701. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28444 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 8:18 am

Fairly close to my own catch phrase which is that, "God is a placebo".

702. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28353 by scooternyc on March 28, 2007 at 11:12 pm

If it's science you like then the book, Unstoppable Global Warming by Avery/Fisher is a great book replete with valid information debunking all this hysteria.

Truly, it is nothing less than the religious right pushing their agenda. It would be a mistake to not understand how our earth makes natural changes as all species, including us, evolve throughout time.

Those of you that are attacking the film, that's fine, you should. But you should also be questioning EVERYTHING regarding this subject.

Why is your criteria for questioning EVERYTHING regarding religion yet you would easily accept this Global Warming hysteria? With arguments on both sides thus far, why would you be so naive?

And what research have you personally done for yourself on this subject? Are you just taking the latest sound-bite?

703. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28155 by scooternyc on March 28, 2007 at 6:52 am

In the interest of research and hearing both sides, this is worth watching before making up one's mind with regard to motive.

It is easily considered that the potential of GW being the religion of the left is not far fetched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

If you think about it, GW really does have all the characteristics of religion, even down to the "consensus" of scientists, nothing less than a "consensus" of people believing in god.

Quite before you attack the idea, think about what I'm saying; watch the show; make the comparisons and decide for yourself.

Don't play to the "sound-bite-headline-citizen" catch phrases that wish to suck you in, offer little and compel you to make assertions unfounded.

704. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26262 by scooternyc on March 18, 2007 at 6:09 am

"Surely natural selection will eventually weed out genetic "dead ends" like homosexuality"

If we all believe as Dawkins points out, the usefulness of natural selection then we would have to understand the various ways that gays are contributing toward mankind in order to see their reasons for survival through the millennia.

Certainly one would be the limitation of over-population. Given that gays do not reproduce at the same rate or levels that straights do, one could list this as one cause for homosexuality to continue to exist within the population.

The level of artistic contribution seems to be rather high, as well. This could be another reason for natural selection to continue to propagate homosexuality, as a meme perhaps?

These are but just 2 off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many others that exist.

If natural selection continues to favor homosexuality to the extent that it still exists within the evolutionary process, then focusing on the contributions of such a selection would give rise to understanding why homosexuality hasn't become extinct, as it were.

705. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26158 by scooternyc on March 17, 2007 at 9:34 am

"In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies -- or any other therapy of this type. The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all. Furthermore, genetic factors are likely to be so complex and inter-related that no single genetic factor or set of factors is likely to be found to cause anything as complex as sexual attraction"

I find his statement interesting. He wouldn't advocate a "designer" baby if it meant that the "sinner" would then NOT be predisposed to such a level of sin in god's eyes. What kind of empathy for sinners does this guy have? Wouldn't you want to eliminate as much temptation for sin as possible? Isn't this why christians want to stop all the Britney's of the world from prancing around half-naked? Isn't this why they want to erradicate all the porn around the world?

Wouldn't the opportunity for less temptation be a grand move in god's eyes? Would not god look with favor upon those who are doing his work by moving people away from sin, even through science, to such a grand degree?

706. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26157 by scooternyc on March 17, 2007 at 9:29 am

More from the good reverend.

"The only cure for sin itself is the cross of Christ. No therapy will cleanse us of sin, no treatment will atone. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ will save, and salvation is found in Him alone"

This is so replete with dysfunctional thinking, illogic, and diseased ideas I don't know where I would start to deconstruct it.

707. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26156 by scooternyc on March 17, 2007 at 9:26 am

Here's the link to his actual page and response:

http://www.almohler.com/

This is an interesting statement:

"Such a discovery, if it were to be accepted, would not change God's condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior, nor would it mean that this represents the inviolable "identity" of any individual."

To which I would ask him, "how do you that this would not change god's condemnation? On what basis of criteria, information or authority do you have empirical evidence to refute such a claim?".

708. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26155 by scooternyc on March 17, 2007 at 9:20 am

No need for anyone being upset as science is not based on anything subjective, but objective. Religion is solely based on subjective principle, interpretation and opinion. Once science announces the discovery of a biological predisposition to being gay, their arguments are over. Only the truly stupid don't realize that their arguments are over since Darwin, anyway, but this particular issue seems to stick in their craw.

