1. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177786 by justme on May 9, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Three thoughts;

1. Scope out the cool looking churches for a pub or restaurant upgrade.

2. Can you ship more of what you have over there to the USA?

3. Nasty groups over in the USA are looking for foreign branches of the poison they peddle. Like any successful cult, they won't take "no thanks" for an answer.

2. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51106 by justme on June 21, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I'll give him one compliment: He didn't compare Richard and Sam to either Communists or Nazis.

Other than that, he entirely misses the point, and throws in ideas that nobody has proposed simply to satirize them. Simply dishonest.

3. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48502 by justme on June 8, 2007 at 7:45 am

cacahahacaca: Thanks for the link to the MP3. The main sites look like they are slammed right now.

4. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47239 by justme on June 3, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Damien White:
"Unfortunately, I don't think it will. Religious people are fundamentaly irrational. If gods really existed, no religious person would wish to be immortal. Yet they clearly do. How do I know this? Because most churches are non-smoking."

Haven't been in a church in years, but except for the incense (Catholic churches), I don't remember them big places for chain smokers to gather in. (Get it ... 'chain' smokers?)

That said, I think you're right that religion isn't going away. It will morph, though, and I suspect that it will go one of two general directions in regard to verifiable truth such as the sciences;

* Stricter isolation from the sciences (with a heavier reliance on 'faith'); the split between dogmatic groups and ones that are detached from the debate (as they see no conflict between mild faith and hard science). Expect a meltdown as the two groups clash in the public arena when the dogmatic groups get pushy and demand absurd levels of special treatment.

* Embracing the sciences (with a 'faith' component on the totally unverifiable aspects of current religions). The UUs already do this to some respect taking in all information not just religious sources, though they take the stance that you don't need to be a theist either -- something that other mainline religious groups will avoid doing.

One or both of these scenarios could easily happen. I'm not convinced which direction we are going, though the folks who are willfully ignorant of research will hopefully be laughed out of the public debate on these issues as they should be.

5. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46331 by justme on May 31, 2007 at 12:34 am

The Onion Radio News podcast ...

http://www.theonion.com/content/feeds/radionews

6. Teachers rebel over atheism promotion

Comment #44999 by justme on May 25, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Yep, hypocrites. I'm sure they would not protest the same way if the fliers had God's Army content in it.

7. The Art of Handling Thetans

Comment #44887 by justme on May 25, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Phaderus: "I read the first two chapters [of Dianetics] and went from interested, to amused, to disturbed at the thought of people buying into all of the garbage."

Better than me. I read the whole thing plus Battlefield Earth before I found out that Scientology was a cult.

Talk about a waste of space. He could have shortened Battlefield Earth down to a dozen chapters, and Diantetics down to 50 pages. Even then, since I knew a bit about philosophy, the value of the book was minimal at best.

Before reading these books, I had a rule that I'd finish any book I started. Since then, I give a new book a chapter or two before abandoning it.

8. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44886 by justme on May 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen: re: Videos...

FYI: I turned the volume up to maximum, and I could barely hear you. The sound on Pat Condell's video was fine.

9. Italian TV urged to scrap BBC film accusing Pope of abuse cover-up

Comment #44878 by justme on May 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm

My sister's family switched to a non-Catholic church because of this scandal. Just proved to me that morals aren't derived from religion ... else they would have accepted what the RC church said and not left.

They know I'm an atheist, and I've talked to my brother in law about the scandle saying that I agree that the move from RC was moral. It would be better if they dumped religion entirely, but I don't meddle. It's amazing how good a teacher reality can be.

10. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #41470 by justme on May 16, 2007 at 6:55 am

Marxism/Communism? Why not talk about feudalism? One is just about as relevant as the other these days.

That said, I can understand how the Bible could be considered as supporting communist-like actions. (It's also feudal in parts as well.)

Communism failed because it is an ideal that ignores human nature. Even the kibbutz system in Israel -- as close to the platonic ideal of communism as you can get -- is changing over to a tiered system where people get personal benefits for working harder.

Communism that relies on free people in small groups is close to non-existent. Communist governments rely heavily on oppression to beat back human nature -- so they are highly inefficient and tend to fall apart.

The most successful societies are free market capitalist ones with strong socialist tendencies; groups where people largely fend for themselves with the government stepping in to do specific tasks that individuals won't pay for but that benefits both individuals and companies in the long run.

That said, there are great inefficiencies in capitalist free markets. I don't know how to correct these problems.

