551. The Science Of Collective Decision-making

Comment #72856 by scooternyc on September 23, 2007 at 9:02 am

The nuance that is always too much of a factor is emotion/feeling. Everyone wants to react, decide, judge from this place in their reality which is too subjective and lacks thought, reason and logic.

"lenient decision" is an emotional argument for persuasion - not factual evidence.

"Judge if the candidate is young" - is not fact based, it's emotionally based on a "feeling" of age since they are too lazy to look at the factual evidence. Same with the "trilingual" aspect.

This shows how stupid people can be. It was recently said about one of the jurors on the original O.J. trial that the juror came out and said, "well, everyone has the same DNA so that wasn't useful information in my decision".

Clearly you have to be educated, as well as, not being emotional about the decision making process.

552. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72634 by scooternyc on September 22, 2007 at 3:17 am

I'm not a fan of Bill's - Maher or O'Reilly - but I do like Maher's take on religion idiocy.

I especially like the label of "Rationalist" - I may adopt that as my label when asked about god belief - "No, I'm a rationalist, instead".

Has a nice ring to it.

553. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72506 by scooternyc on September 21, 2007 at 10:31 am

I will be glad when we move past the concepts of "right" and "wrong" at some point in our evolution - it would relieve a great many pressures in our world; encourage more free thought; drive more responsible behavior.

One can hope.

554. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72004 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 5:33 am

Liz,

You make my point poignantly clear about the emotional hijacking and spewing of venom towards those that are not believers.

Welcome to the rest of your life rooted in logic and reason, we're glad you joined us and happy to have you part of the educated society.

555. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #72003 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 5:29 am

"One should know when to keep one's atheism to oneself"

I disagree with this statement, it would be like saying "one should know when to keep their anti-racist views to themselves".

If the moment, any moment, presents itself where someone invokes god or religion, THAT person has opened the door to rejection of the idea, premise, word, etc. He/She opens the door, I'm walking through it.

Now, if I've misunderstood your point, please let me know where my mistake is located in this thought process.

When you say, "when people pray I just keep silent..." in what context?

The ignoring of inappropriate behavior is what keeps sending the silent message of endorsement of the behavior.

556. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #71989 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 4:52 am

Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."

What a beautiful statement.

557. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71987 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 4:38 am

"People are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious"

The most important understanding of this statement, which sets up the rest of the article and the author's viewpoint - is one of emotion/feeling.

Whenever people become predicated on emotions/feelings rather than facts/evidence, there is no reasoning with them in any sense.

By claiming "morally pernicious" this intends to draw an emotional response, which should outrage the reader (hijack his/her emotions) into reflecting how science seeks to victimize society by being cold, crass, and non-existent of feeling. Religion is nothing if not about "feeling" – good, bad, right, wrong, etc.

This is precisely what's wrong with religion - its very foundations are rooted within indoctrinating people at their most vulnerable, and consequently, their most emotional; childhood – with no choice (vulnerable to existence); adulthood – at an emotional event that emotions running at their highest need consolation that none can provide, except god (vulnerable - without answers).

Once this "emotional imprint" is made, you'll have a hard time rationalizing with anyone.

Emotional people are rarely, if ever, people of solid reason and logic.

558. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70565 by scooternyc on September 16, 2007 at 4:43 am

One other thing, after reading this article, it's easy to see why scientists think that the public is ignorant, stupid and feel contempt toward them - because they are often times.

559. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70562 by scooternyc on September 16, 2007 at 4:32 am

"On Subjects such as Evolution, Many Americans Are Aware of -- but Reject -- the Scientific Consensus"

Science is not a "consensus", that's a political term, often used of late with Gorebal Warming, as well.

Science is based on empirical evidence and fact, not opinion.

This is one reason people are confused by Evolution and they are confused about Gorebal Warming, they think a bunch of people got together and they all agreed.

No.

Has ANYONE presented ONE piece of evidence that can be tested that refutes Evolution?

No, they have not.

560. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #70051 by scooternyc on September 13, 2007 at 11:36 pm

jesus is coming...hope he's wearing a condom.


I gave myself to jesus and afterwards that bastard never bothered to call.

561. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69866 by scooternyc on September 13, 2007 at 3:16 am

I would love to hear the response of Richard, Sam, Christopher or Dan regarding the new book by Robert Spencer, "Religion of Peace?" where he compares Christianity to Islam but insists that Christianity is not a bad thing.

Additionally, on his website, JihadWatch.com he continually seems to advance this thought.

While I've made many attempts to refute such a claim, continually people on the site seem to have it in their heads that because Christians aren't killing people(now) as they did in the past, it's not a religion of violence.

Really? Check out this video of those prominent political figures who are wishing for Armageddon:

http://www.wvcsr.org/

Rapture Ready is the video to watch

Anyone have an approach that I might continue to utilize in this debate? I'm always looking for new angles I may not be thinking of.

562. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69644 by scooternyc on September 12, 2007 at 2:51 am

If the Fred Phelps of this world along with the Roberts, Buchanan, et.al can trash gay people then why can't Kathy speak her personal view of "hayzeus".

She can and she has!

Freedom of speech isn't just freedom to hear that which you agree with, it's also for that which you disagree. I think the Roman Catholic group just needs an enema.

563. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69640 by scooternyc on September 12, 2007 at 2:31 am

I LOVE this! If she had just said Thank You, no one would know it.

Now, everybody knows it.

564. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68961 by scooternyc on September 9, 2007 at 9:32 am

"There's a commandemnt condemning rape?"

LOL! :) So funny! LOL!

565. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68906 by scooternyc on September 9, 2007 at 4:15 am

I have sent the following email response and encourage others to do the same:

Greetings and Salutations,

Having just read this recent article I must take exception with your claim that America was founded as a Christian nation.

No reference articles were offered for such a fantastical claim, and in fact, there is quite a bit of writing and evidence to the contrary which organizations like Americans United and others continually research and provide as a means to understanding this issue within our society correctly.

While it may be that some Christians did get a new start here, that religion was a component of their beginnings, it is in no way an indoctrination into a religious dogma of adherence for its people. A simple read of our Constitution clearly outlines that we make no law "respecting" religion. Research will reveal the original construction of our Constitution regarding this issue. In August of 1789, Madison introduced the text that stated, "there shall be no law establishing religion or articles of faith" but when the First Amendment emerges from the House and Senate a few weeks later the verbiage has been further shown that that no law shall even show a "respect" to religion.

While there may a "majority" of society that engages in Christianity, the government must be neutral in such endorsements. Our Constitution protects the minority of this nation for just this reason.

Imagine if you will, the government endorsing a theocratic dogma by which everyone must believe and adhere. Note the immediate discrimination, which would endorse the 2nd class citizenship of all other faiths and the people who practice those faiths. In addition, what then of those who carry no faith or endorsement of such?

I offer these links of which there are many that I'm sure your author can glean through proper research:


http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christiannation]

http://www.tenamendmentsday.org/founders.php

http://www.tenamendmentsday.org/10afaq.php#q4


It is most irresponsible to continue to perpetuate this "opinion" when there is a plethora of documentation to the contrary, evidence to fact. The inflammatory rhetoric the article espouses continues to lead the unsuspecting "sound-bite" citizen into believing something that is just not true; it is a lie – bold and emphatic. This misleading information becomes a basis for decisions of a voting public, which influences our future.

It would be greatly appreciated if your author would research this further and made the appropriate corrections and retractions.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Greg Wirth
New York, NY

566. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68898 by scooternyc on September 9, 2007 at 3:30 am

The only distortion is that which is not rooted in reality

Reality can only be observed objectively.

Objective observation is through science alone.

Science has no interest in being "right" or "wrong" only a conclusion based on the evidence.

567. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68897 by scooternyc on September 9, 2007 at 3:26 am

I accept the idea that we are hard-wired for certain behaviors and thought patterns, one of which is "victimization" - the un-integrated past experiences which fuse us to a distorted view of the world.

The subtle nature of this distortion plays out in irresponsible actions of the individual, which replicates the meme; the more the meme replicates the higher the distortion over time, the greater the irresponsibility and victimization.

