1101. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26255 by Logicel on March 18, 2007 at 4:11 am

To be able to identify the gene(s) which causes same-sex attraction means that gay people can select to have gay children via in-vitro methods as they already do presently. The identification of the genetic basis for gayness could actually be the boon that gay people need to increase their numbers and fight discrimination.

This genetic identification does not necessarily mean that only gay people would select for gayness, but even heterosexuals, especially if it is shown that there are epigenetic interactions among genes causing an increase in creativity and intelligence--all the gay people I know are extremely creative and intelligent. Not to mention the added advantage that human breeding would perhaps be lessened. I, as an heterosexual, would seriously consider to select for a gay child--if I was still in my child-bearing stage that is!

1102. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26163 by Logicel on March 17, 2007 at 10:44 am

scooternyc quotes this mentally/emotionally unstable guy as saying, "The only cure for sin itself is the cross of Christ. No therapy will cleanse us of sin, no treatment will atone. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ will save, and salvation is found in Him alone"
________

There is no evidence for sin and no evidence that the blood Jesus Christ shed was divine and had any power to save us from this unproven concept of sin. This is pure insanity. If he kept it to himself that would be bad enough, but he wants to influence PUBLIC policy.

Mohler should spell his name muther and tack on a f*cker at the end of it.

1103. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26143 by Logicel on March 17, 2007 at 7:30 am

elfinabout wrote: "When I come across someone who has a problem with my sexuality, it is painfully obvious that the problem is theirs, not mine."
____________

Spot on. What is needed is therapy for people who are disturbed by same-sex attraction.

1104. Interview with Steven Pinker

Comment #26055 by Logicel on March 16, 2007 at 10:16 am

OlgaO, thanks for that great link.

1105. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25988 by Logicel on March 16, 2007 at 12:17 am

As for 'persuading' theists, there are as many ways to do that as there are atheists and theists. As many have posted here at this site, a mix of gentler and tougher approaches to assist in the removal of delusional and useless religious wrappings from theists' faith-ridden eyes are more potent than one or the other.

1106. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25987 by Logicel on March 16, 2007 at 12:04 am

I always disliked debates. When younger, I thought them as artificial, phony, and stiff vehicles for winning an argument for the simple motivation to win. Conversation, on the other hand, is a more 'natural' vehicle for communication and self expression. And carefully listening and responding to the concerns of another is the intellectually honest basis to conversation. And Sullivan has only managed to accomplish this aspect in this last letter.

As some here ask to give Sullivan some slack because he is an 'enlightened' American conservative, some also say that regarding his theism. However, Sullivan really gets up my atheistic nose. He is intelligent, educated, and is very fortunate to have a good life, especially the fact that he has access to medication for his medical condition while many in the world do not. There is no excuse for his adherence to irrational baloney.

I think Kervinator has intuitively hit the nail on the head, that as our lives become more and more enjoyable the harder it is to accept our mortality. For myself, I want to apply this available goodness of psychology/medicine to ensure that during my dying I will end my life as painlessly and with as much dignity that is possible. And I deeply resent silly supporters of religious superstitions that get in the way of us really understanding how to cope with the reality of our mortality, and that certainly includes very intelligent folks like Sullivan who is doing nothing to further the cause of dying with dignity.

1107. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25914 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 4:04 pm

My French neighbor when describing the medical treatment that the French medical system gave his father during his cancer treatment, mentioned that it was fairly recently that patients in pain were given adequate pain medication because of the lingering Catholic legacy that pain and suffering like what their nutty Jesus went through with such good will is wonderful and should be encouraged.

1108. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25913 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 4:01 pm

NormanDoering, Christian attitude has caused so much pain in terms of how the sick and dying are treated. And they have the gall to think they are loving, kind, and gentle people.

1109. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25909 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 3:53 pm

NormanDoering, Your blog entry on the latest from Sullivan is excellent, I also appreciated your entry, Are we losing this generation?, especially the bit about young people should be encouraged to take mind altering drugs so they can appreciate their marvelous simulation software housed in their brains so they will not be fooled by religious visions, voices, and sundry hallucinations. However, your comment setup is very rigid. You should be able to have an option of other, allowing one to sign on using whatever id they want. Anyway, that is why I don't comment at your otherwise excellent blog.