(An example is that the solar power industry is only now getting close to making solar power efficient enough and cheap enough to be used in a practical way for most people. We pissed away trillions for decades -- pumping much of the money to immoral backward kingdoms that spread religious ignorance and hate.

Only when traditional methods of solar power were within striking distance in price per KWH of oil, natural gas, and coal did any interesting new research appear. Then again, folks are willing to look at nuclear energy again too ... motivated by the price per KWH vs. oil/gas/coal.)

11. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40917 by justme on May 15, 2007 at 7:46 am

the great teapot: "To be fair to both kelly and the network- Kelly is on the program because of her outspoken atheism. She is standing up for the American atheist minority and as such should not be criticised just because she neither sounds like frazier nor looks like Einstein.
Good Luck and well done Kelly and Brian"

Agreed. Sure, Kelly is good looking from head to toe ... that's both a bonus and obvious.

I think you will agree that looks aren't a reason for either Brian or Kelly being there -- Kelly knows her stuff and kicked some ass.

12. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40910 by justme on May 15, 2007 at 7:38 am

Roger Stanyard: "So much for Truth in Science claiming to be nothing more than an organisation promoting science."

The name itself -- "Truth in Science" -- gives it away. It is an example of what I call "The Advertising Rule";

* Amateur liars whisper in shame, professional liars have confidence in the lie.

In other words, if you have to make a big deal about something, the truth is usually not even close.

13. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40611 by justme on May 14, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Mango: "Unfortunately, this nationally-televised program did not have more well spoken, erudite, neatly dressed atheists. It sends the message to the country that this young man and woman are the best that atheists can muster to debate theists, which is very far from the truth. Hitchens has said he will enter a debate anytime, anywhere -- ABC should've called him instead."

I disagree on multiple levels.

First off, the old people (and I should know as I'm one of them) are mostly a wash. Some *will* get it, but most are old dogs and won't/can't/aren't interested in learning.

By dressing too stiffly, they would be alienating the younger people who are more likely to be able and willing to think about these issues without stiffening up and crossing arms.

Brian and Kelly were dressed to say that -- unlike Kirk -- they aren't about to drop by and visit grandma for milk and cookies and say jeepers or golly gee alot.

Could they have dressed differently? Sure, but that's for later and I'm sure it will be a tweak vs. a whole wardrobe makeover. The last thing they need to do is look like one of the stiff weepy preachy televangelists that are the core of the problem. They also don't need to look like suits.

Hitchens - He's great. Love listening to him (most of the time), though I would not like to see him as the main public speaker when a token atheist is needed by some media outlet. Brian, Kelly, and many other people (Infidel Guy comes to mind though I don't know if he's interested in televised debates ... Rook from RRS might be interested and in position when his book comes out). These are the people I think are representative of the new, smart, and unrepentant atheists. They are younger and while they can appreciate and know how science fits into the debates, they are taking the religion as a problem issue head-on without requiring science.

Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris do not fit where RSS and the others like them fit.

There is nothing wrong with having many voices out there. RRS folks did a good job and will do better. They don't have a hand in the editing room of the networks, so there's only so much they can do when a hatchet job or watering down occurs.

14. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39770 by justme on May 11, 2007 at 10:39 pm

I think the actual debate was quite fair ... and RRS slammed the competition.

The editing job made the debate seem like a draw when it was not even close.

Anyone disagree?

15. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39043 by justme on May 9, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Bonzai: "Actually I do have an example. In Singerpore anal and oral sex are illegal even for heterosexuals. Singerpore is not religious but it bans even the chewing gum. It probably cites something like "public morality" to justify the ban."

Not too surprised about Singapore. While I haven't been there, one of my coworkers loves to visit because it is clean, safe, and has great places to shop.

She did mention the only downside is that if you step out of line the local cops will beat you first and might get around to asking questions later after they haul you off to jail. She is a polite person, so chances the cops will focus on her are small. Me, I'm loud.

16. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39039 by justme on May 9, 2007 at 8:23 pm

As a former Catholic, this kind of stuff really pisses me off. Makes me wonder what I was thinking when I cut the RC Church leaders any slack in my youth.

On the one hand, they don't have the morals to clean house and turn over pedophile priests to the courts, and on the other they promote persecution of consensual acts between adults.

While I find male homosexuality distasteful, I have a simple solution; I don't date dudes!

What consenting adults do, who they do it with, or how they do it is not a concern of mine. Especially if I can't see it.

17. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #38944 by justme on May 9, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Phaderus: "I like the subject, by I have a major problem with the article itself. I also noticed this in the press release about the debate between the RRS and Cameron:

Why are atheists always labeled as "self-described" in news articles?"

