551. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48437 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:14 am

264. Comment #47937 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2007 at 4:46 am
avatar

Here is Rtambree's answer (from a site several of us are working on to answer theist's questions about atheism, but of which I am cautioned not to announce as of yet because it is still being created):



Well, that's certainly sparked my curiosity! When will this site be finished?
_________

bitbutter has just launched the site:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

In addition to clarifying the atheist position to theists, the site can also be used by atheists when debating either online or in person; the answers can be used as stepping stones from which you can launch your own debates.

bitbutter also set up a thread in the forum under Civic Action if you want to discuss the site and give feedback or contribute to the site as a writer, or you can just use the contact info at http://www.asktheatheists.com/

552. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48435 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 12:55 am

Atheism may not be a view of life, but as Dawkins puts it so well, an atheist can have a very fulfilling life:

Richard Dawkins expresses this viewpoint on page 1 of The God Delusion:

I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is an realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.


bitbutter has announced the launch of his website:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

A stable of writers, mostly posters here at Dawkins.net, answer questions posed by theists. If you have any feedback or would like to join this stable of atheist answerers, then use the contact info at:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

or

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16395

I also consider this site to be a handy resource for atheists, who when debating either online on in person, can use the answers as at least a stepping stone from which they can launch their own debate. For example, I just hopped to the site and pulled out this quote above from Dawkins.

553. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48322 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Excellent and extremely moving article.

554. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48192 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 2:30 am

With its significantly weakened explanatory power, God can be put on the same level as the tooth fairy.

555. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48188 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 2:10 am

Dianelos

I wrote:

As you have pointed out that it is naive or silly to look for evidence for a being which exists out of the range of human perception--I find your framing God within an anthropomorphic view to be just as naive. And yet, you cannot do it any other way, can you, being human? God is known only through revelation, I suppose, and this knowledge cannot be transferred to another. No? (bold face is the part of my comment you did not include)

You responded:

Actually no. Many existents exist out of the range of human perception. (By human perception I take it you mean the five senses: seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, tasting). But we cannot see, touch or smell gravity, and even though we believe it exists. Similarly we cannot see, touch or smell electrons.
__________

I agree that many existents exist out of the range of human perception, and that my phrasing was useless in my effort to state what I mean. Can't you just read my mind? Lol. I will try again.

God does not exist in the material plane, so we could not even detect any evidence which may exist out of the range of our human perception because there is no possible evidence because God does not exist within the material plane. Such focused investigation is fruitless, so the one of only two ways that can give any credibility to an being which can not be shown to exist by the relied-upon method of evidence--whether or not said evidence is within or not within the range of human perception--is to resort to the explanatory power of the God hypothesis.

Your focus is that the God hypothesis succeeds where science fails in the sense that only the God Hypothesis explains our whole experience, our consciousness. Science does explain consciousness, as a byproduct of our evolution.

In addition to the God Hypothesis--your version is a bit more intriguing than that of the fundamentalists, which is that Creation, both the physical and the non-physical, our consciousness included, is proof of a Creator, while your version is that God created everything, but the physical plane was done via evolution--the only other handle we have on the existence of God is through personal revelation which is non-transferable and non-verifiable. Together, these two theistic handles, purport to a reasonable and, to the theists mindset, certainly not a trite grasp of the high probability of the existence of God which the theists--expressly, you--regard atheists like Dawkins as having, that is, labeling such endeavors as being based on weak, wobbly assumptions.

I regret, that I am still in the Dawkins camp. As Dawkins and other atheists have pointed out, that way back when the Abramhamic religions were spawned, science was in its infancy, and the explanatory power of the God hypothesis could dance in its glorious vacuum, unchallenged by science. Now, it no longer can do that.

What is your opinion of Stenger's, God: The Failed Hypothesis?

556. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48177 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:58 am

Sam Cooke song Wonderful World is where Coyne took his wonderful title from, here are the lyrics:

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonomitry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for

But I do know one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful world this would be

Now I don't claim, to be an A-student
But I'm trying to be
For maybe by being an A-student, baby
I could win your love for me

{repeat first two blocks)

Now in America, if a guy wants to win a gal, he needs to show off his ignorance of science.

557. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48175 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:51 am

greg_m, That 'monkey' video also leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It undermines the value of monkeys also. The makers of the video, unfortunately, in their earnestness to show how divisive and silly humans can be, left out any allusion to the wonderful achievements done by humanity and its staggering potential to continue to do so.

There are other videos which emphasize how connected humanity is, rather than focusing its sundering into divisive elements. I prefer them.

558. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48171 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:28 am

I love this guy.

559. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48170 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:24 am

mmurray, Thanks for your sleuthing. Heard is a young, gay conservative, like Andrew Sullivan is.

When I read his article, before knowing that about him, I had suspected that he, unlike me, uses and bases a large part of his morality on tradition--one of the five bases of morality (see link below) that some researchers have come up with and whose 'test' on morality I recently took. I scored very low on that aspect of morality, but very high on identifying harm and pain as factors in determining morality.

If morality is hard-wired, based on empathy for others as other research in neuroscience has shown, and if the researchers from Morality.org are correct in stating that respect for tradition contributes to morality, then what evolutionary role does respect for tradition accomplish?

Also, how do such gay people, who are apparently departing from tradition by being gay, reconcile that departure with their embracing of tradition? The brain hurts.

http://www.yourmorals.org/

560. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48133 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 6:02 pm

It is also true that no religious nation on earth, not even theocratic Shi'ite Iran, offends against basic human rights on the scale of officially atheist China.
______

Russia violates human rights, America violates human rights, South Asian countries, South American countries, so many countries do, that NGO's have their hands full exposing and challenging such violations.

Also China is now allowing religious practice, especially the ancient forms of folk religion in the countryside.

561. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48130 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:55 pm

On the contrary, time and time again religious faith has applied the brakes to monstrous human excess.
_____

Heard does not give any specific examples. But I can give an example how belief in belief allowed children to be sexually abused by priests. Such abused children were reluctant to ask for help from other adults, because they would not be believed that priests could do such a terrible act, as priests are men of faith, and thusly, such monstrous human excess would not manifest in them.

562. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48127 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Celandine, You captured the inanity of this author's slant. Heard is very ignorant about what atheism is criticizing. Atheists are criticizing the belief in God, not the non-existent sky daddy. And as theists claim that their religious beliefs point to a merciful and loving God, atheists can only see how their belief conflicts with reality.

Do humans make earthquakes, tidal waves, mud slides, disease, etc.?

Gutenberg was an inventor who happened to be a Christian. Is this author implying that it was Gutenberg's Christianity which allowed him to create movable type? In addition, the Christian church consistently tried to censure what could be printed.

563. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48121 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm

This article is a rant. I hope it made Hobson feel better after writing it.

564. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48119 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm

blods, Apparently Hobson's editor removed the bit where Hobson mentioned Hitchens leaving his wife when she was pregnant.

565. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47945 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:12 am

Dianelos wrote: But if there are atheists here who think that there are things beyond the physical world we observe and its natural laws as studied by science, then I would like to ask them what things?
______

Emotions like love, anger, hate, anxiety; thoughts, consciousness, the mind. None of those states have any matter or energy, yet, they are set into motion because of matter and energy, or so I regard them to the best of my knowledge relating to the work being done in neuroscience.

566. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47939 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:55 am

Quetzalcoatl, When the very talented and hardworking web designer/atheist is finished with his work--perhaps he needs to take the seventh day off from his labors--said glorious creation will be announced here, at least by me, if not also by the numerous atheist contributors who mostly post here at this site.

567. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47936 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:42 am

steve99 wrote: If God does not interact, then there can be no causual connection between the mental processes in our brain that occur when we think of God, and any actual God; in other words, we have just made up the idea, based on no foundation, even if He does actually exist. Suppose there is a locked room, and I imagine there is an elephant in there. There may actually be one there, but that would just be co-incidence, and not related to the what you imagined!
______

Accidentally stumbling on truth is a sure sloppy way to get at the truth, and this golden ring that they managed to grab while on their mental Merry-Go-Around is potentially dangerous because they are rewarded for gut feelings without evidence to guide them in finding other answers.

