51. Finding My Religion: An Interview With Shalom Auslander

Comment #93916 by Damien White on December 4, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Right. So, when the big sky daddy didn't strike him down for eating a Slim Jim, as he'd been told would happen, this didn't give him any clues as to the BSD's existence?

Another example of religion as pure wish fulfillment. This guy wants to have his cake and eat it too. Can't stand god but can't stand the thought of life without the big sky daddy? Then live your life like a naughty schoolboy, and revel in your guilt. Pathetic.

52. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91543 by Damien White on November 28, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I suppose a cartoon of the teddy bear would be out of the question?

53. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #85439 by Damien White on November 5, 2007 at 9:49 pm

"No one uses the word "extremism" in this way except maybe you or Ayn Rand."

Quite right. Because most people are afraid of extremes. Certainty unnerves them, and they come up with wishy-washy sayings like 'there's an exception to every rule' instead of coming to terms with the cold hard fact that some things just ARE, whether we want them to be or not.

The 'Cult Of Moral Grayness', here for all to see.

54. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #85419 by Damien White on November 5, 2007 at 7:44 pm

"The law does consider mitigating circumstances. Justice without mercy is tyranny. (Forgetting for the moment that law is not synonymous with justice, there are unjust laws)"

Should the law apply to 100% of the people, or are some people outside it? If your answer is that 100% of the people MUST be covered by the law then you are an extremist. As most of us are, quite normally, rationally and without fanatacism.

"Extremism is the failure to notice the simple truth that there are exceptions to every rule. "

CJ22, the answer is in your own use of language: 'Simple truth'? 'Exceptions to EVERY rule'? Sounds like a rational extreme to me.

Just because something is at the extreme of thought does not make it the sole purview of lunatics and nutcases.

55. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #85071 by Damien White on November 4, 2007 at 8:38 pm

""There's something about human nature that prompts acts of violence," he vaguely said, breaking no new ground. "The real problem isn't religion, but extremism.""

As Ayn Rand once put it (yes, i'm aware of the irony of paraphrasing Ayn Rand to defend Christoper Hitchens), why is extremism considered bad? If you believe in the rule of law, with no exeptions, then you're an extremist for justice. If you think that half of all guilty people should get away scot-free, you're a moderate on the issue.

Shouldn't we all be extremists? Isn't the opposite of extremism just hypocrisy?

56. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84277 by Damien White on November 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm

"...and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end..."

So what? Wasn't the challenge to strike him dead IN 60 SECONDS?

If this drivel is to be believed, I can prove i'm a god right now by pointing at someone and saying: "You will die at an unspecified time in the future."

57. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84274 by Damien White on November 1, 2007 at 3:34 pm

If the bible is the word of god, why isn't it still being written? If it was being written to record the works of god in the world, why isn't it still going? Why did it stop 2000 years ago at the death of Saul of Tarsus?
Of course some (like the Mulslims and the Mormons) have written their own follow-ups. So why don't christians believe in these? Why did everything stop?

58. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83340 by Damien White on October 29, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Perhaps the church's opposition to this could be a good thing. If the film is atheistic (and I can't comment, having not [yet] read the books) does that mean that if it is a runaway success ala Harry Potter, then atheists can claim those numbers as evidence of growing mainstream support?

59. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82225 by Damien White on October 25, 2007 at 10:32 pm

"The Qur'an must be seen by Muslims as the final, unalterable word of God, not a single word may be changed or ignored. This is why the choice is typically Islam or apostasy."

This is what we must change, then. If every muslim was able to read the Koran for themselves and make up their own minds regarding what it said, I think they'd be much less likely to kill people. I'll give the Gideons a call and see what I can tee up.

60. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81587 by Damien White on October 24, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Being an atheist does not require any faith, because it is impossible to 'believe' in nothing. When we are born, our minds are a blank slate. This state requires no effort to be in. The concept of god(s) are added later, at which point you require faith to take you away from your initial position of intellectual rest.
Believing in something requires faith. Not believing in something requires nothing.

61. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81400 by Damien White on October 24, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I can and will expect proof of god, because my belief in the existence of love does not require me to adhere to certain modes of behaviour which are counter-intuitive.
For example, love does not require me to sit in a certain building on Sundays. Love does not dictate what I can and can't eat. Love does not tell me with whom I can choose to co-habit. Love does not ask me to send money to a man on television.
'God' does all of these things, so when 'he/she/it' does, I ask for proof of god's existence before I obey. That's only reasonable. So yes, I do expect proof of gods existence before I follow 'his' rules, because otherwise I might suspect that some wierd control freak was simply making them up to please himself, then invoking the almighty for added authority.

62. Devil of a problem

Comment #80698 by Damien White on October 22, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Saving the Devils would probably be a lot easier if the Australian government allowed them to be kept as pets. As it is there's a law against it, so the species will have to survive in the wild or perish.

63. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78984 by Damien White on October 15, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Steve99,

You're making the assumption that any alien civilisation will be building Dyson Spheres. There has been life on earth for a very long time and as far as I know, no-one has built a Dyson Sphere yet. Why do alien life forms have to follow your proposed model of civilisation expansion?

My point about interstallar space is that yes, we do not know what's out there. We don't even know how far the Oort Cloud extends. How long did it take us to discover the Van Allen belts? And any astronomer will tell you that there's rather a lot of mass still unaccounted for, somewhere out there. While I agree that the required propulsion methods are in theory quite simple, there are still enough unknown factors about the physical nature of interstellar space to make a blanket statement that 'interstellar travel is easy' quite absurd.

64. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78792 by Damien White on October 15, 2007 at 12:04 am

Steve 99:
"The only assumptions being made are that life requires energy, and replicates. That alone implies that extraterrestrial life should be visible."

Granted, life requires energy, but how does it follow that it must be visible?

"Interstellar travel is not that hard."

I'm glad you know so much about interstellar space, a region that has never been entered or experienced by anyone from this planet.

65. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78777 by Damien White on October 14, 2007 at 10:49 pm

The problem with extraterrestrial intelligence is that it could exist under any possible scenario or hypothesis. It cannot be limited. Therefore, attempts to anthropomorphise alien intelligence (to assign to it the motives and drivers of our own) are fundamentally flawed.
It is OUR intelligence that dreams of spacefleets and battles and Death Stars. Maybe others don't.
Also, maybe the lack of contact with other intelligences is an indicator of the impossibility of interstellar travel.

66. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78111 by Damien White on October 11, 2007 at 10:25 pm

I wonder if the 138 Muslim 'leaders' can exercise any of their own measures within 'their' communities? It would be heartening to see as a signatory on this letter Osama Bin Laden; or any of the major sects currently involved in armed uprising in Iraq; or anyone from the Iranian government; or the PLO; or anyone who has any control over the aforementioned.
Can the Muslims without guns control the Muslims with guns? If they can't (as I suspect) then this letter is nothing but an empty gesture.

67. How China Got Religion

Comment #78052 by Damien White on October 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm

This reminds me of a book I once read which claimed that there was ancient Roman legislation prohibiting the transmutation of lead into gold, as it was devaluing the currency. 2000 years later, this 'law' was used as proof by alchemists that the ancient Romans must have been able to do so.
Therefore, if the Chinese regulate reincarnation, will this later be used as proof that it was possible?

68. Migrations influenced immune evolution

Comment #77605 by Damien White on October 9, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Hasn't science known about this for some time? I mean, look at the history of European colonisation of America and Australia and the effects of disease on indigenous populations.

Oh, and 'first'.

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

Comment #77275 by Damien White on October 8, 2007 at 11:57 pm

Prieten,

Religion is a virus. Like all viruses, it is contracted. We do not start life with it.

People seem to be misinterpreting what Sam Harris is saying. He is not saying that we should be ashamed of our non-belief, but instead that we should be asserting that our non-belief is natural, and that it is religion which is an altered state of humanity.