I don't see it often, but I agree with your other marks; it is a condescending insult.

The writer seems to be taking C&C's position that there are no atheists, 'but this group calls themselves atheists so we'll be nice and play along'.

One way to point this absurdity out is to tell ABC that the writer would not have said "self-described Buddhist" or "self-described Jew" so why use "self-described" for atheists?

18. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #38867 by justme on May 9, 2007 at 11:05 am

Romin_Devourin: "I'm sorry, but one thing is clear: At some point not long from now, we secularists and freethinkers are simply going to have to face the fact that, in order for progress to continue at all, and wars be averted, religionists of all stripes must be summarily rounded up, packed onto trains, and permanently interned. What other viable final solution is there?"

There are plenty of examples of secular societies. Maybe viewing them will give us some viable answers.

In the meantime, if you are going to troll here you should come in earlier so that more people can be taken in.

19. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38744 by justme on May 9, 2007 at 5:14 am

stevieb:
"if anyone has either these two audio files or the hitchens/sharpton available as mp3s, i'd be grateful for the chance to listen to these on my portable player. i tried the method described in the sharpton thread (linux here :-)) but ran into a roadblock:"

I'm attempting to get and convert the files now.

I'm currently streaming the SH real player file and I see the following;

----

$ mplayer -dumpstream rtsp://helix.nypl.org:554/live/070507/070507.ra
MPlayer SVN-r22817 rpm.livna.org (C) 2000-2007 MPlayer Team
CPU: AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-50 (Family: 15, Model: 72, Stepping: 2)
CPUflags: MMX: 1 MMX2: 1 3DNow: 1 3DNow2: 1 SSE: 1 SSE2: 1
Compiled with runtime CPU detection.
mplayer: could not connect to socket
mplayer: No such file or directory
Failed to open LIRC support. You will not be able to use your remote control.

Playing rtsp://helix.nypl.org:554/live/070507/070507.ra.
Resolving helix.nypl.org for AF_INET6...
Couldn't resolve name for AF_INET6: helix.nypl.org
Resolving helix.nypl.org for AF_INET...
Connecting to server helix.nypl.org[65.88.89.105]: 554...
Cache size set to 640 KBytes

----

Checking the directory, I see the stream.dump file and it is growing (currently about 8.8MB. Playing the file directly works -- BUT no sound is on the file for the first minute.

20. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38329 by justme on May 7, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Problem viewing the video here also.

Even tried pasting the URL into a few different video players and no dice. (Used the full URL and subsets of that URL.)

Anyone figured out the direct download?

21. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38248 by justme on May 7, 2007 at 10:20 am

On 'gaining understanding'

I have to say that understanding other cultures and using the skills gained in that study to understand your own is the most important thing.

Mrs. Bunting seems to have skipped that step when analyzing the books she reviews.

---

Personally, I've taken a class on comparative religions along with serious study of both anthropology and philosophy. Throw in some world history and I feel quite confident to review religions in my native country. Unfortunately, most theists don't have the same level of detachment and ability to analyze the issues.

In sum: Pot - kettle - black.

22. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37908 by justme on May 6, 2007 at 8:02 am

Flagellant, I agree when the tactic is to show non-fundy religious people that the fundies are the fools we know they are.

Anyone who thinks that it is worth while to convince the fundy themselves is not paying attention. (Case in point was this debate; from the start, C&C dishonestly ignored the primary question placed on the debate and the rules of the debate.)

The absurdity they will counter with (if they want to be consistent) is that there was no precambrian period (the scientists are wrong about the age of fossils) so there were no precambrian rabbits to fossilize.

I think I remember them claiming something about weight of bones and Noahs flood stirring around the fossils so you can't depend on the dating methods the scientists use.

The flaws in that are too numerous to mention, but we end up back dealing with the fallout from wild conjecture and very little time to tell an unaware religious public why the statements made by the fundies at best are a bunch of hooey.

23. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37886 by justme on May 6, 2007 at 5:30 am

Flagellant: "A detailed knowledge of hominid fossil evidence for evolution might have been useful."

I think Sapient did a good job with that by saying 'this room is full of transitional fossils'. Kelly's comment about evolution changes being small and spread over vast periods of time was also good. The whole macro/micro evolution split C&C brought up is just dishonest. Should have called them on it.

The problem with transitional fossils is simple. Even if we had the fossil for every ancestor of an individual horse down to the single cell level, the fundies will doubt that we got them all or that they weren't put there by God in one way or another.

