Comments by Radesq

Comment #106362 by Radesq on January 2, 2008 at 6:15 pm

dlitt -- Is comparing WWE tournaments to church really fair? I think the majority of WWE fans realize it is fake.

Comment #106346 by Radesq on January 2, 2008 at 5:30 pm

I was excited when I saw Christian OUT pop up in the discussion thread. I thought someone had come up with a new cleaning product. Then I became concerned that maybe atheists were going to try performing exorcisms. The sort of thing it turned out to be hadn't occurred to me.
However, getting Christians to reach out and support fellow Christians will probably do more mischief to their cause than good -- as they all start to compare notes and realize that the other doesn't really get it like I do.

753. Changing my Mind

Comment #106310 by Radesq on January 2, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Paula: I have asked my wife (who is usually home when the evangelizing types come around) to keep all the literature in a little desk we have by the front door. Next time the JW's come by I'm going to ask them if they have heard about the Book of Mormon and give them the pamphlet the last folks left.

754. Changing my Mind

Comment #106183 by Radesq on January 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm

BlaiddDrwg wrote:

I've been called an example of a good christian man many times because I'm polite and helpful, then the same people instantly look at me like I eat babies after I tell them that I'm an atheist.

Did you show them your avatar when you told them this?
I don't know whether it is better to fight to change the perception of the name or simply change the name (e.g. estate taxes become death taxes). Critical thinkers can see through such a ploy, after all what is in a name really? But who is the target audience again?

755. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106116 by Radesq on January 2, 2008 at 11:32 am

I took a well deserved time out, but some observations on the way this thread has progressed:
Janus at 48

Yes, technology is dangerous and humanity might not be "wise" enough to handle what will be invented in the next few decades. Any idiot knows that much, or thinks he does

Sir I am not just any idiot!

At 73

That immortality is possible is a certainty…Do you think immortality won't sell once it's made available to the public? …Short of an apocalypse, if it can happen, it will happen.

Lofty claims, hard to prove without evidence. Who would want to be born into a world where your elders never die and you may never get your day in the sun? Some perhaps, not all I'd bet. Our technology often has side effects we aren't prepared for. If nobody dies how do we feed everybody? What if we haven't got the terraforming thing figured out yet for other planets?

Well, technology marches on -- mostly for the good I would say. But I worry that the only immortal we'll end up with is Charleton Heston sitting on a beach somewhere saying "Damn you! You've blown up the human genome...you've blown it all to hell!"

756. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105780 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Diacanu: What you've just said gives me an idea!

Seacrest out!

757. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105768 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Many people think this project is fraught with risk. But is it riskier than doing nothing?

That depends on many variables doesn't it? Are we sufficiently knowledgeable at this point to tinker with our biological future without f'ing it up irrevocably? Would another 100 years give us the answers or tell us that we are still another 100 years from competence? I don't know, perhaps some believe they do. One thing is certain some people will try to find out. Is it Richard Morgan who often talks here about thoughts and knowledge are one thing but acting on your thoughts and knowledge is another. It is true that mother nature isn't on our side, but she does not do the wrong thing for all the right reasons either. The best of intentions and all that sort of thing...

758. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105740 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 5:58 pm

WGR - Thanks for telling a bit of your story. Always interesting to hear how someone puts away these childish things. Sorry, I know that's probably condescending -- it's a flaw I'll work on it.

759. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105738 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 5:42 pm

AJ your terms need definition. What does it mean to flip flop -- to change one's mind based on new information does not necessarily mean one has abandoned their principles in fact the opposite may be true. If you are condemning people who change their views (seeming to run against their advertised principles) strictly for political gain without proper justification (whatever that may be). I suspect you will find much agreement in the abstract. Where you and I and a wide variety of others will disagree is on when a change is the former and when it is the latter. That is often more a matter of opinion.

Sorry for shortening your title to AJ but I keep writing John instead of Jon out of habit and only notice it later.

760. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105728 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 5:03 pm

AJ -- I agree there are many justifications for invading Iraq, the legitimacy of them is up for debate. But as to the reasons given to the American public and for that matter anyone else who would listen -- see my post above. I didn't believe the Bush administration before the war and didn't support it. I have changed my mind about what I think the US should do in the aftermath of the invasion more than once. I don't think many politicians covered themselves in glory with their handling of the support for/opposition to the war issue and I don't pretend to know all that they based their decisions on.

761. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105719 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Doh! Now URin4it walk.

762. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105718 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 4:28 pm

AtheistJohn I wholeheartedly disagree. Not changing your mind when the facts no longer support your original decision is just bullheadedness (on general principle). Now you can say I stand by my decision that I made at the time based on what I knew then -- if I knew then what I know now I would have done it differently. If your little brother came to you and said Billy just beat me up for no reason and you go punch Billy in the face, only to find out it was Billy Miller who beat up your brother and not Billy Smith who you retaliated against -- wouldn't you change your opinion on whether it was wise to take that action against Billy Smith? (disregarding the fact that retribution might not have been called for at all)? Am I misunderstanding you?

763. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105713 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 4:02 pm

AtheistJohn: As in most things political there is a proper time to stand on principle and a proper time to compromise -- I suppose voters will tell you how well you're doing at striking the balance. On Iraq it is perfectly rational to change your view on the correctness of the Iraq war if your underlying premise for war has been proved false. Let's say you believed Iraq an imminent threat to US national security because of WMD and links between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda. If those reasons evaporate you should change your mind about the wisdom of the war (or change your reasons for war in which case they really become justifications).

764. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105679 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I second Dr. Steve on that WGR. I am a newbie here also but I did not come from a religious background I have always been a heathen. I would like to know what made you change your mind. I don't yet possess the skills or the patience that some here have shown in dealing with what sometimes seems like an impenetrable forcefield of faith.

765. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105670 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I don't know engineering evilgenius but TonyA sure sounds like he does. What I don't get is that you seem to think a vastly convoluted conspiracy worthy of at least 25 hours of Jack Bauer's time is more believable than what readily appeared to happen.

Appearances aren't everything, but there was an investigation and a report as well. Isn't it exceedingly more likely that your sources are just wrong? To paraphrase Coach Bill Bellichik of the NE Patriots "It is what it is."

766. A War On Science

Comment #105589 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 5:54 am

Summer Seale at 39

In the particular post about the Dover case. I warned against Creationists attempting to gain political power -- not Conservatives. Although I am a Liberal I understand Conservatives and Creationists are not the same and that Conservatives are not all fools. I would submit that my belief is however that in the USA Religious Conservatism has just about sucked all the oxygen out of that branch of political thought leaving the more Libertarian or fiscal Conservatives without much say in matters of importance to Republican politics. That is what I allude to further down in the posts and where I get more partisan/ideological about who is at war with science. I think Conservatism has to be wrested from Religious zealots in the US if it is to have any legitimate say in political matters. You are free to disagree of course.

767. A War On Science

Comment #105549 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 12:09 am

Happy New Year to you as well. The ivy league are a group of colleges & universities here in the USA that are held to be prestigious -- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. So named because of their ivy covered buildings.

768. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105543 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Congratulations wooter! Your cobbling together of largely irrelevant, likely out of proper context, and probably of dubious origin quotations has completely undermined 150 years of study on evolution. I think we can all agree you've debunked that and we can all move on.

Congratulations are also in order because you have won the first perfect rating for the new year 2008. The bat boy gives you five out of a possible five bats! (otherwise known as a "batshit crazy" rating!) Keep up the good work!

769. A War On Science

Comment #105540 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Two reasons I think. First our respect for the right to free speech and free religion has created a lot of space for religion to go where it will unchallenged here (it wouldn't be politically correct to call people on their religious nonsense). Second the attack on science is part of a wider "culture war" being fomented by self-identifying Conservatives. It is as much anti-intellectual as anti-secular; this is evidenced by the oft used pejorative "east coast ivy league liberal elite".

770. A War On Science

Comment #105529 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Eventhorizon -- that was not the impression I got from watching the root of all evil again today. Although perhaps lesser in scale -- England is apparently not immune from fundamentalism Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise.

771. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #105527 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 9:50 pm

BJohn: I think your statement would ring more true with the following edit

Why believe in Jesus? Why believe the Apostles? Why believe the Church who claims to have preserved the apostolic teaching?

772. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105513 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Urin4it @ 325

"Illuvatar made the Ainur of his thought; and they made a great Music before him. In this Music the World was begun; for Illuvatar made visible the song of the Ainur, and they beheld it as a light in the darkness." Silmarillion, Valaquenta (a far superior mythology in my view).

773. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105502 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Someone like Urin4it almost seems fake. As if just throwing out the usual chestnuts to see if anybody can find a new way to crack them. Fun to watch though.

774. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105492 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 6:13 pm

So you have come here as a missionary then rather than out of curiosity?

775. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105481 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Urin4it previously

boy, I've been following the debate between all you ignorant athiests and dsouzaphile. you guys are really searching far up your rear ends to denounce God

Guess we just got off on the wrong foot there buddy.

776. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105471 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Urin4it Please continue...can I lend you my shovel?

777. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105467 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I feel that your scientific knowledge has clouded your faith in God

"Now that's funny -- I don't care who you are" -- Larry the Cable Guy

It also reminds me of another quote equally false.

"Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind."

778. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105461 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 5:10 pm

urin4it: You've been at this long enough to know exactly what people would write in response. You could write the response yourself - yet you persist in advocating superstitious belief. The question is why? What is it you can't bear to part with? I suspect until you decide for yourself that rationality has more to offer you than fantasy there will be no convincing you.

779. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105434 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 2:38 pm

I don't think there's anything to it WGR. Just start talking in gibberish. Perhaps they practice alone in front of the mirror -- but Sascha Baron Cohen was able to do it easily enough in the movie Borat.

780. A War On Science

Comment #105432 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Proper science only prevailed in this case because there was a sensible judge in place to rule on the case. That is less the case today than it was just a few years ago. Creationists have stated publicly that they will attempt to reinsert themselves into the public education system by running for school board and city council positions and work their way up. Some state judge somewhere in the USA will rule for ID at some point -- unless people who oppose Creationists do so at the ballot box.

781. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105328 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 9:15 am

Well -- if you get the chance to see "Jesus Camp" -- RD's oft criticized comparison of indoctrination to child abuse will be starkly apparent. The crying, the speaking in tongues, the Christian warrior mentality -- praying to be cleansed of sin (at 7 years old? How much sin might you have to repent at 7?)

Stunningly obstinate ignorance; and more pernicious , the purposeful propagation of same.

782. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105317 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 8:44 am

I watched "Jesus Camp" the documentary film on A&E television last night. My estimation of the probability of belief being a net plus is pretty low at this time.

783. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105081 by Radesq on December 30, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Billy -- the more I think about this the less I think I understand it. Now one doesn't have any freewill or creativity about who one's parents are or what their genetic makeup is...that much I understand.

Now is DD positing that our creative thought process is determined by nature/evolution? OK our brains are made of natural stuff. Is he saying we can't have a truly creative thought (something I'm often accused of)because our minds are simply standing on the shoulders of every evolutionary process that led us to this state of being? Or is he saying something else?

784. Monkey, Business

Comment #105066 by Radesq on December 30, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Is economic Darwinism akin to social Darwinism? The article highlights what seem like some useful observations - but I think the conclusions that it seems to be drawing about the utility of unfettered capitalism are just plain wrong.

785. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #105064 by Radesq on December 30, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Ouch! I see that puss has not been declawed. OK then no more prick jokes.

786. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105057 by Radesq on December 30, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Dr Benway: Maybe you should say "enhanced interrogation techniques".

787. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105047 by Radesq on December 30, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Yes I too wish he would go petal that stuff elsewhere.

788. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #105043 by Radesq on December 30, 2007 at 12:48 pm

If a group of people assumed all miracles were caused by one giant phallus would they be called phallustines?

789. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105031 by Radesq on December 30, 2007 at 12:14 pm

This sort of thing is clearly not my forte; does something in Mr. Dennet's article purport to dissolve freewill or creativity? I thought it was just trying to explain these things as natural developments and processes rather than mystical inspiration. I may very well be missing the point...and straighten me out if so...but doesn't the selection, application and reordering of genetically and environmentally inherited information involve freewill and creativity?

790. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104897 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Oh Atheist Jon, I've read how you seethe with disdain for those wonderful days of budget surplus and air wars with almost no American casualties. Good thing for you you're in Lapland because we're about to have eight more years of the Clintonistas!

791. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104894 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 10:43 pm

The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed.Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. -- Emperor Benedict XVI

792. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104890 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Risking anti-heresy dlitt -- hallelujah!

793. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #104888 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Hey Atheist John: Pats are 16-0!! Stick that in your blast furnace and smelt it! No, not really, just good natured ribbing see you in the playoffs man of steeler.

794. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104785 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Paula: I am against doing violence to people. If that is what exorcism entails (I've only seen the movie). I agree that if they are incompetent to consent then this sort of thing would likely be an assault (again depending on what is involved).

I could extend the argument to say not only any one who consents to exorcism is mentally disturbed -- but anyone who believes in invisible Gods & demons is deranged and should be taken into custody for their own protection.

I see invoking the power of the state, in creating a law as a last resort against this sort of thing. I appreciate your concern for the welfare of those affected however. THat's all I have time for today. thanks

795. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104780 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Perhaps if that's what they are into. People do all sorts of kinky things. Is the Pope proposing that exorcisms be performed on the unwilling? If he is then that would be criminal assault & battery. Now is a person too crazy to consent to exorcism -- probably many times they are. I guess your immediate family then gives consent. If some sensible adult steps in and says "alright that's enough of this foolishness we're of to the hospital" great (even if that is a policeman called to the scene).

796. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104773 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 12:05 pm

No...but let's not outlaw things just because they aren't beneficial. You might sue the performers of exorcisms for fraud or for negligence if they truly prevent a person from otherwise seeking medical care. But exorcism is in a sense an expression of opinion.

797. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104767 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 11:52 am

Why would you want to outlaw exorcism? The exorcism itself wasn't the problem it was the substitution of it for proper medical care for mental illness that led to the crime.

798. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104734 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 9:37 am

Thanks for the link! Hunzer0: God is all powerful and all knowing and all good yet creates evil to give us freedom? I thought we ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil despite God's directive. Which is it? In any event if God is all knowing then he can see our future and therefore it is not a matter of free choice (therefore also not evil but all part of the divine plan so nobody goes to hell and so why have a devil)? This stuff is ridiculous! As I stated on another thread...I now have a new appreciation of why it is difficult to give up something you like simply for the sake of reason. If I like something (drinking scotch for instance) you can tell me all day how it is (rationally speaking) a net negative for me -- I'll find excuses and rationalizations that allow me to keep doing what I like to do. However, can we at least hope for some agreement from believers that this sort of magical thinking is bad for people -- even if people don't want to give it up?

799. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104726 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 8:55 am

"Thanks be to God, we have a Pope who has decided to fight the Devil head-on," he said.

I originally read this as "fight the Devil hard-on".
Seriously? The Devil? We're all adults here right? The Devil is a logical impossibility.

PS. Dr. Steve, are these stories starting to get to you? You seemed to have grey'd a bit just since last night. Still a handsome fellow though.

800. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104564 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Did anybody see that? I just learned something here. I don't think it can be helped. I never had to give up anything to be an atheist -- I just never bought into religion ever. So it is all too easy for me to look at believers and think "man you are just dumb as dirt -- why can't you just see this? You're only hurting yourself and making yourself look foolish."

But if you are raised in this religion thing then you probably have alot invested in the dogmatic and/or in the personal relationships and even just in your all around comfort factor. Many of you here probably had a lot to lose by choosing this path (one assumes more to gain hopefully).

It's no wonder that often beating people over the head with the obvious problems of religion doesn't win them over and just elicits a "you can't understand" or "you're just a jerk reaction". I still can't hold back the bludgeoning instinct most of the time but I'll have to come up with a plan B.

But at least I can begin to understand the entrenchment that sometimes happens when rational thought begins to encroach on someone's personal comfort zone. Thanks people!