Comments by Quine

1051. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78778 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Forgive them, Professor, they know not what they ... well, they just know not, and that's the problem!

1052. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #78771 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 8:40 pm

1053. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78750 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I find it very encouraging that the arguments Prof. Dawkins uses just keep getting better as he has been exposed to these last couple of years of criticism, whereas, the religious folks have made no further progress.

1054. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78723 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Comment #78497 by GBG

Great, That's all we need. The fate of mankind to be in the hands of muslims and christians.

Yes, and one of the (many) things Christians don't get is that their unfounded belief (in the resurrection of a guy back in the iron age) facilitates belief by Muslims (in another guy who directly received the word of an almighty deity and was physically taken "up") because the Christians have no standing to say the latter belief is nonsense. This is why it is so important for rational people to stand up and say "nonsense" to all religion.

1055. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78708 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Dianelos,

Before you go on in the Theism v. Naturalism argument, I strongly suggest you go over to the philosophy section of the forum and read the materialism thread and its subsequent branchings into several consciousness threads. This will save you typing in stuff that is already there, and reading all the stuff that will, inevitably, come back to shoot you down.

Of course, you are invited to start your own TvN thread there if you really want to get a workout.

1056. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78700 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 11:09 am

Comment #78684 by Dianelos Georgoudis

But be forewarned, in the end of his book Drange estimates that the probability of the existence of God is much much higher than the probability of fairies living at the bottom of the garden ;-)

Be forewarned that a very very bad event with a probability of 10e-1000 is 1000 times more likely than another very very bad event with a probability of 10e-1003; neither of which are going to keep me awake at night.

1057. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78697 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 10:59 am

Complexity compared to what? Ptolemy's system of "crystal spheres" was more complex than the Copernican system that replaced it. Likewise, General Relativity is simpler than the Newtonian celestial system with the kinds of kludges attached to it that would be necessary to patch up the problems encountered before Einstein. This kind of pattern continues.

1058. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78694 by Quine on October 14, 2007 at 10:43 am

Comment #78685 by Dianelos Georgoudis

3. Predict some observation that would have to follow if the null hypothesis were true.

Watch him sleep.

1059. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78617 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Here is a link to an electronic form of Spinoza's TTP.

Edit:
Spinoza, the link you found does look better. I also agree to recommend:
Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, Samuel Shirley, translator, second edition (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2001)

1060. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78603 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 6:31 pm

From comment #78602 by Teratornis

... eventually blossom into a verdant forest of doubt, with every bough sagging under the bounteous fruit of mixed metaphors.

Wordslinger, heal thyself ...

Actually, I enjoyed your comment very much, and encourage you to expand it and submit it to the deconversion section.

1061. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78594 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 5:35 pm

I am quickly sending the link to this video to everyone I know.

1062. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78592 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Teratornis 19 Of course the chain of "reasoning" won't be in so many words. That's more of a narrative describing the magma of emotions swirling through the subconscious.

Last night a friend told me that people trying to recover from substance abuse had to find a "higher power" to succeed. I tried (unsuccessfully

) to explain that that "higher power" was the unconscious mind.

1063. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78573 by Quine on October 13, 2007 at 4:19 pm

The common faithful do see Prof. Dawkins et al. attacking what they believe. I am waiting for them to turn to the theologians and ask the experts why they don't believe what the common faithful believe. (Not holding my breath while waiting, however.)

1064. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78438 by Quine on October 12, 2007 at 10:19 pm

In fact, it's the last I will say here on any topic.

I'll believe it when I don't see it.

1065. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78121 by Quine on October 12, 2007 at 12:20 am

Chris, be sure to add Ann Coulter to your post of things that make Atheists angry.

I know she has her own special place on this web site (The Ugly), but don't forget her. Unfortunately, we can't.

1066. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78063 by Quine on October 11, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Perhaps we should write to these 138 and ask them not to kill those who leave the faith.

