews. I love his complete destruction of that preacher's "prayer healed my daughter" nonsense.

Incidentally, Veronique or anyone else interested in the early history of Christianity and/or the lack of historical evidence for Jesus, check out "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9929799-9475809

He lays out a very comprehensive case. Plus it has one of the funniest "recommendation blurbs" on the back cover, that I have ever seen (from one of his detractors, a fundamentalist xtian).

36. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46693 by kkant on June 1, 2007 at 6:44 am

nrvous writes:
Ha ha, The Onion! They're so crazy!

(Oh, wait...)

LMAO. Very nice. :D

As far as this article. What a joke. The sad part is that some people are going to be convinced by this garbage. This is Ray Comfort-level stuff. Coming from a Senator, and a candidate for President.

37. Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival

Comment #45342 by kkant on May 27, 2007 at 8:29 am

The Air Force and Army issued statements amending their previous endorsement and coordination, and scaling back their equipment demonstrations. The statement issued by the Air Force said that it is "not a sponsor" of the event and that the Air Force was "not aware until recently of the religious connotations surrounding Task Force Patriot's participation."

Just look at the blatant unfettered unabashed hypocrisy on flagrant display here. What a bunch of lying cowards.

BTW, thanks for your post BT Murtagh. Like others said, it is important to remember why the wall of separation was put into the US constitution in the first place. In fact, if you are so inclined, you should post your comment #45252 to the MRFF in their forum: http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/events.html

38. A meeting of unlike minds

Comment #44032 by kkant on May 23, 2007 at 7:47 am

Thanks for the info, Faith Collapsing. I'll check out that website, see what they got.

39. A meeting of unlike minds

Comment #43665 by kkant on May 22, 2007 at 8:37 am

I would love to hear a recording of this debate, if anyone has it. If you attended this debate, did you notice any cameras or sound techs there?

40. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43661 by kkant on May 22, 2007 at 8:18 am

To me, almost the best part of this was Hitchens slamming that shameless scoundrel Ralph Reed. Look at the pathetic embarassment on Reed's face as Hitchens tears him a new asshole and tells him "you should be ashamed". Perfect.

41. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #39885 by kkant on May 12, 2007 at 7:19 am

The tone of this article seems to be a contemptuous disdain for a lowly squabble. He admits the atheists won, but only because there were no "intelligent believers" to argue for faith. In his words, "if Nightline wanted to host an enlightening discussion about religion, it would have invited some intelligent believers to mount a defense of faith and to talk about why faith and proof of it are mutually exclusive." Why or how he thinks this is any more "intelligent" than the banana argument, he doesn't say.

Personally, I think Brian and Kelly did a good job, especially of keeping their focus on the obvious failure of their opponents to come up with their promised "proof". I think it is doubly praiseworthy given that their opponents were almost certainly more accustomed to public speaking to a nationwide TV audience. Kudos!

42. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39875 by kkant on May 12, 2007 at 7:02 am

Mash writes:
Science tells us how the world works, we make up morals as we go.

While I do agree that science does not give us morals, I think the proper place for discussion of morals is philosophy and literature (and history too). So, although it may not be from "pure science" in that our description of quarks does not make us more moral, there is still a rational basis for morality. More importantly, there is a rational basis for our collective morals and ethics to *improve* as we learn more. There is *no* basis for improving morality in a religious context, since in that case a perfect God gave us his morals: who are we to question those morals?


waxwings writes:
Is anyone else sick to death of this bullshit about morals somehow being in direct conflict with reason, rather than the products of it?

Yes. :)

43. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39874 by kkant on May 12, 2007 at 6:54 am

What a condescending article. He admits that religion is totally without basis in reality, but says essentially that "the masses need it." He holds his fellow humans in such contempt that he thinks they need to be at the center of the universe to feel good, and they need a celestial dictator to be good. *Says you*! As you rightly say Rtambree, the evidence we have of a *strong* correlation between secularism and societal health is enough to dispose of this garbage. Note how he makes appeals to authority ("the great Arab historian Ibn Khaldun") to try and make you forget that he has absolutely zero evidence for his claim.

At least he is arguing for the dismissal of "intelligent design". Perhaps his fawning praise of religion will help convince the creationists to listen to his advice on that front.

44. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #39209 by kkant on May 10, 2007 at 7:09 am

Excellent. Thanks for the new Lou Dobbs link, CruciFiction.

And I thought just us atheists were watching this debate. Unintended publicity for an atheist book, perhaps.

45. Intellectual Diversity or Intellectual Insult?

Comment #39018 by kkant on May 9, 2007 at 6:38 pm

_J_ writes:
On the other sort: when do we hear from the RRS vs Bananamen fight?

You can see parts of the RRS/banana Nightline debate here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-rKiGJrcNw

I couldn't find the full version online.

46. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38942 by kkant on May 9, 2007 at 3:28 pm

No prob, folks.

47. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38927 by kkant on May 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I've joined and converted the Harris-McTernan debate to an MP3. It is available here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QBQZMBEX

48. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38893 by kkant on May 9, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I've converted the Hitchens-Sharpton debate to an MP3. It is available here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B74AWH38

49. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38892 by kkant on May 9, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I've converted the Hitchens-Sharpton debate to an MP3. It is available here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B74AWH38

50. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37514 by kkant on May 4, 2007 at 5:24 pm

On the "Krishna virgin birth" issue: I'm not sure which is the correct answer. Certainly Krishna is the 8th child of Devaki and Vasudeva. It is prophesized that the son of Devaki will kill the evil King Kamsa, so Kamsa kills the first seven sons at birth. The 8th son is spirited away to safety via a series of miracles. Sounds a lot like the Herod story, doesn't it. But the reason I think it's a virgin birth is, why the hell would Devaki keep having babies if they're all getting killed? Seems like the only possible reason is that they were virgin births (forced conceptions, or perhaps "divine rape" is a better term). What a wonderful story, eh? Wouldn't it have been easier for God to just appear magically and kill the stupid King, without all the drama.

On the Buddha issue. This one is definitely a virgin birth. A six-tusked elephant appears in her dreams and pokes her in the womb with one of his tusks. Buddha is also seen as one of the 10 incarnations of Vishnu (the "Dasa Avatar"). He's number 9, the most recent one. Number 10 is Kalki, and he hasn't arrived yet. We're just waiting for him to descend to earth on a flying white horse, wielding a sword and cleansing the sinful earth. Any day now. Again, pretty familiar.