51. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100180 by cowalker on December 18, 2007 at 10:59 am

"Our critics would have governors believe that these programs are just somebody standing in front of the class wagging a finger and saying, 'No. No. No. Don't have sex.' That's not what these classes entail," Huber said. "They are holistic. They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception."

Doesn't she get that it doesn't matter what the classes entail if they don't work? Would these dimbulbs want to continue forever a counseling-only approach to prevent burglary that didn't work?

"Our critics would have judges believe that these programs are just somebody standing in front of the convicted burglars wagging a finger and saying, 'No. No. No. Don't rob houses.' That's not what this counseling entails. The counselors are holistic. They include teaching impulse control and job-seeking skills and money management."

Well, I'd be all for it. Decrease the jail population, save lives from being ruined. So what say you, Christian conservatives? For how many years should we continue to handle the crime of burglary with the counseling-only approach if the rate of burglaries increases and it becomes increasingly obvious that the program isn't working?

52. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97308 by cowalker on December 11, 2007 at 9:44 pm

robotaholic:

you KNOW that any religion that can cause a parent to kill their child must be a perversion- these people are COMPLETELY brainwashed

Speaking as a parent, I say that this is a profound statement.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law fought for, and won, custody of a toddler fathered by their daughter's boyfriend. Said boyfriend had impregnated their daughter some two months before. The mother of the other toddler had succumbed to drug addictions, and the other toddler had been turned over to Children's Servies.

You can say they are crazy. Having interacted with the sweet, delightful "other" toddler in question, I say they are normally conscious of moral demands made by their position. It would have been easy for them to pretend young daughter's problems had nothing to do with them. Instead they chose to respond with heart and generosity.

53. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97148 by cowalker on December 11, 2007 at 2:00 pm

It may be a dim sense of the unreality of their beliefs makes militant atheists so vehement and dogmatic.

Or it might be seeing religious fanatics bring down the Twin Towers, killing thousands and providing Bush with the perfect excuse for an everlasting "War on Terror." Or it might be reading polls that say an atheist can never be elected to a high office in the U.S. Or it might be witnessing a set of events like the Terry Schiavo obstructionism, or seeing the anti-choice brigade outside Planned Parenthood every day. Or perhaps it's seeing the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. beginning to rise after six years of exhortations to abstinence instead of sex education. Or maybe it's hearing that gays must be denied the right to marry because that's how God wants it. Or maybe it's seeing mobs demanding that a British teacher be put to death for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammed." Or maybe it's the endless slaughter of non-Muslims in Africa. Perhaps it's seeing embassies attacked over some lame cartoons of Muhammed.

Has the author considered whether any of these things might get us a little hot under the collar?

54. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96317 by cowalker on December 10, 2007 at 10:45 am

Fun fact from the Wikipedia entry on "Circumcision"

In 1949, the United Kingdom's newly-formed

National Health Service removed infant circumcision from its list of covered services. Since then, circumcision has been an out-of-pocket cost to parents, and the proportion of newborns circumcised in England and Wales has fallen to less than one percent.

As a procedure paid for by insurance, parents chose it. When it wasn't paid for, they didn't. This probably tells us more than we want to know about how parents make decisions like this for their children.

55. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96287 by cowalker on December 10, 2007 at 9:54 am

rustylix:

I've often felt the giant 200ft cross right next to the interstate I-57, near Effingham, IL, was an attack on my lack of belief in superstition as an atheist.

themanchoo:

Wow that's one big Effing(ham) cross! Yes I think I'd be offended if that monstrosity was casting its shadow near where I live.

That thing is also made entirely of aluminum siding, which makes it very ugly. The Cathedral of Notre Dame is a monument to a mythology, but at least it's a beautiful example of Gothic architecture.

Last year I did a count of creches in our midwestern town, in the middle middle class area where we live. There was maybe one for every fifty houses, maybe two angels for every fifty houses, although most houses had lights, reindeer, Santa, or giant snowmen or candles.

Every person is free to put up a creche on his own lawn, but how many choose to do so? Go out into your neighborhood this year and do a count.

