51. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27357 by justme on March 24, 2007 at 8:02 am

Hate to say it, but he has to show numbers of people who are Humanists to support adding Humanism to the religion course. Just showing that people are curious is not enough; he has to show actual support.

To expand it, he might want to drag in other groups to bolster his numbers. Simply put, he would have a good stance by including the non-Humanist non-theists/atheists including religious non-theists (many Buddhists, for example).

Additionally, he can reference other countries with large atheist populations as evidence that atheism (and Humanism) is a valid topic in any honest review of religion.

52. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27327 by justme on March 24, 2007 at 3:38 am

fonex_86 -- Good post. I was going to attempt to whip up an inferior response to Neil S's thoughtful post, but yours covers it.

53. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #26997 by justme on March 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm

John P:
"But maybe this is simply a different brain using language in a different way.

Anyone else have this experience?"

The language is definitely specialized. Religious terms tend to look and act like normal words ... but not always. That's when much of the confusion comes up.

That said, much of the misunderstandings are over basic assumptions.

For example, fairness.

When a creationist says 'both sides should be told', it is hard to not bend and say 'sure, both sides, sounds fair'.

Yet, as we know, it isn't fair to allow creationism to be treated as a proven science without any of the rigor involved in every other proven field of science. The work doesn't get done by the creationists, and they want a freebie.

Poper's falsifiability is a critical concept when approaching anything in a scientific way. Creationism does not allow for falsifiability.

On a personal level, I had a very short argument with my father over allowing creationism in science classes. Focusing on fairness...he was right to say "Why not let them talk about it?".

Thankfully, he immediately knew the value of falsifiability to science when I brought it up and we could agree that religion does not lend itself to falsifiability. Since creationism, as a religious concept, is not falsifiable, it is not science and should not be in a science class.

54. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26889 by justme on March 22, 2007 at 7:21 am

Janus: "Well, I have to admit Andrew is honest with his readers. Not with himself, but with his readers, definitely.

His latest comment about the "blogalogue":

" ... But I can no more be reasoned out of faith than I was reasoned into it. I really have no choice in the matter. But I hope to understand it better and to see it in the truest light possible." "

*BLINK*

So, he says Sam is right but he doesn't care because he doesn't use reason to make decisions? This is somehow valid?

Either he's willfully ignorant or wasn't honestly entering into the conversation in the first place.

With Sam, he admits he could be convinced by a complete and valid argument. Andrew doesn't allow that. I'm very disappointed.

55. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26791 by justme on March 21, 2007 at 4:59 pm

MouthAlmighty: "FWIW, my money is on Sullivan acknowledging the weight of Harris' argument, thanking him for his civility, and (whilst not admitting defeat), declaring some kind of epistemological impasse and making courageous exit under a few flowery prose about divinity, grace, beauty, etc."

Agreed. I'd be surprised if it turns out radically different.

56. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26677 by justme on March 21, 2007 at 4:44 am

Sam Harris writes:
"The argument from cultural success:
Apart from the fact that the argument from cultural success would vindicate any religion that has millions of subscribers, it's also just plain false. The success of Christianity (or any faith) is not an argument for its truth. While dialogue and consensus (and, therefore, cultural success) play a role in our knowledge gathering, we don't do epistemology by plebiscite. The majority of people really can be wrong-as are the majority of American Christians about the age of the universe and about the evolution of life on this planet."

I can't help but think this might tie back into the Monty Hall problem. Hmmm...

57. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26674 by justme on March 21, 2007 at 4:39 am

Sam Harris writes:
"The contingency of your own faith:
As you said, if you'd been raised a Buddhist, you'd probably be a Buddhist. And yet, you also believe that Christianity is really true. This seems to entail that, by sheer accident of birth, you were raised and culturally conditioned to believe the one true faith. Do you really believe this? Doesn't it seem more likely that you just happen to subscribe to the religion into which you were born (as most people do) because of social pressure, emotional consolation, attachment to tradition, etc.?"