They demand excessive evidence where there is plenty to draw conclusions from while at the same time they assert perfect proof comes from a single reference book.

These aren't people who care or deal with facts well.

24. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37883 by justme on May 6, 2007 at 5:19 am

Logicel -- thanks for the link. Kind of expected C&C to totally ignore the primary statement for the debate and go into fundie mode.

Good that both K&S pointed this out numerous times so that nobody forgot about the deception C&C pulled.

25. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37875 by justme on May 6, 2007 at 4:36 am

James/v4ri4bl3, thanks for the links.

The only suggestion I have is that you forget about it and come back here in a month to review everything.

I don't think you should change your mind as your points are valid.

Here is something to consider in the meantime;

Q. Have you ever had a conversation with a friend about weather you believe God exists or not?

If so, did they tell you that _you_do_believe_ He exists even when you say you don't?

Now, imagine having that conversation a few thousand times with different people.

---

Years ago, I came to the conclusion that being dry and factual -- saying "I am not a Christian" and "I am not religious *at all*" -- were good but not entirely effective in getting my point across to some people.

I had to take the step of saying "I am beyond all that" and if that failed, mocking the person for even attempting to put me in the camp of believers. Laughter -- and laughing at them -- is the only entirely effective tool when they are willfully trying to tell you what you think.

---

How you got here...

The RRS folks are experts. You told them something they have considered many many times and have decided is not the path they want to go on. So, they rejected it.

You saw this as a mistake -- and you are right it is a mistake on some levels -- so you pressed your point. They became annoyed and decided not to have that conversation again since they see advantages beyond the obvious mistake. You don't think the advantages are worth the mistake.

Rinse and repeat.

26. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37870 by justme on May 6, 2007 at 4:18 am

Riley: Good comments. A couple replies.

From what I see, religious fundimentialists (including the religious right but not exclusively the RR) already have decided that we -- the unbelievers -- are the enemy. These folks are always looking for a scape goat to rally around.

They can't harp on the communists anymore because the communists lost^ or are quickly giving up all pretense of supporting communist ideas.

If Richard or the RRS angers them, they are just acknowledging that the religious targeted us first and have no intent on being nice. Attacking homosexuals is not a cost-free effort for them; you can be a RF and gay and gay people fill the ranks of many religious groups. Kicking them out will only weaken the group.

Being an unbeliever on the other hand ... well ... by definition you can't be a RF if you're an atheist.

Richard is exactly correct in pointing out that the people who believe in the Christian God and have read the Bible seriously know that science in general and biology specifically (as viewed through evolution) are threats to the whole foundation -- the fundamentals -- the religious groups use to claim legitimacy.

Keep in mind that the fundimentialists are not only scared of science on many levels, but they are also against pluralism in general and secular institutions specifically -- things I hope you agree are almost always good and positive.

The moderates now know that the fundamentalists are dangerous yet they are not active against the willful ignorance they spout. The moderates also think that even using the word atheist is a radical idea -- even insulting.

The homosexuals took the word gay and aggressively made it a badge of pride. The whole "We're here, we're queer" drum banging and bumper sticker promotions were as necessary for them as political discussions.

I don't see an easy way around being obnoxious at this point since most religious people think we're just playing a game and don't really think they are deluded about the fictions they hold dear.

If you can think of a good way to talk to the willfully ignorant that listen intently to fools like C&C while also passing along understanding to the moderates I'm all ears. I'm not seeing a good way to do it.

Note: ^ The socialists with market economies won. Most nations -- from open democracies through to totalitarian regimes -- have some form of that in place.

27. 'No proof Jesus heals Aids'

Comment #37623 by justme on May 5, 2007 at 11:37 am

Ernest Angley? I thought that he either died from one too many big macs or had slipped away with his millions and bought an island somewhere. The man must be 70+ by now.

I used to watch that fraud just because he was so out there. Funny at the time as I could not believe any but the dumbest would pay him a dime.

As for now ... I'd giggle if he were beaten to death by a hoard of the former suckers who realized he screwed them over.

28. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37575 by justme on May 5, 2007 at 3:54 am

James / v4ri4bl3:
"How can we not take the issue seriously? Which of course I would argue they do but when we are dealing with an audience who is obviously NOT ON YOUR SIDE it is very important to at least APPEAR to take the issue seriously." ...

... "Truly I hope that they do well. And with sincerity I hope they move people to be more open-minded. I just fear they will turn off Christians much easier than they were able to turn off one of their own."