Christians are just trying to retain control of the public turf. They don't care enough about the Jesus Reason for the Season to go out and buy an illuminated creche and put it on their lawn.

56. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95020 by cowalker on December 7, 2007 at 7:20 am

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Really, Mittens?

I shouldn't reject a candidate because he or she is a Spiritualist or a Scientologist, or because he or she belongs to a cult like the ones started by David Koresh or Jim Jones? All "faiths" are equally sacred?

Let's face it. Not all faiths are equally unhinged in their relationship to reality, even if their mythologies are equally incredible.

57. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94497 by cowalker on December 5, 2007 at 8:00 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3016839520071130?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

In the second encyclical of his papacy, Benedict urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, wealth or political ideologies which can often be deluding.

Atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism", particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, to protest against the injustices of the world and world history, he said.

Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God."

History has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist, the Pope wrote.

I voted for Pope Rat as the most dangerous enemy of reason. He claims Christianity is not an ideology. He claims atheism "could be" a type of moralism. He states the arguments of atheists but doesn't bother to refute them. All that history has proven is that humans practicing versions of Marxism in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba did not succeed in establishing social justice. That proves nothing about whether humans need to establish social justice because there is no God. He might as well say that history has proven wrong the belief that national organizations should aid disaster victims, because FEMA, under the direction of a former employee of the International Arabian Horse Association, failed to help Katrina victims in 2005. Just give up and pray, right?

58. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93789 by cowalker on December 4, 2007 at 8:11 am

I left this comment on the Herald site.

Ms. Home is correct. Pullman's books could start serious conversations between parents and children about religion, truth, faith, authority and duty, but free-ranging conversation about religion and authority among Catholics is the very last thing the Catholic League of America wants. The Catholic League considers the question settled: the Catholic Church owns the truth and the final authority is the Pope. Thinking and discussion can only endanger the status quo.

They haven't noticed that by demanding that all serious religious material be banned from popular entertainment to avoid offending religious sensibilities, believers have contributed to the secularization of our culture. In movies and TV shows the world is full of beautiful, engaging characters who do heroic things, make moral choices, make life-changing decisions and cope with loss without any reference to religion. The supernatural rarely appears except in non-religious form in fantasy and horror entertainment, and children will be told (hopefully) that witches, ghosts, demons etc. are only make-believe. What are children to make of that except that religion isn't necessary?

That's ok with this atheist, but it's certainly ironic that the hypersensitive religious folks are a strong force for secularization.

59. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92591 by cowalker on November 30, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I wonder if Muslims realize that incidents like this result in the assignment of the name "Muhammed" to various humble household items and unpleasant bodily emissions in Western homes. In his books, Kinky Friedman takes a "Nixon" every morning, but I think Nixon has been eclipsed.

60. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92401 by cowalker on November 30, 2007 at 12:40 pm

JFHalsey:

I'd listen to Michael Jackson give advice on child care* . . . . before I'd listen to anyone in the RC church talk about "the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice. . . ."

(* I almost said "child rearing". Whoops!)

Let's not forget, there are many RC clergy whose advice on "child rearing" would be informed by years of personal experience.

Pope Rat said atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism." OK, a can of beans could be regarded by some as a flowering plant. That doesn't make it so.

61. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87446 by cowalker on November 12, 2007 at 6:41 am

stereoroid said:
". . .but I haven't seen anything to justify [Joyce's] inclusion in the list of morally astute writers."

Try listening to "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" on tape or CD. It contains a fantastic description of the process of religious indoctrination and the psychology of faith and the loss of faith. One of the highlights is a lecture on hell as delivered to the young men at a Catholic school, which terrifies the sensitive young Stephen Daedalus--for a while.

It certainly highlights how God, for most Christians, has morphed from a righteous condoner of torture to an understanding Daddy over the last hundred years. I'm sure this has more to do with changes in parenting practices over the same time period than new revelations.

62. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85837 by cowalker on November 7, 2007 at 9:53 am

No religious belief in a "good" creator except one that postulates reincarnation explains the problem of suffering.