What comes to mind here is that a big reason why people are religious is to extend childhood by picking a new parent that will never let them down, is everywhere, and protects both them and the world.

Evidence for this can be found in the old 'all good, all knowing, all powerful' argument for the Christian God tied to the language of using family terms for the religion; 'God the father', brother (priest in training, monk, or other believer), father (priest), sister (nun or other believer), as well as social structures like 'lord' and 'master' (meaning a ruler or leader of some sort).

58. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26671 by justme on March 21, 2007 at 4:21 am

mintcheerios: "Harris responds."

Thanks! Just finished reading it. Loved how he brought up the Monty Hall problem and tied it back into the conversation.

That said, while Sam is still somewhat cordial, it would be good if he were to add some levity to his logic. Sam has won the debate. It is only time before Andrew either accepts it or crosses his arms and refuses to budge.

As I read between the lines, Sam is getting a bit frustrated that Andrew isn't getting it even after all objections have been addressed and the evidence examined clearly.

Some humor would be a good idea right now.

59. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26641 by justme on March 20, 2007 at 8:59 pm

scottishgeologist: "Ther is another fascinating little fact about this word. The plural is "seraphim". Except in the King James Bible , the fundies' favourite, where it is spelled SERAPHIMS."

Keep in mind that the KJV was the first (first "legal"?) English translation; about 400 years old -- about the same time period as Shakespeare. Spelling was not standardized at the time.

Also, I generally laugh at and mock the bible quoters who are foolish enough to quote the archaic English of the KJV. The modern fundies don't tend to use this version because it is not a currently faithful translation ... though these fundies have many other reasons to be mocked.

60. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Comment #26519 by justme on March 20, 2007 at 4:39 am

NormanDoering: "Why did that commercial remind me of older commercials for Dianetics/Scientology -- was it the narrator's voice?"

I didn't think about it like that; nothing campy like exploding volcanoes or overhyped panning.

Most book promotions are fairly direct. This one was only 15 seconds.

NormanDoering: "I'm not sure that is good marketing. Why not go with John Lennon's song instead of just a couple lyrics from it? Somehow it seemed cheap. Maybe do a meddly - John Lennon imagine, then Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails "Heresy": "Your god is dead and no one cares." Then use lots of clips of religious figures - bin Laden, Pat Robertson -- even George Bush -- Waco and David Koresh, Jonestown, Sun Yung Moon in full get-up..."

While I'd like to see that (well, minus John Lennon -- not a fan), it would not be effective advertising for a wider audience. As a targeted add? Yep; that would work.

The reasons for this are simple.

First off, you have to like those guys and John Lennon is a perfect example of stardom going off the deep end. To be blunt, why drag up a dead hippy? (OK, I admit to hearing The Beatles being played incessantly by one of my sisters growing up and I've developed an aversion to anything Beatles-like or Beatles-related. Did I mention that Disco sucks too?)

(A friend of mine, no Jesus freak but a theist none the less, said he hates John Lennon specifically because of the Imagine song. This is no passing hate; he's quite serious about his ire.)

Secondly, Dawkins' book is appealing to the intellect and points out the absurdity of the delusion. It is not a street level rally theme, so snips from songs aren't going to do it.

The add that actually ran is good;

Black and white. Direct. A few tidbits about the book to get you to think. It may not make advertising history, but I think it is effective.

61. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26383 by justme on March 19, 2007 at 3:49 am

exegesis_saves: "Christians in the United States who claim to be persecuted do so based on the fact that many a vocal, civilly-minded non-theist has been behind the lawsuits to take prayer out of public schools, remove displays of the Ten Commandments from public buildings etc.

Essentially, this boils down to feeling "oppressed" because you are no longer able to use the machinery of government to forcibly expose your religious views to others. Such brazenly oxymoronic thinking would be funny if it weren't so widespread."

Institutionalized irrationality.

"Where does it come from? Many Christians in the United States feel that the majority should have the right to do what it likes in matters of faith because the US is a "democracy" where the majority voice rules in matters of taxes, economic policy, etc. Thus, we in the US are faced with the unfortunate task of not only defusing the Christian persecution-complex, but also helping them realize that a "free" society must sometimes protect the individual at the expense of the majority."