I agree, they will attempt to cajole or manipulate the information but much like Galileo's discovery within the cosmos and all the other scientific discoveries made before and since, they will dispel all mythology from religion once and for all.

The fact that some are still stupid enough to believe becomes irrelevant, their "meme" of stupidity regarding religion will eventually dissipate from society to such a degree they will be almost non-existent.

It will take several generations for this to occur as all discrimination takes time to eradicate to higher levels of less limited thinking. Time is on our side.

709. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23834 by scooternyc on March 3, 2007 at 5:21 am

Dreamer's Dilemma - spot on! Excellent evaluation and succinct in your writing of it. Bravo.

710. Daggers Drawn

Comment #23813 by scooternyc on March 2, 2007 at 11:19 pm

23768 by wulster

There's a difference in debating about real evidence and having passion for the truth and debating with irrational emotion about a supernatural being where no evidence has ever existed.

No disrespect to your wife. However, anyone with the thought of a supernatural being isn't qualified to be assessing anyone else's state of mind or emotion.
She's got a very distorted view of life.

711. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23812 by scooternyc on March 2, 2007 at 11:16 pm

The global warming hysteria has nothing to do with any bible. It's certainly the left's religion in the face of other science, but what's new. Unstoppable Global Warming by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery is worth reading.

Global Warming is nothing more than politics attempting to create hysteria in order to tax our dollars even further. It's irresponsible.

Yes, we should find ways to conserve and to recycle; these are solid ideas for our existence. But really! Most people don't even know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

There's nothing like people spouting off about a subject for which they've done none of their own personal research into any of the facts on either side. "Oh, I read it in the Mirror" or "I read it in the NY Times" - yes, because these are the standards by which news reporting is being held accountable.

Falwell is an idiot, but it has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with his schizophrenia about talking to god.

712. Atheists come in last

Comment #22915 by scooternyc on February 24, 2007 at 10:36 am

"America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics."

This statement is group-think mantra that keeps getting energy because logic and facts don't seem to be apparent to those who quote it.

The language in the Treaty of Tripoli is reason enough to understand the connotations of the Constitution. No amount of rationalization will hold this understanding incongruent.

Religous minded people need to stop distorting reality.

"Your mind has walked off the map".

713. Atheists come in last

Comment #22914 by scooternyc on February 24, 2007 at 10:30 am

45% is not a bad percentage when you think of the rhetoric that is out there regarding religion in the U.S. I actually thought it was much lower so I'm happy to see it as high as it is.

Additionally, if the poll was skewed in any way perhaps the percentage might even be higher.

Won't hold my breath; but I will cross my fingers.

714. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21208 by scooternyc on February 8, 2007 at 3:31 am

"Religion has almost completely destroyed Africa. So many of their problems would be reversed if they'd just listen to reason. Just plain old sad."

Actually, perhaps this is evolution's way of natural selection. If these idiots believe as they do and they continue to die off as a result of AIDS and other health problems that are not being addressed because of god and faith, then it really does look like natural selection to me.

Even ignorance is nature's way of eliminating those unfit for society.

715. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20946 by scooternyc on February 7, 2007 at 4:23 am

Two questions for Mr. McGrath:

"Why is it so important that god exists for you?"

and

"Would you behave any differently in your life if god didn't exist?"

716. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20738 by scooternyc on February 6, 2007 at 7:39 am

Truly any argument about god's existence is this:

"in the presence of convincing evidence"

Let it be so if it is and ALL of us will fall to our knees like St.Thomas supposedly did.

But, it hasn't happened; never has; never will; there is no evidence and people who hear and see things that aren't there are mentally ill.

717. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20638 by scooternyc on February 5, 2007 at 10:18 am

Hovind's degree from a non-accredited university or on-line school is not valid therefore he should not be awarded the prestige of being called Dr. since his is a degree from a correspondence school lacking credit.

This statement alone spells out the entire rest of the interview/debate.

718. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20619 by scooternyc on February 5, 2007 at 5:58 am

I find it interesting that religion doesn't seem to care about mankind, this is exampled by the many aspects of their judgmental attitudes and teachings, moralizing as they do, as if they corner the market on what's good in this world.