It's very clear that animals suffer from the effects of thirst, starvation, injuries, illness, old age, and even emotions such as fear, loneliness and bereavement. If you give special meaning only to human suffering, saying it has some kind of purifying or soul-building purpose, you are saying that the Creator deliberately chose to populate earth with billions of creatures who suffer meaninglessly. The only way to rescue the creator as a "moral" being, ie. one that shares human values and empathizes with its creatures, is to assume that animal suffering also has meaning.

So it's true that suffering only disproves some supreme creators, not all.

Of course the explanation that an amoral evolutionary process resulted in life on earth fits the facts perfectly. The experience of suffering works the majority of the time to discourage dangerous behavior and to encourage behavior that maintains health, life and reproduction. Sometimes there's nothing to be done, but the mechanism works the same, because there's no way for the biological process to "know" that no behavior will save the situation.

63. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85265 by cowalker on November 5, 2007 at 11:39 am

Dalrymple:

The arguments for and against the existence of God are by now pretty well rehearsed, and I do not think that any of the new atheists (I call them that because their books came out at about the same time) add anything much to them. They are not entirely to blame for this: it would take a very great philosopher to do so.

No new arguments, eh. I think the real problem is no new evidence. Arguments based on the evidence we have do not compel belief in God. There is no possible evidence or argument that will disprove the existence of a being that by definition is not directly perceptible. So the ball is in the believers' court. New evidence please.

64. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85237 by cowalker on November 5, 2007 at 10:47 am

Danielos: "if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them."

Whoa. Let's remember that evolution doesn't have a goal. Change/evolution doesn't equal better, ie transcendence. Change/evolution can give an advantage to an organism, or put it at a disadvantage IN A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. What is an advantage in one place can be a disadvantage in another place. What worked to promote human survival when humans lived in caves in small clans were things like--if you get the chance to steal food from another clan go ahead but don't steal from each other and start a fight, keep the clan strong by caring for the injured, do what the strongest person says, be suspicious of other clans because they'll take your food if they can. Instinct probably took care of things like--have sex, preferably with people other than close relatives, and feed your children. However it's hard to separate instinct from learned behavior. For example wolves live in packs with a leader and feed each other's pups. It's hard for me to believe that this is cultural behavior passed from one wolf to another. If it isn't learned behavior, it's instinctive altruism and loyalty.

Anyway, lots of humans following practices that improved their survival rates changed the environment they lived in. They lived long enough to pass on complex skills. Their clans grew in size because greater size provided more security, and allowed specialization. There was space for the enjoyment of exploration, art, music, storytelling. The behaviors that helped the clans survive as hunters in caves weren't enough to give a survival advantage in the new environment.

Random theft from another clan could start a devastating conflict. Arranging marriages with another clan's members instead of just stealing women worked to create blood bonds that gave both clans a survival advantage. The strongest person didn't necessarily have the best ideas for clan survival, because there was more to getting along than brute strength at this point.

At some point in the development of language and the human brain, what was good for the clan became an abstract concept of "good." Once we had that concept, I'd say that pure "evolution" of ethical beliefs through natural selection was over. People were able to reason about abstract values. You now had people advocating certain behaviors because they were objectively "good." They would insist on following these behaviors even if they result in a survival disadvantage for the clan. They would insist on following them even if the environment changed and the behaviors were no longer appropriate.

To the rescue came people who saw through the bogus concept of absolute good and evil and manipulated belief systems for their own advantage. In addition, the instinct for self-preservation and the desire for various gratifications led to convoluted thought processes that allowed people to change their absolute belief systems without admitting to themselves that they were doing so. It was revelation, or new interpretation of the old, absolute rules.

What we have now is an unacknowledged kluge of instinct, naturally selected behaviors, traditions that enrich and empower the upper class, and rules derived through reason that can be demonstrated to improve the condition of the majority of humans. They overlap a lot. Most people are frightened to look behind the counter where the sausage is made.

Obviously I'm in favor of examining ethical beliefs on a pragmatic basis. That does NOT mean that if it's convenient, it's OK to do anything. It means applying reason to make rules for beings who experience pleasure and pain, love, curiosity, and fear. It means balancing their interests as fairly as possible. It will always be a work in progress, as the environment and humans themselves change. It will never be quick and easy. I think that this approach will result in the best world for me and my children.

Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think the current approach of viewing our own nuclear-armed nation as "our clan right or wrong" or the tradition that private property is sacred above all rights of others to clean air and clean water will even allow us to survive, much less move us toward a better world.

65. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85178 by cowalker on November 5, 2007 at 8:35 am

Poor Flew. When he's not with the philosopher/scientist he loves, he loves the one he's with. "Anything for a quiet life," probably sums up his philosophy now. It's very sad.

About the Christians stalking the dying, I agree they ignore the dissonance. What they get out of it is drama. "Death bed conversion" is as close as most of them will get to "saving the day" as it's portrayed in popular movies and books. We attended the opera "Don Giovanni" last night. It can be interpreted with an emphasis on the tragic or on the comic. This particular performance took a comedic perspective. Right before Don Juan is yanked into hell by the statue of righteousness, his hysterical discarded mistress rushes in to advise a last-minute conversion and repentance.

Oh, the adrenaline rush, the excitement, the suspense! I alone can save him! I'm rising above the jealousy for the sake of his immortal soul. I will bear rejection like the Christian martyr I am, because there's a soul at stake here! There's a payoff for the person making the attempt whether they succeed or not.

It's one of the huge emotional rewards of being a fervent Christian.

66. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84506 by cowalker on November 2, 2007 at 7:54 am

Shorter Dalrymple:
Some atheists who attack religious belief slip into expressions that imply ontological moral evaluation. That proves we have something metaphysical in our minds. Since no one can prove the non-existence of demons, they are quite as likely to exist as the sun, so it would be very rude to condescend to exorcists. Anyone who regrets the Black Plague regrets Western Civilization. An atheist wrote that one might have to consider executing someone who believes he will be rewarded in heaven for killing as many people as possible who don't share his faith. A clergyman who does nothing to change the practice of carting people through the streets to be pelted with sewage and rotten eggs for having unlicensed sex is much better than an atheist who speculates on how to prevent faith-based terrorist acts. I wish I lived back when people could really write, and when atheism was confined to the upper-classes. The lower classes just can't handle it.

67. The truth in religion

Comment #84227 by cowalker on November 1, 2007 at 12:53 pm

It's a target-rich piece of work, isn't it?

"Cornwell begins by pointing out that Dawkins makes no serious attempt to engage with the academic discussion of religious thought and practice."

I think we should take Cornwell seriously here. No one should address faith except in dispassionate, academic terms. Children should not be emotionally engaged in faith practices. They should be taught the disciplines (reading skills, the scientific method, history, anthropology, etc.) they will need to evaluate the claims of religious belief and atheism when they reach adulthood. Then they should be given the opportunity to learn about all religions and points of view on religion and decide for themselves. I'm sure Cornwell would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to indoctrinate children with simplistic religious beliefs before they are capable of understanding academic arguments and theological subtleties.

68. The truth in religion

Comment #84215 by cowalker on November 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Non-sacred Cow! What a load of illogical nonsense.

"Yet there are some arguments, not discussed by either Humphrys or by Dawkins, which offer modest help as theologians struggle with the problems of theodicy. Interestingly, science is of some assistance in this regard. Its understanding of how the world works shows that natural processes are inextricably entangled with each other. They cannot be separated out, so that those with good consequences could have been retained by a competent creator who, at the same time, eliminated those with bad consequences. The integrity of creation is a kind of package deal. For example, the process of genetic mutation produced new forms of life, but it has also resulted in malignancy. You cannot have the one without the other. Humphrys asks why there are not repeated divine interventions to avert evil consequences. Such things could only happen in a magical world, and that kind of world is not this one, because its creator is not a capricious magician. Only a world with sufficient reliability for deeds to have foreseeable consequences could be one in which moral responsibility was exercised."