Something to think about. Thanks!

"Oh, by the way, this is my first post! Hello everyone."

Welcome. You might also want to check out the forums here;

http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum

They have quite a few good threads going on at any one time.

62. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26382 by justme on March 19, 2007 at 3:45 am

infidel_michael: "Do they suffer "for faith" or "from faith"?"

Good one.

63. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26381 by justme on March 19, 2007 at 3:43 am

epeeist: "If I got up early this morning I could listen to a prayer, followed by a homily usually by one of their number.

Compare that with the time given to secularism on TV and radio."

Well, to the fundamentalist Christians, because the omission of overt religious sentiment is secular, they feel oppression if it goes on for too long.

Think of an addict who is looking for a fix and finds few dealers from 10:00 through 17:00 (5pm). If they can talk to the uninterested about the drug of Jesus, it helps till they can get another full blown fix.

This is one reason they keep pressing for more and more overt references to Christian symbols (nearly all of them borrowed from elsewhere).

64. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26361 by justme on March 18, 2007 at 10:57 pm

eccles: "Well, if the Christians want to believe in some fictious "Sky Daddy", they have a problem. They can always migrate to the United Christian States of America. Benny Hinn will welcome them with open arms and collection plates in his hand to milk them of their money."

Hey hey! Easy now! We're attempting to detox the country right now. Even the Canadians are realizing that they are not immune to the poison.

The last thing we need is for more of them to show up with a British accent. (Americans think the British accent equals 30 IQ points already.) No need to confuse the folks here that keep voting the fundies into office.

65. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26330 by justme on March 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Doesn't sound credible.

Are there any details on what the discrimination is occurring? The three statements in the article don't make sense and are the kind of thing that every other group gets bashed over anyway.

Also, I can't see them suffering from discrimination if the majority of people are Christian.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the complaints deal with having to deal with homosexuals or being told not to proselytize at work. In that case, screw em.

66. The History of Creationist Thought

Comment #26326 by justme on March 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Agreed. Unfortunately not very funny. Has potential though.

67. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26305 by justme on March 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm

#26047 by Carl S. Richardson

"Why is it that these people always turn to faith for emotional reasons? Francis Collins was just as bad with his falling before waterfall rubbish. None of them seem to convert because they think religion gives a valid explanation of universe; it's always for personal reasons that have no connection to the truth."

(I wish I had a link to a study that was posted a few weeks back. Should have bookmarked or saved a copy.)

To most religious people, emotions may support religious belief, but they say they thought about it and came to the conclusion that the religious beliefs they have are correct. Conversely, when these same people are asked the reason for religious belief in others, the religious say it is likely for emotional support or some form of Pascal's wager.

As we see with Andrew's response, his earlier statements do not survive cross examination. Yet, Andrew seems to be honest when he talks about the reasons why he believes as he does (even as he drags Pascal out of the grave and dusts him off).

The waterfall was evidence to Collins, even if we see it as either a sign of wishful thinking or residual brain washing. (Side note: One of my old girlfriends was puzzled and even frustrated when I showed any sense of awe and wonder over nature. To her, awe is a sign of religious belief. I asked her why that had to be the case, and she was always speechless. To her, it was an axiom that seeing nature as glorious was believing in God.)

The main problem for both men is that they are smart enough to think around objections that the average and even above average person brings to them. This is a real issue, since if nobody can challenge you, learning something new and abandoning bad ideas is very difficult.

What changed this time around is that Andrew has encountered someone (Sam) who has above average intelligence plus a good working knowledge of the issues involved. If the conversation continues, Andrew must admit substantial errors at some point. He's already retreating to the fundamentalist position on some issues -- even though Andrew is not a fundie.

Either Andrew will learn (and that may take time) or he will pick some other position. The one he held at the beginning of the conversation is no longer viable.

(Hope I covered everything. The forum software timed out and I lost the post. This is from memory.)