James, first off do you honestly think that atheists _have_not_ taken the idea of a god seriously? I'm talking about the past few centuries, not just going back to Greek philosophers and Mediterranean politicians.

To me, that horse is now a fine powder.

I think even if Brian and Kelly come off as arrogant or insensitive, they will be doing a *good thing*.

The reason for this is simple; There is such a thing as a right and wrong answer to the basic questions in this debate. Since Brian and Kelly have the right answers, they should act like they do without tip toeing around the issues. To give cloying appeasement to the ideas the theists hold dear is not a viable tactic since it challenges nobody. Nobody thinks when they are told they are right even a little bit.

Why challenge and even stun or insult the theist viewers? That's what Brian and Kelly are there for. They are not at a social gathering with strangers making sure they do not offend. The opponents in this debate already assume they are right and act with even greater overt arrogance.

Additionally, if they were boring, they'd get no more airtime. Period.

What I am getting at;

In the last century we've learned quite a bit about how the African American, feminist, and gay communities have handled overt persecution.

One of the first things they learned was that if people don't understand your position ... they will assume they do and correct what you're saying before you even say it. That is;

* People will hear what they want to hear.

That includes your natural allies. That is why Richard is getting criticism from other atheists for pointing out that not only does the king have no clothes but the throne room and the kingdom seem to be lacking substance too -- meaning the followers of the king are deluded. They act like that too. (Reminds me of The Life of Brian where the factions form quickly.)

For each of these groups, there were plenty of members who wanted better rights, but did not want to rock the boat and considered aggression in poor character. Well, it would be if people understood the basic point of what having equal rights means.

Have these groups gone too far? In some cases, yes, but nobody laughs at them anymore and attempts at legislation against any of these groups are smacked down quickly and embarrassingly.

Atheists are more numerous than the homosexual lobby. Unlike them, though, there is a possibility that we will surpass both of the other groups since anyone can be an atheist.

I have no problems laughing at theists ideas. What they say is group insanity and it should be dismissed and laughed at if we are honest.

Mock or laugh at an individual person? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the person. I can be nice at formal parties with strangers.

29. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37321 by justme on May 4, 2007 at 4:52 am

William: "As if Dawkins needed his courtesy. More realistically, Behe is using this as an opportunity to promote himself and his cause. The gracious thing to do would have been to decline Time's offer, and suggest that they get someone less contentious. This is, after all, supposed to be a celebration of Dawkins and his book. Instead, all we're talking about is Michael Behe!"

The disgust and anger you feel is *EXACTLY* why Time picked Behe. For other people on the list, there were contentious biographers chosen. Time *WANTS* you to get angry and ... talk about Time magazine.

Bottom line: What they are shooting for is the same result you'd get if you choose the bitter ex-spouse to write a character reference for the spouse who won full custody of the kids.

This is Jerry Springer with Classical music playing in the background.

It is better to consider this a cynical advertisement for Time itself and treat them as they deserve; ignore them.

30. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37158 by justme on May 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm

The moderator Martin Bashir and the use of ABC concerns me.

* ABC -- Kirk Cameron's former employer. I'm sure he still has friends there who don't want to let him look like a fool.

* Bashir has a reputation for splicing together interviews to prove his point.

Notes: Do a quick search to see the controversy that occurred after the Michael Jackson interview was broadcast. (Jackson is strange enough that I don't see the reason to do a hatchet job on him. Yet, I'm not in the business of interviewing people so what do I know?)

* Bashir has interviewed Cameron before and was sympathetic towards both him and Comfort. Note the tone of prosecution that Cameron highlights and Bashir relays.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1735434&page=1

* He also did a very sympathetic report on xxxchurch.com -- an anti-porn and pro Jesus ministry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpUvsxSqf3M

The priest from xxxchurch.com was basically given a soapbox to stand on. There were no real objections (either because the porn industry is not threatened or because Bashir did not report any concerns).

Predictions:

The actual debate will go to Brian and Kelly ... the edited and broadcast one people see will give an approving nod to Cameron and Comfort and not will not support those 'evil, immoral atheists'.

My expectation is that the edited version that is broadcast will give either Brian or Kelly one good comment while Cameron and Comfort will get 4 or more. Any remaining good comments from Brian or Kelly will be sidelined as petty and used as fodder for the stock answers of Cameron and Comfort even if those answers are refuted in the original debate.

For both groups, the comments won't be sharp and insightful. Instead, they will be grease lense versions of reality with most of the edge removed so as not to offend or put the 'heroes' (Cameron and Comfort) in a bad light.

I would love to be shown that I am wrong, but it's not looking good at this point.