Somewhere Collins experienced this victimization, which lead to the distortion that thrusts a person into suspending reality for parental comfort (god) and thus delegates responsible action to others.

The encountering of death/dying, which is a profoundly intense emotional experience, will quite easily send someone into this fantasy. The search for answers and subjectively imposing ideas about the universe for which no answers are necessary; are not required nor desired.

This was the moment for Collins and one for which, unfortunately for him, he now is acting irresponsibly in this capacity by promoting it.

There is no meaning to the universe. There is no meaning to life. All meaning and value is subjective.



The Moral Sense:

This was a great study/article, which I accept, and RD wrote in The God Delusion, as being valid regarding our "nature" of goodness:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/05.03/15-hauser.html

"Another important building block in the evolution of a moral sense is cooperation, which takes three different forms in the animal world. The first is cooperation based on kinship. An animal that sacrifices to benefit its offspring, for example, helps to protect their shared genes. In the second type, both individuals receive some cost, but both benefit. Cooperative hunting behavior is an example of this type. The third and rarest type is reciprocity, where an individual gives something up with the expectation that it will receive benefit in the future. The Golden Rule, Hauser said, is a formulation in human terms of this adaptation."

Victor Stenger wrote God: The Failed Hypothesis and it was a tremendous effort that, scientifically, gave proof that god does not exist. His falsifiability was more than generous to the religious and all evidence came up empty.

Again, Collins is projecting a "moral sense" onto situations for which LIFE does not care nor does it have any interest for any moral/value.

568. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68677 by scooternyc on September 8, 2007 at 5:33 am

My most recent and solid debates with the religious has resulted in these statements to them:

"Either you are a good person or you are not

Either you would be generous of spirit or not

No god, religion or bible can substitute that for which is not inherent within you by nature, hard as you may try."

Of course, no person is jolly to the idea that his/her life is deterministic, this infuriates the religious who want to believe they have "free will" (another religious ideology load of crap), which oddly, becomes their counterpoint, weak as it is, for saying that they "choose to be good people".

No, I'm afraid to tell you, it's not a choice.

569. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68406 by scooternyc on September 7, 2007 at 5:03 am

This issue isn't placing the cross, but WHERE the cross is being placed.

Since government within a democracy is to represent ALL people then the discriminatory act of endorsing any one religion, in this case the one who thinks that executions by nailing someone to a cross and utilizing this as a symbol of love(their precept, not mine)is prohibited when that symbol is placed on government property.

Now, if the government wants to sell the property to an individual for the fair market value, then that person(s) can do as they wish on private property.

Anything that is non-profit, if supported by government funds or any government property itself is off limits.

570. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68369 by scooternyc on September 7, 2007 at 2:38 am

Mr.Jefferson, build up that wall!

571. Bible Belter

Comment #68245 by scooternyc on September 6, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I rather like Hitchens comments such as "no child's behind left" and his statement, "one may note that children if left unmolested by rabbis and imams are drawn to pigs..."

These are the very polemical statements that need to be repeated to bring the audacity of such a foundational worshiping section of society to understand just how dangerous it is to itself and the rest of the world in more than just one area of existence.

572. Bonobo Handshake: What Makes Our Chimp-like Cousins So Cooperative?

Comment #68085 by scooternyc on September 6, 2007 at 5:00 am

This is an article that was written about the bonobo behavior with regard to sexuality and homosexuality, it seemed interesting, especially at dispelling the gay issue to the religious right.

http://www.godsfriends.org/Vol16/No1/natural-gender.html

(3 paragraphs above the 24/30 photo as you scroll down)

573. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67980 by scooternyc on September 5, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Mr.Maynard,

Perhaps we are closer in thought that previously considered.

I do not support the Kyoto or Gore's fantastical hysteria. Gore's fanaticism rings in the ear most irritatingly when statements as such, "it's settled, the consensus is there; the debate is over" or any similar rhetoric. This just has politics written all over it. His own ambitions, and I can only venture to guess, those that support him undaunted by all the counter-arguments and evidence are suspect in all manner of speaking.

At this point we just don't know, as repeated by Gore to Stephanopoulos on his Sunday show this past year when questioned about some of the validity of the models used and the information gleaned from them.