1110. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25876 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 2:12 pm

I remember someone telling me that the Chinese have a saying that goes something like, you are dead when you are born. Attitudes towards death are culturally based. I also remember my Hindu colleague recounting how in India, the dead are waked at home, and a lantern is place on the curbside in front of the home, indicating that someone is being waked there. So the kids playing around see these death lanterns as a normal consequence of life.

A psychologist once asked me when I was around 19, what I thought of death, and I replied, that it is a part of life.

And I really got a kick out of Richard Feynman, saying on his deathbed, that 'this dying is boring.' It was not terrifying to him, just boring.

1111. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25872 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 2:04 pm

"We find it very hard to think of ourselves as not being. That resistance is always there. There is no escaping it. I predict you will feel it at the hour of your death, if you have any time to contemplate it."
_________

There is a kind of therapy that encourages dying patients to let go of life. I had participated in such an approach during my sister's dying. It is certainly valid to say that the resistance will be there when facing our death, but there is no reason why we cannot have death specialists at our deathbed helping us to let go of life, instead of mumbling, idiotic priests or similar doofuses extolling their nonsense.

1112. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25865 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm

How do supporters of religious superstitions suspend their rationality to embrace their fantasies long enough so they can get comfort from them? Because, I just cannot do that. As soon as I do, I start laughing out loud.

Sullivan goes on about how it is so human to embrace even an irrational belief so as not to accept our mortality. Does that mean atheists are not human? Apparently, there are other ways to maintain humanity and accept our mortality than embracing fantasy, because a certain percentage of humanity can do exactly that.

Sullivan keeps on emphasizing the ubiquity and longevity of religion as a 'reason' for its value and 'validity.' He has asked do atheists ever think about that angle? How about if Sullivan thinks from the angle that a minority of humanity does not do what he does? At least, Sullivan does not do the 'there are no atheists in foxholes' crapola. Oh goody, I finally found some aspect of his viewpoint that I don't find despicable.

1113. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25822 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 10:34 am

"But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?"
_______

Andrew, thanks for telling Sam something that he already knows. We are all going to die, countless numbers have before us, and others will do so after us--unless we can figure out a way to make ourselves immortal.

Nothing will save us from our mortality unless we, ourselves, figure out how to do the 'salvation'. But until then, when we die we will cease to be, just like it was before we were born. Do people go around lamenting the fact that there was a time that they were not born? Without the ridiculously inadequate crapola of so-called religious salvation, based entirely on wish-fulfilling faith, psychologists and others, more intellectually honest then the neighborhood priest, could seriously address the stress of our mortality and the eventual end of self.

As I am fed up with the use of hell to terrorize humanity, I am fed up with using our mortality to grease the faith wheels.

As I have said previously, Sullivan's education and intelligence is wasted on him as he is unable to accept the glaring reality of human mortality.

1114. When They Came for the Homosexuals...

Comment #25771 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 4:50 am

Unfortunately, I have just recently discovered Chris Hedges, and I need to research more and read more of his writings, but at this point, it seems to me that Hedges is a true Christian--he practices what all the cherry pickers do not. He is the kind of Christian that shames all the rest. In addition, his knowledge is grounded dazzlingly in human psychology. I was impressed with this aspect in the above article.

Of course, Hedges can be the same person without Christianity, but it is marvelous to see a decent Christian since they are so rare.

Hedges warms the heart, while Coulter freezes it.

1115. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25763 by Logicel on March 15, 2007 at 4:25 am

USA_Limey, very good posts, thanks.

BTW, in case you did not know, you can edit the spelling of your posts after the fact, the edit icon is in the upper right of your posts (you need to be logged on though)

1116. Free Speech

Comment #25522 by Logicel on March 14, 2007 at 1:50 am

Ah, this is the video version of the audio to which Sancus linked awhile back on another thread. Oddly, I found the audio version emphasized Hitchens points better, his formidable voice had more pow!