ABC as a corporation and Bashir as an employee of ABC knows who butters more toast for them and they are not motivated to treat this fairly.

31. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35325 by justme on April 26, 2007 at 9:43 pm

I like Bill Maher -- alot. After watching the videos, I could have kissed him like an Italian cousin at a wedding.

Is he 100% perfect? No. He's pissed me off a few times in the past, but not recently. Making me angry once in a while is not a bad thing as it shows he is able to communicate effectively. Yet, after all these years, he has kept himself on the air. That alone is very hard to do.

Early on, I'm sure that he did not poke at religion while flaunting his atheist/apatheist thoughts -- that would be career suicide. Kid about the Pope or Televangelists, but don't mock Jesus if you want people to like you.

I think it is fantastic that he forcefully raises these issues now.

Maybe it is only because of folks like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and the results of 6 years of a failed theocracy in the US ... no matter. The good thing is not that he can do it -- it is good that he *is* doing it.

If the neocon Godbotherers can be out there and speak such drivel, Bill should be given quite a bit of latitude -- especially since he carefully chooses his words and will back them up. Something that can't be said for the Godsquad.

32. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32163 by justme on April 16, 2007 at 3:25 am

Jessie: "Female circumcision is morally indefensible. It's a barbaric, vile, disgusting practise that does not have to exist."

While not as barbaric as female circumcision, the same could be said of male circumcision.

33. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32080 by justme on April 15, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Mikado: "Yes, and I passed a Somali "cultural center" on my way to have a haircut on Friday."

In Oslo, is this story a big deal or did it get little interest/concern?

(PS, I too got my hair cut the other day. How do you like my new photo? Hopefully, they didn't take too much off. I like to keep a full head of hair.)

34. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32044 by justme on April 15, 2007 at 10:27 am

I've visited Oslo for months at a time on business. Oslo is a comfortable, welcoming city with a hometown-feel. It really doesn't feel like a national capital since it is nice and refined but not at all pretentious even in the core of the city.

Norwegians in general are even tempered and very easy to talk with. When I was there, they were never rude when sober, and rarely rude when not sober!

This attack is probably quite a shock to those in Oslo.

Any Norwegians around here?

35. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31329 by justme on April 12, 2007 at 3:17 am

Here's a rule of thumb that explains -- but does not forgive -- these absurd statements by someone that should know better.

* All organizations exist to perpetuate the organization above all other roles.

In this case, the current Pope knows that evolution is such a powerful bit of evidence against many religions including Christian ones that have core creation myths. Evolution, as opposed to the holy book stories, is simple, elegant, and easy to test.

To protect the organization, he has to sow the seeds of doubt in his flock. If he doesn't, the organization suffers. That other suffering occurs because of this intentional misdirection is not important. Prince like, 'the ends justifies the means'.

Personally, I would rather have a bacteria as an ancestor than mud. (Not that what I prefer has any bearing on reality.)

36. E.O. Wilson Accepts his 2007 TED Prize

Comment #30466 by justme on April 8, 2007 at 6:03 am

Links to a few of the 2007 TED Talks:

http://www.ted.com/tedtalks

They promise more over the coming weeks.

37. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30331 by justme on April 7, 2007 at 4:23 pm

So, Fishpeddler and tuibguy, do you think that overall (say, on a per-Christian average), the Christians haven't done much good?

I'm straining to see any massive good deeds and moral acts. Even the small deeds/acts seem to come mainly (entirely?) from basic human compassion -- something that is not limited to Christians.

38. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30320 by justme on April 7, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Comment #30240 by The author
"Now I finally got enough. I demand an answer to the following question by everyone who claims so:

What are the good deeds performed by christians over the centuries because of their religion?"

My initial reaction was to laugh a bit, and then say to myself "Of course, they did plenty of good things ... such as ... ."

Crimeny. I came up blank! The Author is a genius!

In the interest of fairness, can anyone think of a selfless act? One that wasn't tied to conversions or typical non-religious elf-interest?

(Note: I have nothing against self interest. Good things have happened because of enlightened self interest and self interest is not usually a negative even when unenlightened.)

39. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29750 by justme on April 4, 2007 at 2:29 pm

They want to ban a fictional character that uses the word evolution *incorrectly* because they can't even stand the word being mentioned?

I agree that this is an April 1st joke. Nobody is this dense...hmmm... .

40. The God Debate

Comment #29266 by justme on April 2, 2007 at 10:34 am

Pascal's Wager and all the other nonsense. Ack!