Essentially, God, whether it is a more sophisticated version like Dianelos' or a more primitive one like Jerry Falwell's, is unknowable without personal revelation. Without that revelation, there is no proof and no evidence, no matter the elegant framing, thinking, etc., and yet that revelation is personal and is, therefore, non-transferable and non-verifiable. In this regard, a belief in God is no different than a belief in any other similar entities, where there is no evidence for their existence except personal revelations. And yes, that includes the tooth fairy.

I have followed Dianelos' comments because I have been nagged by a gut feeling that there is something odd in equating belief in God with belief in the tooth fairy.

I am afraid that at this point I am more convinced with Rtambree's answer to Why atheists equate God to the tooth fairy as being more substantial than Dianelos' heroic and patient effort to prove his case.

Here is Rtambree's answer (from a site several of us are working on to answer theist's questions about atheism, but of which I am cautioned not to announce as of yet because it is still being created):

Atheists equate God with fairies, principally because the evidence is equally non-existent for both them.

The ranking importance between these invisible entities is irrelevant. Just because one imaginary 'balrog' may be more important that a lowly ranked 'orc', doesn't make the balrog any more real.

Secondly, if one believes in God because of the explanatory power of a Deity in creating the universe or because of Pascal's Wager, there is no way of distinguishing which God, of Gods, or fairies, did the creating. There is no objective reference point against which to ensure you are following the true deity or deities – it may be Zeus, Thor, Allah, Yahweh, Ra, Vishnu, Shiva, Jesus, the Dreamtime Serpent, or any one of the millions of other deities obviously invented by humans.

568. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47932 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:18 am

Dianelos wrote: ...but rather that God knows everything that God wants to know.
_________

So God does not get information overload? Or that God has a bias to what information God allows for God upon which to focus? Like a divine editorial gatekeeper at a celestial newspaper?

As you have pointed out that it is naive or silly to look for evidence for a being which exists out of the range of human perception--though we can bear witness to God's work via evolutionary theory--I find your framing God within an anthromorphic view to be just as naive. And yet, you cannot do it any other way, can you, being human? God is known only through revelation, I suppose, and this knowledge cannot be transferred to another. No?

569. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47926 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:05 am

Dianelos, I am concluding that you are the same Dianelos who is a Wikipedia editor? Then we can refer to you as he without being worried about being sexist pigs? And if so, you have certainly lived an interesting life.

570. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47905 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 2:24 am

I wrote this even before Dianelos requested understanding for his human limitation of grappling with many debaters all by her/his self:

212. Comment #47633 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 5:35 am
Dianelos, Please, when you can find the time,...
_______

I regret for not including that entreaty when posting my latest questions, but I would think that an intelligent and sensitive person like Dianelos would apply my stated qualification on any additional questions that I may pose. I am writing them as they come to mind so I do not forget them.

571. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47902 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 2:10 am

And Philip1978, as for the rather arbitrary edict of the Trousers religion in insisting that trousers are not worn for the month of June, some parish priests, like ours, allow the wearing of furry trousers on cold days in the month of June.

I almost want to convert to my husband's religion. I love when our cats sleep on my lap, and during cold days in June, our cats both choose to sleep on his gussied up, furry lap. I am really jealous.

572. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47901 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 2:02 am

Well, Philip1978, when I first married into the Trousers religion I had no idea how complicated and varied its rituals are.

I spent almost an entire week hunting down a pair of my husband's trousers, a pink job splashed with yellow and purple circles, with deep pleats of orange. I had loaned it to one of our friends who does the clown-for-kiddie-birthday-parties circuit. Well, that bloke was on holiday in some Trouser-forsaken place. When I was finally re-united with these trousers, they were covered with ice cream and gooey melted candied stuff. I have just finished washing and pressing them so my husband can now attend a funeral.

