1. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205033 by WilliamP on July 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I remember looking at a news report about the Pew study. The definition of atheist was way too broad.

2. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203227 by WilliamP on July 2, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Giving money to a religious organization for secular purposes frees up resources for them to spend on religious purposes. If the church was going to run a secular program anyway, it now has more money in its coffers to spread the word since it doesn't have to fund both. The government will help churches in their religious purposes anyway, at least in some cases. So why bother? Just use secular organizations.

The hordes of liberals who love Obama probably did not have this in mind when they supported him.

3. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #201861 by WilliamP on June 30, 2008 at 10:48 am

The title of this article makes it sound like it was written by a fourth grader. It sounds like something that Ralph Wiggum on the Simpsons would write for an essay contest. I'm not even going to bother to read it. I'm sure Lincoln wins anyway, unless Newsweek wants to face the wrath of Fox News.

4. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200910 by WilliamP on June 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm

There's a lot of talk about the value of ridicule here. I think that any argument tactic is fine as long as it supports the conclusion the arguer is making.

I have often used ridicule to point out absurdities in reasoning. It's actually quite useful when there is a formal logic fallacy involved in an opponent's thinking. Telling an opponent that his reasoning affirms the consequent is not very useful because most people don't know what that means.

For example, in a law school class I was once discussing a case in which a woman was excused from a contract because she agreed to it while mentally ill. The dissenting judge thought she should be held to it because her actions in taking the contract seemed rational. I pointed out that this reasoning is poor because rational thinking would lead her to take the contract, but crazy thinking might also lead her to take it. She very well could have entered the contract believing that the unicorn living in her basement told her to do so. Same result, crazy or sane.

Not only did mocking the judge's opinion get the point across, more people probably understood what I was saying through ridicule than if I had put it in formal logic terms.

5. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200629 by WilliamP on June 28, 2008 at 2:17 am

This is complete garbage.

He attacks Hitchens for ridiculing people. Yes, Hitchens ridicules people's beliefs instead of arguing that god does not exist. However, Hitchens rarely argues about the existence of god. He wrote a book about why religion is bad, and typically debates on that topic. He claims to not be an atheist, but an antitheist. This guy is just broadly attacking Hitchens, asserting that his arguments are about atheism when they often are not. The only atheism argument from Hitch he could find to criticize was an off the cuff zinger- not a serious contention. This guy is just making Hitchens into an atheist strawman.

On Dawkins, he just ignores the main issue. He focuses on some propositions that don't fit into a syllogism that concludes: "God does not exist." He just glosses over the contradiction in the design argument from which one can conclude that god is improbable.

Well, what could he say anyway? He fails overall to really address any substantial atheist arguments.

6. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #199788 by WilliamP on June 26, 2008 at 11:04 am

Sure, gloat now, but we'll all be eating crow when the Creationists bring forth the almost-humanoid intermediate clay lumps that god made of Adam during the creation. And boy will our faces be red when the first two half-rib/half-human Eves that god made surface. Just you wait.

7. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199258 by WilliamP on June 25, 2008 at 11:56 am

The religious right should just give up in the fight against gay marriage. It's a tough fight to deny a group of the right to marry since marriage is recognized as a fundamental consitutional right. States have no really good reason to ban gay marriage either, because it causes no harm. States actually may be harming themselves by not charging for those extra marriage certificates.

What gay marriage bans result in is a lot of very upset gay people and a few religious types who get to keep whatever small amount of pleasure they have now from seeing people with no connection to them not getting married. I'm sure the harm of these bans outweigh the benefits. The costs of fighting against what seems to be the natural conclusion that the constitution requires marriage rights for all is likely not worth the small benefit of maintaining the status quo.

8. Science is not philosophy

Comment #198831 by WilliamP on June 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I think the title of this article should be "Philosophy is not Science" because it is about a type of philosopy (ID) that is passed off as science. The title suggests that science is not a type of philosophy, where he wants to say that philosophy is not a type of science.

Anyway, I agree with the author that ID is a philosophical theory, but it is very poor philosophy. No person who is well educated in philosophy and not deluded would buy it. It's as good a philosophical theory as one you would hear from a high school educated hippy while doped up.

9. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198389 by WilliamP on June 23, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Well then, the people who frequent this website will be passing on their genes.

10. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #197927 by WilliamP on June 23, 2008 at 12:24 am

That's really too bad. His comic acts were some of the funniest things I've ever heard.

11. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197634 by WilliamP on June 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm

I think US law has a good approach to hate speech. We have laws that have the aim of preventing viewpoint discrimination. Simply banning hate speech is an inconsistent approach. It seems absurd for the government to say "we are punishing you for hating others because we dislike your views."

In the US a hate crime is a crime commited with a discriminatory purpose. It requires an act that would stand alone as a crime by itself, such as murder or assault. Unless speaking or thinking has been outlawed, he would not be charged with a crime in the US. The government can punish speech that incites crime, but the incitement must be imminent, specific, and likely to be sucessful.

12. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197243 by WilliamP on June 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Should the Discovery Institute use loaded questions to dishonestly sway the debate over Louisianna's new education bill? Apparently they do.

Maybe we should ask whether an organization trying to further a theory, that one of its leaders equated with astrology in a federal trial, should be involved in educational policy at all.

13. Lawsuit filed over 'I Believe' plates in S.C.

Comment #196735 by WilliamP on June 20, 2008 at 11:38 am

I doubt the state will be able to justify this in court. The state needs to show that it has a secular purpose for these liscense plates, no religious promotion, and no excessive ties to religion. Giving people an outlet for their faith is probably not a secular purpose. If making money is the state's aim, there are other ways to make money than pimpin' out Jesus. The law will probably be shown to be too closely tied to religion or promoting it.

But if the plates pass muster, I suggest that every drug dealer and smuggler in South Carolina buy one. Who would suspect them?

14. It Doesn't Take an Einstein

Comment #196241 by WilliamP on June 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Why would Christians be so interested in having Einstein on their side? He was ethnically Jewish, and Judaism would have been his presumed religion. Appealing to Einstein's authority to justify belief in god is faulty reasoning, of course, even if he did believe in god. It gets much worse when Christians try to argue that he did believe in god, but they know better than he did that Jesus was god's son.

15. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #194977 by WilliamP on June 17, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Wow, quite a service this company provides. I for one know that if the rapture actually occured and I witnessed thousands of people floating up to the heavens as Jesus Christ led an army of the faithful against the devil, I still wouldn't believe in god. That is unless some fundamentalists sent me a bunch of ranting e-mails...

16. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190710 by WilliamP on June 9, 2008 at 12:33 pm

The only thing that could salvage this article would be a punchline.

17. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190269 by WilliamP on June 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm

It doesn't surprise me that someone who can believe in something as patently false as Christianity can believe something as patently false as the idea that America is a Christian nation.

18. Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Comment #188692 by WilliamP on June 4, 2008 at 11:49 am

I'm glad that the Times is bringing this issue to a wide audience.

The Creationists are trying to seek "academic freedom" these days. This "strength and weakness" thing is more of the same one-sided crap. It only applies to ID, and not to any other crazy theory that doesn't belong in schools. I really hope that people with other crazy idea come forth to challange academic freedom laws that only address ID. Those who want academic freedom for ID don't want it for 9/11 conspiracy theories. They should want to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the official 9/11 story too if they are serious, but they don't. If a historian had a theory that Jesus was gay, they would probably openly fight the teaching of that theory in schools, and would be against allowing teachers to point out that he only hung out with men and never had a girlfriend. They only want to be "objective" when it comes to ID.

"Academic Freedom" is just a cover for ID and those behind these laws can easily be exposed as hypocrites when they refuse to support academic freedom for theories that are just as absurd as ID. I hope that other people come forward trying to teach their crazy ideas. I doubt that lawmakers will be able to distinguish one type of nonsense from another in their laws and still claim that they are pushing for academic freedom. That way none of this garbage will get into schools.

19. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #187778 by WilliamP on June 2, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I don't think this idea is new at all. Most people that I know who have studied rhetoric know that most fallacies are not really fallacious if they are justifiably related to the argument. The real question is whether the evidence for an argument supports the conclusion.

As in the article's example, if Bill Clinton were to argue that he is not a liar, then evidence of his past lying would negate that claim. Thus, the ad hominem argument is relevant in that case.