68. Richard Dawkins and the dangerous delusion of religion

Comment #25731 by justme on March 14, 2007 at 9:11 pm

cheshirecat: "I don't know but i'll bet it never gets anywhere near the problems that the communists caused us."

Well, the communists are long gone or substantially moderated (even in China or on a kibbutz). Even when they were around in force, there was a clear line between "Us" and "Them".

Religion seems to be almost everywhere ... and not isolated to a few ideology-driven countries.

It was easy to point out how communism was a bad idea poorly implemented, since the criticism did not require self examination. Even though religions have failed, too many people don't understand the failures and will have to go through serious self examination before they understand what the problems are.

Religion is a much bigger problem than communism since it is here, entrenched, and can't easily be corrected.

69. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25729 by justme on March 14, 2007 at 8:52 pm

The first word to come to mind was "bigotry".

70. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25389 by justme on March 12, 2007 at 9:27 pm

James Carroll: "Wait, it says he acknowledges his non-theism, yet he's actually a unitarian, so he does believe in a God."

You can be both a Unitarian and an atheist.

71. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25337 by justme on March 12, 2007 at 8:32 am

I'm disappointed.

The conversation ended, and Andrew didn't hold up well at all. I was hoping for more insight instead of what he came up with which is not very convincing.

72. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25240 by justme on March 11, 2007 at 7:21 am

MelM: " "Faith-head" is ok.
I'm fine with "faith-head." I think mindlessly sucking up dogma, thus betraying one's very nature as a "rational animal", is indeed a moral issue. Faith is a vice."

I agree with your description. Faith is use like a robe of solemnity used to keep the corpse of willful ignorance or reality warm.

That said, the term "faith-head" or "faithheads" is not valuable. At best, it sounds divisive and derogatory. It stands out as a specialized term and sounds cliquish. At worst, it is an ineffective attempt at an insult.

As an insult, I don't think it is strong enough -- or clear enough -- to yield positive results.

The most effective words are those that already exist but are given new or extra meanings. The common words are accepted by everyone as-is, but the context caries along the new meanings.

That is one reason why the the religious fanatics and religious mainstream have been so effective in abusing words that describe positive things over the years. They are unrelenting in the abuse of common words and repurposing those words for other uses.

The examples are widespread and deeply entrenched;

* Father, brother, mother, child, family ... given as titles for members or parts of religious groups.

* Love of the unknown is a virtue. Pluralism is divisive. Secular society is a failure. Tolerance is a weakness.^ Being interested in ecology makes you a nut (though this is changing). Even reality is somewhat unsavory.

None of these things are true, though they have effectively been cooped.

This tactic is also used in advertising; read a package and if it says it is good for you it is usually not. In an ideal world, these abuses should stand out and warn us that the speaker can not be trusted. Unfortunately, just like the advertisers, the common words used by the religious bring along the secondary agenda, integrated into the host word like a parasite.

If we are going to combat this abuse, we have to be careful. We also have to consider using the same tactics but not in an abusive way.

The homosexuals did an amazing job repurposing the word "gay" -- a word that used to be an analogue to "happy". The religious and advertisers tend to take words -- such as love -- that have no analogues -- something that I consider an abusive level of aggression.

Inventing words and phrases requires an additional level of understanding that the uninitiated do not have. "Faith head" may one day be strong enough, but it's not effective now because it is specialized and can not be used in any other context but as an insult to willfully religious people.

( ^ No, I am an not saying each opinion has equal weight. Obviously not. Evidence and clear thinking will sort the good from the bad if we allow it.)

73. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25119 by justme on March 10, 2007 at 8:40 am

fenrisulven: "Why not just pick up the phone and talk to the guy? Talking via a newspaper seems like a detour."

The comments were used improperly in public, so a public statement is important. A phone call or email would be nice but not enough.

74. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25104 by justme on March 10, 2007 at 5:57 am

karlJ: "Why are YOU apologizing for a setup stunt that the "hired publicity machine" executed?"