1067. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78010 by Quine on October 11, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Mark has had a very good run on this thread from his
first post in December where he referred to the "oxygen of publicity" to today's pride of mockery ( martyr complex?). His organization and ideas have gotten a much wider audience that he could have otherwise achieved, and we have witnessed the twisting of logic that would have been the envy of the best circus contortionist. Our education has benefited both from the knowledge of the existence of these bogus claims from the supernatural, and also from the view of someone who could actually convince himself that they are true.

On one side, we tend to feel that the presentation of facts and logic would easily lead someone to just see the validity of our world view; on the other side, they tend to feel that presentation of the scriptures should easily lead us to just see the validity of their world view. I believe it was Mark Twain who observed the difficulty of getting someone to understand something when his profession depends on not understanding. How do you expect to get preachers to understand that scripture is fiction?

1068. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77975 by Quine on October 11, 2007 at 11:26 am

BJohn: How do you cope with the fact that you can have two or three or maybe even four different sincerely committed Christians, who all revere the Scriptures as God's word � and yet, claiming all of them to be faithful � can come up with a different understanding of one text or other, or a group of texts.

That one is easy. Scriptures are generally based on a set of unfalsifiable propositions, thus the various interpretations cannot be tested. Even when the writings can be tested (6 day creation, great flood, etc.) believers just turn a blind eye. This is simple human nature, and the more subjective the idea, the worse it gets. Scientists have the same problem understanding the results of some experiments. That is why protocols for evaluating new drug treatments are so difficult to design. But experiments and tests can be repeated in changed circumstances enough times to cope with this; that is not usually possible for scripture.

1069. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77871 by Quine on October 11, 2007 at 1:07 am

Thank you, Chris. Some would not agree, but I think it is important for infidels to know the true history of scripture. I am sure Dan Dennett would agree because he is interested in religion as a natural product of the human mind. Unfortunately, many believers do not know the history of their own scriptures (hopefully you reduce this problem day by day) which makes talking to them about the subject matter even more difficult. So, thanks again.

1070. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77852 by Quine on October 10, 2007 at 11:22 pm

CHeard, I also noticed on your blog that someone suggested that you take a look at some of the Dan Dennett videos. I just wanted to put a plug in for one I especially like when Dan talked about religion at the TED conf.

here.

1071. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77818 by Quine on October 10, 2007 at 5:37 pm

If one must respond to something a troll has posted, it is often better to refer only to the post in the third person, and not to the troll.

1072. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #77760 by Quine on October 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm

This is a online video of the documentary "God's Next Army".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7630851222567912489

Scared the bejesus out of me.

1073. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77621 by Quine on October 9, 2007 at 10:50 pm

CHeard,

I took a look at the link you gave to your blog. Thank you very much for trying to explain to folks that we Atheists are not angry at something for which we see no evidence of existence. Sad, but true, that is a stretch for some to understand.

Also, I liked your piece on Genesis 1-11 and wanted to ask you what is your take on when these stories were transfered from oral tradition to writing? Also, how much (if much at all) of the Pentateuch was rewritten during the time of Ezra after the return from Babylon?

1074. The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

Comment #77449 by Quine on October 9, 2007 at 10:39 am

Sounds like a job for the Pastafarian school lunch attack squadron.

1075. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77236 by Quine on October 8, 2007 at 8:13 pm

I would hope that Sam comes to understand that it is very important for there to be a core of respected folks who stand up against the wind and say "We are Atheists, and here is what we find to be true from rational thought ..." At the same time, it is fine for some others to fly below the radar. The first group of troopers are necessary so the second group can say things like "Them Atheists ain't going anywhere, but they did get me thinking about this one thing ..."

1076. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77173 by Quine on October 8, 2007 at 4:27 pm

CHeard: As for why the gods found human women so comely�just look around you, man!

Well, I wasn't asking about the 'women' part, it was about why there was human sexual response in the 'gods.' We are specifically told these beings are not human. The story does not indicate that the gods were in any way longing for progeny, but rather that they just wanted to get laid because these women were, obviously, sex objects. In that context there no indication that the gods hung around and helped raise the offspring or presented any of the extorted Bible Belt "family values."