The tu quoque argument may be valid if one person advises another person in the same situation as him to take a course of action that he hasn't taken. For example, if the fat doctor tells the patient to lose weight because he has diabetes, criticising the doctor for being overweight may be valid if the doctor also has the same type of diabetes as the patient. The doctor would need a good explanation for taking a different action. In the lawn example, the neighbor's crappy lawn is relevant if he is giving advice about a lawn that the listener knows the adviser applies to his own, similar lawn.

Poisoning the well is mostly invalid, but in a case like the Tom Cruise movie in the article it could be valid. If Tom were to make a documentary that claimed to be an objective outsider's view of Scientology, it is certainly fine to argue that current Scientologists as a whole cannot make movies about the religion from an outsider's perspective. His religious affiliation would clearly negate his claim, and thus it would be relevant.

In all these examples, what really matters is the claim and how the argument is used to support or refute it. An argument is only a fallacy if its conclusion does not follow from its premises, if it just assumes its conclusion, or if it has a false premise. I think most people who study logic and argument already know this.

20. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #182628 by WilliamP on May 20, 2008 at 5:08 pm

This means that at least 16% of US science teachers are complete morons.

21. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178090 by WilliamP on May 10, 2008 at 1:23 pm

As an atheist I am offended whenever a company panders to religion like this.

22. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177862 by WilliamP on May 9, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.

23. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177011 by WilliamP on May 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm

He went on to praise the broadcasters for "standing up for our values, including the right to life," and pledged to veto any legislation that would reinstitute the so-called "fairness doctrine," which required broadcasters to give air time to opposing views.

24. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174893 by WilliamP on May 3, 2008 at 6:42 pm

I agree with Troy and others who have mentioned that this opens the floodgates for other crazy ideas in school. In fact, I hope the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, and other screwballs come out of the woodwork and demand their right to academic freedom too.

There has already been controversey about 9/11 conspiracy theorists being kicked out of univerisities. Their theory, and moon landing denial are just as valid as ID. I hope they all band together and seek their rights to fill kids' minds with nonsense.

After a few court battles that reveal just how vacuous their ideas are, and just how low the bar is being set by allowing ID into schools, lawmakers will have to think twice before allowing ID and not Holocaust denial. I doubt that courts would even allow equal time for one type of intellectual garbage, but not another type given the Dover case and the first amendment's ban on viewpoint discrimination.

25. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169391 by WilliamP on April 26, 2008 at 12:43 am

For those of you who are wondering, the law in the US allows students the right to free speech. Schools are, however, areas of limited free speech. They can generally regulate student expression when it interferes with pedagogical goals or infringes on the rights of others. Regulations have to be reasonable, of course.

And by the way, a friend of mine once saw a little girl in a shirt that said:
Who the f*ck is Jesus?

26. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #168884 by WilliamP on April 25, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Actually, Dawkins, Myers, Shermer, and others who appear in "Expelled" might be able to sue the film's makers if they want. As far as I've heard, these guys and others had contracts to appear in the movie, and it seems that the only reason they agreed to do the film was because of the lies that the producers told them about the movie's purpose. That could be the basis for a case of misrepresentation under either contract or tort law in the US. Of course, it depends on the circumstances, contract language, etc.

I'm sure they don't want to give the film anymore publicity than it has now. Although, if they wait until the movie is out of the spotlight, it might be worth it if they can make a case.

27. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168840 by WilliamP on April 25, 2008 at 11:47 am

Someone should make a shirt saying:

Be smart, not religious.

28. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166654 by WilliamP on April 23, 2008 at 11:17 am

This story is almost as ridiculous as the one about those people who wake up early on Sunday mornings to drink blood.

29. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165928 by WilliamP on April 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Well, maybe these writers just haven't heard of Okham's Razor. Dawkins said:

They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex...you might as well say flagellar motors were always there.

30. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165032 by WilliamP on April 21, 2008 at 12:32 am

This guy is lying to try to look like approaching this movie objectively, saying that he wasn't looking forward to it. For a man with so many ties to so many conservative and religious groups I find it hard to believe that he was doing anything but wetting his pants in anticipation for this film. Have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III

If you follow the link to the Catholic League you'll also find out that he and his friends there publish material denying the Catholic Church's possible role in the Holocaust. Why so credulous when one movie proposes a link between Hitler and Darwin?

