901. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120448 by Frankus1122 on February 1, 2008 at 4:45 pm

The Language Instinct
Words and Rules
Stuff of Thought

These are all books by Steven Pinker that deal with language and the idea that there is a genetic basis for us speaking the way we do.
He also talks a bit about this idea in The Blank Slate.

902. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119769 by Frankus1122 on January 31, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Can anyone recall one salient point either for the existence of God or in refutation of Professor Dawkins' published works?

Nothing. Why?

903. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119707 by Frankus1122 on January 31, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Wow! I just read through everything here since last night. It is like a soap opera. I laughed until I cried at the "hearing voices" explanation for Shovel's belief in god.

I feel like I had to listen to a really long joke and just got the punchline.

It is kind of sad in a way because he seems to have some knowledge of cosmology. But when you hear voices (!) I suppose you will try to fit what you know to go along with what the voices tell you. Minds can be fragile. Becomethearrow:

I like to hear what people believe anyway.

What do you believe and why? I am sort of hesitant to ask you this because a lot of your postings have been particularly inane and really not worthy of any response. Can you seriously provide us with a belief and a sound reason for that belief?

904. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118601 by Frankus1122 on January 30, 2008 at 7:33 pm

This is getting way too funny.

905. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118494 by Frankus1122 on January 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

I have followed the major arguments in the book over the last two years as they have been formulated. I am not ignorant to the content of the book.

And yet when asked repeatedly to provide evidence of what would be so crushing to "our leader" we were given ......

I guess all you really had to offer.

You stuck the stick in the ant hill.

Drop the book in the piranha pool.

906. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118476 by Frankus1122 on January 30, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Haha get a load of this Blacknad clown:

Vox Day has made mincemeat out of your illustrious leader.

Read TIA and weep. Read it and weep.


And then:

Never said I'd read it.


Genius.

I laughed and laughed when I read this:

Never said I'd read it.

Yikes! Blacknerd, how, how can you make claims about something that you have not read? I said way earlier in this forum that people should not make claims about the validity of the arguments in the book until it has been read. I got a bit of flack for that. However, I did say that based on other writings of Vox I was pretty sure of what to expect.
I really can't wait for Feb.1.
You see, as a scientifically minded person I am looking for my current theory of how the world works to be disproved. I am pretty sure that Dawkins et al would not have a problem admitting to factual errors or logical flaws. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and perhaps even Hitchens seem to be people who seek the truth about the world.
They don't 'know the TRUTH' and then try to get the world to fit to it. If there is a better way to understand how things really are they are all for it. (I'm making assumptions on their part here). When you 'know the TRUTH' and nothing will dissuade you from it you don't know the truth.
As I said, I can't wait to read the book. Good sales job. (Of course I won't buy it - sorry).
However, I suspect that I will be greatly disappointed.

907. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117788 by Frankus1122 on January 29, 2008 at 4:25 pm

A lot of effort is being put into slamming arguments we have not read yet.

Has anyone read the book?
....

It has already been stated that it will be drivel and full of logical inconsistencies etc. but should we not wait for evidence before we judge?
What is 'scientific' or even remotely sensible in trying to refute arguments that have not been read?
I know we think we know what he will say and it will be nonsense but we need the evidence first. We seem to have come to a conclusion about this book without having looked at it.
We believe something about which we have no direct evidence.
Of what does this remind me?
That being said, his writing on science gives provides me with a glimpse of what to expect.
Can we all wait until Feb.1 and then get it for free, and read it, and THEN dissect it?

908. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113863 by Frankus1122 on January 20, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Theists reaction to the word 'atheist' is probably not so much to do with the atheists themselves as it is a threat to their belief system, which in many cases takes precedence over rational thought.

In a 2002 biography of Isaac Asimov by his wife, his belief was that "atheist" was too negative. He preferred "rationalist".

Countering these ill-informed claims, (something which proves to be laborious & time-consuming), with rationality and reasoned arguments is the best remedy.