So what's the problem with predictability if God reliably intervenes to prevent a mutation from becoming a malignancy? And why couldn't God create an integrated universe where evolution took place by a different means than gene mutation? Why did God have to use evolution at all? Why couldn't he have done it the way the book of Genesis describes it? Why didn't God create beings who absorbed all the energy they needed from sunlight rather obliging all earth's creatures to devour each other, often causing much suffering to other creatures in the process?

I need the answers to all those questions before I could even consider the existence of a good God. Now a powerful evil, or amoral critter--I can't disprove it. Is that belief Ok with the reverend?

69. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84151 by cowalker on November 1, 2007 at 9:47 am

The author mixed up several different miliues in this article, I think.

There's common courtesy, where you don't intrude on a stranger's privacy by making an insulting personal remark. No atheist I know of goes around accosting people entering a church/mosque/temple and calls them stupid and foolish for wasting their time with worship. The group that comes closest to that kind of intrusive behavior is the Fred Phelps Psychos, who picket the funerals of U.S. soldiers who died in combat with signs that say "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1821,n,n
As far as I can tell, they are universally, deservedly despised and condemned.

Then there are instances where scripture might be discussed with acquaintances, co-workers, or family. The subject comes up and discussion follows. Respect for the person should result in disagreeing with them in a compassionate, respectful tone. Human nature being what it is, emotional reactions to respectfully expressed thoughts will sometimes provoke anger, ridicule or personal attacks. It is an emotional subject. I agree that atheists and believers should try to keep their tempers to avoid huring others, but I don't think atheists have any more to apologize for than believers in this area.

Then there are scholarly books and essays that analyze scriptures. They might be written by believers or non-believers. They will probably have an agenda--to prove a theory that the author has about the origin, influences, translations etc. of the text. The author may have the secondary motive of wanting to promote or cast doubt on the "sacredness" of the text. The author will succeed in impressing scholars more if he/she keeps a strictly neutral tone. The evidence is supposed to persuade. A scientist who wrote a paper to support his theory about black holes would lose credibility if he ridiculed another scientist's theory rather than respectfully, dispassionately showing why it doesn't work.

Then there are books that are meant for a popular audience that address religious beliefs. They have the purpose of persuading people that the author's point of view is correct. Evidence is only part of the argument, because the question of whether there is or is not a God cannot be disproven or proven on the grounds of evidence. The evidence is suggestive, but not conclusive. The author will use scripture, history, personal experience, rhetoric, humor, pathos, ridicule, outrage, parody, personal charisma, science and anything else that he/she thinks is persuasive. You can argue about the effectiveness of any of these tools, but it's silly to think you can rule any of them out. If you pick up a book that is meant to persuade, your personal beliefs may be attacked impolitely. So buyer beware.

70. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83765 by cowalker on October 31, 2007 at 7:18 am

Interesting how the religious control freaks have zeroed in on pharmacists as the Enablers of Evil.

What about the CEOs and shareholders of the drug companies that manufacture the forbidden medications? What about the people in sales departments who carry out ad campaigns for them? What about the folks who run the machinery that manufactures the pills and packages them? What about the guys who drive the trucks carrying them to the distribution centers? What about the people who deliver them to the stores? What about the doctors who prescribe them? Now that the morning after pill is available without a prescription, why doesn't the clerk who rings up purchases have a responsibility equal to that of the pharmacist's to refuse to sell it on the basis of conscience?

Why is it all on the pharmacist?

Well, the religious control freaks know that CEOs and shareholders and doctors have too much self-confidence to be manipulated. They've made up their minds based on their personal moral beliefs and scientific evidence, either for or against, and they're not going to change their minds just because the pope says so.

People who have less clout than pharmacists--people who are not professionals--can't afford to make trouble for themselves in the workplace by demanding special conscience rights based on hairsplitting distinctions. (Can you imagine a vegetarian applying for a job as a grocery clerk and demanding that a "colleague" ring up all meat purchases--including yogurt and candy with gelatin in it?) That's the practical side. But shouldn't the pope demand that employers provide a conscience clause for all these people? Why should THEY be forced to participate in MURDER just because it would be a total headache for employers to allow them to choose not to? What a concession to elitism and the ownership class the religious control freaks make when they ignore all the non-professionals in this matter!