1117. Evangelicals battle over agenda, environment

Comment #25521 by Logicel on March 14, 2007 at 1:43 am

"The letter took particular aim at the Rev. Richard Cizik, a prominent evangelical lobbyist who has promoted environmental protection as a moral imperative. Citing the creation story in the Book of Genesis, he has called the fight against global warming a directive "straight from the word of God … no doubt about it."
__________

Though it is heartening that some evangelicals are supporting enviromentalism, it is disheartening to see that supporters of religious superstitions will interpret their 'holy' book to fit whatever agenda is deemed to be needed, and never based on anything real and logical. Even a broken clock is right twice daily, and I guess some evangelicals can be also, but never for the right reasons.

1118. Turkey: Creationism Documentary

Comment #25517 by Logicel on March 14, 2007 at 1:29 am

Supporters of religious superstitions are terrifying. Unfortunately, we non-theists cannot escape magically from their dangerous nonsense--we can only continue to combat their crapola with reason and logic. In addition, we need to organize much more effectively than we are now doing.

1119. A rationalist's view of religious intolerance

Comment #25516 by Logicel on March 14, 2007 at 1:21 am

A concise summary of human attachment to the supernatural, with a sobering conclusion to why such attachment now is so dangerous, because the human ability to destroy each other is so much greater than ever before.

And yet, we have moderates like A. Sullivan basking in the familiarity which their attachment to the supernatural gives them, without them ever having the sense and courage to let go of this crippling attachment to the supernatural and focus on the real business of living on earth with our fellow humans.

1120. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25411 by Logicel on March 13, 2007 at 1:38 am

Cheshirecat, I also enjoyed your little story--especially the Bright connection!

1121. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25408 by Logicel on March 13, 2007 at 1:24 am

Yorker, Dawkins does a splendid job of explaining electromagetic and sound waves in Unweaving The Rainbow. Though grounded in the scientific method because of my biological/biochemical/medical background, I have always found physics difficult to understand. Dawkins significantly widened the crack of that door for me in this book so I can in this middle-aged stage of my life comprehend/see the basics which were hidden previously.

1122. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25406 by Logicel on March 13, 2007 at 1:19 am

Yorker, if you have not yet read Dawkins review of Sagan's Demon Haunted World, perhaps you may find it interesting:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1996-febsaganreview.shtml

1123. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25351 by Logicel on March 12, 2007 at 12:46 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen, thanks for that link to a great vid, just too funny, as are the usual comments about such satire being blasphemous.

1124. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25326 by Logicel on March 12, 2007 at 6:24 am

This debate happened around twenty years ago, and though there is some interesting and humorous aspects associated with its age, all in all, it was depressing, though the motion for the doctrine of creation being more valid than the theory of evolution was voted against.

Dawkins was calmly brilliant, focusing on what a big, sumptuous, worthy-of-the-wonder-of-the-universe theory evolution is, while mentioning that Creation doctrine is petty, small, and insulting to any notion of a God worthy of its name.

Twenty years later, we are hearing similar drivel on the threads at this site from theists who are unable to grasp a bigger theory based on substantial evidence, and instead continue to cling to a threadbare doctrine with no substantial evidence.

I have just started my first reading of Dawkins Unweaving The Rainbow,, and it is a captivating, spellbinding read because I am learning science easily and with enjoyment while my wonder remains intact. Not an easy task to accomplish, but Dawkins has. Kudos.

1125. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25227 by Logicel on March 11, 2007 at 5:44 am

ajpb, Cookie-cutter funeral is such an apt description for religious funerals. Religious funerals are like watching American films, you can fall asleep in the middle of most of them, and wake up and not miss a thing, and understand the ending!

Constrasting the religious funerals of another sister and of my mother, I can say, that they were disgusting, useless, stressful affairs that only padded the coffers of involved churches. While the secular funeral of my sister's padded the coffers of her favorite environmental group, and increased the mental/spiritual well being of those who attended.