Mr. Dawkins was correct in offering an apology precisely BECAUSE he was used by a smear group improperly.

By both offering an apology and putting the apology in context he is showing that he meant no offense and that his words were not intended as they were used. It also shows that both of them are victims of these scumbags.

Richard's response is both ethical (as it clears the air) and it is practical as it neutralizes any conflict that the bastards intended to foment (even if the conflict only existed in the minds of the public and not in the minds of either Peter or Richard).

75. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24125 by justme on March 4, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Can't view it. The 'ABC Player' comes up blank. No errors, just doesn't play even if I hit the play button and give it 10 minutes just in case.

(Linux, Firefox and Konqueror, current version of Flash (9,0,31,0). Seems like this is a known problem with the Linux release of Flash, ABC News, and Fox News.)

76. Darwin's God

Comment #24116 by justme on March 4, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Yorker: "I dislike using uppercase but this needs to be loud:

THE QUESTION OF GOD'S EXISTENCE IS NOT IMPORTANT!"

Great set of comments, and I agree with this statement completely.

We do have to deal with the religious, though, that don't understand this basic fact.

Since the question of the existence of a deity is a scientific question, it can be scrutinized by science.

This has to be said since the willfully ignorant religious are aggressive in attacking and distorting science since it is a threat.

It's good to return the favor, since they don't want to be civil.

These folks *KNOW* that science -- by learning about how the world works and what is real -- has decimated the foundation of every religion and continues to do so. They know that if religion is reduced to a set of old stories they have no authority. (I consider this a very good thing!)

Hobbes and Seneca (Rome) will cover the cynical view that is most likely correct; Religion is a tool to control other people who would not be otherwise controllable.

If the defenders of religion believe that they are talking about reality or not does not matter. As Dawkins points out, it is likely that a large percentage of US politicians are probably functional atheists. Yet, they don't support atheism.

Because of that, handling the existence of a deity matters quite a bit. I hope that it does not waste any more time than necessary, and at worst the Hobbes/Seneca crowd decides that they have had enough and that distorting science is not good for anyone. Unfortunately, I don't think they will be listening. ****em.

77. Darwin's God

Comment #24112 by justme on March 4, 2007 at 9:54 pm

MIND_REBEL: "Scott Atrans attack on Sam Harris during the Beyond Belief conference were shameful. I think he does a disservice to all the real atheists involved in the struggle to overcome the meme of religion. People that fail to recognize the destructive nature of religion, ultimately, only end up giving cover to the extremists.

He's not somebody i respect on any level. His pathetic attempt to discredit memes only reveled that he's been infected as well. I'd like to see a formal debate between him and Prof Dawkins."

Working backwards;

* Disagree: Memes are an interesting concept, and I use the concept as it seems to apply to the real world. That said, I've read a few books on them, and they aren't proved. They deserve scrutiny.

* Agree: Religion, when all things are considered, is no doubt a net negative. Has it always been? Maybe. Maybe not. I can be convinced either way on a case by case basis. At this point in time, religion supernaturalism is demands willful ignorance.

* Disagree: Scott can say what he wants. His input is pushing the subject forward, so for one I welcome it.

78. God: The Failed Hypothesis

Comment #24108 by justme on March 4, 2007 at 9:09 pm

...haven't listened to much yet. So far, excellent.

79. Houses of the Holy

Comment #24106 by justme on March 4, 2007 at 8:49 pm

( Cool...just posted that to the forums as an article to consider! Thanks for listening! )

The emotion that I had when reading this was of rage. Not at the minor-league and Canadian versions of the Bakers, but of the thick headed followers who just are too thick to get it. Wake up!

It is great that three reporters did a combined investigation of this situation.

80. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #24100 by justme on March 4, 2007 at 7:42 pm

pauliej: "It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from simpler states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science is not equipped to answer. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently non-scientific, and so has no place in a science curriculum."