Yes, those are the special trousers that his Trousers religion insists on his wearing to funerals. Such a special religion. Anyway, he is all psyched up to take in stride the horrendous and intolerant abuse the people at the wake will hurl in his direction for not wearing black trousers. Other religious people are so close minded!

573. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47897 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 1:13 am

Dianelos wrote: "The idea that natural selection is God's way seems quite reasonable to me.
_______


Please give your reasons why it seems reasonable.

You regard the possibility of God's existence as not being trivial, and therefore you are 'bothering' with it. Fundamentalists balk at atheist criticism by opining that they will burn in hell for not heeding God's word, your stance is that atheists are missing out on what exactly?

You say that good people, including atheists, will not be eternally damned (if I remember correctly), so what is this delicious carrot you are dangling in front of us so we will trot in your God-bothering direction?

574. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47893 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 12:51 am

I watched the clip. A woman in the audience asked Edwards how did he know that the voice he was hearing was God talking to him, or Edwards' own. In true, well honed political waffle, Edwards answered without really answering.

None of the experiences which not only tested their faith but about which their faith also provided solutions, are unknown for the majority of people. In my own life, when such experiences occur, what grounds me is reality. I suppose one can call it comparative reality. Collectively, we experience much of the same anguish, pain, and disappointments. If I was the only one who has ever experienced these difficult situations, I would feel quite persecuted and unhappy, but it is just life, itself, that needs to be taken in stride by simply accepting it in all of its joys and pains.

What does faith in a supernatural being have to do with any of the difficulties we all go through? Acceptance of reality allows us to continue finding solutions, adapting to change, etc.

No faith in god is needed for that necessary response. Reminds me of the elaborate process that parents go through in denying the reality/truth that it is the parents, themselves, who love their children, and therefore, spend time and money buying Christmas presents, not Santa Claus. It was Edwards and Clinton, who solved their own problems, most likely with the help and knowledge gotten from experience contributed by friends, which aided them, and they need to emphasize that aspect because that is what is effective in confronting difficulty.

575. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47817 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Dianelos wrote: A person is perfectly good when I would completely trust that person in situations where that person's will can affect me. Another way is this: A person is perfectly good when I wish myself (and everybody else) to become ever more similar to that person. Suppose, just for discussion's sake, that such a person of perfect goodness and limitless power actually exists. What do *you* think such a person would choose to do? And then compare what you think such a person would do, with your actual experience of life, and check whether you find a contradiction between the two, or maybe an explanation. (But be careful to think about what that person would want to do, not what you would want that person to do.)
__________

This person would listen to you and gently encourage you into realizing what the best is for you and your circumstances is.

Is God the supreme psychiatrist?

576. Pell plans fidelity oath for principals

Comment #47807 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 2:57 pm

There can be a place for theologians to make explorations of criticism, but in teaching positions the role is to very much be faithful to the teaching of the church."
_____

Such a quaint phrase, exploration of criticism, not exactly criticizing any Catholic tenet, but simply exploring such criticism? So, little Theologians, play in your sand pile with your pails and shovels, but if any of your playful exploration result in serious criticism, the Pope will just override it.

Before this declaration, what were the Catholic teachers practicing and teaching: atheism?

The Catholic Church ping pongs between trying to appeal to the masses and after acheiving some success in doing so, a 'bright bulb' in their midst, then decides clarity and firmness is the way to go, until church attendance falls yet again, and the Catholic officials become yet again understanding and tolerate until they decide to tighten the screws once again. What a vicious and useless circle of pathetically manipulative dysfunction.

577. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47633 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 5:35 am

Dianelos, Please, when you can find the time, respond to Epeeist's response to one of your posts. I agree with Epeeist's description of RDs argument.

Incidentally, your analysis of RD's naive argument for the non-existence of god is wrong. A mixture of poor logic and not using the primary source.

