Comments by Frankus1122

Comment #132413 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 6:08 pm

No, Diacanu.
It was good. I liked it.
Rainbows are overrated and unicorns....well.

Comment #132409 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Ahhh, Diacanu.
Like a breath of fresh air.
Sunshine and puppy dogs and unicorns and rainbows!

Comment #132388 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Maybe they are taking our reasoned arguments and running them through a god-friendly language translation program and spewing out the results back to us. That is why it is a bit hard to understand what they are saying.

Their thoughts are garbled.

I am feeling wooterish. I need to sleep now.

854. Fleabytes

Comment #132375 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Dawkins.Net wound up conceding that the book did indeed trounce the targeted god-deniers

Yes. That's exactly what happened. There was mutual agreement that Harris and Dawkins and Hitchens and to a lesser extent Dennett were thoroughly trounced.
I have a witness who said that is what happened. And then a voice spoke to me and said the same thing so it must be true.
There we have it then: evidence.
I suggest we all pact up and head to church.

Steve, are you making this up?
I cannot BELIEVE this.
I know I don't have to believe. I could avail myself of the real evidence and check out the Vox site and see the quote.
But seriously?!

855. Fleabytes

Comment #132212 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Steve:

The rebuttal I would use is that all we are after is a consistent standard of evidence.

My not-to-well-thought-out chess/checkers analogy sort of applies here.
There are rules to the game of rational thought. There are rules as to what constitutes evidence.
Theists start out by agreeing to play the game but then switch to a different game when they notice they might get checkmated.

As Pinker says:

"...as long as we are trying to persuade one another of why you should do something or should believe something, you are already committed to reason."

"We're trying to provide reasons. We're trying to persuade, to convince."

When in engaging in an argument:
"You've already signed on to reason whether you like it or not."

You cannot simply change the rules.

Theist complain that the atheist set up the rules and they have to make their beliefs fit into the rules set up by us.
Not true.
A consistent standard of evidence. Nothing more than you require for the rest of your life.

856. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132157 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 11:20 am

I have no idea why you guys are still talking to him. Boredom,perhaps?

It isn't nice to pick on the less fortunate among us.
Perhaps we should just leave him alone.
I think this is the morally correct thing to do.

857. Fleabytes

Comment #132155 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 11:06 am

Checkers and Chess.
Does Robertson believe what he says he does?
Yes.
I think one of the problems with engaging people like him is that they sincerely believe that their position is correct and try to justify their beliefs from within the belief bubble.
They argue from an emotional place rather than a logical one.
We believe our position to be correct and argue our position from within the .... reality/ materialistic world-view (?) bubble.
If you look at what they are saying from their point of view it makes sense. Atheists want proof of god's existence but they are not willing to look outside the natural world for that proof. They are blind to the supernatural that is all around them.
We are playing different games.
In Checkers you jump over an opponent's piece and take it off the board. You don't engage it or defeat it; you jump over it. That is the way you play the game.
In Chess you defeat an opponent's piece (argument) if your man (argument) is stronger or in a better position. You engage the opponent and take out his/her pieces if you can. You don't just jump over them.
The problem is that the real world is more like chess than checkers. IMO
Pinker has a good take on this in a Big Think piece
where he talks about using reason as a way of dealing with life's problems.

http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/1132

858. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132125 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 9:08 am

Radesq:

The cherries are upside down when the boat goes along the tortoise of the mind of the sausage maker's camel. There absolutely no is fine of the one who says he does when he is and that is a lie. When you try to wrap your icebox around the music that comes from the depths of the lettuce saddle monkey half-time show you see that the imprint of the elevator talks in the speech of the divinity of the sand. This is too much for you to admit in the kleptch of your karnenflugle kooklebinker.

I'm sorry I'm late to this but I laughed until I cried.
Then the Rev. Dark's post. Stop it! My stomach hurts.

On a more serious note: why is anyone talking to this guy?
I am usually in favour of having conversations with people of opposing viewpoints. I disagree with regulars here who, I feel, are too quick to be dismissive of someone trying to work out an argument. I guess I have hope that they may see a shred of truth.
But Wooter is an idiot. I'm not just name calling here. Based on what he has written (so badly) I don't think he has the capacity to understand.
Sometimes there is willful ignorance. That really bugs me.
But this is something different.
I don't think he is intelligent enough to understand what he is talking about. He just doesn't get it. He is awesomely ignorant of basic facts.
I don't argue with my 6 year old son about determinism and free-will for a reason.

859. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131850 by Frankus1122 on February 23, 2008 at 12:50 pm

"A crowd believed to be approximately 70,000 in number, including newspaper reporters and photographers, gathered at the Cova da Iria. The incessant rain had finally ceased and a thin layer of clouds cloaked the silver disc of the sun such that it could be looked upon without hurting one's eyes. Lucia called out to the crowd to look at the sun. Sometime while Lucia was pointing towards the sun and seeing various religious figures in the sky, the sun appeared to change colors and rotate, like a fire wheel. For some, the sun appeared to fall from the sky before retreating, for others, it zig-zagged. The phenomenon was witnessed by most in the crowd as well as people many miles away."

The above was taken from the Wikipedia entry on Fatima. According to account there were 70,000 people who witness the miracle of the sun. 70,000 people and yet Shrommer was saved from Catholicism by Jesus.
Shrommer, how is it that hundreds of people who witnessed Jesus rise over 2000 years ago are somehow more reliable than 70,000 within the past 100 years?
Why do you not believe in the Blessed Virgin Mary when there were so many eye witnesses?
Do you see a problem here?
The excuses, explanations, rationalizations as to why the miracle of the sun at Fatima is false can be applied to the eye witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus.
You can't claim one account as valid and not the other.
You are looking at your belief and finding ways to justify it because you believe.
Step outside the bubble for a moment. Assume that your belief is really nonsense and look at the evidence to support that position.
Don't worry, you can go back in the bubble after the little thought experiment.
Maybe.

860. Fleabytes

Comment #131017 by Frankus1122 on February 21, 2008 at 5:36 pm

David:

I see no point in wasting hours writing up a response.

Steve:

Are you willing to write a response and post it up on your own site?

You see, if you have a response you have no excuse not to write it.
You have said many times that you do not want to waste time writing a response and not being able to post it here.
All posts are posted.
Some are moved to alternate threads, after complaints, after a time.
People will see them.
You can post your well reasoned, thoughtful response to Paula here.
You can post it on your own site.
Please David do not deny us the TRUTH.
I have been swayed by Paula's misconceptions and falsehoods. I am too dim to see exactly where she has gone wrong and I need some enlightenment. Point by point she seems to have destroyed your arguments against Dawkins. You need to set the record straight. Point by point you need to tear her down.
If you won't post here (I don't think you're afraid) please post on your site.
Perhaps you could follow the logic as I did at the beginning of this post:
You made a point. You were worried that your time would be wasted. Steve responded by giving you the option of posting your response on your site. Therefore people would see your post and your time would not be wasted. I pointed out that your post would be seen here, as all posts are.
So, you see your worry is for naught. In a poof of logic it vanishes.
Do the same to Paula. Use logic and reason. Prove her wrong. Go for it!

For you to continue to say you will not post a response unless you are guaranteed that it will not be banned is disingenuous.
WWJD?

861. Missing link found in Sydney Harbour

Comment #130974 by Frankus1122 on February 21, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I noticed the language problem on the weekend while listening to a science radio program. It had to do with the recently discovered bats fossils. I can't exactly remember what was said but I remember thinking that what was said was wrong. It had to do with creatures choosing to evolve in a particular way.
I'm with HappyPrimate and knutsondc; more care is required in discussing evolution so that it is better understood by the general population.

862. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #130960 by Frankus1122 on February 21, 2008 at 2:56 pm

At some point, multiculturalism stopped being a means to integrate different cultures and started being a way to reinforce cultural differences.

There are good and bad aspects of multiculturalism.
What is culture?
I wasn't sure on the exact definition so I looked it up:
-the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
I was thinking along the lines of dress and food and music and dance.
Having a multiplicity of this type of culture is not a problem for me.
"Manners"? I'm not sure about this.
"Offensive to Muslims"? How? Ofeensive to their religion? Who cares?

863. Fleabytes

Comment #130913 by Frankus1122 on February 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Here are instructions for being a Wee Flea:
1.
2.
3.
4. Repeat.

Here is my response:
1.
2.
3.
4. Repeat.

As clearthinker has demonstrated.
What have we got?
Nothing.
Eepiest has received what to his repeated question?
Nothing.
Paula did a wonderful job at dealing with arguments point by point. Her counter arguments were lucid and thorough. Logic and reason prevailed.
What did we get in the way of sound reasoning from the fleas?
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Repeat.

864. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?

Comment #130760 by Frankus1122 on February 21, 2008 at 8:42 am

Knowledge of the Bible may be all well and good, but I have my reservations; it being taught objectively "in theory" is not the same thing as in practice.

Now, imagine that you're an atheist kid in school and it's your TEACHER that's doing it. A teacher who is responsible for grading you. Grading you on how well you understood the text. When they mislabel "holding the bible accountable for the bad things it says" as "obviously not understanding the bible."

This is a problems I've raised before. The teacher in the classroom makes all the difference. However, that being said the curriculum does have influence. A class dealing exclusively with the Bible could easily go off the rails. If it were included as a book among many that have influence on Western literature then it would be less open to abuse.
My wife wants our kids to attend church because she never did and she knows nothing of the Bible or religion. She thinks it would be good for them to be exposed to religion in this way. Let's just say we disagree about this. (My kids are NOT attending church).
A comparative religions course would be the best route to find out about religions in general. I took one of these in my catholic high school. Our teacher was pretty good about explaining the basic tenets of the major religions and there was only mild mockery of the claims of other religions in that class.
The same can't be said of my Catholic religious studies class. When I brought up the possibility of reincarnation (it sort of made sense to me at the time), I was mercilessly ridiculed. We then went on to talk about how in heaven the streets were paved with gold and only good music (not Rock 'n Roll)was played all day while we did things like gardening. Seriously.
It depends on the teacher to a large extent.
As for the claim that the Bible itself is great literature I'm with Cartomancer: it's sorta shit.
If you have a Bible handy open it up to any page and start reading: for me it is incomprehensible nonsense.

865. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129883 by Frankus1122 on February 19, 2008 at 5:53 pm

its very easy to pass on misconceptions

You can tell outright nonsense lies to students and they will believe you because you are the teacher.
That explains why they believe the drivel from the preachers.
Teach them critical thinking.
They should question the source of information and always ask 'What if this isn't true? How can I tell?"

866. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129868 by Frankus1122 on February 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm

ABC poll is now 493 for/128 against/19 let them decide/17 fence.

Good as it is. Teach what 'scientific theory' is. Teach what evolution is.
A lot depends on the teacher in the classroom. You need good teachers.
Teach critical thinking.
YEC and IDers want the 'controversy' taught. Teach the students how to evaluate information. They will discover there really is no controversy.
There is a scientific theory of evolution. There are questions within the theory that deserve attention and thought. There is nothing to challenge the theory itself.
Science class should have a basic rational thought component. Teach students how to think clearly. Teach them how to detect bullshit and bad thinking and poorly designed experiments.
That should take care of creationists.

BTW

So Florida has excepted evolution?

No. They use to. Now they accept it. The majority of them anyway.

867. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129739 by Frankus1122 on February 19, 2008 at 2:20 pm

There has been talk of finding a gene or some other biological basis for religious belief and then being able to 'cure' it.
Do we want to do that?
Do we want to 'cure' gay people when the biological 'cause' of gayness is identified?
Isn't it irrational to be gay?
We love in order to cause genes to reproduce.
No. That's not right. We have sex because it feels good. Genes get passed on unintentionally.
I don't know where I am going with this.
The article states:
"He and his colleague Roger Trigg will be investigating whether religion is a part of the selection process that has helped humans survive or merely a byproduct of evolution."
I am thinking that being religious may be like being gay. There is no evolutionary advantage but it feels good/right.
Actually, there may be a huge evolutionary advantage to being religious: people tend to marry within their faith. It is advantageous to you if you share the dominant religion of your society. You are more 'fit' in the eyes of a potential mate.
I am contradicting myself here. Oh well.
Bottom line: let's try to figure out why the religious mindset exists. I don't think we will discover why people are religious and therefore religion will go away. We will discover why religion exists and perhaps turn our religious feelings toward more appropriate (real) entities.
I think other people have been saying this but way better.

868. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129498 by Frankus1122 on February 19, 2008 at 8:12 am

Isn't this what Dan Dennett was proposing? Should we not look at religion in a scientific way? He has suggested it is a cultural meme that reproduces itself for its own purposes; it really has no advantage for the host.
If this idea is explored it might prove interesting. The Templeton money may cast some doubt as to the impartiality of the results. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

869. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125940 by Frankus1122 on February 12, 2008 at 9:46 am

I just watched Juan Enriquez on TED. Very good.
I love TED. I got lost for a while watching new talks and reviewing old favourites.
I'd like something like TED to get out to a wider audience. The public understanding of science may require the stealth-like positioning of key figures in influential positions.

870. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125627 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Bill Maher does not claim to be an atheist. He does claim to be a rationalist. If he does have views that are uninformed regarding medicine he should be educated. I am pretty sure that he would be open to changing his mind if he is truly a rationalist as he claims to be.
I can't really understand how someone can be 'against' evidence-based medicine. You can question the quality of the evidence I suppose, but then again you need to have more than "feelings" or "suspicions" that "big-pharma" is out to skew the evidence.
There has been some discussion recently regarding the suppression of negative results in medical testing. There is a need to be vigilant. But not nutty.

871. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125612 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 5:19 pm

You can't be serious about Dr David Suzuki. He the hypocrite who chastises others for wasting energy, yet travels around in luxury buses and lives in a poorly insulated glass house.

You got this from the Calgary Herald?! The article goes onto deny Climate Change.
Suzuki is well aware of the carbon footprint he is leaving and in an interview I heard he said this was his biggest concern and is taking steps to reducing his air travel and buying carbon offset credits. While it is not perfect at least he is doing something to educate the public.

872. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125610 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 5:07 pm

I was under the impression that the jury was still out on the nature/nurture issue, if not coming down on the "nurture" side. I have to admit I'm probably not up-to-date on the issue.

Pinker, who has been mentioned a few times in this thread, seems to tend toward the Nature side of the argument in The Blank Slate.

873. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125524 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Of course, some CSI stuff is completely unrealistic.

Yeah. They perhaps lead to the misunderstanding of science. I love it when they zoom in on the reflection in someone's sunglasses and enhance the image to pick up a liscence plate number and run it through a "database" and get the address of the bad guy.
I make sure my students understand how unrealistic that is by zooming in on any image and seeing how quickly the pixels reveal nothing.
On a side note (I hope Matt7895 doesn't chastize me for getting off topic again. I don't really mind, I sort of miss my mum) there is a great resource for megapixel images here:
http://www.gigapxl.org/

Back on topic for Matt:
Pinker has the hair.
He also has some good videos on the Big Think website.

874. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125508 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Shows like NOVA and the Nature of Things and Planet Earth are fantastic. But I was just wondering how many people watch them?
Anabanana was commenting on how few Americans believe in evolution. How many Americans watch nature/science shows? Carl Sagan's Cosmos was popular but again I wonder how many people actually watched it.
Perhaps science education has to filter down lower. I believe the study of Forensic science has taken off in North America in large part due to tv shows like CSI.
Should the next Charles Simonyi Professorship go to a popularizer on this level? You don't want to dumb things down completely but you also don't want to preach to the choir.

875. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125470 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 12:15 pm

And I recall a couple of direct ass kickings you guys received from us.

Actually the War of 1812 was not an "ass-kicking" in favour of the Americans.
Your White House is white because you had to paint it after the British burnt it.
I just read your post to my grade 7 class (I'm multitasking) and they say it was at best a stalemate. Battles were won on both sides.

876. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125445 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 11:31 am

Prejudice in favor of beauty

There are reasons for this. We find beautiful that which is indicative of good health. Good health means a better chance at reproduction.
However, I have discovered that teachers will grade a piece of writing lower if it is written sloppily. Bad handwriting will result in a lower grade regardless of the content.
This is not a scientific study - just observation on my part over the years. I ocassionally will give a fellow teacher the same piece of writing done on a word processor and then later handwritten badly. I am never surprised by the results. The bad penmanship always receives a lower grade.
As a result I try to avoid accepting handwritten work from my students.
Now if I could only get them to not use Benjamin or Gothic fonts...

877. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125407 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 10:22 am

Steven Pinker and Neil de Grasse Tyson are excellent choices IMO.
I live in Canada.
David Suzuki has been our science popularizer here for years (Nature of Things on CBC tv and Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio). Suzuki is the author of forty-three books (fifteen for children), including Genethics, Wisdom of the Elders, Inventing the Future, and the best-selling Looking At series of children’s science books. (I got this from Wikipedia)
He is the kind of guy who has been inspiring people like me for years. He is our country's Attenborough.
Although he has a better body than mine (I'm 45), I think he is too old. Too bad.
This is for Steve:
http://tinyurl.com/2f3llt

878. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125340 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 9:00 am

So, Cap'n Rowan, does that include Mormons? Scientologists? Pastafarians? Followers of Thor?
Seriously.
This is a question that should be asked. We should demand an answer. The ridiculous postion it puts him in will be brought into focus even more clearly.
What about Rastafarians?
The sacred weed should be allowed to be smoked freely if we are to be tolerant of other religions. I don't think this is the case.
This has always bothered me. In Ontario, Sheiks are allowed to carry their ceremonial daggers in schools. I don't think kids in school should be allowed to carry around weapons of any kind. This is crazy in my view but we are 'tolerant' because it is a sacred part of their religious practice. Then what about the weed?
There should be one law for all the people.
Nutty religious stuff should be left at home or abolished altogether. I like what they are doing in France in this regard.

879. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125318 by Frankus1122 on February 11, 2008 at 8:20 am

I saw Irshad Manji speak last week. She says "Hi" to all the atheists who believe she should take the next logical step and abandon Islam altogether. She is not ready to do that. However, she does speak out against the stupidity of Islam as practised by some today. She said that after doing some inquiry on her own into the religion she discovered that a lot of what is preached today was not what was originally the case.
I am not arguing her case here.
She went on to say that dogma is afraid of inquiry. She was worried about speaking out and then she spoke to Salmund Rushdie. He told her that some ideas were more important than individual people. (I'm not sure about this; I'm still thinking about it). It was after this conversation that she decided to write her first book discussing what is wrong with Islam today.
She regularly receives death threats. She had protection. Then she gave it up. She thought that she must serve as an example for other Muslim women (and men) who want to speak out against the insanity of the religious pratice.
She is not calling for an abandonment of the faith altogether.
Baby steps.

880. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125014 by Frankus1122 on February 10, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Look at the video responses on Youtube under Pat's video posted by Reeswd.
Where Pat is funny these videos are shocking.

881. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124357 by Frankus1122 on February 9, 2008 at 7:25 am

Kardashovel about Jesus:

When read with a sympathetic eye, his is certainly a compelling story, you must admit.

Absolutely! It is a story of such power that it could bring one to tears. I also get a bit weepy when I read Oscar Wilde's 'The Selfish Giant'. There are many stories that have great power and enormous emotional impact that can be found in the FICTION section of any library.
I suggested (half jokingly) in an earlier post that you were the next L. Ron Hubbard. He took his science fiction and turned it into a religion. Whether he believed what he wrote is another matter. The point is that a created fiction can seem real.

Yes, well limiting ourselves to the current understanding of physics, we can see that measurement by a conscious observer (with free will) can induce non-causal interactions, with no known mediator, and instantaneously, for all we can determine. It is merely by the act of paying attention to the path data that the quantum eraser reveals an interference pattern or not, even if the path data is examined well after the measurement is made.

Then Steve pointed out this may not be as true as you think.
Even if it were so, you have merely pointed out that something is potentially possible. This is why science fiction is so compelling.
But then we get down to evidence. I think we can all agree that you have offered only your 'Voice'. As many have pointed out here that is really not sufficient evidence. For you it may be good enough because of the power and insightfulness of the voice. Good for you, but not good enough for anyone else. I think you would have to admit that.
You are not trying to convince anyone. Good. You haven't.
Has anyone here convinced you to perhaps doubt the authenticity of your "Voice"? I think they have provided some compelling reasons to do so.
It may be that God is a time traveling super-guy with not quite omnipotence. If you believe this and as a result you treat other people decently and don't try to force your beliefs onto them, I can see no harm in what you are doing.
Good luck. Keep searching.

882. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124181 by Frankus1122 on February 8, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Richard Dawkins has an amazing gift for expressing rich ideas simply.

The empirical observations forced a change of mind upon these people.

"Given enough time" I hope the creationists will come to understand the enormity of Darwin's ideas.

Education is key. The message needs to be told again and again. There is an astonishing amount of ignorance in the world regarding basic science. The "Break the Science Barrier" video amply demonstrates this and is a good antidote to the ignorance. As is this article.

Even God thinks Darwin matters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaZDcS-rMf4

Note the book he is reading in the opening shot.

883. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124173 by Frankus1122 on February 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

What we have here is failure to communicate:some men you just can not reach...