1126. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25224 by Logicel on March 11, 2007 at 5:25 am

Here is a quote from the CFI branch in France where I live at present:

"Nowadays astrology, parapsychology, magic healing and other paranormal phenomena are trendy. Can we understand why?

In France, the very birth place of Descartes, beliefs and the irrational in a broad sense are thriving much more than one could have imagined and the situation is more than alarming."

I think that Dawkins is working on a broadcast concerning New Age irrationality to which I am looking forward.

Interesting quote from the French CFI branch's website: "Zetetics is the "method used to penetrate the reason and the nature of things" (Littré). Taught since the Antiquity, Zetetics is in fact the nonacceptance of any dogmatic statement. In brief the method could be defined as the Art of Doubting."

1127. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25223 by Logicel on March 11, 2007 at 4:53 am

My sister also died in a secular setting. The hospice where she died honored her request that nothing religious would come anywhere near her while she was dying.

1128. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25222 by Logicel on March 11, 2007 at 4:46 am

My sister's funeral was secular--her favorite non-religious music was played, and we had permission to scatter her ashes where she wanted, close to the Pacific ocean. Friends spoke about her life, often humorously. It was very lovely, and a good time was had by all which was exactly what my sister wanted.

1129. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25217 by Logicel on March 11, 2007 at 3:38 am

"Another win came in 2004, when Revenue Canada reversed an earlier decision and decided to give the HAC the same charity status enjoyed by religious groups."
_______

Way to go.

1130. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25216 by Logicel on March 11, 2007 at 3:36 am

"But the new wave of non-belief might be different. It's occasioned an organizing drive by groups that want to gather in the unfaithful and offer some secular equivalents of the communal and ritual functions that churches traditionally provide -- not to mention the political strength found in numbers."
___________________

We need to financially support the humanist organizations that already exist. Non-theists are notorious for not being organized--there is no excuse for it as there are many decent humanist groups available. I, myself, will check out CFI as they are apparently branched out in Europe.

EDIT: Here's info on CFIs branches.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/transnational/index.html

1131. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25082 by Logicel on March 10, 2007 at 3:15 am

With global interconnectedness made possible by affordable travel and communications, the insecure among us can now go exotic in our choice of domatic dressing up: Lindh and the dufus in the above video can luxuriate in 'foreign' versions of dogma, and get an added frisson of false superiority.

1132. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25077 by Logicel on March 10, 2007 at 3:04 am

Regarding Richard's post about any psychological/sociological works on the attraction of dogma for psychologically insecure people, the amazing Eric Hoffer summed up the basis for the behavior of people like John Walker Lindh and this dufus in the above video (excerpted from the Wikipedia article):

"Hoffer was among the first to recognize the central importance of self-esteem to psychological well-being. While most recent writers focus on the benefits of a positive self-esteem, Hoffer focused on the consequences of a lack of self-esteem. Concerned about the rise of totalitarian governments, especially those of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, he tried to find the roots of these "madhouses" in human psychology. He discovered that fanaticism and self-righteousness are rooted in self-hatred, self-doubt, and insecurity. As he describes in The True Believer, a passionate obsession with the outside world or with the private lives of other people is merely a craven attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life."

Here is the Wikipedia article:

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

Nazism and Facism triggered quite a number of psychological/sociological works in the fifties and sixties like Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality. These works covered the psychological aspects of dogma, whether it is religious or not.

I remember being assigned to read The Authoritarian Personality for a psychiatric nursing clincial course in the late sixities, and I had thought, wow, this describes perfectly the nuns and priests that taught me during my childhood!

1133. Happy 50th Birthday to PZ Myers!

Comment #24885 by Logicel on March 9, 2007 at 3:33 am

Wonderful little present for Meyers. Well done, Richard.

Happy Birthday, PZ!

1134. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24752 by Logicel on March 8, 2007 at 10:30 am

Hitchens, per my NYC relatives' favorite expression, is a piece of work. He is voluble, passionate, witty, rash, outspoken, and very literate. His admirers only worry that his liver is not long for this world.

