51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171359 by Elli on April 28, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Dick, as it happens I am Jewish and a scholar of the Hebrew language (at least, I studied it for 14 years, including ancient Hebrew, although not at a University level). "Yom" does not mean era or age or stage. It means day. Sunset to sunset. It is used consistently in this context throughout all historical Hebrew documents.

In case you are wondering, my name is one of the great ironies about me, given I am an atheist. For those wondering, it means "my god".

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171343 by Elli on April 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Whilst I do not personally respect any flag, nor do I see any reason to arbitrarily exalt symbols of any kind, I do recognize that many people do find certain symbols important to them, whether for rational reasons or otherwise, and I personally would respect that. For example, I wouldn't personally photograph myself in sexual congress with a baby jesus, nor would I photograph myself defecating on a photograph of Martin Luther King. I would consider that this would likely be very offensive to many people, and therefore not the kind of free speech I personally want to engage in. Although I hasten to add that I would most certainly fight with my life for the right of anyone to express themselves in such a way if they so choose to do so. And we must also recognise that many people have a different opinion on what it means to express themselves with pride in regards to their country of origin (or country of residence). The lovely gentleman lying on Carto's flag may have felt full of love and honour for his country whilst in that pose. To him, it may have been the ultimate expression of patriotism. Far be it from I to judge how someone should or should not express their love for their country - or indeed their derision. Part of being a valuable member of a democracy is knowing the importance of protest.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171318 by Elli on April 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Dick, it was a serious question. I am sincerely fascinated as to whether it is indeed possible to reconcile the facts of evolution with a belief in an interventionist god (I use the word interventionist to distinguish here from a god which merely sets the universe starting with its physical laws and sits on her hands). For what it is worth, I think it is impossible to reconcile the two. So I would be interested to know how you do so. Perhaps you could sway my mind.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171238 by Elli on April 28, 2008 at 11:39 am

Dick,

how do you reconcile your belief in a judeo-islamic-christian god with your understanding of evolution? Or are you a deist?

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171217 by Elli on April 28, 2008 at 11:23 am

Dick: "There are no atheists in foxholes"

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169594 by Elli on April 26, 2008 at 11:33 am

Remnant said:

Anyway, one of the big sticking points for these secular scientists is the something from nothing thingy. They have to find a way around this at all costs. Anything goes as long as it is not associated with God. They have to find a way for something to begin to exist from nothing.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169137 by Elli on April 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Rev Dark - I want that parrot !!
That was brilliant.

Remnant: Flood?

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169125 by Elli on April 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Stuart Paul Wood just became my favourite person.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169096 by Elli on April 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Quetz said: Elli-
you should be flattered that he's picked you out to be insulted. You must be getting to him.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169061 by Elli on April 25, 2008 at 2:30 pm

4471. Comment #169037 by TheTruthID on April 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm:

Hey Elli,
Nice prom picture. You must of been Home Coming Pig.

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169034 by Elli on April 25, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Very proud to be an animal. Much better then being a vegetable like Remnant.

Flood?

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169001 by Elli on April 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Remnant, you should read those articles you cited more critically. For example, Trevor Loudon of "New Zeal" has a very different definition of "left" and "right" then is traditionally used. He defines the spectrum as being collectivism on one end and individualism on the other, from "left" to "right".

You're just revealing your own vacuousness here.

63. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166677 by Elli on April 23, 2008 at 11:27 am

TTID: Why won't you answer Epeeist's questions?

64. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166564 by Elli on April 23, 2008 at 9:58 am

thetruthid: if you are going to claim things are impossible, please learn how to spell the word.

Aside: what is it with fundamentalists and using all-caps? Is there some sort of syntax guide they give out in churches or something?

65. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165908 by Elli on April 22, 2008 at 3:07 pm

chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm: "When we all get to heaven, I'll say, "I told you so!"..."

If you are so sure heaven exists then why are you wasting all this time maintaining your life? Why do you cry at funerals? What was so wrong about the holocaust for you? - were not these people just given the chance to arrive in paradise just that much sooner... believing in a post-life heaven is nothing but a cult of death. It is a thoroughly detestable notion.

66. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165292 by Elli on April 21, 2008 at 9:56 am

William Sierichs Jr., that was an excellent post by you. How anyone can attempt to claim that the anti-semitism that motivated the holocaust was from any other source then christianity is beyond me.

67. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162906 by Elli on April 17, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Brilliant!

This is why I love this site!

68. Fleabytes

Comment #150902 by Elli on March 27, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Al, don't you mean FINRA?
"NASD" is so last season!

69. Expelled Overview

Comment #149425 by Elli on March 25, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Thanks to Josh for that review.
I shudder to think if, being in that theatre, I would have been able to keep my composure - or my blood pressure at healthy levels!