I'd answer like this (changes/additions _underlined_);

"It is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that both the universe and life have evolved into their present states from _earlier_ states over billions of years. Whether those processes of evolution were initiated by a supreme being is a question which science _does_not_concern_itself_with_ _as_the_involvement_of_such_a_being_ _does_not_yield_results_ _that_can_be_examined_and_reviewed_rigorously_. Therefore, any theory or hypothesis which postulates the existence of a supreme being is inherently _not_in_the_field_of_science_ but is _theology_, and so has no place in a science curriculum."

That said, what do theologists do?

81. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #22985 by justme on February 25, 2007 at 11:32 am

Sancus: Carly Fiorina about Mormonism

Thanks! Played it about 8x just for the audio.

Bill Maher's pointed use of facts and his direct reply to Fiorina's muddled uninformed moderation is quite good.

82. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22925 by justme on February 24, 2007 at 3:45 pm

" "Oh, brother", is right!

Sullivan got on this "soul" kick of his in agreeing with a comment by another Andrew who also can't seem to think logically: "

Andrew Leigh: "Where's the evidence that the soul does not reside in the heart?"

If AS really thinks this is a valid line of thinking -- even if he himself disagrees if this is likely -- he has slipped into the willfully ignorant category.

That said, did you see the two slam dunk replies?

1. "That people with artificial hearts are not soulless zombies?"

and

2. "Heart transplant patients don't resurrect the soul of the donor?"

83. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22813 by justme on February 23, 2007 at 5:59 am

NormanDoering: "Did the debate end?

Andrew Sullivan has said basically nothing about it on his blog. He's moving on as if nothing happened."

I don't know, though Sam did take a few days to respond to Andrew. Give Andrew a few days -- or more -- to post his reply.

84. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22761 by justme on February 22, 2007 at 12:15 am

287. Comment #22670 by NormanDoering: "I just skimmed through Sam's newest at beliefnet.com and it is surprisingly gentle and some of it is baffling. For example, Sam says: "I did hear some bomb-blasts in the distance. They were magnificent." "

I took Sam's entire reply to Andrew as an acknowledgment that Andrew is clever, honest, but totally out flanked. Why step on a stunned puppy?

If this were a no-holds-barred winner-takes-all debate, Sam could easily use much sharper comments and "win".

Yet, winning is not the point here. This is a discussion between equals. It could be that Andrew, on a different subject, would stump Sam leaving him with little to argue for. That did not happen this time, but it could have on some other subject.

It turns out that Andrew is taking a position that is difficult to defend and Sam is knowledgeable enough to both know that and to handle all of Andrew's responses. At this point, there is no reason or benefit to being rude or even terse.

Sam is keeping the discussion friendly, as it has been from the beginning, and is now just passing along insight that Andrew does not seem to have considered.

In a year, after Andrew has thought about Sam's comments and researched the issues more, he may come back and stump Sam. Andrew may be a different kind of theist at that point -- or he may not be a theist at all.

85. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22719 by justme on February 21, 2007 at 6:53 am

Good presentation. I'd like to hear the replies from the audience (if any).

86. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22565 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 6:39 pm

gimlibengloin: "Er, not sure why RDnet has placed this post PRIOR to the one I'm responding to"

I don't know. It happened to me too.

[edited]

Ah ... I just figured it out!

Change your preferences so that you use GMT _not_ your own time zone. (For reference, I am at GMT+5 (EST - USA East Coast) and using GMT I see the current local (EST) time on the web page.)

87. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22557 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm

anotherclinton: "You guys are missing the best part of the story. ... So the man agrees with Geocentric Theory more readily than he agrees with Heliocentric Theory. Wonderful."

Nope. Didn't miss it at all.

While the creationists are willfully ignorant, the flat/stationary earthers are in the twilight zone of kookiness.

That's why folks have been asking if the web site was a hoax or someone's idea of sarcasm.

88. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22553 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Saiph: "Alot of the fixed earth links are dead, surely it is a hoax ?"

To me, that lends credibility. After all, ideology and incompetence seem to be close cousins.

89. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22551 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm

ScienceBreath: "Should I infer that some christians like to taste their god? Eew!"