As for his article on women not being funny, it was a witty, brilliant, friendly-to-women article, and pretty darn accurate to boot.

1135. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24566 by Logicel on March 7, 2007 at 10:04 am

Is this bloke saying that I am a closet theist?

You know, I cannot accept that Marilyn Monroe was so at home with her feminine sexuality, she was really a closet puritan. I cannot accept that Bushlet is a warmongering Christian, he really is a peace-loving atheist.

The author of this article is an armchair 'psychiatrist', playing both roles, that of the patient and of the psychiatrist at the same time. He is calming his own phobia of godlessness by concluding atheists are in reality unconscious theists.

1136. Long live satire

Comment #24532 by Logicel on March 7, 2007 at 5:43 am

Sancus, Thanks for the link. Hitchens passionately and eloquently summed up the situation very well. Also thanks for the info on TV Ontario--sites are now duly bookmarked.

Djudge, thanks for those dressup links, wow, what fun, I seem to have a predilection of dressing up male religious figures with female garb! Jesus gussied up as Marilyn Monroe and MO as a muslim woman in a veiled costume is still making me crack up as I write this post!!!!! Thanks!

1137. Ayaan Hirsi Ali Feature

Comment #24328 by Logicel on March 6, 2007 at 3:11 am

I first heard of the practice of infibulation when cataloging books published by Amnesty International about 35 years ago. As a female, I was beyond horrified, I was numb with terror. That terror has never left me.

If Ayaan has decided that aligning with a ultra conservative think tank will give her battle against this barbarbic practice some edge, then she is correct is being aligned with them.

1138. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #23997 by Logicel on March 4, 2007 at 4:32 am

Robert Maynard wrote, "Someday in the future there will be an intellectual of similar pedigree to Dawkins, saying something along the lines of "When people hear the phrase, 'British child' it should grate like fingernails on a chalkboard."
_______

Thanks for those insightful words, they made my day.

1139. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23981 by Logicel on March 4, 2007 at 1:51 am

Bremas, thanks for the link. The interviewed parents agree that their children's embracing of religion, though it can be inconvenient at times, is preferred to the taking of drugs. Is the implication that not only do the religious young are somehow immune to taking drugs, but also if they did not embrace religion, that they would have a much higher chance of taking drugs? Seems pretty wonky logic to me.

Understandably, some of the interviewed parents are happy that their children are happier religious than when they were not religious.

The high resulting from taking addictive drugs becomes harder and harder to sustain as time goes on. The expense of feeding the addiction can be financially ruining, and the toll on the physical, mental, and emotional health can be pronounced. With such knowledge, it makes more sense to educate children as to the dangers of drug taking, and to focus on preventing that danger becoming a reality for your child. I know this is easier said than done.

In a way, it is like letting kids watch TV, play video games, and surf the net, because the parents are too occupied with other stuff to pay attention to their kids. So why not add religion to the mix of non-parental baby sitters?

A study linked the biochemical changes in the brain that happens when one is in passionate love with the biochemical state when one is insane. While non-religious passion ebbs after a reasonable time, so the committment to a long term relationship has a chance to develop, the passion that religious believers have, is able to be sustained for all their lives. No wonder this religious 'drug' is so enticing. It is better than cocaine.

1140. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23841 by Logicel on March 3, 2007 at 6:55 am

MouthAlmighty, Your concise description (see below), styled in a dialogue between the battling, cognitive components of Biz's approach with its resulting cognitive-dissonance-soothing balm of a conclusion is downright cool, not to mention, lucid, insightful, and masterful (or mistressful, depending on involved gender persuasion). You really are a sweetheart--please keep up the quality posts!

OBSERVATION: This looks like it was designed.
INFERENCE: There must exist a designer!
OBSERVATION: I can't find a designer anywhere.
INFERENCE: My 'designer' idea was wrong.
OBSERVATION: Despite there being no designer, evidence for a designer is everywhere! I really don't like the idea of a world without a designer, but try as I might I can't find him anywhere.
HYPOTHESIS: If one of the designer's fundamental characteristics is "unfindability" then I should not expect to find him. This would then neatly explain how he could exist, design and yet be entirely unobservable.
OBSERVATION: Hey! I really can't find the designer!
CONCLUSION: Now, since the evidence and inference are logically sound and direct observation is not required for belief… there is a designer!