There is no religion I've researched or experienced that is worth ascribing towards; it would do us all well to eradicate this disease from our society once and for all.

719. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20402 by scooternyc on February 2, 2007 at 8:32 am

First of all, the U.S. Constitution, which I happen to admire, makes the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is any religion an establishment? Yes, it is. Does Congress make a law respecting its establishment? No it does not, it should not and will not.

If marriage then is biblical and religious, then we should be abolishing marriage since its precepts are rooted in religion and laws governing marriage and its definition are not endorsed through our Constitution.

If marriage is not biblical, then what those who would oppose gay marriage, can only be considered as bigots, is unmasked.

We need to have the discussion in our Congress and political arenas that reveal the ideology and bigotry of this behavior toward a segment of our society for which people can have their opinion but they cannot impose it on others through law.

But it's not just gay marriage, it's ANY law that would endorse ANYTHING that has to do with religion - we just don't do it.

Second, anyone who makes reference to any sort of "personal experience" of god, religion, etc. is no longer valid in the conversation. The sheer nature of endorsing personal experience brings subjective opinion, not fact, into the discussion; the very nature of personal experience is discriminatory toward all facts, and much like "faith" is not a valid argument.

Every time someone talks about their personal experience in religion they should be admonished, humiliated and shamed publicly as we would for someone endorsing that Elvis is still alive - it's stupid, it's ludicrous, unintelligent and deserves no contemplation.

This is the harsh reality of demeaning religion, but it needs to be done once and for all. Sometimes the medicine leading to health doesn't taste well going down, but it has healing effects that we welcome in the end.

720. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20339 by scooternyc on February 1, 2007 at 11:23 pm

"whether his unshakeable faith in science is just as fixed as the beliefs of those he condemns."

What a ridiculous statement, science is not a belief system, religion is; science has proven methods by which theories are tested and observations are made; theories are then submitted as evidence to fact.

One doesn't need a "faith" in science, the sheer nature of even placing the words together is the inability to understand the nature of science itself.

I don't wish to be rude, but this lack of semantics just borders on the stupid.

721. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19563 by scooternyc on January 28, 2007 at 10:46 am

"only god is 100% correct all of the time"

Well, since we know the illogic of god, we can only presume that Ms.Brown is just as illogical and in her profession, a thief of the lowest common denominator preying on the weakest of her constituency.

She's a complete fraud.

722. She told them the boy was dead

Comment #19353 by scooternyc on January 26, 2007 at 11:56 am

Every "prediction" has a 50% chance of being correct....

...and a 50% chance of being wrong. I hardly think it's reason to believe SB's "techniques" are any more useful than proven forensics.

Another reason this type of "supernatural" tosh needs to be exposed and the individual needs to be publicly shamed and humiliated into shutting up.

723. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19145 by scooternyc on January 25, 2007 at 7:11 am

It's terribly eerie how the religious types are so overly obsessed with sex of any nature. As a therapist I can say that this type of preoccupation usually unmasks a persons own repression, which eventually will act out in ways that would shock you. Or perhaps not.

724. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18711 by scooternyc on January 22, 2007 at 3:04 pm

He sort of looks like the last American Idol winner, whatever his name is, but without the gray hair.

725. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18677 by scooternyc on January 22, 2007 at 10:29 am

" find it a bit disturbing when I hear my fellow fans of Dawkins praise him for his occassional "bad cop" behavior. The talk in Lynchburg, VA is a prime example ... The crowd there seemed disturbingly eager to jump on even the smallest opportunity to laug, cheer and geer at the expense of those pitiful Liberty University students; it struck me as cruel and sad."

The observation of that behavior is simply that the oppressed within that community that have had a religious point of view rammed down their throats are merely reacting to the behavior of others which becomes causational. I see no problem with it as it didn't incite violence but merely the democratic action of dissent towards those that have attempted to bully their way in our nation through religion.

The behavior of the opposition at Columbia University in recent months about the Minutemen Project is abhorrent. In a land that endorses freedom of speech, these men were holding a meeting to discuss the issue and the opposition became violent. That is never acceptable. Clearly the opposition felt that they couldn't control or manipulate the Minutemen Project through debate so they resorted to violence.

726. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18652 by scooternyc on January 22, 2007 at 8:05 am

"it is his gentle yet strong approach that I think will work, not an approach that demeans."

Certainly his method works for some, but Dawkins and Harris' approach speaks to others who need that "in your face" challenge, as well. Both approaches serve us greatly; you must meet those that you speak to at the level to which they can assimilate.

Talking to someone from Harlem in a highfalutin fashion would never work, but using his or her language will get the point across just as powerfully.

727. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17525 by scooternyc on January 14, 2007 at 12:57 pm

The next time a religious person speaks about homosexual behavior being a choice ask them this:

Were you born into your religion or did you choose it?

Either answer supports the absurd illogic of religious discrimination and bigotry.

There is no escape claus I'm happy to say, for a religious person on this question.

728. Halting progress

Comment #16992 by scooternyc on January 10, 2007 at 1:58 am

"If religionists want their beliefs to be taken into account in the formulation of public policy, then those beliefs become fair game. They become open to the glare of public scrutiny. It becomes just as legitimate to try by all peaceful means to bring about the demise of religious belief as it is to attempt to bring about the demise of any other body of beliefs (political, economic, whatever) that is being touted as a foundation for policy."

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!

This is exactly true; we tolerate no longer blind adherence to mythology. If you got something to show us as proof of your god, bring it!

Spot on!

729. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16951 by scooternyc on January 9, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Letter from Buggs to the world:

"So with my new thoughts on Intelligent Design, Congratulations, we're all entitled now to be stupid.

No, no, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Only listen to me.

You are now entitled to enter the world without having to explain anything. You have no responsibility and you are accountable for nothing. Enjoy your mental retardation, send me letters of inspiration so that I may print them for the world to see.

Good luck and enjoy!

In god,
R.Buggs"


Dear Mr. Buggs,

I gave that ID stuff a try, I did what you said, I gave myself to jesus and that bastard never called me and what's worse, he gave me the crabs!

I know god was watching jesus and I so I hope he enjoyed the show!

bill-ray bob


Yes, just splendid. I'll have more of that, please.

730. Halting progress

Comment #16948 by scooternyc on January 9, 2007 at 6:02 pm

"The issue here is about the human right of people to live their own lives in accordance with their own preferences; against the right of people to impose their preferences on others. There is, or should be, no contest."

Oh, no you don't understand this issue at all. If we allow this gay behavior then we'll have people wanting to marry a goat or be able to have sex with children.

Both acts of which I'm sure the holy catholic church is familiar with in many a way.

731. Sermons and straw men

Comment #16827 by scooternyc on January 9, 2007 at 3:05 am

"At the very least I find it doubtful that constantly questioning the intelligence of 'true believers' will be helpful in inducing any such reader to accept Dawkins' strongly argued thesis that both God and religion are nonsensical and harmful."

Having worked as a therapist with the substance abuse/addiction community, I can tell you that the 'constant questioning of intelligence' of those who are addicted in order to support their breakdown of denial is quite useful.

If you do not continue to unmask the many ways in which an addict is keeping their denial in motion, then you do them little support. It is by uncovering each delusion of life that helps the addict come to understand his/her responsibility in life, that which is accountable, for the reality they are creating.

In other words, you can have your addiction, but you do so consciously without deference to some drama created out of past experiences and without attempting to understand your behavior and it's consequences.

732. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16736 by scooternyc on January 8, 2007 at 11:10 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen - your denouncement of Allah and Islam made me laugh my ass off just now! FANTASTIC! :)

Regarding the violence thought process, typically when a person can't express their point of view logically, then they only have yelling and violence to resort towards, how loud can I shout you down and if I can't then I'll just slice you down.

Just check out bill o'reilly's show for the shoutdown dramatics.

Perhaps someone has made this analogy already but it occurred to me as I was reading another post.

And I agree, islamic whacknuts clearly suck the c*ck in hell!

733. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16712 by scooternyc on January 8, 2007 at 8:39 am

"Freedom of speech does not end when it offends someone. It should only end when it incites violence."