70. Fleabytes

Comment #147876 by Elli on March 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Comment #147872 by Artful_Dodger:

History is littered with examples. Where do you want me to start? Which failed utopia would you like me to refer you to?

71. EXPELLED!

Comment #147826 by Elli on March 21, 2008 at 11:34 am

This is from the Amused Muse blog, from one of the gentleman who was in line:

Blogger Rev. Barking Nonsequitur said...

Expelled was shown at the Mall of America multiplex.

For the record - and Kristine and I witnessed the whole thing, PZ was approached as he was in line and pulled aside by an officer and was told "Sir, we got a call from the producer that you must leave the premises". PZ was making the rounds talking to Dawkins and other Atheists in the line. He came up to Kristine and I and told us he was being kicked out. At that point the officer pulled him aside and said "Sir unless you have a ticket to see another show in this theater you are to leave immediately". PZ did not argue or anything he just said he would go and he did. He was NOT bothering anyone, just talking to friends in line. It was cowardly for Mathis not to ask PZ to leave himself.

72. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145260 by Elli on March 17, 2008 at 12:29 pm

al-rawandi,

I must admit I had always just assumed one side of this issue was right and the other wrong. It wasn't that I chose to not think about the issues - but I don't think I was very frequently contemplating the correct data. From both sides, there is so much "information" that is spurious, deceitful, invented etc. Recently I am finding myself re-evaluating what I had previous considered to be "obviously" the case. One thing is for sure, things would be a lot more resolvable if the nut-cases from *both* sides removed themselves from the conflict (however impossible that would be). The fundamentalist Jews involved in the conflict are every bit as culpable as their Palestinian counterparts - however different their political "strategies" may appear on the surface.

73. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145250 by Elli on March 17, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Here is the difference. Shaykh Ahmed Yassin, head of Hamas until his assassination said that all Jews who could trace ancestry to Palestine before 1948 would be allowed to stay in the Palestinian State, once Israel was destroyed.

There is not one Jewish Fundamentalist would even entertain the notion of an Arab presence in Eretz Yisroel.

74. Fleabytes

Comment #143814 by Elli on March 14, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Paula: Good to hear from you, Elli - haven't seen you around for ages!

75. Fleabytes

Comment #143670 by Elli on March 14, 2008 at 9:45 am

Paula, your story just made me emit a sullen and involuntary "aaawwwwhhhhh". I am for some reason very emotional this afternoon.

76. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138515 by Elli on March 4, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Shakes head...

77. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #124104 by Elli on February 8, 2008 at 11:17 am

Jackson says that Hitchens talks of the bad parts of the Bible, but ignores the good parts. He even cites lovely passages from Leviticus (eg 19:34), and chastises Hitchens for only focusing on the "worst, vindicative, violent" aspects of Leviticus. My mind immediately turned to the following saying:

"mix 9 pounds of honey with one pound of shit and what do you get? 10 pounds of shit."

78. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95085 by Elli on December 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

Jesus had a brother James? I wonder if he ever got jealous that his father was playing favourites. I mean that's a pretty tough gig. "So James, your telling me you want to be a column builder eh? Why can't you be more like your brother... being a god not good enough for you is it?"

79. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86473 by Elli on November 9, 2007 at 11:02 am

It may not disprove the experience, but an understanding of how the brain can deceive us certainly changes ones perspective, for example, fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

80. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84217 by Elli on November 1, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Realize that this is not about 1st amendment issues and the criminality or otherwise of the speech. It is a well established intentional tort. It is not the speech that is relevant but the intention to cause emotional damage. We can argue whether the elements of the tort were met, and the nexus between causation and what was reasonably foreseeable, and the appropriateness of the damages, but not about first amendment issues. Or maybe I am missing something (been a while since I studied torts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress

81. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79439 by Elli on October 17, 2007 at 8:59 am

Famed market researcher George Barna ominously warns Christians: "The new evangelists are atheists."

82. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79145 by Elli on October 16, 2007 at 9:53 am

Sad.

Society really does need to teach more reason and critical thinking in schools.

83. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77403 by Elli on October 9, 2007 at 7:56 am

IanG, thank you for your brilliant post. I am in total agreement with your comments. Bravo.

84. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76875 by Elli on October 7, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Some comic relief perhaps...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrShK-NVMIU

85. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75327 by Elli on October 2, 2007 at 10:50 am

I think it is sometimes perceived by rational people that the jewish lobby in the US has disproportionate influence demographically speaking, but I do not personally feel it is against the interests of society as a whole. For example, the NRA is a wonderful example of disproportionate influence to the detriment of society, but the jewish lobby in the US mostly argues in favour of socially beneficial politics. let us not forget that Israel is a free democracy with a terrific record of equality to women, secular values and scientific research. It has very controversial military policy, but the society itself, and the democracy itself, is one to be admired in the region it is in. I have always felt that pro Israel is a pro secular democratic stance. Having said that, I am an issue voter, not a party voter, so I would never favour Israel as a general rule - but I typically find that the jewish lobby campaigns for good secular values - with a few exceptions. It is also fairly clear that the jewish lobby is not a religious one at all, unlike the evangelical lobby, and the influential members of this lobby are not religious at all, nor is religion a primary concern (or even a concern at all). Religious jews in the US are a tiny minority of jews with very little influence on anything outside the price of kosher gefilte fish.

Nick raises a very good counterpoint regarding the lobbies of Saudi et al, especially on the Bush governments (father and son).

Perhaps I am wrong and the US being so strongly allied with Israel is in fact due to dodgy dealings under the table by powerful jewish influences etc. But my better judgement tells me it is more to do with Israel being a society which fully represents the US ideals of freedom, equality and democracy, in a region where the US desperately needs to maintain influence for a variety of reasons, with oil likely headlining the list. But perhaps I am wrong. It would not be the first time.

86. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75056 by Elli on October 1, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Northern Bright, that is how I read it too. I think Nick raises a valid point here, and I understood his reference to his foreskin to merely be an attempt to humourously point out that he has not taken umbrage with the Professor's statement out of feelings of personal offence or bias.

Nick, I try and read everything Professor Dawkins writes and also try and catch most of his spoken appearences, and I honestly can not say he ever approaches anything like a prejudice towards jews - other than the very sensible prejudice which I also hold towards the jewish religion itself - being an atheist and all that jazz. These words of his do hint at holding the incorrect position that the jews of America have control over elements of the US government (often extended to the media) - but I think this is a commonly held (albeit erroneous) position - and Professor Dawkins raised the point not to assert that he himself holds that position but to highlight the broader point that an atheist lobby could in fact have tremendous influence if it was formalised in some way. I am in New York at the moment and I watched Bill Maher on TV a while ago where he said basically the same thing - that 1 in 5 American's claim to be non believers of some sort and the vote-seeking politicians would be wiser to listen to the desires of this lobby then in fact any other minority group, be they ethnic groups or alternate sexuality groups etc. Non believers can in fact have tremendous influence on public policy if the cats can be herded in some way, so to speak.

My conclusion was it was a poor choice of analogy and not representative of Dawkins' actual opinion.

87. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66605 by Elli on August 30, 2007 at 3:20 pm

It was just that you spoke about your god in such paternal terms. I was wondering whether part of your faith was the desire for a surrogate father figure who will look after you, provide guidance and absolve responsibility.

Then again - I think most believer's may feel this way irrespective of their own personal familial background. Likely a big reason the church has been successful is in painting god in this way.

You should read Sam Harris' article which touches on Mother Teresa amongst other things. You may find it compelling - it certainly argues all the things I would like to say a lot better then I ever could. My gifts are in singing, not in writing...

The article: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1581,The-Sacrifice-of-Reason,Sam-Harris-On-Faith#66602

88. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66603 by Elli on August 30, 2007 at 3:12 pm

One further comment, you have referenced 'logic' a few times so does it not strike you as a logical impossibility for god to be personally interested in everyone's lives? I mean, for each victor in any scenario, there is also a loser. You are in business, so cast your mind back to first year economics, and concepts of equilibrium. Well, how do you logically rationalize a god that is interested in all of his/her creations? - is every person's gain a reward balanced by another's loss and punishment? god loves the young boy saved from the floods of New Orleans, but does god hate all the victims and their families?

I can see how sentiment can bring you to a response to this, but how does logic and reason enter into it? I propose it simply can not.

89. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66597 by Elli on August 30, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Lane,

Don't feel you have to answer this as it is personal, but do you mind sharing with me whether or not your father was around for you during your childhood and/or during your more desperate times you referred to earlier?

Forgive me if I am being too impetuous here. I am also of (or around) Quetz's age, so I am sometimes prone to over-assertiveness.

90. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66582 by Elli on August 30, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Where would I go to pick up that glory?

That is my real problem with devoting my life to this human existence. It's not meaningful enough. It all ends and then there is just nothing

91. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66557 by Elli on August 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Many people have been at the depths of despair and at the lowest point imagineable, downtrodden and out of money, friends and willpower. And many have been able to elevate themselves and their lives to great accomplishments. Many of these people have done so without any deference to the supernatural. If they can, then you could have. I see no reason why you should be any less qualified then they. In my view it strips our human dignity to credit an invisible father figure for what should be recognized as our own accomplishments.

I appreciate your courage to come on a site such as this and share your stories and feelings, however many will take umbrage at the assertion that you desire to "get others to understand it enough to act on it". It shows that Dr. Benway's observations are spot on (as usual).