1141. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23639 by Logicel on March 1, 2007 at 10:45 pm

And, Plantinga, who made your simple God? God's simplicity or complexity is not the issue, the issue is that supporters of religious superstitions think that the world was DESIGNED by a supernatural being. Since, the power to design is crucial to their notion of creation, then there will always be a need of a designer--Gods begetting Gods into infinity which of course explains nothing.

1142. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23638 by Logicel on March 1, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Plantinga's focus on what he perceives as being the ridiculous back-patting going on between Dennett and Dawkins is one of the triter aspects of his article.

The key word, here, Plantinga, is contemporary. Contemporary writers like Dennett and Dawkins can have running commentaries about each other's work because they are both ALIVE at the same time. Now, if they were both dead, or one of them was, and they were accomplishing this activity, then I think it would be worth mentioning that they comment and/or build upon each other's intellectual body of work close to realtime.

Regarding the title of the article, The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad Absurdum: I asked myself what would constitute extrapolating naturalism to the point of absurdity. One example would be to deny the existence of love, anger, hate because such emotional jellies cannot be nailed onto the materialistic wall. However, Dawkins does not do this, he makes it very clear that love between humans have evidence in the actions that such humans do for each other.

While I can envision how naturalism could be extrapolated to the point of absurdity, I do not have to exert any mental energy to show how theism can be extrapolated into absurdity, as theists already start with the absurd ball and run with it so hard and fast that one can only be dumbstruck as it flies over one's head.

1143. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23488 by Logicel on March 1, 2007 at 3:57 am

Christians often balk at their particular religious superstition being compared to non-religious superstitions as the tooth fairy, pink unicorn, celestial teapot, etc. They consider such comparisons as being 'unreasonable' because their particular religious superstition is backed up with 'reasonable evidence.' Such 'reasonable evidence', such as holy books, the popularity and endurance of their particular brand of religious superstition, the begging need for a 'God of the Gaps', the existence of morality, the need for purpose, etc. do not constitute evidential proof.

If such 'reasonable evidence' is to be taken seriously, then Christians need to embrace all the other religious superstitions with similar 'reasonable evidence' as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Roman/Greek Gods, Norse Gods, and Eqyptian Gods. Why choose one religious superstition over others if they all are supported by similar bodies of 'reasonable' evidence?

Regarding embracing a particular religious superstition based on geographical contingency, in our global world and with our knowledge of history, there is no excuse not to embrace all of the religious superstitions that came before and are now present. If the others are deemed not to have 'reasonable evidence', then the believer's particular religious superstition does not either.

Believers of religious superstitions also balk at the implication that they are not reasonable and rational humans. Believers of religious superstition are rational in many aspects of their lives, and have the human potential of using rationality in all of the aspects of their lives.
Christians who think they are being reasonable when they truly are not, like David Robertson and Bizarro, are like tricky and cunning alcoholics (some wonderful poster here used that analogy) in the sense like 'dry' alcoholics they go through the motions, apply what they think is logical reasoning just like the 'dry' alcoholic refrains from drinking but still indulges in addictive thinking.

The addictive thinking that is still present in the 'dry' alcoholic will trip him/her up, causing relapses or even new addictions. The unreasonableness of religious beliefs are allowed to flourish because not only is the Christian not using critical thinking, but comforts him/herself that he/she has, and therefore can be assured in remaining a rational person and believing in religious superstitions at the same time.

1144. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #23352 by Logicel on February 28, 2007 at 4:38 am

Atheists are able to see joyous liberation in embracing that there is no inherent purpose in their lives other than the propation of their genes. This liberation results from their realization that they, themselves, can shape their lives as they deem fit.