It should really be cast in one of two ways, the first echoes the theme of "Climbing Mount Improbable"


1. Some things created in a single step are complex.

2. Complex things created in a single step are improbable

3. Some things are improbable



Or


1. Complex things created sui generis are improbable


3. God is a complex thing created sui generis

4. God is improbable

578. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47587 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:08 am

As for religious studies, instructors can be accredited, with a religious studies certificate, to be qualified to teach the topic of comparative religion.

579. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47585 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:06 am

Quetzalcoatl wrote: No state can control what parents teach their children at home, nor should it be allowed to.
_______

No, but at public schools, no child should have a file which states that they are of a particular religion. The religion of their parents can be noted, of course.

Dawkins' important point is to raise consciousness regarding the labeling of children. Some posters here are so wrapped up with the state interfering with the raising of children--with which I absolutely agree--that they seem to be blind to this point of RAISING CONSCIOUSNESS.

580. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47583 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:00 am

Yes, Biz, you need to not only travel to other countries, but also live in other democratic countries. There are quite a few in existence in addition to America, which is still a democracy despite unrelenting encroachment upon the American constiution by religious, right wingnuts. The same wingnuts are an embarrassment to more rational members of the conservative political party.

Inhabitants of other democratic countries, do own real guns and ammunition and can shoot them--via target practice and hunting.

581. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47579 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 2:47 am

There is no doubt that this will be a controversial position. However, there is nothing to prevent the UN from organizing a world convention on the issue of the religious abuse of children, a forum where the pros and cons of childhood exposure to religion and its influence on children can be openly debated. The world body cannot remain silent on this vital issue just because it is a sensitive and difficult subject, even given its member nations and their religious interests. A convention like this would also be an opportunity for those who might want to argue for the benefits of the influence of religion on children, so the UN should not shy away from debate of the issue.
_________

Excellent article, the above quote is my favorite bit.

As for Biz and his free-shooting in his back yard, what does that have to with children and religious institutions? Was Biz allowed to shoot his real gun when a kid? Was he allowed to drink alcohol when a kid? Were his parents allowed to beat him to a pulp when he was a kid? Was he allowed to buy cigarettes when he a was kid? Were his parents allowed to deny him medical treatment because of religious beliefs when he was a kid?

The debate needs to be done whether or not it is a difficult debate with difficult to arrived-at solutions.

One measure could be as Dawkins suggests, that children are not LABELED the religion of their parents. Parents can teach their religion to their children, along with all the other ones, and when grown up, then that former child can decide what religion, if any, to embrace. I find absolutely nothing oppressive or state controlled about this aspect. Various restrictions are in place already, like children not partaking in voting, drinking, smoking, working in certain jobs, being beaten to a pulp, etc. Enough of this hypocrisy. No free pass for religious institutions.

As a former child forced to kowtow to Catholicism--being an atheist in mind, though keeping my atheism secret until I could leave my family home at age eighteen--I would have loved/been extremely grateful if my American government restricted my parents in labeling me as Catholic before I was grown up enough to decide for myself.

Religious beliefs are not VALUES. They are simply beliefs based on no evidence.

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

Comment #47359 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 8:22 am

SharriG wrote: I do think it's dangerous to fall into the trap of being too cynical though.

and

Lumping the good with the bad gets nobody anywhere.
________

I think it's dangerous to fall into the trap of NOT being too cynical :-)))

I think it is important that good things are accomplished for the right reasons, and are not worth their 'goodness' if they are not generated for the correct reasons/understanding. One of my favorite perspectives is to realize that good often comes from bad, and that bad can come from good.

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

Comment #47355 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 7:54 am

SharriG, Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor. However, not all remain editors if they are just vandals.

You could edit the article on childhood yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

I often wish that everyone who uses Wikipedia opens an editing account, so when they read articles, they can correct the errors of spelling, grammar, etc. like a built proofreading feature. That's what the major bulk of my editing has been, though I have created some articles.

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

Comment #47342 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 6:16 am

SharrieG wrote: you surely miss the point - Jesus spoke out against the surrounding culture and said that children should be loved and respected. The fact this his followers have not always done this is an indictment on them, not on him.