I don't want to proceed as if we are responsible until that evidence is more reliable and falsifiable. At this point, it is not.

I do like the continuation of private companies seeking alternatives to support an ever growing society that should, as always, conserve its resources and find alternatives when possible.

To mandate such behavior is to not allow free markets to function, now we're moving away from the benefits of capitalism and into other arenas of which have never been successful, nor should we participate at such irresponsible government behavior.

Yes, we're humbled by nature and our contributions to its good and bad, but we cannot engage, nor support the hysteria that Gore and his entourage are spewing.

574. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67939 by scooternyc on September 5, 2007 at 8:57 am

Mr. Maynard,

I cannot fathom from your post to hungarian how you are able to understand with reason and logic the position of the "extreme greens" and yet not understand the post previously where I point to verifiable and empirical evidence that the "hockey stick" graph, alone, is being disputed. Gore and company are the extreme greens with nothing more than political ambitions.

One must question why Gore wouldn't even accept the easy debate with Bjorn Lomborg on this issue? Why not any other scientist?

We know why.

As such, once again, I am not willing to drink the kool-aid of people who want to turn this into a religious hysteria by which we are delegating trillions of dollars while too many scientists and data are not conclusive.

I ask the same questions of you regarding the data you have seen and the other data available in dispute, as I would a person of religion:

Whom are we discrediting?

What data are we ignoring?

How is this criteria being decided?

Who is deciding the criteria for the discrediting of both data and scientists?

And one more time, I accept and encourage that we conserve our resources, recycle when possible, find alternatives, but I'm not willing to "act as if global warming is man-made". That's an extremists view which flies in the face of rational, objective observation of evidence with which it is not being politicized.

Again, consensus is politics, not science.

575. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67673 by scooternyc on September 4, 2007 at 10:03 am

Robert,

I respect your post even though I disagree with some of it.

While the science consensus is one of a political nature, the science data is not. There are too many discrepancies still to be proved to just give ourselves over to such ideology.

It cannot, for instance, be discounted the research of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and the difficulties they had in even getting the data from Mann to reconstruct his assessment. Is this not the basis of all science? We take your data, recreate the experiment/information, and find out if it's falsifiable. The very same insistence that we in opposition of religion claim to want to see done with regard to the existence of god.

Although there has been claims to such data as showing that anthropogenic global warming exists, it cannot say how much man is contributing, if at all.

While I believe in the conservation or resources, the exploration of alternatives, I will not endorse the idea of hysteria that others wish to religiously indulge.

Consensus is not science, it's politics.

"Playing it safe" is no different than "act as though god does exist just in case". Anyone is free to rationalize it differently, but neither premise is responsible in the choice to do so.

The models that seem to predict are never revealed publicly nor the data that is input to these models. If I'm mistaken hopefully someone will support information by which I can further research. Information that has been gleaned tells of model numbers greatly inflated to show the extreme; this is not responsible research.

When the models were utilized to predict past weather patterns, they were unreliable. Again, if I'm mistaken, please advise.

Regardless, I am not willing to assert the endorsement of trillions of dollars toward something when there are greater issues in the world that need priority and no one can prove the science as certain.

576. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67634 by scooternyc on September 4, 2007 at 4:41 am

So much of the recovery movement in AA and other such cults, are rooted in the idea of a "higher power". I find this completely irresponsible in its precepts and found it difficult to counsel people when I was in this profession for many years.

The idea itself delegates responsibility and accountability to the "higher power" especially when it boasts, ""Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity" and most of the rest are just as inane.

This is so unbelievably absurd. It substitutes one addiction for another.

No form of counseling can support anyone if its foundation is not that of teaching the individual how to evaluate his/her life through the observation of action/reaction, that choice is relegated only to the individual and all choices are the responsibility of the individual.

577. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67632 by scooternyc on September 4, 2007 at 4:31 am

While I know that my view of anthropogenic global warming is not shared by most on this site, it was disturbing to me to hear Hitchens say that we should be acting as though it is happening.

Unfortunately this sounds so very much like the wager of believing in god just in case.