Somehow, in spite of their education and professional status, many pharamacists seem to be vulnerable to being manipulated by authority. It makes me wonder if there is something about the personality type attracted to the discipline that makes them susceptible to authoritarian rule.

71. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83512 by cowalker on October 30, 2007 at 9:29 am

philip1978:

I love it when people like Bill get in such a hissy fit over stuff like this, there he is practically having a heart attack over a book, is he really that scared of Philip Pullman?

Don't you remember all the panicked press statements and warnings issued by atheists when "Narnia" was released? I'm sure Dawkins' staff sent out warnings to his mailing lists, telling atheist parents to keep their children from seeing the movie. Even if they didn't get the Christian symbology on the screen, it might seduce them into reading the books, and any exposure to different ideas instantly converts a viewer/reader! Especially if you've indoctrinated them instead of teaching them how to think.

/snark

This guy is practically soiling himself in fear at the prospect of Catholics reading the books--even adults!
http://mrsnancybrown.blogspot.com/2007/09/pete-veres-article-in-wanderer.html
Pete Vere:

No child should be permitted near these books. I also don't recommend them to parents, unless absolutely necessary to protect their children from the books' dark influence. An example is a father who discovers his child reading these books as part of a school list. He should probably have some firsthand experience with the book before confronting the school and attempting to undo any harm done to his child. Yet then he should only read these books after much prayer and careful consultation with his spiritual director. And for goodness' sake, don't let your children see the movie.

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

Comment #82719 by cowalker on October 27, 2007 at 10:34 am

I think Dawkins and Harris are correct that religious moderates enable religious fundamentalists. But I also think that this cynical use of religion to provide structure and aesthetic pleasure acts like a sort of vaccination against committed religious belief. The lukewarm observance makes religion feel boring and beside the point. So the kids are likely to take the first opportunity to bail. If being religious doesn't make a difference in how you live your life, then it's not a map or a motor--it's baggage.

73. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81233 by cowalker on October 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm

If I were going to debate the existence of God with a believer, I wouldn't allow him to cite the RESULTS of humans HAVING religious beliefs as proof that the beliefs themselves are true. If you can demonstrate that kids behave because they don't want Santa to leave coal in their stocking, it doesn't prove that Santa really exists. It just proves that belief in Santa has a good effect on their behavior. Of course you might also be able to demonstrate that it has a bad effect on the behavior of some kids, making them more greedy and gift-focused than they would otherwise have been. And what if children who don't believe in Santa behave or don't behave? None of it addresses the question of whether the jolly old elf comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

So no body counts allowed.

If D'Souza is happy to stand up there and argue that it doesn't matter if Christianity is true because it's good for society, then there's no point in arguing about whether it's true. Then we can have the argument about whether it is good for society. They are two separate arguments, and mixing them up is an approach that helps people like D'Souza avoid clear thinking on the subject.

74. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #80904 by cowalker on October 23, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Does that mean the reporter would say that I, as a vegetarian, can't be excused from ringing up the meat purchases at my grocery job? Oh, and by the way, candy corn and yogurt have gelatin in them, so I can't ring them up either. I suspect reading all the labels will slow me down a bit at first, but I have strong ethical concerns about eating animals, so I'm sure the customers won't mind waiting.

75. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #80634 by cowalker on October 22, 2007 at 12:02 pm

jemym: "Whenever I hear this stuff I cannot resist to get an image of the vikings."

LOL. Right before I read your comment I was visualizing a group of souls of Christian soldiers meeting a group of souls of Muslim fighters at the transition point where they're going to become part of the World Soul. What would they say to each other before they lost their individuality? But they could be meeting at the gate of Valhalla instead, or at the dock where Charon takes on his passengers.

In the obituaries I often see a death described as "Jane Doe has gone to walk with Jesus." I think I'll write my own obit and specify that "Cowalker has gone to feast with Odin in Valhalla."

76. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79684 by cowalker on October 18, 2007 at 6:45 am

I'll be looking forward to hearing about this one.
Dinesh D'Souza versus Christopher Hitchens on "Is Religion the Problem?"
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7565.html

If any of you are in New York City apparently it's at 7 pm at the Ethical Culture Society auditorium in New York city. Open to the public.
tkc.edu.