_______

Point taken. However, I was being cynical, as portraying Jesus--whom I have no idea even existed--as a marketing genius, instigating the creation of an captive audience for his product. Kindness to children in the form of not making them do menial labor, freeing their time so they can be instructed in the faith, etc.

As for the Wikipedia entry, it is in need of clean-up, and perhaps I will do it, as I am one of the legions of editors. The meaning is that the followers of Jesus in the next 400 years promoted the notion of a childhood.

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

Comment #47335 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 5:46 am

SharrieG, here is an excerpt from the below Wikipedia entry on childhood:

...found that before the seventeenth century, children were represented as mini-adults. Since then historians have increasingly begun to research childhood in past times.
_______

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood

Here's an interesting connection to religion: Several historical events and period are discussed as relevant to the history of childhood in the West. One such event is the life of Jesus Christ[1] Christ taught that children were to be loved and revered, a departure from the ancients' attitude to children which was to be propagated in the Roman Empire during the next 400 years with the introduction of Christianity.


Hmmm, clever, astute Jesus! Let no child suffer unless it is suffering caused by religious indoctrination!

586. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47333 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 5:32 am

You see, it wasn't the rules and restrictions of Mormonism that most bothered me. For the most part I didn't really mind them. It was the intellectual bondage and the requisite distrust of science that was, to a scientific mind, unbearable.
_____

I have encountered the opinion of many believers that atheists just want an excuse, a reason to party all the time, to have sex, drugs, etc. coming out of every bodily orifice every second of the day.

But for many atheists trapped inside a theists body, it is the intellectual squashing that is the most painful. It is interesting to note that recently several comings out into the atheist view, are former believers that were highly regarded for their leadership abilities, like, perhaps their formidable intelligence. Sounds like a time bomb ticking away--if intellectual suffocation can cause intellectuals pain and anguish, then perhaps many flocks are doomed to become leaderless?

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

Comment #47317 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 4:20 am

SharrieG wrote: Bonzai: I have not done any detailed study, but I have a hunch that religious fundamentalism and literalism may actually be relatively modern phenomena.
_____

Having a period in human growth marked as childhood is a fairly recent concept also. I wondered if allowing for a 'designated' childhood also plays a role in fundamentalism--having a captive audience to indoctrinate?

As for some believers who regard religion as some kind of love force or handle on being the best they can be--as some of my closest friends believe--there is still that connection with fundamentalism, in the sense, that even if they do not use religion for explanatory purposes, they are still using the concept of God, no matter how vague, as the basis for their vague beliefs. And there is no substantial evidence for God.

The lack of evidence actually fuels their beliefs, because after all there is no evidence that there isn't a God, so it is reasonable to believe. They have no problem with grasping that it is not reasonable to not to believe in something like the Holocaust, as there is substantial evidence in this regard.

I regard this as sloppy thinking, and I wonder what role this kind of thinking play in other non-religious spheres of their lives. How does compartmentalizing work and does it work as well as it seems? Now that religion is getting vociferously criticized, perhaps this critical onslaught will inspire/motivate social scientists to generate studies concerning aspects of secularism/religious beliefs and their roles in how we all lead our lives.

588. Man to die over insult

Comment #47207 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 1:21 pm

steveroot, If my memory serves me well, Younis was sentenced to death May 31, 2007. And, yes, he has been in jail for that long.

589. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47186 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 11:23 am

Lagomort, thanks for the great comment/advice. I think you should become the resident evo tutor/advisor for the Rational Response Squad.

590. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47185 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 11:18 am

Lagomort wrote: Diarthrognathus is actually known as Pachygenelius now,...
______

Damg, can't the taxonomists leave a great name alone? Is it still Pachygenelius broomi?

591. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47182 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 10:59 am

And here is the list of atheist groups provided at the upper left corner of this site:

http://richarddawkins.net/atheistResources

http://richarddawkins.net/localGroups

592. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47180 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 10:56 am

JesusH, here is an excerpt from the below link:

Not all nonbelievers are on the same page when it comes to politics, and not all of them even want to be political. Borst, of the Geniuses of Diversity, is politically conservative and thinks the current administration is doing a good job ensuring freedom for both religious and nonreligious Americans.

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/102253.php

Heather Mac Donald is a somewhat famous conservative atheist journalist. Do some googling and get yourself involved with a group that shares your conservative politics and your atheism.

593. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47177 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 10:38 am

I want a teeshirt with the following slogan:

Diarthrognathus broomi has been sweeping the Creationist denial of MACROEVOLUTION into the dust bin of inanity since 1958.

594. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47164 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 9:26 am

Proponents of intelligent design deny substantial evidence that macroevolution has taken place. Excerpted from Jerry Coyne's excellent article (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1058,The-Case-Against-Intelligent-Design-The-Faith-That-Dare-Not-Speak-Its-Name,Jerry-Coyne-edgeorg) posted here previously:

Take one example: the link between early reptiles and later mammals, the so-called mammal-like reptiles. Three hundred fifty million years ago, the world was full of reptiles, but there were no mammals. By 250 million years ago, mammals had appeared on the scene. (Fossil reptiles are easily distinguished from fossil mammals by a complex of skeletal traits including features of the teeth and skull.) Around 275 million years ago, forms appear that are intermediate in skeletal traits between reptiles and mammals, in some cases so intermediate that the animals cannot be unambiguously classified as either reptiles or mammals. These mammal-like reptiles, which become less reptilian and more mammalian with time, are the no-longer-missing links between the two forms, important not only because they have the traits of both forms, but also because they occur at exactly the right time.

One of these traits is worth examining in detail because it is among the finest examples of an evolutionary transition. This trait is the "chewing" hinge where the jaw meets the skull. In early reptiles (and their modern reptilian descendants), the lower jaw comprises several bones, and the hinge is formed by the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the jaw. As mammal-like reptiles become more mammalian, these hinge bones become smaller, and ultimately the jaw hinge shifts to a different pair of bones: the dentary (our "jawbone") and the squamosal, another bone of the skull. (The quadrate and articular, much reduced, moved into the middle ear of mammals, forming two of the bones that transmit sounds from the eardrum to the middle ear.) The dentary-squamosal articulation occurs in all modern mammals, the quadrate-articular in modern reptiles; and this difference is often used as the defining feature of these groups.

Like earlier creationist tracts, Pandas simply denies that this evolution of the jaw hinge occurred. It asserts that "there is no fossil record of such an amazing process," and further notes that such a migration would be "extraordinary." This echoes the old creationist argument that an adaptive transition from one type of hinge to another by means of natural selection would be impossible: members of a species could not eat during the evolutionary period when their jaws were being unhinged and then rehinged. (The implication is that the intelligent designer must have done this job instantaneously and miraculously.) But we have long known how this transition happened. It was easily accomplished by natural selection. In 1958, Alfred Crompton described the critical fossil: the mammal-like reptile Diarthrognathus broomi. D. broomi has, in fact, a double jaw joint with two hinges: the reptilian one and the mammalian one! Obviously, this animal could chew. What better "missing link" could we find?

But these buffoons are looking for the crocoduck whose imagined image was waved high in the air by Kirk Cameron during his presentation during the debate with the Rational Response Squad.

EDIT: The proponents of ID were soundly defeated at the Dover Trial, and their pathetic denial of evidence for macroevolution was highlighted. The court was presented with overwhelmingly substantial and comprehensive evidence that evolution is a scientific theory of significant explanatory and predictive potency, while ID was nothing but Goddidit dressed up in make-believe science garb. Unfortunately, these nuts will most likely wage another court battle sometime in the future, as the Dover one was the third big legal spat in the history between the on-going battle between the IDiots and proponents of evolution. Nothing, no proof of neither micro nor macroevolution will get them to abandon their nonsense; only the strength and validity of evolution will protect America from being subjected to the mandatory teaching of ID in science classes.

595. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47150 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 6:57 am

This is a website for discussion of topics relating to atheism/religion. It is not the public face of policy-making atheism, nor are the countless atheist blogs. It serves, in part, the function to inform and to increase verbal/writing skills in confronting the crapola presented by believers in religious superstitions. It has spawned lots of blogs and videos created by regulars at this site.

But most importantly, there are atheist groups and societies that one can join. A bloke from the Leicester one writes here. There is a group in America that is expressly a political lobby for atheists. Yorker, are you a dues-paying member of any of these EXISTING atheist groups? Do you possess a crystal ball to divine what the numerous contributors at this site do when they are not submitting comments?

596. Man to die over insult

Comment #47148 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 6:38 am

Story is now dugg. The digg icon is just above the comments, in the center. Please digg this article--it takes a few minutes to open a digg account if you do not have one. Also, please leave comments and use the digg setup to email/blog this dugg story to your friends, family, and acquaintances.

My comment at the digg site has my letter and the list of email addresses.

This article has been dugg by other sites, but I still went ahead and started a new dugg thread, because I wanted to take advantage of the hefty web traffic this site has.

597. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47128 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 4:33 am

Nice find, Luthien, I wonder if there is a patron saint for wiping one's arse?

Here's ours, the patron saint of the internet:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainti04.htm

598. Man to die over insult

Comment #47116 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 3:49 am

Here is my letter put together from the suggested template which I am sending to the below email links:

I am writing to express my concern for Younis Masih, who was charged with blasphemy on 11 September 2005, Parvez Aslam Choudhry, and their families. I call upon you to take immediate steps to guarantee their safety and the immediate and unconditional release of Younis Masih.

The Pakistan law defines blasphemy so broadly that it makes Pakistan into a country intolerant to practice of religion in its many forms or the non-practice of religion.

I urge you to work towards the abolishing of laws, including the blasphemy laws, which provide for people to be punished for exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.

In addition, I am asking for an immediate moratorium on all executions in Pakistan, in line with worldwide trends to abolish the death penalty with a view to an eventual abolition of the death penalty.


APPEALS TO:
Minister for the Interior
Mr Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao
Ministry for the Interior, Room 404, 4th Floor, Block R, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92 51 9202624
E-mail: minister@interior.gov.pk
secretary@interior.gov
Salutation: Dear Minister

Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights
Mr. Muhammad Wasi Zafar
Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights, S Block, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92 51 9202628
E-mail: minister@molaw.gov.pk
Salutation: Dear Minister


COPIES TO:
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
H.E. Mr. Shahbaz
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Eckersbergs gate 20
0244 Oslo
Fax: 22 55 50 97
Email: info@pakistanembassy.no

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.

EDIT: I removed the punjab.gov.pk one because it is no longer valid. I also forgot to copy each of the emails to the embassy in Norway, but I did send a separate one there. The sending of the emails took about 10 minutes. Remember to put in the subject field: Appeal for Younis Masih.

599. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47110 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 3:19 am

Rtambree, Your rendition of McGrath, though excellent, made me throw up in my own mouth.

OT: Can you access Asktheatheist.com site? I have been unable to since yesterday.

EDIT: This is a nice, perky, friendly-to-atheism review. Regarding the use of AMEN, I think RAmen is a decent substitute. So far, the only religious language to which I object when used by theists when communicating with atheists, is the use of God Bless. Why not, simply, wishing you health and happiness. Perhaps, because other than their God forcing them to be nice to you, they really are just a bunch of b*stards?

600. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47107 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 3:07 am

Dianelos wrote: So when atheists discuss religion they must at least temporarily abandon their basic beliefs or preconceptions about reality, because failure to do so amounts to begging the question.
_______

What question is that? Are atheists asking if there is a God?

Would you similarly offer the same advice to a psychiatrist treating a Schizophrenia sufferer? You are simply advocating that religion be given a special pass and not be subjected to the same demand for evidence as any other reality is.