For me, the entire interview, save for this moment, was terrific. My observation was as such of truly getting to know the author in ways that we don't always get to have insight of when debates are at hand.

578. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67313 by scooternyc on September 3, 2007 at 3:29 am

"Having faith makes me humble..."

The author is the antithesis of the statement by the very nature of the writing; such a fraud.

"unlike the unbelievers who know they are always right"

Always the implicit victimization statements made of persecution for nonsensical beliefs, as if the authors "beliefs" are to be given any particular respect for just having them.

"and a threat to the future of the planet"

Indeed, this is true as fundamentalists continue to demand political power and through the court system, the slow easing of restraints demanded upon and if acquiesced, will be the very same door openings that islam is looking for to make its way into the culture, to scream discrimination, etc.

The christians think that if they can get their democracies into theocracies in time they can wage war and battle on islam, not understanding that the better strategy for ALL people is to slap down the rabid unsocialized dog that is islamic jihad.

And who is the more arrogant?

At least my action is based on the innate humanity for all of mankind and not the feigned piousness rooted in bigotry and discrimination with the belief of jesus returning for Armageddon.

Yasmin, you're correct when you think that someone like me perceives you as an idiot, indeed, I most certainly do.

579. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66693 by scooternyc on August 31, 2007 at 2:37 am

sheepscarer, great comment.

I often make the statement on other "pro religious" sites that:

If your religion or belief in god is making you do the things you do, then you lack the natural and innate humanity that drives others to do good deeds without those precepts. As such, your behavior is fraudulent, to yourselves and to your all-knowing god, as he would know that you're only doing it because you seek reward or favor, not for the good of mankind.

Also, anyone interested in Barry Lynn from the Americans United, there are some interesting interviews about his book, Piety and Politics. He's got some great understanding of this issue.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2824021393043878475

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=414798209968677489

580. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66448 by scooternyc on August 30, 2007 at 2:49 am

Perhaps the "sound-bite-citizen" is swayed by the credulity of such statements of "you've got no evidence" when in fact, Christopher Hitchens, as much as I can recall from all his writings, does not make such claims without proper diligence and factual evidence, this is a precept of his writing which makes him all the more reliable. When challenged on facts that need correcting he's always acquiesced if proper citation and evidence was presented, a greater sign of humility than any religious person has ever exampled.

As with most of the argument on the opposition, their "logic" is of attacking an idea rather than offering anything of their own.

If the opposing gentleman (and I use the term loosely here) had viable evidence to contradict Christopher, then why not just trot that out rather than the feeble attempts of his mere disagreement with Hitchens' statements.

Much is the case with Intelligent Design, not facts of your own just a disagreement with your facts but nothing to back up my disagreement with your facts.

WHAT? LOL!

As with all religion, facts are distractions. Reason and logic are interruption to fantasy.

581. 'Jesus loves you' email

Comment #66120 by scooternyc on August 29, 2007 at 12:17 am

Is anyone going to the convention at the end of September?

582. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65930 by scooternyc on August 27, 2007 at 11:59 am

The article mentions:"Some displayed flags from countries all over the world"...on the balls not just one particular.

Your post is probably more about you hating the US Military and you're just looking for another reason to invoke your disdain.

I don't care what the motivation was, to incite or not, people need to get a grip emotionally and stop demanding special treatment because the feeling of being offended(as Hitch says)"as though that was an argument".

583. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #65899 by scooternyc on August 27, 2007 at 9:43 am

Again, I couldn't give a sh*t if anyone is offended or not, get over it and grow up.

584. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65898 by scooternyc on August 27, 2007 at 9:41 am

I don't care who is offended. It matters not.

You have a right to be offended, wallow in it.

585. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #65605 by scooternyc on August 25, 2007 at 5:04 am

While I'm not a fan of FoxNews, certainly they were the only one at the time that was posting this brutal story.

The fact that you cannot assimilate the analogy and the understanding is your own lack of humanity and moral courage.

Good for you.

586. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #65419 by scooternyc on August 24, 2007 at 6:01 am

Who knew that within a week my analogy of such behavior would manifest itself which examples the lack of humanity and ignorance that comes from thinking "it's better to not do something than to intervene".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294352,00.html

587. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65415 by scooternyc on August 24, 2007 at 5:49 am

I may be mistaken, but the more people understood about science, the more each person could understand objectively the statistical probability of any given situation.

In doing so, you take fear out of the equation and instead insert reason and logic about decisions regarding one's health and well being.

588. Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers

Comment #65401 by scooternyc on August 24, 2007 at 4:09 am

While the acts of brutality from Islam are done explicitly, the acts of brutality from Christianity(now that the crusades are over) are done implicitly,(and more deceptive) through the slow process of politics and our courts. (Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!)

Especially after watching CNN's programs the last 3 nights, our nation should be even more concerned with, not just the potential death from Islam radicals, but the death of our nation from Christian radical fundamentalists.

You owe it to yourself to watch all 6 hours of these programs and see for yourself the disease of the mind when it comes to religion of all forms and the destruction it seeks for its own self-aggrandized rapture.

NO RELIGION OR PEOPLE SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS PEACE LOVING WHO'S RELIGION TALKS ABOUT THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS THROUGH ARMAGEDDON.

BUT TAKE COMFORT, YOU CAN BE "SAVED" IF YOU JUST BELIEVE IN SOME NON-EXISTENT DEITY.

Religion doesn't seek peace; it seeks its own dogma through indoctrination, control, manipulation and if given the chance here in the U.S., force, into adherence of "god's laws".

This is sick behavior. This is a disease of the mind.

It is true in our evolution as a species that religion once played its part to help evolve communities toward certain understandings for which we instinctively knew already but laid no words down.

But now religion is used only as a weapon by those who would seek to turn this democracy into a theocracy.

God is imaginary

Prayer is superstitious

Religion poisons everything

589. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65287 by scooternyc on August 23, 2007 at 1:20 pm

god tried to drown the lot of those people and cleanse the U.S. of this tripe but they keep coming back like cockroaches after nuclear war.

590. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65141 by scooternyc on August 23, 2007 at 2:20 am

BTW - this is a great website:

http://godisimaginary.com/

591. Researchers find fossils of 10-million-year old ape

Comment #65137 by scooternyc on August 23, 2007 at 2:03 am

But isn't that the GREAT thing about science? When it finds new evidence it's open and willing to revise what it knows; you can never count on religion to be that open minded.

592. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65131 by scooternyc on August 23, 2007 at 1:49 am

Given religion's pattern of transgressive behavior and the charlatans who smarm money from people, it's not surprising that they would "slight of hand" their interview with you, just goes to show how DISHONEST they really and truly are and on a regular basis.

"Once again, religion poisons everything".

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

Comment #64963 by scooternyc on August 22, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Unknown, is your statement about the posts we've made or the manner in which the website at CNN posed the question?

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

Comment #64954 by scooternyc on August 22, 2007 at 1:31 pm

My support always for these requests; my post was the following:

Greetings,

I don't need to live by faith since I live by the foundations of compassion, responsibility and accountability toward mankind and seek the natural sciences for exploration, inspiration and awe.

I need no superstition, such as god is, which indulges in bigotry, racism and the denial of science, for such precepts do not live within except through the indoctrination of religion itself, which relegates reason to fantasy and logic to fanaticism.

"Faith is believing in something when COMMON SENSE tells you not to" - Maureen O'Hara, Miracle On 34th Street.

Cheers,
Greg Wirth
New York, NY

595. Rational Atheism

Comment #64833 by scooternyc on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 am

I like Michael's writings and enjoy his appearances, etc. but one must point out to him with all honesty:

WE MEET PEOPLE AT THE LEVEL OF THEIR OWN ASSIMILATION

If a religious person sets up the conversation to be argumentative or hostile, they may well be met with that attitude.

If a religious person sets up the conversation as to be indignant or sanctimonious, they may well be met with that attitude.

If a religious person deems the conversation to be rational and respectful they WILL be met with that attitude.

I've never seen those opposing religion start out angry or antagonistic.

The tone of the discussion is most, if not always, set by the religious person with whom the discussion is being had.