The Scientists are dishonest, but not the producers of the movie? No mention of Myers being kicked out of the screening in ultimate irony?

I hope people who read this crap aren't falling for his implied objectivity. Yet more dishonesty from the pro-Expelled side.

31. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162416 by WilliamP on April 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm

What a fiasco this movie has become. It seems to be a publicity stunt for the Intelligent Design movement that keeps generating bad publicity. It hasn't even been released yet and its makers have been accused of plagiarism, possible copywright infringement, misrepresenting themselves to experts appearing in it, and denying a potential critic access despite its contention that critics of evolution are being silenced.

The film supposedly tries to link evolution with Nazism, but it's far more successful in liking Intelligent Design with dishonesty and charlatanism. It's not surprising given that the latter connection is far stronger.

32. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158575 by WilliamP on April 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Then again, for the real simple-minded, we can apply Intelligent Design reasoning:

Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise. -Hitler

33. Expelled Overview

Comment #149819 by WilliamP on March 26, 2008 at 9:03 am

I really think someone should take the ID crowd to task on academic freedom. They claim to be pushing for free inquiry when it comes to ID, but how many of these conservative religious types would stand up with anti-Bush 9/11 conspiracy theorists who want to present their views in universities in the name of academic freedom?

Someone should get some of these ID nuts on camera and press them on this issue. Will they be hypocrites and reject equal academic freedom for both theories, or will they alienate their Bush-loving ID supporters by supporting freedom for both?

34. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46264 by WilliamP on May 30, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Boy, I really feel bad for this kid. And also for the proponents of the "science" of creationism who are astounded by the groundbreaking advances made in that field by a child with some paper towels.

35. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42989 by WilliamP on May 20, 2007 at 8:29 am

I find it hard to believe that people find it so hard to accept that Hitch is conservative toward the Iraq War and liberal toward religion. There is a good reason for this: he has well thought out reasons for both views. Perhaps it's just too uncommon to see someone like Hitchens who doesn't stick to a single ideological line.

36. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42205 by WilliamP on May 17, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Bizzaro Dawkins said:

I must believe what is most reasonable. I cannot accept the scientifically and philosophically absurd notion that matter created itself or possesses aseity. I cannot accept that molecules can organize themselves into complex life that we are just beginning to understand.

37. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #41856 by WilliamP on May 17, 2007 at 7:58 am

BillySands,
that's no surprise that Robertson would block your comments on his site and whine when it happens to him here.

I just saw his letter to the Times on this thread and it looks like more of the same. He claims that Dawkins makes strawman arguments about religion in the same piece where he says:

Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot. It is the classic circular argument of the fundamentalist believer who will not allow the possibility that he may be wrong.

38. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #41672 by WilliamP on May 16, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Again, David Robertson (The Wee Flea) is back and commenting. I really don't know why he comes here. He writes a lot about how he gets trolled off the site and about how we atheists don't realize how intollerent and irrational we are. I don't know why he posts here. If we want him to go away I suggest we corner him on the issue of god's existence. He never seems to want to talk about that, and always tries to divert people to his website, where he has posted ten reasons for beliving in Christ.

His reasons are nothing that we haven't heard before. Most of them can be reduced to the following formula:
I can't see how ____ came about except for it having been created by god. Therefore god exists.

Despite being a main critic of TGD, I doubt that he has much to offer in terms of arguments against Dawkins' criticism of the Design Argument, or anything to revive Anselm's Ontological Argument. He seems mostly to want to argue that atheists characterize believers unfairly. He particularly talks a lot about how he accepts the bible on evidence, contrary to atheist claims that there is no evidence for god
s existence. Of course, not much explanation follows.

So if anyone wants Mr. Robertson off this website, then I suggest that you ignore him until he's ready to discuss his belief in god and his evidence for it. I don't know why he comes to this site, but it seems to be for something other than that.

39. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39641 by WilliamP on May 11, 2007 at 12:22 pm

I also read the second part of the debate. Hitchens said that Wilson's first reply, arguing that Christianity provides universal morality:

contains nothing that distinguishes it from Islam or Hinduism or indeed humanism.

The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed [moral] standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either.

40. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39468 by WilliamP on May 10, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Here's a quote for you guys:

Oh dear god, save me from the crappy production value and insane rantings of this awful video!