Yes, Catholics.

Speaking as an ex-Catholic, God/Jesus kind of tastes like a rice cracker. Crunchy. A dab of jelly, or if He were coated in that yellow cheese puff coating and God would be a good snack food. Too boring otherwise. (Not a big rice cracker fan. You would think that God would taste 'unbelievably good'. Hmmm...)

90. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22546 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm

gimlibengloin: "... Dawkins is so against the idea of believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch but is quite willing to believe in extraterrestrial civilisations which are also quite outside the boundaries of empirical science. ... Everybody needs to be more critical in their reading of Richard Dawkins."

While Dawkins does make mistakes -- Moore's Law is about transistor density and only indirectly about processing power -- this point is misunderstood.

He's not saying that extraterrestrial civilizations do indeed exist.

He is saying that supernatural-non-evolved-gods are unlikely at best.

Both, though, are scientific questions; Do gods exist? Do extraterrestrials exist?

On a personal note, because 'aliens' could come about by a natural process -- after all, we did -- it is not unreasonable at all to assume that there might be some out there. Looking for evidence of them is not at all unreasonable.

If in that search we find life in other places in our solar system -- even if only at the microbe or bacterial level -- we'd have evidence that life is not a rare one-shot-per-universe event.

In the case of gods, if we find or are found by 'god-like' creatures they are not automatically unnatural/'supernatural' just because we don't have ready explanations for what they are able to do. Occam's razor would apply; we have proven evolution, so a similar process must have occurred to explain the god-like aliens.

91. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22530 by justme on February 19, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Crap. No joke. This guy's serious and the site -- one verse short of the Flat Earth Society whackos -- looks entirely serious.

Can anyone find out if this is in anyway a hoax?

I'd think that people aren't this stupid ... but then, why are we arguing about evolution vs. creationism?

92. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22198 by justme on February 13, 2007 at 9:26 am

Re: Comment #22189 by yoursdhruly

#1 & #2. I didn't understand #3.

Theists will be critical of atheists regardless. The reasons for this are many, including but not limited to;

* It is easier for them to find fault in us then to find fault in what they believe.

* What we say is a threat to a large part of what they base life on.

While it is true that you will get some whack jobs in any group of people, it all comes back to the bias of the theists. If 1 atheist anywhere gets unhinged, the theists will use that as evidence that atheists everywhere are bad. If the atheist is part of an atheist group ... they are still going to blame atheists everywhere.

So, join or don't join. Personal choice.

That said, even with _1_ book, there are countless factions of Christians. Atheists have no single book.

Science. Is. Not. Atheism.

Just as the civil rights and gay rights movements had articulate and thoughtful spokespeople, there are plenty of people now who take the gains of the past and don't care one bit for the philosophical reasoning.

Science on many levels is like a 1,000 watt flashlight against many absurd claims. As such, it has value to countering the nonsense we as atheists clearly see.

93. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22133 by justme on February 13, 2007 at 1:58 am

Comment #22126 by Johan
"It's ironic that the black guy claimed that Christians get their morals from the bible. If it were so, he would still be the SLAVE of some rich southern family. Fortunately for him, most Christians don't read the Bible that literarily. But please, don't claim that Atheists are the hypocrites."

While I agree on the irony, I'd never bring it up to a black person unless I were a good friend with them and they were used to discussing things abstractly.

Even though that is the case, you can see quite a few women who actually insist that the bad attitudes the Bible has IRT women are entirely justified. They do indeed want to be 'barefoot and pregnant' and they have no additional ambitions.

94. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22114 by justme on February 12, 2007 at 11:54 pm

(arrrr!! damn forum software lost my message again!)

Summary;

* Not a fan of American Atheists.
* They missed an opportunity to correct the biased 'morals' challenge; should have been easy.
* I appreciate that they are an established voice, even though I'm not a fan.

* Richard Dawkins - Spot on good job. Words and attitude were direct but quite friendly and approachable.

* Paula Zahn - Started out OK, but toward the end she looked tense. Even disgusted. Maybe I was reading too much into her facial expressions.

95. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21705 by justme on February 10, 2007 at 5:29 pm

RE: Comment #21696 by FortunaAdiuvatForte

"While I accept humans cannot be totally alturistic I feel it is illogical and offensive to say Mother Theresa was a bad woman, nor is it true that she guarantees herself a place in heaven, as even a small amount of researcjh into theology would tell you."

Speaking of research, perform a search using the the following sets of keywords;

mother theresa painkiller

mother theresa criticism

96. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21631 by justme on February 10, 2007 at 8:00 am

to: Cwazy Cat Lady
re: "get to work"

I think he's suffering from projection. After all, what does a Theologian do all day?

Theologian: "Oh, hello Bob!"

Bob: "Gee, I was meaning to ask you since you're an expert. Does God really exist?"

Theologian: "Yes."

Bob: "Are you sure?"

Theologian: "Yep."

Bob: "How do you know?"

Theologian: "The Bible says so."

Bob: "How do you know the Bible is correct?"

Theologian: "Because the Bible says God wrote it, so God wouldn't lie about His existence."

Bob: "Ah..." [confused]

Theologian: "Listen, Bob, I'm a very busy man was there something more mysterious I could talk to you about? Angels? Deamons? Unicorns?"

Bob: "Na-no...just God. What are you doing."

Theologian: "OH! It's this new thing called sodiku. From Japan, I'm told. Quite addictive. Keeps the mind sharp for when those really hard questions come up."

Bob: "Like what? What hard questions?"

Theologian: [pause] "Hmmm..." [pause] "Humph." [pause]

Bob: [raises an eyebrow, shifts on his feet, concerned about the long pause]

Theologian: "OH, Bob, did you want something?"

Bob: "I asked what the hard questions were."

Theologian: "OH, right. Right." [pause] "Hmmm." [pause]

Bob: "Sir?"

Theologian: "Well that's just it Bob. There aren't any. Whenever there is one, I just remember that God did it and the question no longer needs a fancy answer."

Bob: "OH! So that's it then? Why do you play sodiku?"

Theologian: "I guess it's to improve my understanding of God. He works in mysterious ways, after all."

97. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21621 by justme on February 10, 2007 at 7:31 am

Sounds good. Maybe they should take this on the road and set up shop outside the Oval Office?

98. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20743 by justme on February 6, 2007 at 8:13 am

""Whenever we think we have all the answers, remember the words Job heard out of the whirlwind: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" Where, indeed."

Of all the hypocrisy. The religious claim the atheists have it all figured out - and then they have the gall to turn around and tell us how it all works. I would say to the author that, his protestations aside, he is making some amazing claims of knowledge, over and above those made in science. The author should take the advice from his book of knowledge, and attend to the log in his own eye, before fretting over whatever specks might be in the eyes of atheists.""

It's called projection.

Here's a rule that works for most any type of advertising. (And make no mistake, his speech is an advertisement.)

* If you have to promote something as true, most likely it is not.

Look at the TV and watch the commercials. Sweet treats with happy active music ... yet no mention of the sugar crash or the angst from putting on weight. Twisted, but entirely predictable.

George Carlin said it best, though he's talking about advertising as well as religion;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SzHlMs2rSIM

99. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20733 by justme on February 6, 2007 at 7:27 am

I find his speech fascinating. An unintentional (?) psychological bearing of his 'soul' that the anthropoligist in me grins over.

Look at the language he uses;

* He is "a child of the Episcopal Church". (God/Church as parent)
* He is "one who is undeserving but grateful". (Guilt and shame as virtues)
* He talks about "Pride" in Biblical terms, and is not humble about it.

It's code and will not make sense since it's not intended to make sense. It's intended to deflect criticism and inflate those who know the code.

It's an example of modern tribalism, as can be shown when he mentions "child of the south", "at the heart of the story, the Christian story", and many many more. To me, they just pop off the page.

This is a good artifact for study. If you understand this, you will understand the religious more...even if this is a Hobbesian political ploy.