I'm going with Rationalist.
My rational thought leads me to atheism. Atheism shuts down other peoples' minds and has, as mentioned, negative associations. Rationality on the other hand is harder to be against.
Steven Pinker has a view on this at the BigThink website.
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/1132

909. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #113023 by Frankus1122 on January 18, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Thank you George.
My father served with the RCAF, completing 35 raids over Germany. I'm not sure that I properly thanked him for what he did. I'd like to thank you for what you did and for what you are doing.
I wish you the best of luck.

910. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110735 by Frankus1122 on January 12, 2008 at 8:25 am

I really like Pinker's writing. He doesn't beat you over the head with his atheism (not "shrill" etc.) but puts forth his beliefs backed up with scientific research.
He is a 'Rationalist'. This is my choice for the alternative to 'Atheist' (the debate Sam Harris started).
With Pinker we get a man who does his work in science and the logical, rational, reasonable conclusions are put forth. The question of God is only casually disregarded.
His approach seems to be: 'Here are some ideas about how we work as humans and of course God has nothing to do with it', not 'God does not exist and these are reasons why'.
I know there is a battle going on. But it is a battle over how we think, not what we believe (or don't believe). Open inquiry can lead to such new discoveries as Pinker has outlined. Could such discoveries have occurred if we were closed to the idea that morality comes from anywhere other than God? No.
Is it possible that morality comes from God?
Sure. I'm open to that. Prove it.

911. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101875 by Frankus1122 on December 21, 2007 at 4:05 am

On the other hand, I think that singing carols on the express basis that "it's just a bit of fun, all this nonsense" is potentially a very powerful meme. It seems to me that RD is saying "of course we can all join in for a bit of seasonal amusement - everyone knows it's bollocks". Moreover, I think it is useful to show that atheism doesn't mean you have to be a bit of a Scrooge.

If all atheist sang Christmas carols in the way that we read stories about Zeus we could strengthen the meme. I believe we strengthen the Christian meme by not singing carols. We say, "Yours is a very powerful idea but we do not support it." Rather we should say, "Your story is interesting and you have some good songs to go along with it. I will sing your songs but I don't believe the message of the song."
We gain power over the message by appropriating the songs for our own secular purposes. We like them as songs because that's all they are. You may believe the messages in them are true but you are mistaken.
We need to treat nonsense as such. I will not lend power to the christian belief by refusing to sing.

But R. Morgan says

JOINING IN THE SINGING WOULD LABEL YOU AS A CHRISTIAN

in the same way wearing a pink shirt would label me as a gay man. It is shallow thinking to believe this.
This has really happened to me; that's why I use this analogy. There are a lot of stupid people in the world but I can't live my life by their rules.
And R. Morgan I did read your post to the end and it is a silly scenario. If someone is going to shoot me because they mistakenly believe that my actions label me as Christian...well, I might not sing. But only because I value my life. How you respond to someone who is not rational is different than how you respond to someone who is reasonable.
I think you need to read my post more carefully and the point I made in it to which you have not responded.


What is Wagner's Ring series about? Isn't it some sort of mythology about gods?

Should I not listen to Led Zeppelin because there is mention in one song of a 'Stairway to Heaven'? Do I label myself as a believer in heaven whenever I sing this song?
Nonsense!

912. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101548 by Frankus1122 on December 20, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Yes, this is a war, and we do need to stand up be counted.

For reason and sense.

If you were with a group of carol-singers, and masked men arrived brandishing long, sharp sabres and announced they were here to slay all the Christians they could find, when the singing started up again, would you still join in?

That's kind of a dumb scenario.
Are the sword brandishers reasonable people? Not likely judging by their behaviour. But if so, I could explain that I like the music but I am not a Christian. If you can't understand that then there can be no discourse.
There are fundamental freedoms at stake here. How can you allow yourself to be ruled by the misconceptions of others?
If I wear a pink shirt and some idiot thinks I am gay because of the colour of my shirt...what do I do? Do I stop wearing pink shirts?
Christians are not the "enemy"; nonesense is.

913. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101507 by Frankus1122 on December 20, 2007 at 1:04 pm

I can't - or won't- let others' beliefs determine my behaviour. I will act as I see fit. I will use my intelligence to determine the best course of action for myself.
I sing because I like the sound of the song. I sing "Christ our saviour is born" because I love the soaring voices.
I like the story. It is extremely powerful: God so loves the world that he sacrifices his only son (who is also himself) in order for humans to atone for some 'sin'.
Think about giving someone who has wronged you a way out - a way to get back in your good books because, despite the harm they did you, you still love them. In fact you love them so much that you are willing to sacrifice a part of yourself so you can be together again.
It's a cool story.
We can probably take all kinds of wonderful messages from the stories of gods. There is a lot of wacky stuff in there too. But there can be no doubt that we have created some wonderful visual and musical art to go along with our narratives. I look on the Christmas carols as part of the wonderful art that surrounds the god-fiction.
I will not not sing carols because someone else believes the stories they are about to be true. That is like me giving in to someone else's silly beliefs.
No.

914. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101436 by Frankus1122 on December 20, 2007 at 11:09 am

And I am not saying that a man on a diet should not eat a Mars bar. They might well be able to rationalize it. What I saying is that they may do damage to their reputation as a dieter

There is a difference between a man on a diet eating a Mars bar and an atheist sing a Christmas carol.
It has to do with the fiction of the subject of the song. A man on a diet could appreciate the taste and feel of a Mars bar in his mouth without going off his diet just as an atheist could appreciate the melody of a song without believing in the message it conveys.
If the dieter eats the Mars bar then he has fudged a bit on his diet. If an atheist believes that "Christ our saviour is born" he has fudged a bit on his atheism.
You can appreciate the beauty of a painting of Apollo without believing in Apollo as something that is real.
My reputation is not entirely in my hands. There are many things that I do that foolish people will interpret incorrectly. Lots of people believe nonsense. As long as I am true to my beliefs I can't really help what others think. If someone suggests that I support the belief in Christianity by singing carols I suppose I would have to explain that I do not; I merely like the sound of the songs.

915. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101400 by Frankus1122 on December 20, 2007 at 10:04 am

It's Drama set to music - Enjoy!

The willing suspension of disbelief.
If it is a fiction and we know it to be such then we can enjoy it as such.
I like murder mysteries. I'm not in favour of real murders. Do I send out the wrong message by reading them? If someone wishes to interpret my reading murder mysteries as my tacit support of murder they are wrong.
While I can understand that for the believer, the Christmas carol is an expression of truth, it is not for me.
I enjoy Star Trek but I do not think Romulans are real nor will I be putting on pointy ears and going to a convention anytime soon. However, even if I did I still would not believe Romulans are real. Anyone who would think I did would be wrong.
I enjoy Christmas carols (sometimes). Anyone who thinks I believe the message is wrong.
I will do what I want. People will misinterpret. Will I care? No.
I can't be responsible for others' ignorance.

916. Golden Compass

Comment #97797 by Frankus1122 on December 12, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Oh! The link is good.

917. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97749 by Frankus1122 on December 12, 2007 at 3:19 pm

To the woman apparently caught in the act of adultery by the self-righteous religious leaders, Jesus said. "Neither do I condemn you

From my understanding this passage of the Bible only appeared after 1000AD. It appears in the margin of one text around that time - and never before - and then afterward it appears in the Bible proper.
How do we interpret this bit of historical fact?
Did god 'forget' to 'inspire' someone earlier to include it?

Kris, it is stuff like this that must lead you to the conclusion that the Bible is made up. It may have a lot of wonderful ideas in it but it is not divinely inspired. We made it. The ideas come from us. All of them. The good and the bad. We decide what is good and what is bad.

918. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97742 by Frankus1122 on December 12, 2007 at 3:08 pm

but why should getting to know God be easy

Why should it be hard?

You beat me to it.

Why is god so mean? By mean I mean unkind. I know god is supposed to be love and all but why does he do things or allow things to happen which, if done by anyone else, wouold be considered mean? I know god doesn't play by our rules but what rules does he play by? His own I suppose. But he doesn't let us know what His rules are. He seems to be like the school-yard bully who makes up the rules to suit himself.
Why doesn't god's justice resemble our (human) justice? Why doesn't god's mercy resemble our mercy? Why does god make things so hard for us?
Why am I asking questions about the nature of something that was made up and continues to be made up anew each time a new person thinks about it.
There are 30,000 Christian sects because each of them make up new stuff. It is literary criticism gone wild.

919. Believe it or not

Comment #97713 by Frankus1122 on December 12, 2007 at 2:38 pm

The law is on MY SIDE.

I like that. You have rationality and logic and reason on your side too.
Do not submit. You are right.

920. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97704 by Frankus1122 on December 12, 2007 at 2:31 pm

As for Shariah>

I should post this on the article about the girl who was killed by her father for not wearing the burka but I am here now:
The premiere of Ontario wanted to introduce Sharia law into the Ontario court system. Imagine that playing out.

We don't have to ban the Koran just ridicule it into submission. The Koran is fine except for all the nonsensical parts.

921. Believe it or not

Comment #97677 by Frankus1122 on December 12, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I vote for Rationalist.
Doesn't everyone think of themselves as rational? So if you are against rationality what are you? Religious?
As Sam Harris said, if you tell someone you are an atheist it tends to be a conversation stopper. They do not listen to you beyond that point. Every argument you may make would be because you are an atheist. However, if you tell someone you are a Rationalist then you might get a different reaction. You may get a conversation going.

"I understand that you believe in the story of Noah's ark. How does that make sense? Because if you think about it rationaly, it doesn't fit in with the rest of the things you know to be true."

We use rationality and logic to make sense of every other aspect of our lives. We go with the best available evidence or information. We can be wrong sometimes but this is usually a result of too little information. As a Rationalist I choose to do the same with respect to the question of god.

If we are atheists then they are theists. That is okay with them. If we are Rationalists then they are Irrationalists? Arationalists? I can't see being comfortable with that.
What could their argument be? I am clear thinking and rational about every aspect of my life except this one. About a question so fundamental and profound I choose to not think very hard. I'll believe on shakey evidence.

922. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96608 by Frankus1122 on December 10, 2007 at 6:45 pm

"Chennelle and Houser have been fighting back with prayer."

Yeah, that'll work!

No.

It won't.

Really.
They've done tests and stuff. Seriously. Prayer doesn't work.
Trust me.

923. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96581 by Frankus1122 on December 10, 2007 at 6:24 pm

I saw it with my class today. No one backed out or said they couldn't go. The general reaction was that they did not like the movie because it was not the book. There were too many parts left out and the parts that were left in were skimmed over. It looked good, but the story was not all there.
There were whiffs of objections from the class before seeing the movie about the 'controversy'.
The theme of the movie regarding the questioning of the Authority is not one to shy away from. It really bothers me that some people are afraid to ask questions. The idea that there are ideas that should not be thought is beyond stupid. Willful ignorance is the one thing that infuriates me. I mean it gets me really angry.
"I don't know and I don't want to know."
What do you do with that? You can't reason them out of it because they have said they are not willing to be reasonable.
That makes me think violent thoughts.

I have to go calm down now.

924. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #96002 by Frankus1122 on December 9, 2007 at 4:59 pm

I think "religion" is a huge misdirection. Everytime I hear that word from now on, I'm gonna say, "You don't mean 'religion.' You mean, truth claims without any corroborative evidence to back them up."

I like this. It is a bit like Sam Harris's wish to abandon "atheist" as a nomenclature. I am not an atheist I am just a person who goes with the best available evidence. I am a sound thinker. I am rational. I am reasonable. How about you?

925. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95609 by Frankus1122 on December 8, 2007 at 6:41 pm

I understand that the "One nation under God" thing came into being in the US in the 50s to distinguish them from the godless commies. However, if their constitution requires a separation of church and state how can they force children in school to say this?
I think there is a really big problem with this Romney guy. I see him as setting the stage for a theocracy.
No, I can't really see that happening. There are too many denominations. They sort of have a wishy-washy Christian influenced theocracy now. I see him as trying real hard to strengthen it. I see a nation where you need to have faith in order to be a citizen. Isn't that what Bush the First said? Wasn't he the one who introduced Romney the other day?
Yuck.

926. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94843 by Frankus1122 on December 6, 2007 at 7:16 pm

"Festivus for the rest of us."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQFLqMyo0fo

It's kinda lame but I like the spirit of inventing your own made-up festival. However, I don't like the bandwagon aspect.
I am making my own festival at this time of year: Frankivus.
It is a lot like Christmas. We have a tree and presents and a big dinner with friends and family. We have drinks as we sit around the fireplace and listen to music. We go tobogganing down the hill and skating on the pond. It is all very nice.
I encourage you to try it.

927. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93830 by Frankus1122 on December 4, 2007 at 9:17 am

It is interesting to see that there can be differences of opinion about this, and no real harm is done with the teasing that is going on. It is a work of FICTION. We all recognize it as such. But if someone was to slip over the edge and BELIEVE that it was TRUE...

I don't know; this reminds me of something.

How dare you say Lyra is vile! You deserve 40 lashes or a prison term. If I ever see you in the street I will behead you myself!

928. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93620 by Frankus1122 on December 3, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Poor old God. I kind of feel sorry for the old bastard. He reminds me of Aqualung.

929. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #93258 by Frankus1122 on December 2, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Although my wife objects, I've renamed my penis.

That was going to be my post and then I saw:

"What? You mean I can't call my penis, Mohammad?" text

Great or silly minds....

930. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91776 by Frankus1122 on November 29, 2007 at 8:21 am

Thank you to all who offered advice. I have taken your comments and read the linked pages and I have done some thinking. I'm okay.
I'm going the critical thinking route. Also, it is part of my curriculum. They need to see the movie in order to compare it to the book as part of of Media Literacy (which is part of the curriculum in Ontario).
I don't think not seeing the movie is defensible on any religious or rational grounds. I don't think it will come to this but if parents do not want their children to see the movie they will have to take it to the school board. As far as I am concerned they have to see it because they will have assignments based on seeing it.
I think it will be fine. I'm not too concerned. If there are any interesting developments I'll post.
Thanks again for the advice.

931. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91250 by Frankus1122 on November 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm

I am a grade 7 teacher. We studied this novel in class this term. I plan to take my class to the movie on Dec. 14. When I was handing out the permission forms today, one student said she couldn't go because her pastor wouldn't let her. I asked her why and she said, "It is the antichrist."
"What does that mean?"
"I don't know."
I have to be sort of careful about what I say. I asked her if her pastor thought it was okay for her to think for herself or did she have to follow everything he says because she is a sheep. She looked at me funny.
There are others in the class who are 'Christians'. I have parent-teacher interviews on Thursday night.
Can anyone help me? What do I say to these people?
I liked this line:

It's nice to know that Catholic faith is so vulnerable that a children's book can destroy it.

I was thinking something along these lines: Surely your child's faith is strong enough to withstand mild questioning. It can only make him stronger if he has true faith.
I don't know what angle I should take. This is a parent-teacher interview. I don't want to tell them that I think that their faith is really not well founded in reason or logic of any kind. At least not directly. I want to try to emphasize that I try to teach the student how to develop higher order thinking skills. They need to know the facts and then we can analyze and synthesize and come to some conclusions. They need to be able to evaluate information and beliefs. They need to become critical thinkers. I think I am going to have a hard time not slipping into..." and therefore your belief system just doesn't stand up to the tests. Sorry about that."
Help.

932. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87300 by Frankus1122 on November 11, 2007 at 5:39 pm

For the longest time in Toronto there was a sign just off the Gardiner Expressway that read:

Need God? Call Jim
555-1782

I looked for an image of it but I can't find one.

933. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86621 by Frankus1122 on November 9, 2007 at 6:05 pm

I just bought a book about world religions for my library at school. It is a beautiful book. There are astounding photos of all sorts of strange costumes and bizarre practices. The text also outlines some of the beliefs of the various major religions. It is my hope the students see that all religions are beautiful in many ways. And that they are all nutty in many ways.
It seems perfectly fine to advocate that you should be kind to other people and try to help them and be charitable.
But you must never cut your hair and you have to wear a funny hat and never sit in a chair a menstruating woman has sat in. Um, that I am not so sure about.
How about we are nice to each other and only wear funny hats if we feel like it?

934. Fox News Discussion on 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #86615 by Frankus1122 on November 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm

How about a call to boycott all movies that promote a belief in imaginary beings? Seriously, what is more harmful?

935. Fox News Discussion on 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #85936 by Frankus1122 on November 7, 2007 at 2:11 pm

I have booked my class to see the film December 14. We have read the first novel together and I have several copies of the last two in the library. We have had lively discussions around the nature of "Dust" / sin and the role of religion in our lives. We have also talked about the 'controversy' surrounding the movie. I have a lot of devout Christian children (11-12 year olds) in my class. I have received one email from a parent linking me to an online article about the 'controversy'. Her only comment was "You have probably already seen this but here is the link anyway."
I haven't sent home the permission forms to see the movie yet (too busy), but it will be interesting to see if I get any rejections. I'm not sure how I will handle this. I try to promote open questioning. I don't believe anyone should be prevented from being exposed to ideas. It certainly seems Fox and the Catholic Church are of this opinion. It may be some of the parents do. We'll see.

936. Go Ahead, Rationalize. Monkeys Do It, Too

Comment #85921 by Frankus1122 on November 7, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I was taking Bonzai's piece of writing and looking at it from a Christian/religious point of view. I inserted 'athieism/ non-belief' in for 'religion/belief'. I misssed the 'faith' in the last line. The point was it is really easy to be blind to other viewpoints. Could a Christain say what Bonzai said, just reversing the viewpoint? Would it make sense to a Christian to say what I said?

937. Go Ahead, Rationalize. Monkeys Do It, Too

Comment #85659 by Frankus1122 on November 6, 2007 at 5:43 pm

"We won't go very far in understanding why some people need atheism if we focus just on its truth claim and logic. The truth claim is part of the rationalization. With luck you may persuade a non-believer to switch to more sophisticated and convoluted way to justify his non-belief but you will never persuade him to get rid of it through logical argumentation. Atheist belief penetrates much deeper beneath the intellectual level, its root resides in the chaotic and messy part of the psyche where reason is only a dim light. In order for someone to abandon his atheism, something has to happen to erode his faith at the "gut" level."

This is a bit of fun on my part. But it may lend some further insight.

938. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85383 by Frankus1122 on November 5, 2007 at 4:38 pm

The article was good for me.
No complaints.
I like Kelly.
(blush)

939. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84347 by Frankus1122 on November 1, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Most religions have some version of the Golden Rule (treat others how you wish to be treated). I'm okay with this aspect of religion. I wish it was the supreme driving force of all religions; and that the religious stopped there.
I think most of our laws ought to be guided by the Golden Rule. I want to live in a society where people are required only to follow this basic belief system.
I have no problem with the Phelps believing what they do, and posting their beliefs on their website and standing in a public square saying whatever they want. I can ignore them, or dismiss them as hateful loonies, or be offended by what they say. I can hate what they say but defend their right to say it.
But let's get real about the situation: their intention is to cause harm. All the cases that gr8hands listed above as not covered by the US 1st Amendment are situations where harm is done.
Someone else said we can't just make it up as we go along. But we do. As a society, we find certain things are so egregious that we do not want to allow them. They cause harm.
I do not want to limit free speech to only that which is non-offensive to me. I can handle people putting forth ideas that I believe are absurd. This is more than that.
How would you feel if your child was the one being buried and the Phelps showed up? My immediate gut reaction was akin to the first few posters. I wouldn't be merely offended.
They were judged by a jury of their peers (representing society as a whole) to have done something that causes harm. The money they had to pay was to prevent others from doing something similar.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we collectively decide what is right. We agree that it is right to allow people to express their beliefs, no matter how whacky but some things are really not right. We decide.

940. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83351 by Frankus1122 on October 29, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Crazymalc:
Patrick was the gay one.

I have been teaching this book to grade seven students for a few years now. I am particularly excited that the film is coming out this year. We have a class trip planned to see it when it comes out. However, I do have some fairly religious kids in my class. I wonder if the press attention will get the parents' knickers in a knot.
One of the things I find very useful with this book is it gets the students to think in ways they perhaps haven't before. I try to push them into higher levels of thinking. The characters are complex. It forces the students to critically evaluate the characters motivations. Mrs. Coulter is a pretty bad person, but is she wholly evil? The same goes for Asriel. People's beliefs cause them to do some very nasty things in this book. Is this true of our world?
There is a question raised in this book that I have been pondering for a while: Original sin is the knowledge of good and evil. Is that right? It was wrong for us to disobey god and because of that we know what is good and what is bad. So knowledge is bad - sinful. Ignorance is bliss.
That isn't really a question but it doesn't sit right with me. I don't get it. If I don't get it, I question why.

941. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82558 by Frankus1122 on October 26, 2007 at 5:38 pm

ride the small bus to school

BRMan, you are wicked. You will go to hell for saying this and I will be there with you for laughing so hard.

942. Atheists aren't a bad lot

Comment #80711 by Frankus1122 on October 22, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Riley,
Care to comment?
Dr. Benway made mention of the forest. I think we are getting a good view of it now.

943. Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

Comment #80710 by Frankus1122 on October 22, 2007 at 6:16 pm

everyone is related to everyone else by some degree

2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,... etc.

64 generations of non-related individuals would give us this number:

18,446,744,073,709,551,615.

That many people have not existed.
Therefore we are all related in some way.

944. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80308 by Frankus1122 on October 21, 2007 at 9:08 am

This whole thread I think serves as a lesson in pack-minded profiling and the knee jerk emotional reaction people instinctively feel when their pack leader (e.g. Hitchens) gets attacked.

I was thinking along these lines as well. I was part of the knee jerk reaction. I came to see your point midway through a post and said so. There have been excellent counter-arguments looking more broadly at the 'challenge'.

I would be interested in seeing an analysis of the type of arguments in this thread.

There are many here who 'believe' in their disbelief, and as a result are preemptively dismissive of challenges. I would like to point out, however, that there seems to be more of an openness to be persuaded by argument in this forum than you would be likely to find on a Christian site.

It has been interesting and fun. Thanks.

945. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80084 by Frankus1122 on October 19, 2007 at 10:26 pm

If the targets of the Hitchens Challenge have never asserted this claim, then you must acknowledge that the Hitchens Challenge relies on a false premise.That's the whole point!

That is not the point at all. It may be your point but it is not the point of the challenge.

The only claim that Christians make is that God is the source of our goodness (as irrational as that claim is, that is the claim).

That is the point.

Christians claim that I can't be good without God. I can be good without believing in God but that is only because I have a "God-given knowledge of right and wrong."