Who said this?

Actually it was Strother Martins playing the role of a guard in the movie Cool Hand Luke.

Youtube is my friend.

884. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123541 by Frankus1122 on February 7, 2008 at 10:21 am

The different between a plane pilot and your sky pilot is that you actually have reasonable evidence for the first, and that they fly reliably and consistently.

There is nothing reliable or consistent about religion, is there?

Good points. We take it on 'faith' that what has been demonstrated in the past to be true, using verifiable evidence, will be true in the future.
I have faith that my doctor has a medical degree and has passed the required exams and tests to certify her as a medical doctor. I have faith that the tests she took are based on solid scientific evidence. I have faith that she practices evidence based medicine. If she refers me to a homeopath I lose faith in her judgement.
I have faith that the evidence-based practice of Western medicine is just that. I am interested when I read or hear about evidence to the contrary. I lose some of my faith if I hear doctors are pushing a particular type of pill because they are getting pushed by drug companies.
So there is a certain amount of faith in the conduct of our daily lives but it is not blind faith. It is reasonable. It is based on past experience that is verifiable, reliable and consistent.

Religion: not so much. There is no reasonable grounds on which religious faith rests.
If there is, please enlighten us all.

885. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123456 by Frankus1122 on February 7, 2008 at 8:03 am

Ignorance can lead to fear. I don't believe it is a stretch to assume the CCTV are ignoranrt on a great many things.
I am currently compiling a list of books to display in my library on the theme of 'LOVE' (Valentine's Day approaches). Among the books will be ones that have same sex couples.
Education helps. When we read about and see gay couples loving each other and no harm comes from it... what does a reasonable person conclude?
Ignorance is a key factor in much of the religionists worldview.
Steve's idea of a book that explains science concepts in simple terms is a good one. I'll buy it and promote it when it comes out.
Can you get to work on that Steve? :)

886. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123269 by Frankus1122 on February 6, 2008 at 6:49 pm

While I'm here I would like to post a link to a gay video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeahDax24Dg

The acceptance at the end makes it heart warming.

I'd love to see an atheist version.

887. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123257 by Frankus1122 on February 6, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Gay smay.
I live in Toronto. It's pretty gay. We have a massive gay pride parade every year that gets bigger and bigger. Everyone is okay with it. Well, probably not but you don't hear much from the nay-sayers here. The mayor and politicians of all stripes are partying with the rest of the city. The news media covers the event as they do Caribana (massive West Indian party) - it is no big deal because it is gay; it is a big deal because it is a big deal - a big party.
We have a large gay village as we do a Italian section of the city and Little Indian and Chinatowns and Portuguese and on and on.
There are sections of the city where like tends to like but they are not really ghettos. We all seem to get along fairly well and there is a lot of mixtures of cultures. We pride ourselves on the fact that Toronto is the most multicultural city in the world.
If you are gay or German or Pakistani it is kind of like, "Yeah, whatever."
I have taught lots of young people who come from same sex parents. They are no different from any other students. Some have problems of various sorts but they are young adolescents. Most kids have problems at that age.
My point is we are very accepting of differing lifestyles and cultures here and I don't think we are collapsing as a society.
The city council has just announced that they want to raise property taxes and we are currently going through our second wave of a snow/sleet/rainy storm that is dumping about 10-15 cm of wet snow on the 20-30 cm we already have but it's still okay.

888. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122162 by Frankus1122 on February 4, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Well, maybe.
The K-man could be the second coming of Elrond the Hubbard.

889. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122159 by Frankus1122 on February 4, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Time to start a cult!

Didn't L Ron Hubbard do this?

He took his science fiction stories and turned them into a multimillion dollar religion.
K, you might want to try Scientology. They have time traveling aliens and everything. It seems like it would be right up your alley.

Or was it Elrond at the council of Elfendom?

890. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122147 by Frankus1122 on February 4, 2008 at 8:20 pm

When I said God is like a good book and just as real I meant that God is a story you made up and therefore not real.
Good books have all sorts of weird and wacky stuff in them. But they are ultimately made up. Like the Bible.
We should not mistake our art for reality.
Reality is testable. We have discerned certain rules about the universe and how it works.
You cannot do the same thing with art. The Lord of the Rings is a story. It may be internally consistent but it is not an accurate story of how our world works. Gandalf does not exist for real. He may in the minds of some people but they are deluded.
God is a delusion because he doesn't really exist except in the minds of some people.
Gandalf does not affect anything in the world through his intervention nor does God.
Gandalf does not have a plan for us. He does not want us to trust him.
He did not really fight evil, die and rise again as Gandalf the White. That was a story.
Once you go over the edge and start believing otherwise you get into feeling confident that you know how Gandalf thinks and what he would do in certain situations. He might even talk to you and give you advice.
But not really.
K. How can you know what Gandalf/God wants?
You made a bunch of statements about His intentions for us.
How do you know this?
Do you 'feel' it?
Does it just have to be true?
Would it all make sense if I only believed?

If I am 'living the book' and God is the author how do you know this? Are you a character in the 'Book-of-God' aware of your being such? Is God a post-modern writer?

891. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122112 by Frankus1122 on February 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I am willing to bet that if enough noise is made the decision will be reversed.

I am with Bonzai on this. I think it is a good thing this happened. It was a boner of a mistake on the part of the student administration. I believe they felt that saying you can have "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition" was attacking religion. They felt that this was religious intolerance and the application was rejected.
Good.
Good because the stink is raised and the truth comes out.
You can have a fulfilling life without religion and superstition and you can do it without being intolerant of others.
If we can have Crusaders for Christ trying to convince us that "Jesus saves" then we should be able to have the Laurier Freethought Alliance trying to convince us "Uh, no He doesn't".

I seriously think this could be a good thing. It is a fundamental right to be able to express your ideas freely in our society. There can be no way that this decision will not be reversed.

Now we need to look south to Resolution 888.

892. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122108 by Frankus1122 on February 4, 2008 at 6:40 pm

We are here because we present a path to a solution for God.

He takes what He can use.

God will find it necessary to intervene directly in our affairs again at some point in the future, so as not to see this field go fallow.

He will select people that he trusts.

God wants to know who His friends are.

Where does this information come from?
I can see how it can make sense to you based on a belief that "this is how it must be", but how do you know the mind of God?
You say he has a plan but how do you know this?
If it is Bible-based then why not any of the other holy books 'inspired' by God?

I kind of like that 'God as the collapsing wave-front making himself actual' thing (sorry I can't find the exact quote).
I also like the " Who will show love toward their fellow humans, animals, and to all of the creation (adopting the broadest possible neighborhood)? Will it be, maybe, scientists? Uhhh... perhaps; but not because of science, and certainly not because of some falsifiable parlor trick."

These are some interesting ideas YOU made up and convinced yourself are true.
I have no problem with people loving each other and striving towards making the universe a really good place to be. Science will surely be a part -surely is a part of making this more real.
Literature and music and the other arts are also a part of making the world an interesting/better place to be.
We strive to find patterns in the universe. We seek to know what its structure is. Some patterns we discern are more accurate than others in terms of what is really out there.
I think we sometimes make up patterns. This is our art. We take what we know and create an artful 'reality'.
We see patterns in the stars and create constellations.
We look at our interactions with others in a society and come up with ways/ methods/ rules to govern ourselves. This seems to be a mixture of art and science.
Then we have the science of how matter interacts with itself. We are getting a lot better at figuring this out. There is a growing consensus along those lines.
The God pattern ... not so much consensus. That is because, I think, God is a made-up thing. God is artful. God is like a good song or a good book. Only way more complicated. But just as real.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on god for now.

893. God-Man and Human-Man Team Up

Comment #121572 by Frankus1122 on February 3, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Found more at:
http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html

894. God-Man and Human-Man Team Up

Comment #121564 by Frankus1122 on February 3, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Brilliant!
I want more.

895. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121295 by Frankus1122 on February 3, 2008 at 7:45 am

the_assayer

I think what you did was valuable. Trying to see into how someone else thinks can help us understand where they are coming form and help us to see their 'internal logic'.

I would suggest that the god-believers do the same thing. Step outside your bubble and see what it is like from our point of view. It makes way more sense. And there is evidence for what we believe.
We believe in the stuff that is around us. If there are aspects of how the world works we don't understand we strive to figure them out. But we require evidence.

Kardashovel, you said god doesn't make it easier for us because he wants us to trust him. Why?
I tend to trust people who haven't lied to me in the past. I trust people that do not send out contradictory messages. This does not describe god. Why can't he be more clear about himself? Why all the mystery Big Guy? You spoke to Kardashovel, why not talk to me?
Why do you insist on playing games God? Why should I trust you?
Kardashovel, step outside your bubble for a moment and take another look. The most sensible answer is that god does not exist.

896. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121036 by Frankus1122 on February 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm

Those unfortunate children are at rest now, and someday they will arise and be with their families again.

You have no proof of this of course. This is something you believe. And you believe that God talked to you. And you believe that you are not really important, or no more so than anyone else. Everyone is important to God and he just happened to talk to you about your business. Why? No one really knows because God's ways are not man's ways. We can't know how God thinks because he is so beyond us. He is supernatural and we are just stuck with the natural world. Most of us have not had God reveal Himself to us. Why is this? If He cares about us so much that He would lower Himself to become one of us and then arrange to sacrifice Himself to Himself for His purposes -because He loves us so much, then why doesn't He give us more of a nudge - like he did with you Kardshovel? It IS a mystery. He must know that there are many who don't believe in him. We think that the brains we have provide us with the tools to discover how the universe works. But god is outside the universe or at least he doesn't play by the rules we play by so how can we know him? Does he expect us to give up rational thought and take the leap of faith? Why? Is there a reason to do this? Why isn't it clearer if there is a reason? Why doesn't god make it easier?
This is a logical nightmare.
But I know a way out.
God isn't real.
It has all been made up. There is plenty of evidence for that. Certainly all the other religions have been made up.
Yours has been made up too.

897. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120787 by Frankus1122 on February 2, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Actually,Anabanana I brought up the name-calling bit but,...yeah. Good. You give and you get.

Kardshovel, put up an argument or I'm with Anabanana:

Take your sexist, homophobic, playing-the-victim charades somewhere else.

Have you noticed that it gets really quiet when we ask for an argument?

Way back we had Tyler ask:

If so, can you please tell me how it "crushes" Dawkins and his argument for the existence of god?

This was followed by a series of

"Hello... Anyone there?"

Why is that?

Kardshovel?

898. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120772 by Frankus1122 on February 2, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Name-calling can be based on ideas. It can be useful, as in "Creationist" or "homophobe".

Sure, these are shortcuts pointing to ideas. Sometimes these ideas need to be spelled out more clearly for some people.
I'm not above name calling. I get passionate about the ideas I am defending. If there is a refusal to listen to reasoned argument then I get angry. Willful ignorance boils my blood. Then the names will fly. I can't write them now because my daughter is watching me type this and she is just learning to read.

899. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120746 by Frankus1122 on February 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I just got back from a conference of librarians where Irshad Manji spoke. She mentioned how Dawkins and Harris and Dennet were all doing well and how she got complaints not only from Muslims but atheists as well. We feel she has come part way but needs to take the next step. She was a very engaging speaker.
One thing that she said that struck a chord was that we should not be afraid of inquiry. Dogma is afraid of inquiry. She believes that faith should never be afraid of inquiry.
I agree with her.
I think Kardshovel can be convinced of this.
It pisses me off that so many people are too easily dismissive and rude.
I understand the opinion that 'faith-heads' are immune to reason, but are they all? Can you convince someone of something by calling them a fucktard?
Corylus and Steve have posted reasoned rational responses to Kardshovel's posts. They are interesting to read. Name calling is not that interesting. It can be funny but it really doesn't put anything interesting on the table.
How can we expect the best arguments to come forward of all we do is name call? I guess I am hoping to see a higher road taken.
If an argument is put forward can we not simply say, "No. This is wrong and here is the reason why...."
I want the best from the theists. I want the best from the atheists. I believe trying to follow the Golden Rule is a decent way to live.
Kardshovel, other than the voices, which you can understand are highly problematic, is there anything else you can offer that would convince me that god exists?

900. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120458 by Frankus1122 on February 1, 2008 at 5:14 pm

I just tried downloading the book but it would not let me pay nothing. I could buy it for 1 cent. Although I don't reside in Scotland I thought it a wee bit steep.
I could get a handhold for that price.

Wait a minute. I just thought of something. Vox Day said that it would be a pay what you want. Let me get the actual quote. I want hard evidence here.

"The Irrational Atheist" ebook isn't a free download per se. It's a Radiohead-style pay-what-you want setup, which includes the option to pay nothing."

But it does not include this option. Therefore God does not exist!

Oh! Who is weeping now?