I am almost inclined to disagree with this statement as much as I believe that if someone can't control their behavior just because someone is speaking his/her mind, then the "bully" needs to be knocked down, not the person speaking.

Thoughts?

734. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16692 by scooternyc on January 8, 2007 at 5:03 am

"...any religion that makes a form of torture an icon that they worship seems to be a pretty sick sort of religion..."

Oh no,no,no, it's not about torture, it's about the message...yeah, he died for your sins and mine.

Funny, he did all these magic tricks and couldn't seem to get one person to write a decent or truthful account of any it.

735. Questionable Mission

Comment #16647 by scooternyc on January 7, 2007 at 9:02 pm

MelM - it is my understanding from previous interviews by Dawkins and Harris, that the White House has done the majority of their internship recruiting from Patrick Henry University, which I ascertain is more religiously based.

There must be a stat on-line somewhere to say what that % actually is - unbelievable.

Oh joy!

736. Questionable Mission

Comment #16617 by scooternyc on January 7, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Celandine - most excellent point, one that apparently falls on the deaf ears of the religious; a symptom of indoctrination, no doubt.

737. Questionable Mission

Comment #16604 by scooternyc on January 7, 2007 at 2:43 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This allows for a *protection* from laws regarding religion or practicing, it says nothing regarding an individual spouting his mouth off at work, unsolicited witnessing.

This is *exactly* why christians bring about more anger toward their religion, they insist on hijacking the Constitution for their own agenda, indoctrination and dogmatic will.

Unfortunately we are going to have to get a Democrat in office in order to end this crap.

"Free exercise of religion doesn't stop at the entrance to the Pentagon or other government buildings"

It is wrong of government to utilize taxpayer dollars, which are gathered from all of society whether they are religious or not, and then utilize those dollars to allow this behavior. It then becomes a government endorsement without having said as much.

The christian right movement is attempting, in any way they can, to get some sort of government "approval" from which they can then start a court battle to insist that the government rule in their favor.

I thought about this today and the move Miracle on 34th Street is a great example of the courts, the judge, politicians, lawyers, and the public acting in collusion to thwart truth. Then today the film Inherit the Wind was on television-it's relevance is eerie!

BTW - I love Miracle on 34th Street, I just realize that Santa is not real, unlike the christians who probably think he is.

738. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16526 by scooternyc on January 7, 2007 at 5:50 am

Lionel A

Quite right- your's would have been the better question. Whatever medication it is, it's certainly not working.

739. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16517 by scooternyc on January 7, 2007 at 4:47 am

"They hide…" who's hiding? Richard, Sam, Dan, and all of us are everywhere speaking out, how are we hiding?

"In recent years these unpleasant people…" has this person actually met any of us or Richard, or Sam?

"But the fundamentalists saw an opening." Yes, we were just waiting for those planes to hit the towers and blow up the subway before we descended upon the world.

"They pretended to be protecting religious sensibilities" no one is pretending anything, religion is a disease that needs to be cured.

"lazy intellectuals have been allowed to get away with repeating the nonsense that terrorism and war are the consequences of belief in God." physician heal thy self – it's not nonsense, it's what these terrorists actually say; it's what the Qu'ran actually states – is this guy living under a rock?

"Believers are ridiculed for being…very dim." Well they are, it's not a lie, you have to be quite stupid to believe in something in the face of absolutely no evidence, in any other circle you'd be put away for schizophrenia.

"…but because it doesn't believe in truth…" you mean YOUR VERSION of the truth, don't you?

"…believers can deal with social anarchy much better than the state ever can." Yes, they've done quite a job haven't they? Why look at all the happy people walking around the World Trade Center Towers…

"believers have broken the old pact to stay out of public debate." We welcome the debate, let's have them prove god's existence….BRING IT!

"…because we believe…" it took this bloke 11 paragraphs before admitting his own bias flat out instead of just weaving it in the story for dramatic purpose.

If he weren't so deluded by his self-aggrandized opinion of himself, he'd see through the crap of his denial and truly understand the reasons for the upsurge in conscious raising of this subject.

740. The New Atheists

Comment #16515 by scooternyc on January 7, 2007 at 4:19 am

Comment #16470 by Will in Aus on January 6, 2007 at 5:44 pm

SPOT ON! EXCELLENT POST!