92. The importance of doubt

Comment #66544 by Elli on August 30, 2007 at 11:19 am

Pwned!

93. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66543 by Elli on August 30, 2007 at 11:09 am

Lane, thank you for sharing your journey.

All I would like to say is that I personally think you should give *yourself* more credit. It appears you have transformed your life from something which you found unsatisfactory into something of significance, value and fulfillment. If you believe this was due to supernatural guidance then so be it. I will, with your permission, honour *you* for the choices you made and applaud *your* courage and determination to forge a successful life for yourself and your family.

I see no reason why your virtues should be cheapened by the introduction of the supernatural.

94. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66242 by Elli on August 29, 2007 at 12:33 pm

My apologies lane,

Sometimes it is really difficult to determine if someone is sincere in their religious beliefs or just being satirical. This website gets a bit of both. You are certainly most welcome (by me) to post your insights.

I am always fascinated by the observation that some people can happily assume things as being true without ever asking themselves how they know these things.

"Why? because it's a bypass, you gotta build bypasses".

People assume Mother Teresa did a lot of good deeds, but upon investigation of the actual reality, it is not the truth.

People say things like "god loves you" based on the assumption that (a) god exists and (b) they personally know the mind of this god. Rarely do people ask themselves "hang on, how do I know this?". Those that do often end up being freeing themselves from the intellectual shackles of theism.

Hume once said: "Nothing is more surprising than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few."

Similarly, nothing is more surprising to me, then the ease with which the minds of many are governed by the supposed authority of the few. Arguments from authority, arguments from tradition, arguments from popularity... they always fail.

In the Old Testament there is the quote: "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue". I prefer "evidence, evidence shalt thou pursue."
____

Hume also said: "The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one."

95. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66213 by Elli on August 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

Lane, you're having us on, surely?

96. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65229 by Elli on August 23, 2007 at 8:45 am

Bueller?...Bueller?...Bueller?...

97. Enemies of Reason

Comment #64974 by Elli on August 22, 2007 at 2:17 pm

I especially loved the musical homage to Monty Python in the closing credits.

I enjoyed this documentary, but was left wondering why Professor Dawkins had been so gentle in his admonition. I was hoping for, dare I say it, a more militant approach to this nonsense. ;-)

98. Rational Atheism

Comment #64876 by Elli on August 22, 2007 at 7:10 am

I am a big fan of all of Shermer's work - and also enjoyed his spot last night on the Stephen Colbert show. His book "Why Darwin Matters" enjoys a front and center spot on my bookshelf.

I actually agree with most of what he has written. The only thing I don't understand is that the 4 people to whom he writes are not doing what he implies they are. For example, let's look at the most "aggressive" of the 4, Hitchens.

Shermer states: "A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others".

Given the nature of this open letter, it is sort of implied that the addressees should take heed of this advice. But how many times do we hear Hitchens, for example, say "I don't care what you choose to believe, just don't force it upon me" - or words to that effect.

So I want to echo the words of some of the above posters that I just do not see why Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett are viewed as hostile or militant. However, it is clearly the case - people out there really do view them this way. Even the more intelligent, rational and skeptical amongst us. A pity. Shermer could have written the exact same article sans the open letter bit, and it would have resonated amongst the target audience a lot better, I feel.

99. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64718 by Elli on August 21, 2007 at 12:41 pm

JemyM - that is really the correct way to look at it. All the mental gymnastic philosophy about deism but "then what?". Even mere acceptance of deism as a possibility (which I think hugely improbable) gives no rise to people claiming to 'know the mind' of such a deity. The specific theisms of the world are easily disprovable, science has much to say on the notion of interventionist deities (would be testable and observable if true), and deism ends at "who cares".

100. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64703 by Elli on August 21, 2007 at 11:59 am

Has anyone ever told you that you look like Jason Priestley?

If for an action to be moral it is only through the will of god, then for it to also be objective, what of the supposed omnipotence of god? if objective than god is unable to change his will. You may posit that one objectively should do what god wants - but this raises problems, first of which is "why?" and secondly, one must acknowledge that proof of god is a necessary pre-requisite to this way of thinking - and therefore one can not logically use morality as evidence of god. Circularity and all that jazz.

If you are suggesting a god that creates the universe and sets laws in motion and then buggers off - then ok - I can see how people can maintain this conclusion (although I do not agree) but you are not saying this at all. Your theism is a strong interventionalist theism, no?

And in any event, in response to your penultimate paragraph, I find it very difficult to maintain a position that morality is objective (as you are aware). My rationale has been outlined in above posts to this thread.

So what is left? The issue of a designer of a system not being bound by them is irrelevant. Omnipresence... omnipotence.. omniscience... etc.. objective morality... it doesn't work.