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

Comment #77255 by Damien White on October 8, 2007 at 9:55 pm

I've been following this debate with interest, because I agree with what Sam says. Non-belief in religions is the normal rest-state of all life. Why does it need a name? Labelling it 'atheism' simply makes it seem like the opposite of theism. It's like referring to a field of grass as an a-tree.

71. A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation

Comment #76899 by Damien White on October 7, 2007 at 4:34 pm

"...for you are all one in Christ Jesus," then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God's eyes between, say, an American and an Australian."

Crikey!

No wonder i'm an atheist.

72. Researchers devise way to calculate rates of evolution

Comment #76087 by Damien White on October 4, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Scooter,

The companies that manufacture pesticides need to reconfigure their poisons every few crop seasons. This is because when a farmer first uses the poison to eradicate, say, grasshoppers on his fields, the poison will kill all but the statistical anomaly (maybe 1%) of grasshoppers which are naturally resistant through random means. All others being dead, the remaining grasshoppers are the ones that breed. They then pass their resistance to a significant number of their offspring. So, if the farmer uses the same pesticide the next year, a greater number of grasshoppers will be resistant to it. This cycle will continue until 100% of the grasshopper population is resistant. The grasshopper population has evolved to meet the demands of it's poisonous environment. Simple.

73. Researchers devise way to calculate rates of evolution

Comment #75872 by Damien White on October 3, 2007 at 11:42 pm

I spent 30 seconds this morning explaining to a co-worker how evolution works, through the example of crop insects and pesticides. At the end he just blinked and said, "what, it's that simple?" Well, yes it is.
Different genetic types within a population mean that rarely is 100% of the population killed off by catastrophe. Those who are left will spread their advantageous trait(s) to their children, who in turn resist the same type of catastrophe better, then breed...and so on.

74. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75850 by Damien White on October 3, 2007 at 9:24 pm

As i'm at work I haven't been able to get hold of the mp3 yet, but am I safe in assuming that despite the debate being titled "Does God Exist" the whole existence element was largely ignored?

Or was the existence of god(s) conclusively proven/disproven?

75. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75494 by Damien White on October 2, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Finally, someone who is willing to debate Dawkins on the central point of his argument, "Does God Exist?"

Richard Dawkins once made a comment that he was tired of debating the religious because it was like 'punching smoke'. Please make them stay on topic, Professor. Please ask them to prove the existence of god(s), and don't let up until they have, or they admit failure.

76. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #75137 by Damien White on October 1, 2007 at 10:36 pm

"It has become fashionable in certain smart circles to regard atheism as a sign of superior education, of highly evolved civilization, of enlightenment. Recent bestsellers by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others suggest that religious faith is a sign of backwardness, the mark of primitives stuck in the Dark Ages who have not caught up with scientific reason. Religion, we are told, is responsible for violence, oppression, poverty and many other ills."

Why did the author only rebut the last sentence of this paragraph?

77. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74196 by Damien White on September 27, 2007 at 4:15 pm

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called "From Darwin to Hitler."

The above refers to eugenics, where 'bad' genes are forcibly removed from the gene pool. Unfortunately, this would not occur but for the scientific discovery of what genes are. What the speaker fails to address is the racism and genocide that are manifest within religion too.

78. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73641 by Damien White on September 25, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Crikey. You leave a thread for 24 hours and look what happens.
This probably explains why I haven't seen many of the t-shirts out and about. Atheists seem completely unable to ever agree on anything.
At the end of the day, we all live under the threat of the sword. This threat extends to reasoned discourse. If we have to resort to using the modern-day erquivalent of CB handles to engage in discourse without feeling in danger, so be it. What I got upset about was people being abusive and snide whilst using pseudonyms. If you're going to insult someone, don't hide while you do it.

79. The Saudi connection that belittles Britain

Comment #73636 by Damien White on September 25, 2007 at 4:43 pm

The sooner we move to solar power and electric/hydrogen cars, and therefore the sooner money stops flowing into the Middle East, the better off we'll all be.

80. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73315 by Damien White on September 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm

What I should probably add to that last comment is that I don't expect this behaviour from others. Standing Out as an atheist can be a difficult and even dangerous thing to do, depending on where you are in the world, and if anyone feels in danger then naturally they should protect themselves. It's a personal thing, is what i'm saying.

81. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73313 by Damien White on September 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

At the risk of starting an irrelevant thread (which I should not, as the excellent article above deserves discussion) i'll just say well said, Richard Morgan.
I too choose not to use a pseudonym. If some religofascist reads something I say and wants a piece of me, they can bring it on. I won't hide from the likes of them.

82. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72963 by Damien White on September 23, 2007 at 4:17 pm

"Richard [Dawkins] does seem at times to conflate two very different understandings of creation. One is that of American creationists who like to see God conjuring up new species as if by magic. And [Dawkins] represents that as a doctrine of creation. That is actually an aberration if one if looking at the history of creation doctrine. The classical doctrine within Christian theology [...] is ultimately the dependence of everything that exists, including evolutionary processes, on some transcendent power (God)."
Actually, it isn't. I don't know what bible John Brooke has been reading, but it clearly isn't the same one i've got.
This article is a clear indication of what happens when science challenges religion: you get 'pseudo-religion', where people just make up new 'information' instead of sticking to their biblical guns. Example: if the above were true, why didn't Tomas Aquinas spot it in any of his biblical musings?

83. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72376 by Damien White on September 20, 2007 at 10:13 pm

The argument for a creator was once posed to me along these lines: "All humans have the same moral values, despite vastly differing environments, so those values must stem from an external source."
I asked him to support his claim for a consistent moral code, and he said that we all agree that murder is wrong. I countered by asking why people blow up abortion clinics.

Humanity does not have a homogenous moral code.

84. MORE GOOD NEWS for US taxpayers

Comment #72306 by Damien White on September 20, 2007 at 5:40 pm

The Professor Dawkins Foundation,
will now be exempt from taxation,
yet continue to tax,
those whose thinking is lax,
re their theological preoccupation.

85. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72302 by Damien White on September 20, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Every time I hear the 'argument' that [insert atheist author here] should have read more theology, I always ask myself if the writers of said theology have access to more source material than me. Of course they don't. They read the bible to come to their conclusions. I read the bible and came to different conclusions. My conclusion was that it's extremely difficult to take the bible seriously given a) it's history, b) it's numerous factual errors, and c) it's internal contradictions.
In other words, it led me to the conclusion that no conclusions could be drawn regarding the existence or nature of deities (legitimate and condoned worship of other gods is mentioned several times) from such a shabby and obviously stage-managed train wreck of a book.
Unless a thologian can demonstrate that they have discovered a new source of knowledge, they have nothing to add to the debate.

86. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71143 by Damien White on September 17, 2007 at 10:49 pm

I've always considered The Chaser boys to be a bit of a joke (no pun intended) up until the APEC Motorcade Fiasco.
It's always annoyed me that America has people like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, while down here all we've got is the Chaser and Jack Marx making what are essentially poo and wee jokes.

87. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70733 by Damien White on September 16, 2007 at 7:32 pm

"Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory."

14 + 19 + 16 + 16 = 65%

What do the rest of them cite? The healing power of crystals?

88. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69825 by Damien White on September 13, 2007 at 12:09 am

The 'new atheism' is new, and therefore is bound to attract critisism from some 'old' atheists who regard it as a form of 'rocking the boat'. As I have commented on this site before, religion is nothing more than a form of wish fulfillment. Haight's essay reminds me of nothing more than the response I eventually get from the religious when we debate this point, which invariably goes: "Maybe, but who are you to take their hope and comfort away from them?"
I can appreciate this point of view, though I do not agree with it or like it, because I am compassionate towards those members of my family who rely on that comfort to get them through the day. However, I do not appreciate it when the argument is used to stifle reasoned debate in the proper forum. Play it again, Sam, again and again and again, until they listen.

89. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69795 by Damien White on September 12, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Q. What do you call 300 Dutch Biologists?