-WilliamP

41. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39324 by WilliamP on May 10, 2007 at 10:17 am

Since Wilson went onto this tangent, I want to ask, how can god be the cause of human morality? There seem to be a few things that all humans see as being wrong like stealing. Then we get to rape, and guess what, god sanctions that in Pakistan!

Are we to believe that the crime of rape is different from the apparent non-crime of "rape-in-Pakistan". Not to mention polygamy, ingesting alchohol and other "toxins", birth control, owning dogs, eating pork, crashing planes into buildings, and many other things. I'm just picking out rules here that religions can't agree upon, but I could point out others.

If god gave humans morals, then god is an incompetent fool. The differences in what people see as being right and wrong show some very sorry work on the part of this alleged supreme being. All people may follow a general set of rules, but those rules don't extend very far, because there are many, many things that they differ on. There is no reason to say that because humans share some basic behavioral tendencies, the only conslusion we can reach is that there's an invisible, all-powerful man in the sky.

42. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39050 by WilliamP on May 9, 2007 at 9:29 pm

...the Archbishop of Riga called homosexuality "total corruption in the sexual arena" and "an unnatural form of prostitution."

43. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38891 by WilliamP on May 9, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Bizarro Dawkins said:

I have to admit, I was very worried when I read that Sharpton was debating the existence of God with an atheist.

The question under debate ("Is God great?")

44. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38822 by WilliamP on May 9, 2007 at 8:41 am

This obviously isn't the whole debate and there might be more to be said here. I'm for arguing about the existence of god with theists, but Sharpton shouldn't have brought it up here for two reasons: 1. He couldn't make a good argument for it. 2. It's not the topic of the debate.
About number 2, the topic was "Is God Great". If I were debating the question "Is Homer Simpson Great?", I wouldn't spend much time talking about Homer's existence.
Sharpton was arguing that god explains why humans have morals, but maybe he didn't go into the bible because he couldn't explain why our god-given morals often clash with what we see in the bible.
And what Sharpton said about Romney, if I understand it correctly, was very inappropriate.

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

Comment #38483 by WilliamP on May 8, 2007 at 9:20 am

Sorry, double posted.

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

Comment #38481 by WilliamP on May 8, 2007 at 9:16 am

Harris' quote has been thrown around here quite a bit-

some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them

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

Comment #38257 by WilliamP on May 7, 2007 at 10:29 am

Let's talk about the problems that religious apologists seem to have in making their cases: they just can't address the arguments against believing in god.

Their problem is that they write articles like this whinining about how mean atheists are and they forget to argue WHY you should believe in god. Here we have no mention of how Dawkins won't convince people because he's made errors in reasoning, no, he's not convincing because he isn't nice. So what if he's shown that the argument for design is an untenable absurdity, he's doing it for a political reason, so don't listen!

If apologists don't address the main issue at hand (the existence of god), then they're not really apologists, they're just making excuses for religion or for not believing atheists. Ms. Bunting (if this is her aim) and others should try to show that atheists aren't plausible because we are wrong, and if they can't then they should just admit defeat.

48. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38101 by WilliamP on May 7, 2007 at 1:24 am

I applaud Mr. Gardner for taking up the issue of Stalin. I fully agree, and I think more should be done to show that much of Communism is based on faith like religion. It is a system that called people to action based on the belief that there is an inevitable course to history that would bring about a worker's revolution. Russel was baffled as to how Marx could believe this and still be an atheist.
Then again, Russel himself was an atheist and therefore likely had dozens of abortions in his 97 years.

49. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37897 by WilliamP on May 6, 2007 at 7:15 am

It looks like Ahmadinejad better redeem himself and do something to show he is an upright and moral Islamic fundmentalist. Maybe to show that he hasn't lost his sense of ethics he can threaten Israel with nuclear war again. Or just have Hesbollah indiscriminately murder more civilians with their rockets.

I'm sure Ahmadinejad's faith will lead him away from this atrocious sin and back to the correct, moral path.

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

Comment #37355 by WilliamP on May 4, 2007 at 7:11 am

As Mike Seaver, the oldest son in the smash hit sitcom "Growing Pains," actor Kirk Cameron could make audiences roll with laughter.