It's amazing that the broken record of religion gets so much play. Warren made a few attempts at unique thoughts, but for the most part stayed with the same old un-tuned melody that has been dealt with so many years before.

I keep hoping that someday they will either say "eureka" and admit they aren't sure at all or actually address the obvious faults and make a more sane and non-combative stance that can enlighten us all about the phenomena that makes religions appear.

I guess the religious are too close to the subject to provide any new insights.

Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I guess we are stuck with waiting for the cognitive scientists and others who are serious about research to find those answers.

Very disappointed.

41. Snake Oil and Holy Water

Comment #28285 by justme on March 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Typo:

Paragraph starting; "n 1996 the Vatican, fresh from its magnanimous reconciliation with Galileo, "

42. Neil Peart cites The God Delusion in new album's liner notes

Comment #28066 by justme on March 27, 2007 at 7:34 pm

I have quite a few Rush CDs from the early days and about 10 years ago. Over played them and haven't listened to them in this decade. I'm just not rebellious in my old age.

Most of what I listen to now comes through iRATE;

http://irate.sourceforge.net

43. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27912 by justme on March 27, 2007 at 7:57 am

My basic biology is a bit rusty, so corrections are appreciated. If I remember right, a simplified version goes like this;

First: Replicating molecules that eventually become cellular organisms only need to happen once to kick off the whole process. This may or may not have happened frequently in the early earth environment; we don't know there's no evidence of the early losers.

Second: In general, plants and other organisms create oxygen as a waste product and animals use it because it is a good energy source for mobile creatures. Enough time goes by, and we get ...

Third: ... the current global environment is a reductive environment because of all the excess oxygen. Oxygen aggressively breaks down most organic matter that has not evolved mechanisms for dealing with it. (After death, most organic matter oxidizes, showing how aggressive this process is.) Early earth did not have the volume of unbound oxygen, so early life did not immediately get oxidized out of existence.

Thus: New life would have a hard time getting established these days because of the current reductive environment ... that is why we would not notice it even if it happened quite frequently.

44. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27898 by justme on March 27, 2007 at 6:43 am

Richard Morgan, also keep in mind my first few points.

As I deal with security issues on an ongoing basis, these are really the core of the problem with using claimed real names vs. pseudonyms.

Point: Because you don't know that the other person is using a pseudonym at all, you should assume that all names are pseudonyms

As a general rule, you should only treat names as real names once you have some reason to do so. Exchanging email or going into a private chat would be fine in most cases. After all, we tend to believe someone who introduces themselves in person and we don't demand ID or run blood tests. (Once case where a higher concern about someone's identity would be needed would be with children. While the media have wildly exaggerated the chance that pedophiles will stalk any individual child, these folks do exist. Avoiding them isn't hard, but does take some care. That said, older folks get suckered in too. I had to lecture and scold my father over not responding to spam a few years ago. He gets it now, but he did respond to some of these folks early on and completely trusted them to be above board and honest business owners.)

It is not uncommon for one person to use multiple accounts to make it look like they have support for a specific issue. The religious fanatics tend to do this quite a bit. I've caught a few people doing this in the past, though those were only the ones I've caught. When the charge is raised, they usually deny it and leave quickly when they aren't believed.

45. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27891 by justme on March 27, 2007 at 6:18 am

#27809 Richard Morgan:

"OK, Jack, I can appreciate, understand and respect that.
Excuse me for shooting my mouth off like that, but, living in a country where one's being an atheist is of no interest to anyone, I do tend to forget that this is not the case elsewhere."

Thanks for your consideration. The unfortunate thing is that it may take a few more generations where I am in the USA before the irrational biases against atheists are largely gone.

Think of how long in Europe Jews were thought to have horns just because of a single word mistranslated in the Bible and you can get some idea of what we're up against here. That bias is largely gone because of secularization and the events around WWII.

I'm not saying the situations are equal, though the bias is quite strong none the less.

If I did not have any job concerns, I would be more vocal. As the homosexual advocates have shown, having a we-are-here-and-not-leaving attitude can cause people to accept reality and deal with others as acceptable and that all discrimination is not acceptable. They still have a way to go.

(While atheists don't have the sex taboo problem that riles up the religious, the homosexuals can claim to be believers in God and get some sympathy just as the Jews and Moslems do.)

46. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27790 by justme on March 26, 2007 at 6:03 pm

#27576 by Richard Morgan:

"Why would one need to hide behind a pseudonym on this site?"

Is your reaction an emotional response, or do you have more detailed reasons for your stance?