741. The New Atheists

Comment #16451 by scooternyc on January 6, 2007 at 4:02 pm

David,

Your post is rather insightful in as much as I agree with the exception of your analysis of Professor Cox. His is not a logical stance of intellect which leads him to his conclusions regarding the "realm of god", it is a delusion for which he has spent many a year imbibing in to the detriment of his own mind which is now replete with the disease of "belief in god".

In a recent article by Dennis Prager, a self-aggrandized talk-show host in America, who in my opinion is insufferable, I wrote this regarding his article about our Founding Fathers and their precepts for our Constitution:

"If Prager is suggesting certain precepts as foundations for this country, those precepts having consequences with regard to the imposing of moral standards on the nation based on a bible. Then understanding the foundations for the religious context of which Prager wishes to utilize is more important than ever as a conversation.

If god exists, you need to prove it.

If he doesn't, then we don't need to continue invoking his name or utilizing a bible for a moral compass when other options are available."


With this, David, one understands what is at stake, not just in the United States, but the rest of the world if we continue this charade of god and the mighty bible. Islam is but just one war we fight now, if we don't get going with this debate, those Christians may just get their wish for Armageddon and Islamic nutballs will be celebrating their delusions, as well.

742. The New Atheists

Comment #16358 by scooternyc on January 6, 2007 at 8:23 am

MakingBelieve,

It occurs to me that since the religious believe that the killing of innocent life such as the Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, Holocaust, etc. is a lesson that god is trying to teach, therefore had to happen, much like I'm sure that famine is a lesson, the killing of innocents in war, etc. then it must then be a lesson god wants the religious to learn when it comes to abortion.

Pity they haven't learned it yet and god just keeps letting all these babies die a horrible death, as it were.

And so it goes...

743. The New Atheists

Comment #16321 by scooternyc on January 6, 2007 at 4:08 am

MelM,

Your 2nd post struck a fancy with me in that it triggered my thought process with regards to "what does religion know".

When given the mountains of scientific evidence for a great many understandings of life, one can only look at the relatively small, if at all, evidence that science has given to us with regard to the existence of god and come to a logical conclusion. What age of reasoning must one be at to assimilate even the slightest bit of this intelligence?

Further, what can religion defend itself from when it comes to the provability factor of any of their claims? If one wants to prove something scientifically he/she need only do it, test it, and present the findings. Has religion *EVER* done that? I dare say not. It's the typical circular argument Dawkins and Harris point out of "oh, no, see it says it here in my bible?"

At least science looks at a particular finding from many different perspectives and presents those findings. I suppose the religious need only present a stack full of bibles and voila! There's the proof.

How is it that relatively sane people are so enamored with this delusion?

I'm really coming to believe that you have got to be totally stupid and a loose screw to believe any of this insanity.

744. The New Atheists

Comment #16282 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 8:34 pm

" Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved."

This person should be embarrassed for making such a stupid comment. People speaking like this are nothing short of following the likes of Hitler or endorsing the precepts of Islam. Blind trust. Adherence without investigation is irresponsible at every level of life.

745. The New Atheists

Comment #16281 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 8:27 pm

Their trump card of "faith" is rooted in doubt. If one had no doubt they would not need faith. It's a circular stupidity that cannot be taken seriously.

Dennett states and I agree, you cannot have a rational discussion until the faith card is off the table. It's just too easy to say that my beliefs are based on faith and step out of the responsibility of having to think it through logically.

It's much like denial for the alcoholic, accepting the problem brings the wall of cards created from proping up their world of drink, crashing down.

No good can come from ignorance of self. It's irresponsible.

746. The New Atheists

Comment #16280 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 8:20 pm

"He takes the most narrow and the most legalistic side of religion and makes that religion, and then he's against it."

Dawkins unmasks the "tricks of your trade".

It's no wonder you're concerned, your scam is a sham and the world is watching.

747. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16265 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Logicel, I am humbled by your compliment, thank you.

With regard to this post:

"Schulman makes plenty of factually accurate points: No, the "new atheists" don't understand faith, and he's probably correct in that most don't believe in the way they are represented; and No, this new generation isn't the same as the old days, for many of us weren't raised religiously"

Actually, I disagree. I understand faith as a "new atheist" as I was raised catholic, went to catholic school for 10 years and I was raised religiously. It was in the 3rd grade at the age of 8 that I discovered for myself the ridiculous nature of religion. A year later I gave up Santa Claus, as well. If I didn't believe in god it made sense then that Santa didn't exist either. I suspect that there are many like myself who grew up understanding faith and then abandoned it.

If I've missed your point, please correct me. If not, then I would stand to my position that having understood religion for a very long time of not only indoctrination, but education, I rebuke, to use a bible term, the idea of Schulman as I think that he makes sweeping statements by which to generalize in order to bring a dramatic flavor to his article - I care little for this trick of the trade and find it terribly dishonest, manipulative and tends toward losing credibility if one cannot argue his/her points without manipulation.

Schulman also is incorrect when he says that we atheists don't focus on Islam. That is nothing more than a lie, pure and simple. All of us have at one time or another on blogs posted the disdain for a religion whose sole purpose is the destruction of everyone who isn't Islamic - more dramatic flair instead of real content.

Beyond just these 2 examples, the entire article is full of clichés of atheists for dramatic purposes, once again. He's at the very least stupid about atheists or agnostics. Frankly, the article is trash and is useful only as cage lining.

748. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16232 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 4:36 pm

I will point out to those who post here with similar views of Miller, that most of us have had this religious crap shoved down our throats for a lifetime of which we are sick of staying quiet about, respecting religion and giving it a pass, blah, blah, blah.

If you're feeling offended by our statements perhaps the question to ask yourself is why is it that society treats atheists with such contempt and disrespect? Why, as Sam Harris states, that we've normalized the act of spewing our vitriolic statements towards atheists?

We've made the decision to *NOT* be victims and our speaking out, speaking frankly, is one of the means by which we will be expressed in the public forum.

749. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16229 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 4:28 pm

LDMiller,

I would venture to guess off the get go that you will not like my response to your post. Mainly because I instinctively knew from the very beginnings of your contemptuous, arrogance and condescending attitude regarding the age of those who post here.

You, I suspect, are of the nature by which I call the proverbial "victim" in our society and all the tenants that come with it - so many so I have not enough room to list them.

The fact that someone goes through a process of grieving, as you would put it, of their religion is a consequence of their delusion. We should not feel anything for them. It was their choice to believe it much like the choice to get in a car and drive it, if you should get in an accident are we to feel sorry for you because you drove over the speed limit, without a seatbelt while intoxicated?

You attempt to equate the idea of religion to unmasking of Santa Claus, which is an insult to Santa. At least Mr. Claus bears the ideals of generosity, giving, happiness, jolly jingle bells and all the rest.

We all, in collusion, encourage this view of Santa to our children to create a magical world when they are growing up to enjoy and have fun. The difference is that WE KNOW SANTA DOESN'T EXIST. We have no pretense otherwise and if you're a decent parent you will have figured out a way to speak with your child about this magical world upon its discovery of falsehood. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus might be a good place to start.

The fact that those of us with "smart ass attitudes" apparently offends you, moves me to suggest you get the fuck off the site then. I don't speak for everyone, but I'm sure some, when I say we're tired of your types attempting to shut us up with regard to our jokes, sarcasms, disdain and disrespect for religion and the trogs that believe it. DAWKINS MAKE THE POINT to your counterpoint about Schulman and you, when he says that he's fed up with giving religion some sort of public pass, respect for which it doesn't deserve. If you really understood Dawkins, Bennett, Harris and others I would imagine your stupidity would not be vomiting itself on this blog.

I'm sure you're feeling very victimized by this post and may respond with the same level of vitriol as before, which would not be uncommon of your type of "victim-tree hugging" type in our society.

750. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16115 by scooternyc on January 4, 2007 at 4:38 pm

"Yet one critic, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, calls for a truce: "We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance."

Suffered enough?! Oh, please, we are just getting started; just finding our collective voices; just gathering our momentum. We've suffered decades of religion being shoved down our throats with no rebuke, little fight, and no Government interceding - enough is enough!

To quote another great historical phrase: "We have not yet begun to fight".