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

Comment #79457 by cowalker on October 17, 2007 at 9:42 am

Ford Prefect: "The book isn't free. They are suggesting a gift of between $20 and $100. God can't do anything without believers money."

These religious hustlers are just like the frauds that sell quack health remedies.

"Three simple foods cure cancer and heart disease. Order our book for $39.95 to get this list of miracle foods."

"Arguments and answers that will save souls. Send us $20 to find out what they are."

How much of a money grubber would you have to be to withhold such knowledge, if you had it?

How could a Christian justify forcing people to pay for information that would prevent souls from going to hell? Oh, that's right. Jesus charged the big bucks for personal appearances. No shekels, no message of redemption. And no recording devices allowed.

Of course these big American ministries are all about the money. Period.

78. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78905 by cowalker on October 15, 2007 at 10:41 am

Hmm. I was going to say that by "militant" the Bish meant "proselytizing."

But then I came across these definitions on a Catholic site.

"Proselytizing intrudes into the person's spiritual life and pushes him to convert. Muslims in their own countries often proselytize Catholics, who are forced to renounce their faith or suffer severe consequences, even death. Many centuries ago too many misinformed Catholics proselytized Jews. Catholic teaching, based on free will, firmly rejects such activities.

"Evangelizing witnesses to the faith and allows the person to decide for himself whether to come forward. Jesus of Nazareth spoke to the people wherever they gathered to hear Him. Each individual was free to stay or go, believe or not, and be responsible to God alone for his decision."

So apparently some people mean "forcing someone to fake conversion by threatening them with severe punishments" when they say "proselytize."

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/evangelization/proselytizevangelize.htm

So I guess the Bish is saying that people who evangelize are "militant" in their behavior.

From "Alice in Wonderland"
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

"'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'

"'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'"

79. A Revelation

Comment #78337 by cowalker on October 12, 2007 at 12:57 pm

I totally agree with Bamafreethinker:
Most people just live out their lives and pretty much function day-to-day as if there was no god.

Personally I think the growing interest in books about atheism, and theological debates over the existence of God stem from increasing numbers of people realizing this. Young people especially are becoming conscious of the fact that belief in God has no effect on their values or decisions. They have friends with different beliefs and friends who are unbelievers, and what is different about their lives? I suspect they're looking for intellectual support for their gut feelings that religion is indeed a delusion. Apparently the Christians quoted in this article are doing the same. Telling that they feel the need, in my opinion.

80. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78322 by cowalker on October 12, 2007 at 12:33 pm

I tend to think that talk radio programs for liberals/freethinkers will never be as successful as talk radio for the insanely "conservative" because liberals and freethinkers tend to have day jobs that are too demanding to allow them to listen to the radio.

81. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77488 by cowalker on October 9, 2007 at 12:16 pm

If I were shopping in Great Britain I would want to know what companies are making silly compromises based on the religion of their employees. They're encouraging the kind of poisonously divisive atmosphere that endangers women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They wouldn't get my business.

I suppose it's clearer to an atheist than to a believer in ANY religion, but the whole reason for apparently random and highly visible and inconvenient religious rules is to set the members apart from other people. They are required to proclaim their faith publicly in their multiple daily prayer rituals, hairstyles, clothing, eating habits, working habits and rules for associating with others. The rules are purposely energy-consuming to keep religion at the forefront of their minds. The rules intentionally make it inconvenient to interact with others of different beliefs to discourage fraternization.

Does a strict Hindu who refuses to serve hamburger have a right to a job at McDonald's? Does a real estate agent who refuses to sell houses to gay couples on religious grounds have a right to a job with a real estate company? It makes no more sense to hire a doctor who refuses to treat half the human race.

I'm a vegetarian. Do I get to work in a grocery but refuse to scan or bag any purchase that contains animal products? What nonsense.

It is madness to bring people into a society based on tolerance and then make exceptions to allow them to keep themselves as much apart from that society as they can.