Additionally, if a religious person thinks it's okay to just drop a religious subject, term, or inference in a conversation, then it's open to discussion, debate or criticism based on the manner in which it was offered. You opened the door, I just walked through it.

There is no more respect for a religious belief above any other individual opinion.

596. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64526 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 1:22 pm

"sorry, but I must correct you here. this isn't evolution"

Actually, over time science will reveal that indeed, on a quantum physics level we are evolving by the very nature of the affect the world has on us and us on the world within our cellular make up and how those cells change given certain environmental processes over time.

Let's see what happens, but I appreciate your kind correction.

597. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64484 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 8:17 am

"If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them."

Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789),

598. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64478 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 7:44 am

Philip1978 - you make me laugh! Thanks.

Prufrock and irate atheist: best advice is to not victimize yourself by the idiocy of others.

How?

By continuing your education about the subject to the extent that you can speak about it from so many angles and refute the mythology.

This past year alone I've read: God Delusion, Letter To A Christian Nation, End of Faith, The God Hypothesis, god is not great, Mememachine, 40 days and 40 nights, Breaking the Spell and just getting into Why Darwin Matters and Creationism's Trojan Horse(The Wedge of Intelligent Design).

Plus I listen to podcasts, watch youtube/google videos of our "leaders" in debate and read additional posts from some great people here and on other sites who give great information, as well.

Additionally, continue to post and develop your ideas, comments and thoughts because there are others who may not write anything but are reading and learning much from your posts.(It's how I got started on this subject)

Finally, get involved somehow politically to understand the nature of both parties and then make your voice heard.(even if you're just posting on other sites)

Nothing is more satisfying than being able to speak about something without the emotional Molotov-cocktail that gets thrown into the fray so often, just by having facts at your fingertips.

Truly you have a choice - never confuse a difficult choice with no choice at all.

When a person feels like they have no choice they victimize themselves, get emotional and become ineffective.

As long as we have intelligent people continuing to arm themselves with facts and historical references, then speaking clarity to truth does eventually replicate enough that it can silence or quiet an often rabid animal that religion demonstrates to be.

Hope this helps. I'm sure others have ideas, as well.

599. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64406 by scooternyc on August 20, 2007 at 2:34 am

"This experiment still demonstrates the necessity of intelligent involvement in the creation of life."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/


Replication evidence in science is the "lock and key" foundation for a theory standing up to scrutiny. In this case, nothing to do with design and everything to do with falsifiability of evolution through natural selection and variation as observed through environmental pressures.

Besides, the simpler explanation is right in front of you:

Do you not think you've evolved from the age of 8 years old to who you are today?

I hate to break it to you, but THAT'S EVOLUTION.

600. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64296 by scooternyc on August 19, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Yes, the U.N. has been superior in handling issues of this sort for decades.

Surly, you jest.

The fact remains; you lose your sense of instinctual humanity when you condone the genocide of others.

Not making a choice, is making a choice.

My analogy still stands, how many times does the woman whose husband beats her, falls into the street before the neighborhood bands together to stop it.

Perhaps in your view, no one should step in and eventually she'll either figure out to leave or she'll die. Isn't that kind.

It's a silly argument to say that doing nothing is more humane, that's a cowards view. No nation was doing anything for over a decade and it wasn't getting any better.

That would be like saying that giving someone chemotherapy for their cancer is so tortuous toward the greater potential of health, you shouldn't do it.

Right.

However, all that's just a distraction from the position from which you view life.

From your post apparently you're okay with people getting killed in a bullying manner by a dictator rather than accepting that there are casualties in war, you do your best as best you can for the greater good, subjective as that good may well be.

Good for you. Now we know where you stand

It's a tremendous responsible demonstration of humanity to act on behalf of others toward freedom and democracy when a bullying dictator is operating such as Saddam did.

Your distorted polemic of this war being "another genocide" just articulates that you understand nothing about the nature of humanity.

You just reveal your political agenda for which acts of humanity have no place. The greater sacrifice toward the slaughter of innocence is more important for your political goals rather than the accepting of responsibility and action within humanity to encourage freedom and democracy, even if there are mistakes along the way, it's better to do nothing.

Congratulations.