I asked the question because this kind of thing was common in the mythologies of the polytheistic cults in the middle east at the time. Also, it represents the lack of knowledge of the usual specificity of sexual attractors for each species (yes, I know there is trans species sex going on, but I said "usual").

1077. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77160 by Quine on October 8, 2007 at 3:53 pm

CHeard, on your question of anger:

A few years ago, I was driving along listening to a radio interview with the, then, US congressional leader Tom DeLay. He was asked something along the lines of why he felt justified on basing some public policy decisions on Christian teachings while the public was not all Christian. He responded by quoting that passage in the NT when Jesus purportedly said "I am the way ..." (emphasis on 'the' provided by Tom DeLay). He was basing public policy on the interpretation of the definite article in the sentence as representing "the one and only." I got so angry I could scarcely continue to drive. This led me to extensive research on the history of scriptures (that is why I truly appreciate your willingness to answer questions here) so that I might understand how these memes took over, and construct the best questions to ask of those who have a chance of finding their way out.

As for how religion impacts me, personally, I make part of my living by presenting technical information as an expert witness in the US federal court system. In the past it was against the law for Atheists to do this because the oath "So help me God" was considered forsworn if you did not believe in God. The law was changed specifically so Atheists could give testimony. But sometimes the courts still haul out the Bible, and try to apply the old oath. I have known other people from other religions who just allowed their religious rights to be trampled by this, because they did not know they could object. In my case, I always have to be sure to have the lawyers from my side get to the court clerk before the case to specifically request the non-religious oath, and no Bible, BEFORE the moment when I have to stand up there in front of the jury. I always dread the time that they will forget and shove that Bible in my face, and I will have to profess faith or loose my profession.

Thomas Jefferson told us that forced religion produces not piety but hypocrisy.

1078. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77062 by Quine on October 8, 2007 at 10:34 am

It's ALL a misdirection. What this is really all about is a fear of death combined with a wish to believe in biblical fairy stories (the Trinity, the Resurrection). All this interest in philosophy and misunderstanding of physics, math, and just about everything else is a huge 'force field' protecting that absurd core.

Arrow in dead center of target. I also think that the young child feels lost and small, and thus, grateful to have access to the biblical fairy stories, ready made.

1079. Searching for God in the Brain

Comment #77056 by Quine on October 8, 2007 at 10:22 am

Religious faith also has inherent worldly rewards, of course. It brings contentment, and charitable works motivated by such faith bring others happiness.

Including when those "charitable works" are blowing other people up?

1080. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76738 by Quine on October 7, 2007 at 12:47 am

Thank you, CHeard, that was very informative. I am still wading through the early mythology that took the gods of Samaria and Egypt and worked the stories down to what is represented in Genesis. What do you know about the personification of good and evil coming out of Persia before the OT? Was there an existing hierarchy of Paradise in place as context when it was first written?

1081. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76704 by Quine on October 6, 2007 at 7:48 pm

What worries me about the debate is that some of the Christian pundits will frame this as Dr. Lennox striking down Darwin. It doesn't matter that nothing like that happened; they depend on the fact that their audience is so ignorant of the actual nature of Darwin's work that said audience will just have to take their word for it.

In the article, My God Problem, by Natalie Angier, she relates how the scientists she interviewed stressed the great need to combat the resistance to the Theory of Evolution which has been generated by some of the religious community (mostly Christians). She writes:

Scientists think this is terrible�the public's bizarre underappreciation of one of science's great and unshakable discoveries, how we and all we see came to be�and they're right.

I call on all to do your part to help public understanding by writing to Dr. John Lennox to ask him to publicly state that he has no objection to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This is plain and simple, and if he refuses to do so, I call on all in academia (especially Francis Collins) to hold him to it.

1082. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76700 by Quine on October 6, 2007 at 7:17 pm

I have read The Language of God by Collins and, at least, he does tell his fellow Christians that the Theory of Evolution is true, and that they should stop wasting their time on that front.

1083. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76637 by Quine on October 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Paul Creber, in line with your Comment #76629 we have had people throughout history suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy who have believed that they were truly getting messages from the beyond. These folks' pants were not (necessarily) on fire, (just some of their neurons) and I often wondered how much of all the world's scripture started out this way, as have others.