From my point of view, using a pseudonym in a public forum is a damn good practice on many levels. If you haven't noticed, it is the norm across the net not just here.

That said, just because it's popular doesn't make it good or right. So, why is it more correct to use a pseudonym than your real name?

First, let's get this out of the way;

http://www.epatric.com/funstuff/dog/internet_dog.jpg

Second, by using an obvious pseudonym, there's no doubt that the name is made up.

Third, unless you know the person on some level, use of a real name or even a photo gives details that are unimportant to the discussion and can be a distraction.

For example... say, my name was Kiko Ono ... you may have one reaction. If my name was Hans Bovier, your reaction may be quite different. In either case, a non-trivial number of people will react differently depending on nationality, ethnicity, and gender -- even if they think they are without bias.

Finally, using real names opens up the chance that stalkers, abusive individuals, or even job discrimination can occur. This is a real personal concern to me since I have to go through security clearances on a regular basis, and the people doing those reviews may not live up to the ideals of the profession when they do my review. It only takes one, and it is very hard to protest a bad or rejected investigation.

This last reason -- abuse by others -- is not a trivial concern, and is one of the reasons why most of the Rational Response Squad (no cowards or weak minded folks there) use psudonyms;

http://www.rationalresponders.com/our_team

Having said all that, there was a time on the old Usenet and -- GASP! -- BBS forums where I'd use my real name. I was quite prolific, talked about many of the same subjects that come up here as well as others, and chastised others for using pseudonyms.

Since then, I thought it through and I realized that I was wrong.

If you think I'm wrong now for not using my real name, you need only convince me with the power of your argument and I'll be glad to post using my real name.

Till then, if you want, you can call me Jack.

47. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27522 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 6:42 am

WittyReference:
"this article is a load of crap... but

As someone who is increasingly finding it hard to be tolerant of religion, would me being "militant" in my atheism actually hurt the "movement"?"

I look at it this way...

Whenever the radicals are criticized, they don't say "oops...sorry, we hadn't thought of that". They instead turn and attack, using whatever tactic seems to stave off the criticism.

So, when we don't criticize, what happens?

They continue with the agenda of making this world one big theocratic state.

The ideas they have are resilient. Even the moderates have them. For example, the idea that atheism is a religion even though it doesn't fit the definition of one ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion ). Also, that religious faith results in higher morals, though the facts show otherwise.

We keep getting dragged in to the fight they want to have. Sam and Richard are doing a good job of not playing that game. The only problem is willful ignorance.

For example, in one discussion with someone who would not say they were religious at all (but said everyone was), they kept talking about how atheists were religious and and how they were anti-religious at the same time. Pointing them to the Wikipedia entry above returned only a 'I guess it depends on how you define religion' as if I was picking one definition only. The person even called me dear, as if I were a little child. (Wrinkles say otherwise.)

Most people who even voice an opinion -- and most people do not care that much -- don't care to deal with facts. They have the truth, and will not budge. We are simply wrong. There is clearly a god, and the religious extremists are nutty but not that bad.

9/11 and this ill planned war in Iraq are only two examples that show this is a dangerous and lax attitude.

48. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27517 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 6:09 am

#27354 by Jonathan Dore

[snip!]

Excellent summary. I have not read Sam's book, and so was taken in by Clarkson's description of it.

Thanks for clearing the record!

49. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27513 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 5:22 am

cheshirecat (#27340):
"The problem with Harris is that like his opponents on the religious right in America he is moved by hatred and contempt to write what he does. He should look to himself before criticising intolerance in others."

I don't see vitriol or hate from Sam Harris. I see concern and logical consistency.

50. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27502 by justme on March 25, 2007 at 3:45 am

This type of article can convince quite a few people that Sam Harris is bad news ...

... except when you see what happens when Sam debates someone like Andrew Sullivan (a moderate and not a fanatic right winger) and the moderate starts to cling to the core concepts that Frederick Clarkson says are not the core of Christianity but are part of the radical religious right.

That said, it looks like Mr. Clarkson's main concern is the "radical right" and less the "religious" part -- a part he does not see much danger from.

Sam is not on a crusade to protect the left, though. His focus is on the religious extremists regardless of the political leanings.

Religious groups are causing great damage in the name of uncertainty on subjects they don't care to investigate honestly.

Along with that, they then demand fairness and in the course of doing so take on the cloak of moderation. They do damage to the past, present, and multiple generations in the future by treating creationism and other religious/political goals such as the "the US is a Christian nation" are somehow legitimate fields of study that are true because it embarrasses or shames people not because it is based in any reality.