A. A clog in the system.

Er, in light of a couple of hours of thought, i should probably point out that this post was intended as a pun on the word 'clog', and was not meant to be offensive to any a) Dutch; b) biologists; or c) a comination of the two.

90. Alex the Parrot

Comment #69770 by Damien White on September 12, 2007 at 4:40 pm

This makes me think of one of my favorite books, "King Solomon's Ring" by Konrad Lorenz.

Particularly the story of the Cockatoo, the strawberries, and the 5 elderly aunts :o)

I never knew that birds were so intelligent.

91. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69768 by Damien White on September 12, 2007 at 4:34 pm

There are 300 Dutch biologists now?

92. A Virus Among Honeybees

Comment #69581 by Damien White on September 11, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Recent reports have linked the virus to the importation of Australian strains of honeybee to the US, introducing new diseases into a local population without immune defenses.
Luckily, I live in South Australia, which gets its honey from Kangaroo Island: the only colony of unmixed purebred honeybees in the world (courtesy of sympathetic geography).

93. The Mix Tape of the Gods

Comment #68039 by Damien White on September 5, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I have to agree with Yorker. Some of the comments on this site are becoming far more agressive than they need to be. Even allowing for the presence of trolls, atheism in general (and Richard Dawkins in particular) will be judged (fairly or no) by the content of this site, so let's keep it calm and reasonable, eh? There's good chaps.

94. Pig study sheds new light on the colonisation of Europe by early farmers

Comment #67796 by Damien White on September 4, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Oh, please. Everyone knows that pigs were genetic modifications of humans made by the ancient Atlanteans. That's why Jews and Muslims don't eat them.

95. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67763 by Damien White on September 4, 2007 at 4:38 pm

I haven't been able to download this just yet, but can anyone who has please tell me if the author has managed to prove god's existence? This would seem to be the primary focus of a rebuttal of TGD.
It's not good enough to say that Richard Dawkins is ignorant, to be taken seriously they must enlighten us to how. I haven't seen any of the fleas do that.

96. The importance of doubt

Comment #66405 by Damien White on August 30, 2007 at 12:00 am

Yet more evidence of religion as little more than wish-fulfillment.

It is not enough to say that something is true because you wish it were so.

97. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63772 by Damien White on August 15, 2007 at 8:22 pm

CHeard,

Asimov's Guide To The Bible is a companion to the original text of the bible. It contains all of the bible's text, and additionally comments upon each passage's strengths and weaknesses as a historical document.
When I said that I could not be bothered reading the bible I meant that I could not be bothered reading it by itself but rather that I wished to examine it more closely than a cursory read would allow.
Of course, lest the pot call the kettle black, I can only assume that since you're calling the veracity of 'Asimovs' into question, you have actually read it? Or do I not need to point that out?

98. Saudis to build their own version of Eden Project

Comment #63569 by Damien White on August 14, 2007 at 10:05 pm

I note that they have to use British architects and scientists. Why? Because they have none of their own. Of the billions (maybe even trillions) of dollars that have poured into the region for oil over the last 100 years, none has been spent on education. These theocratically-backed feudal kingdoms don't want to educate their subjects, lest their subjects realise that there are some nice concepts like freedom and democracy that they're missing out on.

99. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63251 by Damien White on August 13, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Wow. Seems to me now that darwin2 doesn't know the meaning of belief. If you are prepared to one day come to the realisations that your beliefs are false, do you really believe them? Or are you just placing your bets? You're a living example of Pascal's Wager, aren't you? Belief without belief, it's a new one on me.

100. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63250 by Damien White on August 13, 2007 at 4:41 pm

In order to be a good atheist I thought i'd better get around to reading the bible a few months back. One thing I noticed is how many christian bookshops have a wide selection of only the New Testament. It's as if they were saying "Don't like the other half? Just buy the bit that's not batshit insane."
In any case I eventually couldn't be bothered, so instead I bought the excellent 'Isaac Asimov's Guide To The Bible'. Asimov walked me chapter by chapter through the bible in a much more entertaining way than the bible ever could. I'd recommend his book to everyone reading this site.