Theists either cannot see this aspect or recoil from it, and go through incredible contortions to embrace the notion that their purpose is set for them to which they must be true or else they are lost, both here on earth and in their supernatural afterlife.

The reasons why approximately 15% of humanity do the former, and the rest does the latter, is worth studying.

1145. Faith

Comment #23236 by Logicel on February 27, 2007 at 3:50 am

Riley, Your reasoned, calm, and consistently logical replies to Robertson's intellectual dishonesty reveals how blinkered he is. You admit to mistakes easily and without any discomfort; in fact, with joy so you can be better informed. He, on the other hand, does creative misrepresentional tricks like gussying up his deceptively polite prose, without ever changing the content of his mistaken opinions.

And that is, as Yorker has posted, the particular disagreeable 'stench' that follows him everywhere. I applaud your ability to plug up your logical olfaction and withstand his 'stench' long enough to completely show the lack of intellectual dishonesty in which he is mired.

1146. Faith

Comment #23223 by Logicel on February 27, 2007 at 2:17 am

MouthAlmighty suggested the following title, "Disrobed by Dawkins? - reclothing the emperor" for his/her up-and-coming bestseller. Will it include nude pix of Dawkins? None of David Robertson, please. You would not be that cruel!

1147. Faith

Comment #23220 by Logicel on February 27, 2007 at 1:59 am

This jihadist, Dawkins, who is mentioned in the above article, must be a little known terrorist who just happens to have the same name as the 'sarcastic bon viveur'* who wrote The God Delusion. Clearly, this is just a case of mistaken identity.


*Some wonderful author of an article here coined that hilarious description of the big, bad Dawkins.

1148. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23192 by Logicel on February 26, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Mr. Mark wrote:

I'm dying to hear about the "DNA analysis"! To what does one compare Jesus's DNA?"

I'd think any communion wafer would do...
_______

The award for best post of the century goes to Mr. Mark!

I can envision evidence-destroying Catholic feasts becoming suddenly popular where the church's minions stuff themselves with communion wafers and wine to obliterate any existing DNA evidence! Priest will be forbidden to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ to ensure that no new DNA evidence will surface.

Though there were so many odd and stupid aspects of what I was taught when being raised a Catholic which allowed me to remain the atheist that I was born (like everyone else, though that atheist needed to be in the closet until she turned 18), transubstantiation had me in stitches even when I was a kid, and was one of the Catholic tenets that ensured my closet atheism stayed viable.

From Wikipedia: Transubstantiation – the substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is transformed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain; this view is that taught by the Roman Catholic Church (both the Latin and the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) and by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, and is held by many Anglicans, especially in Anglo-Catholic circles.

Seriously, no evidence-destroying feasts would be necessary--the Catholics would just say well, yes, it is the body and blood of Christ, but it is still bread and wine, so it is perfectly understandable if no DNA is found.

Their slippery and protean rationalizing has allowed them to continue practicing their idiotic beliefs by selectively rejecting/accepting any evidence that will allow them to continue to practice their nonsense.

1149. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22974 by Logicel on February 25, 2007 at 5:01 am

NormanDoering, Though I don't mind your notifying posters at this site of new entries in your blog, I would suggest your eagerness for others to read your blog would be perceived in a better light, if in your regular posts (and as Champ has noted previously, we hope you continue to post here as well as your blog), you just put your blog link down at the bottom of your posts. This way, interested parties can follow the link if so desired.

1150. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22970 by Logicel on February 25, 2007 at 3:45 am

"However the tensions eventually play out between our opposing worldviews," Wilson observes to his imaginary pastor at the end of The Creation, "however science and religion wax and wane in the minds of men, there remains the earthborn, yet transcendental, obligation we are both morally bound to share."
_____

Like Fonex_86, I don't get this paragraph either especially the earthborn, yet transcendental bit. Remove transcendental, and the paragraph makes sense to me.

Both sides, the non-theists and the moderates, recognize the need to preserve the delicate natural balance on earth. The Fundies could care less as their earthly life is just a test run for the real thing which will be theirs following their death--the demise of our universe will usher in their long-awaited rapture reward.