Here is a quote I like from Dr. Ramachandran taken from the transcript of a BBC show
God on the Brain:

RAMACHANDRAN: Many religious mystics, including St Paul, some of the experiences they describe sound quite similar to the sorts of things you hear from patients, so it's quite possible that he had seizures.

1084. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76317 by Quine on October 5, 2007 at 1:02 pm

There are some good reasons for Atheists to convert to Pastafarians.
* First, you can stop calling yourself an "Atheist" and thus avoid all the negative things that have been discussed so often on these threads.
* Second, being a "person of faith" you may now wrap that faith around you such that others are required to refrain from the "hate speech" of telling you that what you believe is stupid.
* Third, you get to be part of a somewhat secret society (just because it is still somewhat unknown) and put this cool sticker on your car that is even more confusing to other drivers than the Darwin Fish.
* Forth, at some point, the Church of the FSM will get to cash in on US Government "Faith Based Initiatives" so we can use government money to hand out pasta and beer to the needy.
* Fifth, (and biggest) FSM bashes are WAAAAAAAY more fun than Atheist discussion gatherings.

Also, there is the question of the Supreme Being where evidence indicates the Pastafarians are much farther ahead of any other ideology. Although some argue that the SB has been found in the state of Oregon as the Giant Fungus, others support the Pando aspen in Utah while still others go for the undersea creature Posidonia. The point is that morphology shows any of these may be the earthly incarnation of His Noodly Greatness. Why waste time in silly theological discourse about the mere existence of a Supreme Being when Pastafarians can point to actual living candidates?

1085. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76129 by Quine on October 4, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Thanks Josh, for putting this up.

1086. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76070 by Quine on October 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Duff: I'm going to yell at them.

If you do that, it will help them continue the stereotype of Atheists as servants of Satan. You should not judge the value of standing up and giving rational argument by the perceived disagreement you get back. The fact that an Atheist does get up and provide rational thinking in a polite posture cuts against what they have been taught. This causes unconscious problems for them that help start the process of change of long held prejudice. Yes, the "debate" part of the debate was silly, but thousands of Christians listened to an Atheist on their radios for the very first time in their entire lives. I will bet in many cases, he was not what they expected. Not yelling at them is one of Prof. Dawkins greatest weapons.

1087. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75829 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Afterwards, the Christian broadcasters I was listening to remarked that they had heard some ideas that they had never considered, and were going to have to go think it over. This broadcast is going to cause substantial cognitive dissonance even in those who will pipe up a knee-jerk dismissal of what Prof. Dawkins has said. Furthermore, preachers across the country are going to want to come out with denunciations that will just end up exposing their flocks to more cracks in the foundations of their faith.

1088. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75819 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Just to have Prof. Dawkins speaking on Christian radio with its target audience is great.

1089. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75809 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Keep trying, BigJohn, I am listening to it, and it is great.

1090. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75804 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Hi CHeard,

I have had this question about Genesis Chapter 6 that you probably know very well. Here is how it starts from the recent Robert Alter translation:

And it happened as humankind began to multiply over the earth and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were comely, and they took themselves wives howsoever they chose. And the Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in the human forever, for he is but flesh. Let his days be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were then on the earth, and afterward as well, the sons of God having come to bed with the daughters of man who bore them children: they are the heroes of yore, the men of renown.

Where did this last part come from? It seems completely unconnected to all the rest of the scriptures. We have no information about these "sons of God," no idea who were their mothers, why they found the daughters of man so comely, and why none of their descendants (God's grandchildren) were worth saving with Noah? This disconnectedness continues as all these were wiped out in The Flood.

1091. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75535 by Quine on October 3, 2007 at 12:33 am

It is fine for some to hang back and take some kind of rationalist position, but also, some need to be an advanced guard that will take the heat for standing up and saying they do not believe in gods. Those folks are going to be called Atheists, anyway, so they might as well take it on and wear the Big Scarlett Letter A. Those who take the heat, are also in a position to keep the heat on the absurdities of religion.

Exploring what is going on in your own head need have no more to do with religion than crawling around exploring caves. Sam or others can go have these experiences, but I wish he would spend more time relating the way religion has traditionally hijacked these mental states to con folks into believing in the supernatural.

1092. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75127 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm

BAEOZ, in the general case of ontological arguments, I would tend to agree. In this case, the argument has a pivotal, but undefined, "positive properties" component. Most (especially kids) would say your banana split has its own special positive properties. However, some might be allergic. In this case, we would have to delve deeper (perhaps at the local soda fountain) to see if "desire" as an abstract ideal for the banana split (that you can't really have because you are allergic) is sufficient to establish the aforementioned positive properties.

1093. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75120 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 9:32 pm

I also admire Kurt G�del's work in mathematics. However, you are referring (I believe) to unpublished theological work. To my reading, his argument would work just as well when you substitute "Santa Claus" for "God" given that most kids consider Santa to have "positive" properties.

1094. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75113 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Robert_OBrien, are you going to argue divinity from incompleteness?

1095. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75111 by Quine on October 1, 2007 at 8:58 pm

BAEOZ:Russell, are you inclined to do some philosophical grunt work against god touting philosophers?

Bertrand Russell went there, did that. Before Dawkins bothers to get out of bed to debate any theologians, they (the believers) need to come up with something that B.R. (may his Teapot forever orbit) has not already deflected right into the ditch of philosophic history.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

1096. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74650 by Quine on September 29, 2007 at 8:07 pm

It is essential not to engage on the subject of "good or bad" but, as others have noted, to hold only to what is true.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet (Act II, Sc. II).

1097. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74243 by Quine on September 27, 2007 at 11:31 pm

It's not nasty, just a question. [looks back and forth at his shoes, shuffles, whistles a bit]

1098. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74236 by Quine on September 27, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Excellent reading list, CHeard. It sounds like a class I would throughly enjoy. Be sure to ask the students about what constitutes the self, and how modern research information about the biochemical processes of memory formation and access apply to the self. Also, ask if nonexistence can be properly evaluated against a hypothetical afterlife (even one where somehow those chemical memories stay with whatever is the successor of you). After all, it is not really possible to think of what nonexistence would be like when there is no neurological equipment running to have that "like" experience.

Perhaps it is just as well I am not in your class, as I suspect I would have a hard time restraining myself from asking more questions than the situation resources could allow.

1099. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74142 by Quine on September 27, 2007 at 11:45 am

While continuing to watch the fight over on the Register Forum, I am encouraged by the information that is pouring in from the non believer side. Perhaps it is the culture of the local community that the Christian apologists are quick to post ridiculous retorts that then allow the rationalists to pour in yet more actual knowledge. Those there who are following this must be getting exposure to ideas they would have not often seen in school.

And there are the zingers to enjoy, such as this one, today, from the poster DuckPhup:

It is up to the intellectually-honest inquirerer to judge the reliability and veritas of sources based upon their credentials (PhD in ancient history and ancient languages from Columbia has more value than a PhD in Theology from Bob Jones University, for example, when evaluating the evidentiary value of historical source documents.) and the quality of their scholarship... NOT the web page that they appear on.

Anyway... having a Ph.D in Theology is rather like having a Doctorate of Teletubby Anatomy, a B.S. in Warp-Nacelle engineering, or an advanced degree in 'Republican Ethics'.

1100. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73960 by Quine on September 26, 2007 at 10:54 pm

As Dr. Benway says, no irrationality is necessary, in fact, just the reverse. Just as you can't disprove that little elephant, you can't prove that the god Baal isn't about to return from a long vacation on another world, and resume some major smiting right here. The same is true for every other deity that every human civilization has ever worshiped. However, based on all we know about how the world works, and human psychology, it is clear that the idea that someone made up the story about the elephant in Northern Bright's refrigerator is so tremendously more probable than the actual existence of the elephant, that rationality will go with the former.

If we had tangible evidence of the elephant, or the pending return of Baal, it would be different. But, we do not. Not for Baal, or any other god.