Where do I get this "God-given knowledge"? Is it from the Bible? That can't be because I read many things in the Bible that I believe are bad. Things that god has done and sanctioned in the Bible are bad (according to the moral compass he has given me). Has God given me knowledge of good and evil that leads me to believe he is evil? God has put a moral compass in me that points to him being a bad god. That is stupid.

That is the point.
.....

You know what? I am beginning to understand what you are getting at: Christians claim that we can all do good things, believers and non-believers, because God has given us the gift of knowing what is good and what is bad. Just because you are a non-believer does not make you incapable of goodness. No Christian ever claimed this. Hitchens is bad for challenging Christians or believers of any sort to give an example of goodness or kindness that could only come from a believer. We can all do good -thanks to God.
No. Not thanks to God. Because of the problem of the evil that comes from belief. Really really bad stuff can happen because you believe. Belief in God poisons everything.

We do good in spite of God not because of God.

That's the point.

I am rambling a bit here. It is 1:30 AM. I am off to bed.

946. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80070 by Frankus1122 on October 19, 2007 at 8:18 pm

name a moral act that believers are capable of performing that non-believers are not capable of performing.

Whenever Hitchens has made this challenge it is in response to, or a pre-emptive strike against the "If we don't get our morality from God then where do we get it from? There is no moral foundation without God." idea. This idea has come up in virtually every Christian response to Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins. It has been answered again and again and again. The Hitchens challenge is an answer to this belief.

Riley's claim:

The Hitchens Challenge relies on that false claim about the Christian faith.

is false.

Christians have never asserted that believers are capable of performing moral acts that non-believers are incapable of performing.

That may be. However, the challenge is an ANSWER to 'we need God to have a moral compass. The Bible provides us with that moral compass. It is from the Bible- the Word of God- that we are told what is right and wrong action.' If Riley claims that this has not been asserted by Christians I will provide links where this claim is made.


Hitchens challenge is saying we do not derive our morality from the Bible or the Koran or God. It is obvious that all people can act in ways that are good. We can be good without God.
Hitchens goes on to say that horrendous acts are committed in the name of God. We can be good without God, but it takes belief in God to crash a plane into a building or blow yourself up in a marketplace.
I don't agree with the latter part of his claim. There are lots of crazy beliefs that cause us to do bad things.

I'll have some tea now good Doctor.

947. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79292 by Frankus1122 on October 16, 2007 at 6:31 pm

McGrath is a fart.
An insubstantial bad smelling vapour coming from the rotten and shitty ideas of the bowels of the body of the church.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't get it. I don't understand what the religious are saying. I listen hard and I sort of get a point but it is always unclear; fuzzy. Are they saying this? Or are they saying that?
On the other hand, how can one fail to understand the clear and lucid arguments put forth by Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins?
Clarity vs. Obfuscation.
"Have faith in the preserving alive of the soul." Romans 10:39
What the fuck does that mean?

948. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79275 by Frankus1122 on October 16, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Zero, your "monsterously long url"
has been changed to:
http://tinyurl.com/ytf46q
The site: http://tinyurl.com turns your 'monster' into... well, a tiny url.
It's off topic but perhaps helpful -especially if you need to give someone a link in print. Web based links aren't such a problem.

949. The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

Comment #77567 by Frankus1122 on October 9, 2007 at 5:31 pm

the proper place of religion in public schools.

Didn't Daniel Dennet suggest that the proper place of religion in public schools was to teach it as a course of study? If we teach the tenets of Christianity and Islam and Pastafarianism, and look at the effects of relgion on society, and ask questions about where the religious impulse come from, we might see some serious thinking about the subject.
I think there is great value in getting religion into the public school system - not to promote it as truth but to hold it up as an object of study. When people begin to look at religion from outside of the bubble it quickly becomes apparent how silly it is.

950. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76123 by Frankus1122 on October 4, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Christianity may be on the decline but, worryingly, Islam is on the rise.
Can talking about religion bring out "closet atheists" in the Islamic world? I don't think so. But maybe there are no atheists in places like Iran; we know there are no gays there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI