101. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70020 by Fedler on September 13, 2007 at 5:04 pm

I am always amazed, too, that the religiosi, supported by bugger-all very little, can claim absolute certainty, while science offers its immense structure of interlocking knowledge and explanation as merely contingent.

Nicely said, Flagellant.

102. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69726 by Fedler on September 12, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Sorry that I have not been able to comment for some time. I can't even remember what threads I was involved in but doubtless all the arguments will come up again.

David, the last article I saw you on was, ironically, another flea thread:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1473,The-Flea-Circus-Invites-a-Newcomer,RichardDawkinsnet

103. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #69280 by Fedler on September 10, 2007 at 9:45 am

If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?

What achievements? Really, I have yet to see a religious denomination with an Office of Scientific Progress, or something to that effect, where they actively seek positive confirmation for their beliefs. Metaphorically speaking, instead of knocking down the blocks of other kids on the playground, where are the block-builders of the religious denominations? Who, within the religious, are actively seeking to positively confirm their beliefs? No one that I've seen.

104. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66562 by Fedler on August 30, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Unfortunately, someone's playing Weekend-at-Bernies with that horse like there is no tomorrow.

HA! I love that! (the movie and the analogy)

105. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64768 by Fedler on August 21, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Re: Comment #64763 by CruciFiction

Very cool quote by O'Hair!

106. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #64021 by Fedler on August 17, 2007 at 10:09 am

Josh,

I'm listening to the interview now and I appreciate what you say. I bought a shirt, but have not yet worn it because I've been leary of the reaction I get (and if nothing else I saw it as support of the Foundation). Luckily, I should take comfort that not many people in my area will even know what it's referencing, but your interview helps to give me the courage to wear it. Thanks for doing this!

Oh, and the website kicks butt. Thanks!

107. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61438 by Fedler on August 5, 2007 at 6:43 am

Because atheism would have made life a whole lot easier and because I was fed up with religious hypocrisy and injustice in the world. It a way it is just so much more simplistic. But it did not square with the facts for me. At the end of the day atheism just seemed to me to be intellectual and spiritual suicide. And it certainly made the injustice worse - in fact I could not see how there was any coherent atheist concept of justice at all

I would say we have some of the same reasons for inclining toward atheism. I feel atheism is more simplistic in that one is much more free to admit what one doesn't know. In my experience the default answer to the unknown by many people is god. For me, this doesn't wash.

It's interesting to me how you state atheism did not square with the facts. I know what 'facts' you refer to (you've mentioned them before), however this betrays a certain amount of presupposition on your part. You appear to have determined they were facts ahead of time. How did you know they were facts until you examined them? It's very likely and plausible that these 'facts' were told to you by some authority figures (i.e. parents, other ministers, etc.). Knowing these facts ahead of time, you then sought answers to justify the facts. I'm merely speculating, but it seems plausible and wholly consistent with the indoctrination stories mentioned by posters here on this site in the "Convert's Corner". 'Intellectual suicide' can often underlie progress.

Regarding 'an atheist concept of justice', I agree there is not one. It is a human concept, not just an atheist one. I highly recommend reading Moral Minds by Marc Hauser (I'm reading it now). Justice, fairness, empathy, morals, etc. According to Hauser, these are all basic tenets embedded into our biology at a basic level. The parameters of which are all set by the environment or culture. He provides a ton of evidence in support of this position thus far (while admitting that much needs to be explored further). I highly recommend it.

108. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61001 by Fedler on August 3, 2007 at 9:38 am

"1. Way back in November when you first joined this site, you presented challenges and those were answered by many people. You may not have liked what you heard so, therefore, you may not feel they were answered to your satisfaction, but they were answered."

- Yes I remember. Have a look at 'the answers'. Mostly insults and ad hominem attacks.

Unfortunately, true. However it can be argued that the insults were initiated by you in how you phrased things and then reciprocated. However, also remember that there were some of us who sought to engage you seriously. It was those serious comments I was referring to.

2. Almost none of my livelihood is made from this. Just simply wrong.

This may have been a miscommunication. In 'livelihood' I didn't mean financial support or anything tangible. I was mainly referring to the fact you have made a serious investment of time and energy to come on to this site, while knowing you get nothing out of it in return. It's more a question of purpose.

I have heard of Dinner with a Perfect Stranger and would love to read it.

It's a clever idea for a book (having dinner with Jesus and all) and I'm sure you would like it. I tried reading it from my previous mindset as a religious believer (I'm a new enough atheist I can still revert back to those feelings pretty easily) and gave myself a day to let it sink in. My initial reaction was it made sense and religion made sense. After I started examining it more in-depth, the arguments for belief as presented in the book didn't stand up. As a former believer, I find it odd that belief is easy, meaning I can make myself believe pretty easily. Perhaps if one has grown up atheist all their lives, I'm sure the non-belief is easier since non-belief is certainly the default position. It's non-belief that takes effort or constant reminding for me still at this point. It's not always easy to re-train one's brain to think logically. I can understand how some posters have said it has taken up to 20 years to fully shake their religious beliefs.

I once recall you saying you were once tempted or drawn to atheism early in your life (I can't remember your exact wording). Do you remember why you were inclined toward non-belief at the time?

109. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60530 by Fedler on August 2, 2007 at 6:36 am

David wrote:

You are right. Of course it deteriorates. Because once you are challenged you cannot help but shout insults and repeat ad nauseum the same 'arguments'. There are honourable exceptions to this but take this thread for an example. It is an attempt at mockery which comes across as self righteous, self contradictory and somewhat bitter. When I point out that not all who disagree with RD are fleas it gets the typical response. As I said most of this website bears all the characteristics of the most religious fundamentalist website. The behaviour of many, but not all, of the posters, only reinforces that. You cannot blame me for pointing that out. And it really would be helpful if sometime, instead of being faced with a barrage of accusations and personal insults someone actually tried to answer the questions I am raising.

1. Way back in November when you first joined this site, you presented challenges and those were answered by many people. You may not have liked what you heard so, therefore, you may not feel they were answered to your satisfaction, but they were answered. But by all means, if you now have some 'smoking gun' evidence to present on why we should believe, please feel free to share it with us.

2. You are correct that all who disagree with RD are not fleas. Although I must say a big part of your livelihood lately appears to have been your own personal crusade against "evil atheists" and anyone who thinks differently.

3. You aren't raising any questions anymore, only insults and attempting mockery. Typically an article is posted. Various people comment. If you decide to comment, you comment in the form of degrading posters, saying they don't know what they're talking about, dropping the usual phrases of "fundamentalist atheists" or bringing up Hitler, or any other of your pet phrases to try to enflame discussion. If we get mocked or told we don't know what we're talking about, we respond in kind. We're only responding to your vitriol, or your "typical response". We enjoy sharing ideas. But you don't actually pose serious questions because I don't believe you truly want a discussion.

But here again, maybe we should just agree to disagree and move on.

EDIT: David, I've recently read Dinner with a Perfect Stranger. Have you heard of it? It's about a guy who get a dinner invitation to have dinner with Jesus. He shows up and Jesus is there and they talk about faith, religion, life, etc.

110. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60264 by Fedler on August 1, 2007 at 12:20 pm

aitchkay:

Afterall, what are the chances that they contain any new arguments, let alone a single strand of evidence, for the existence of God?

This is very much the crux of the issue. David, and other believers, have a different definition of 'evidence' than scientifically-minded people. Combine that with the fact that their evidence - as they define it - is not positive confirmation (supplying evidence themselves), but rather negative confirmation (criticizing someone else's evidence, therefore God exists by default).

When that fails, they throw up their hands and claim atheists "just don't get it" or are "not open to the type of evidence needed to quantify the spiritual" or something to that effect. I believe David has to know by now that every thread he enters will soon deteriorate (because he offers very little positive evidence - as defined by us), then he can stand back and say to his friends "See, what an ignorant and mean lot they are!" I truly wish there was a way around it.

111. God '08: Whose, and How Much, Will Voters Accept?

Comment #57975 by Fedler on July 22, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Rtambree,

I never voted for Bush either time. I voted for Gore in the first one and Kerry in the second election. With only the imperfect perspective of hindsight, I can only assume that things would be better here in the U.S. if one of them were elected.

Re: irreligious candidates. Nader was so far down the ballot that I don't I ever recall hearing about his religious beliefs. He was mostly ignored by the electorate and didn't get much press (at least not nearly as funded for publicity as the other candidates). However, I can remember reading a synopsis of the positions of the candidates on issues and discounting him because I thought others had better visions for the future and the plans to get them done.

112. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57718 by Fedler on July 20, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Hey, where did Dr. Dawkins' excerpt go? It was his beautiful Lament for Douglas from "A Devil's Chaplain".

113. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57689 by Fedler on July 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Re: #21 by VinceMcD:

Tangent: what if you are about to testify in court and are asked to swear on a bible and you are an atheist? What do they do? Is your testimony automatically discredited? Just a thought.

"When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an "affirmation" instead. In a jury trial, the smart lawyer will arrange for this ahead of time in the judge's chambers, so the witness won't look unduly obstreperous or morally deficient in open court. The judge may then instruct the jury that the funny oath they are about to hear should be considered legally valid.

In U.S. District Court (to take the most widespread example), the standard oath is amended to: "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?"

From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_145.html. Try to ignore the rest of the this particular statement on the straightdope website, but that's how atheists can affirm their testimony in court.

114. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57659 by Fedler on July 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

condorito, that's very interesting. My first reaction is to think that there must be a good separation of church and state in Chile, and religious adherence is not as prominent as a political factor as in the U.S. But, I would be interested in learning more about this and what you and others may say.

In the U.S. atheists have just started becoming more vocal, but the question of a person's faith has usually been an influential factor long before atheists became this vocal, at least dating back to John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign in the late 1950's, and probably before.

115. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57649 by Fedler on July 20, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Rtambree, no need to make fun of the dog. :)

ccrenshaw, I agree.

116. The New New Atheism

Comment #57473 by Fedler on July 19, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Those same people laugh off the potential for initiating serious dialogue with those of a religious persuasion, citing selectively chosen perverse biblical passages and the fanatical exploits of fundamentalists as evidence that such an attempt is futile. I interpret this as a plea of desperation, i.e. citing the most extreme manifestation of one's adversary in order to obfuscate the real issues lying in the middle ground.

I'm assuming the middle ground be referring to those issues of the, what I would describe, 'wishy-washy' believers who say they believe and go to church on Sundays, presumably have never really examined their beliefs, but also haven't taken part in all the lunacy of the fundamentalists (a.k.a. the truly passive 'sheep' of the flock). The main issue I'm most interested in for these middle ground believers is to ask what psychology keeps them believing, or wanting to believe. One could say they truly haven't examined WHY they believe, compared with the feasibility of multiple other factors (i.e. how religion is man-made for social reasons, belief in belief, or the science - or lack thereof - of religion).

117. The New New Atheism

Comment #57422 by Fedler on July 19, 2007 at 9:40 am

IQHQ,

I completely understand that 'browbeating' will not accomplish anything fruitful. One only needs to look social interactions to see that when one is attacked, the instinctual response is to just to knuckle down and protect oneself.

For me in my discussions with theists, the one thing I find is that after discussion and questioning, the theist typically resorts to pseudo-intellectual warm-fuzzy arguments for their faith or the statement that one just chooses to believe the unbelievable or not. And they choose to believe. This is, of course, very frustrating for rational thinkers as it's akin to arguing with a figment of their imagination. As someone mentioned on the previous page, the most likely scenario is to plant the seed of questioning (and try to plant it early) and hope the cracks in the wall of belief gradually get wider and wider until the wall will eventually break.

Although I must admit, when confronted with religious 'browbeating' on a daily basis, it's hard to resist the urge to do it back.

118. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57143 by Fedler on July 18, 2007 at 11:34 am

I must say, not bad for an extemporaneous speech :).

I've always loved Douglas Adams. I believe this is also reprinted in 'Salmon of Doubt' which was published posthumously. It was actually Douglas Adams that 'introduced' me to RD and his books (among many others). Every time I hear his puddle analogy, it makes me smile. Douglas, and his wonderful humor and insight, is greatly missed.

119. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56543 by Fedler on July 16, 2007 at 8:24 am

"Irregardless" ??

Sorry, I thought that was a word. Perhaps just 'Regardless' would have been a better choice :).

120. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56535 by Fedler on July 16, 2007 at 7:30 am

Irregardless of his personal beliefs, it's fairly safe to say Hitler USED religion as a motivator of emotions and to get support for his "cause", although this motivation was one factor of many. The fact that personal records can be found of him railing against religions just proves how smart he was. Even though he may have hated religion, he used it as a tool - a means to an end, which makes the whole "Was he religious?" debate rather convoluted.

121. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56049 by Fedler on July 13, 2007 at 2:35 pm

"Not one senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood...."

**insert usual argument here**

122. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56047 by Fedler on July 13, 2007 at 2:25 pm

What is the religious makeup of Borehamwood? What is the religious makeup of the Hertsmere Council? I would be interested to know if this is political correctness run amok or an aggressive religious-leaning council imposing it's desires on others.

More importantly, it's interesting that these religites seem to be granting themselves rules so they don't have to follow outdated rules, which were dictated to them, which are outdated,...oh my, my head is spnning. In lieu of dropping the religion (the preferred thing to do), just drop the rule and be done. No need to invent another rule to counter an outdated rule.

123. The US map of faith

Comment #55811 by Fedler on July 12, 2007 at 12:47 pm

One point I would like to add about the map is that it is from 2000, presumably right before the Bush administration. It would be an understatement to say a lot has happened since then in terms of fanning the flames of religious belief, at least here in the U.S.

Further to Spinoza (#25) and Steven Mading (#41), I think the two posts are complimentary. Population density is less in the western U.S., therefore the actual number of people belonging to a specific congregation, which this map represents, may be misleading due to the wide geographic distribution of specific congregations, but this is conjecture. If the map measured specific belief in god, I bet it would be much more red.

124. God Hates the World

Comment #52964 by Fedler on June 28, 2007 at 7:09 pm

You do not see it happening because the mainstream secular news media do not report what the churches are doing – unless it is some kind of hypocrisy and immorality. It is catch 22. Let me give you one example………Meanwhile some atheists and secularists are almost besides themselves with joy at such ammunition being given to them. Is it really the case that RD was so distraught by this awful behaviour that he felt compelled to share it with his people? Or did he think, 'this is great, it proves my point, I can really use this'?

While I don't tend to agree with any media conspiracy accusations or labels (such as right-wing. Left-wing, liberal, conservative, etc.), I can see your point. There's not enough good news reported. I have not observed this first-hand, but I have heard that the loud demonstrations and flag burnings and vocal protests we all see on TV (especially in places like the Middle East), tend to die down and disperse as soon as the cameras are off. As if it was all a big show so someone could get their 15 minutes of fame. If true, that would be an interesting phenomenon to learn more about.

I wouldn't say I'm beside myself with joy about such 'ammunition' as the Phelps video. I think we all understand it's an extreme case. Regarding RD, it was probably a little bit of both. I bet he was distraught at seeing it, which is why he was compelled to comment about it. It does help to prove his point about extreme cases.

Fedler: "On a related note, it would be interesting to analyze WHY they call themselves a church in the first place. "

DR: For two reasons. Firstly as an instrument of control and secondly because they get tax breaks. The American policy of a free for all on religion is absurd. Tax breaks should not be given to groups like the Phelps.

Agreed.

For fearing of straying too far off task, David, I'm now reading "Dinner with a Perfect Stranger" by David Gregory. Have you heard of it? I struggled through Mere Christianity and I thought I would try another approach. Hope you had fun in the sun!

Scott

125. Rudy Park Comic Strips

Comment #52695 by Fedler on June 27, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Shuggy,

I don't read it, but Maxim is a somewhat raunchy men's magazine (at least here in the U.S.) full of tips about how to look like a model, how to have great sex of any kind, how to sexually satisfy women, how to have more great sex, and an occasional article or two. That's the gist of it at least.

126. God Hates the World

Comment #52506 by Fedler on June 27, 2007 at 6:32 am

What do you want us to do? Beat them up?! We have no power over them. And we are not the ones giving them the oxygen of publicity.

Of course not. I know you have no power over them, but they are representing themselves as a church. I can understand the desire for most religious groups to not put their own name in the same sentence as these folks to avoid the possible association with them. However, there is also the risk of being associated with them simply for the fact they call themselves a church. For this fact alone I would think true, legitimate churches everywhere would want to very publicly denounce them and their activities to avoid the negative association. I don't see this happening. They may not be getting the 'oxygen of publicity' as you very eloquently described it, but religious groups don't seem to be trying to cut off their breathing, either. I know it's not specifically your problem, David, and I'm speaking in generalities, but as they're calling themselves a church, a stronger denouncement from the church community seems the logical place to start.

On a related note, it would be interesting to analyze WHY they call themselves a church in the first place. My first instinct is to think Fred Phelps did that to help make them immune to certain criticisms, which could go a long way in explaining how they've managed to stay around for almost 50 years.

127. God Hates the World

Comment #52126 by Fedler on June 26, 2007 at 8:32 am

Well said, Keith.

128. God Hates the World

Comment #52111 by Fedler on June 26, 2007 at 7:34 am

David wrote:

79. by Fedler also wants to jump on the bandwagon by suggesting that actually we are to blame for the Phelps.

What I actually said was:

Anyway, I'm beginning to really believe what Sam Harris says about the religious moderate. Generally speaking, they seem to deny the existence or at least the sway that fundamentalists have, which makes them a very good 'buffer' for the fringe elements.

Where is the blame? Did I say Christians caused the WBC? Did I say the Free Church of Scotland caused this? No, of course not. What I was implying was that by turning the other cheek, religious groups can be seen as passively supporting this type of behavior (since the WBC calls themselves a church, even though they're not). That's not blame, it's an observation of group psychology.

129. God Hates the World

Comment #51973 by Fedler on June 25, 2007 at 6:31 pm

57. Comment #51947 by _J_ on June 25, 2007

Jonathan, I've had similar experiences with David. He's fairly polite on his own site, but much less so here. BTW I appreciated your comments on his site. I admit I found some of it hard to wade through due to length, but I appreciated your clarity and the effort put into it.

So we can't question the validity of the whole and we can't criticise the excesses of the extremists. Are there any criticisms that your religion will allow?

Again, I have the same feeling.

Anyway, I'm beginning to really believe what Sam Harris says about the religious moderate. Generally speaking, they seem to deny the existence or at least the sway that fundamentalists have, which makes them a very good 'buffer' for the fringe elements. We can all point to the Phelps' and say "that's not my religion" or "what a bunch of loonies", and hope they will just quietly go away, but they don't. WBC has been around since 1955. I have no problem with the video posted here. What I would like to see is to see it posted on a religious website and see if it's met with the same condemnation as here. I certainly think there would be, but I bet people would be more reserved in their comments overall and not as direct as here, thereby also losing some of the poignancy. But, I would love to be proven wrong.

Better still, would any of them be moved to do anything about it? If we atheists do anything about it we'll just be shouted down as being the godless, evil, ammoral heathens and no one will listen to us anyway. Meanwhile the problem may remain...

130. God Hates the World

Comment #51909 by Fedler on June 25, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Dr. Benway, I agree.

Keeping in mind that WBP is not affiliated with any Baptist church, I still would like to see more religions doing more to "police their own", so to speak. Yes, we can all agree there are fringe elements in any group setting, but it's rare when you hear of a religion pulling back the reins on one of their own. That's just my perception.

131. God Hates the World

Comment #51876 by Fedler on June 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Hi Jack. Welcome aboard.

To your knowledge, has Westboro Baptist Church ever been reprimanded by other Baptist congregations for being so over the top? I would be interested to know if other Baptists have spoken out against their alleged lunacy. I foresee a Google search in my future....

EDIT: "While its members identify themselves as Baptists, the church is an independent church not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations. The church describes itself as following Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles. Its first public service was held on the afternoon of Sunday, 27th November 1955." From Wikipedia.

OK, answered my own question.

132. God Hates the World

Comment #51871 by Fedler on June 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm

In this case, saying religion is not child abuse is like the rapist telling their victim "This only feels like sexual intercourse, but it's not..."

133. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #51857 by Fedler on June 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm

The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," wrote Souter. "I see no basis for this distinction."

That's it? That's the one comment from the plaintiff perspective? The rest of the article reads like a glowing endorsement of religious groups getting federal money. The Washington Post seems a bit biased. I guess the best that can be said (if anything) is that it was a close vote.

134. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50008 by Fedler on June 14, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Very good point, steveroot. My former catholicism/indoctrination was showing through :).

135. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50003 by Fedler on June 14, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Try as I may to see the Cardinal's side on this, I just can't. It seems to me AI is trying to serve women as best they can, without offending who are arguably their largest supporters. In contrast to AI who is seeking to provide medical care for women who have had an abortion, the Cardinal seems willing to neglect their medical needs just because he perceives them as doing something immoral.

Then in the ultimate play on people's emotions, the Cardinal says:

"To selectively justify abortion, even in the cases of rape, is to define the innocent child within the womb as an enemy, a 'thing' that must be destroyed. How can we say that killing a child in some cases is good and in other cases it is evil?"

It doesn't appear AI, or anyone else, is calling the unborn child evil. Just unwanted in these cases.

It may seem preferable to deliver the child, then give them up for adoption, but the adoption process is lacking in so many ways that it would be hard to justify that choice, also.

It's a hard call. Deliver the child where they may be in an unsafe environment or neglected by the parent because they can't adequately care for the child (in the Africa case), or abort the child to spare them those possible outcomes.

Either way, the Cardinal is drawing an awfully hard line.

136. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #48070 by Fedler on June 6, 2007 at 1:28 pm

James,

I can relate to being scared. Many times myself I've thought "What's the fuss? Yes, I can believe in all the good stuff, what's wrong with that?" and then I begin to drift into that religious ennui, kind of a euphoria of comfort and consolation knowing that something is looking out for me. In some ways, it's easier to believe the myth.

That's fine as far as it goes. But, I keep butting up against the bigger realization that it's just not proven true. There's no proof. Why choose to believe if I don't really believe it? I find too often now that I can't believe. It just doesn't add up. Yes, it can be consoling and comforting, but god is an enormously unlikely possibility considering the advances and knowledge in many fields of study. In addition, I find a lot more to be 'religious' about in the world around us without having to contribute it to a god. I'm reminded of the quote by Douglas Adams at the very beginning of TGD, "Isn't it enough to say the garden is beautiful without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?"

The philosophy of the church you mention is definitely a good one, but there is no rule saying that religion has the sole ownership of that philosophy. In addition, religion holds no monopoly on instilling that philosophy. You can instill those same characteristics in your children, and do it without the claim to a higher power of some sort.

I'm in the same boat. My wife still professes her allegiance to Christianity and she wants our daughter to attend Bible school and other church events. I don't mind her going for the social aspect, but I have trouble with the inevitable god marketing they will do at the camp. (They ought to have a "secular Bible school" of some sort, free of religious overtones) My wife hasn't cried about me losing my faith, but I feel she can't fathom how or why I've lost it. But I do think she's slowly seeing that my lack of belief hasn't changed me in any way, which is reassuring to her. I still try to do good things, love my family, and be a responsible citizen. That won't change.

137. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #48031 by Fedler on June 6, 2007 at 10:47 am

Re: Comment #48017 by Fire1974

You're very similar to many people on this site, including me. I've recently "come out of the closet" with my lack of belief to my mom. After living 33 years as a Christian, I'm now told by my mom that she is worried I spend too much time reading books or websites that are only one-sided (atheistic). She feels I need to research my Christianity as much as I've reviewed atheism lately, as if 33 years isn't enough time to 'study' Christianity. I can't help but wonder what new insights Christianity could possibly hold for me after living it for 33 years. If something made it worthwhile for me to stick with Christianity, it would have presented itself (or been taught to me) a long time ago.

Besides, I think I get more facts about Christianity from atheist websites/books than if I were to read a book of flowery religious prose.

I visit this site regularly to upgrade my arsenal of debating points because I'm sure when my wider family (outside of my mom) knows of my non-belief I will be barraged with questions, ranging from idiotic to valid, and I'm planning on being ready.

I would just say knowledge is the key. Cosmology and Christianity's own history (coupled with my dad's untimely death) were the subjects that started my continuing drift away from religion, but it's different for everybody.

138. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47426 by Fedler on June 4, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I believe that what really counts is to be a good person, and belief in God is valuable only in as far as it helps one be a good person.

Somebody please correct me, but isn't this basically saying you believe in the belief? If so, isn't this just a short step across the stream to atheism where you realize there really is no point in believing the belief when you can believe in something tangible, like humanity? The belief in belief itself seems like an unnecessary step.

139. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47407 by Fedler on June 4, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Welcome aboard, Ian! I, too, have learned a lot just by sitting back and reading what other posters have written. There is a not only a whole lot to learn, but a lot to be gained in terms of realizing why the belief in God is not justified.

Regarding your Joseph McCabe piece, I can't say I know who he is, but if you're interested in getting it up on the site, you can send it (or the link to it) to Josh's attention at design@richarddawkins.net.

140. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47356 by Fedler on June 4, 2007 at 8:09 am

David,

I think a quick reminder is in order. It's not you, personally, that people don't respect. They just don't respect your beliefs and, as such, cannot be expected to take them seriously until some non-disputable evidence presents itself.

On a lighter note, I did appreciate your YouTube video. Of course, I disagreed with most of what you said but I appreciated seeing an actual living, breathing human being rather than just words typed on a computer screen. I wish I could return the favor, but lack the video equipment to do so.

141. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46611 by Fedler on May 31, 2007 at 7:48 pm

I'm amazed at the amount of interest in science and religion 'getting along', as if they are two rival siblings. In this case, I don't think science and religion can be said to even have the same parents, to keep the analogy. It's very obvious that Senator Brownback is just trying to appeal to both sides of the political fence.

I can't speak on where the whole science vs. religion debate started – no doubt it was a cumulative process – but they are two entirely separate ways to view the world. An article posted on this site a while back said "Religion got it right, but for the wrong reasons." I even think it was Dawkins that said it.

And why is it only between science and religion? I don't see hordes of people passionately stating Art and Botany need to get along. What about medicine getting along with archaeology? I'm being facetious, but there is a conflict between science and religion because a contrast of views does exist between the two. It's obvious to any objective perspective, that a lot of the historic/geologic/physical science presented in the Bible is just plain wrong. Any justification is an excuse, not an explanation.

I have heard theists claim that scientists started this 'attack' on religion, but that just doesn't follow. Science only seeks to explain facts about the world based on observable, testable hypotheses. I feel it has always been religion imposing its view on others and science (or similar scholarly study) has merely clarified the facts. As Dawkins states in Unweaving the Rainbow, this doesn't diminish the awe we feel about the universe or 'creation'. Just because something is explainable, doesn't make it less beautiful.

Where religion and science could speak about the same things, they don't agree. This is not something to lose sleep over. The only people who seem to make a big deal about it are the religious believers.

142. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46513 by Fedler on May 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.(empasis added)

There MUST be a god, there MUST be a god, there MUST be a god... (repeat ad nauseum until you believe it).

Oh, dear Senator Brownback. Seeking to get votes from both sides of the campaign trail you have really shot yourself in the foot (what's left of it at least). I wonder, Senator, how you know that the material order and the spiritual order were 'created' by a god? Theologians and atheists alike have been searching for the evidence. Good thing it's found in politics.

As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well.

Sure, just don't expect us to call it science or based on fact.

Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Which basically means you're right, as long as you owe it all to religion and God. Thanks, Senator. You lost my vote. Oh, wait, that would imply you had it to begin with.

On behalf of most Americans, I would like to apologize on behalf of Senator Brownback for being such a moron. His statement is so full of presuppositions. Yes, he's from THE Kansas, the one and the same.

143. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46168 by Fedler on May 30, 2007 at 12:42 pm

I believe the study cited which was run by Dr. Damasio at the University of Southern California, was published in a peer-reviewed journal in March, but I can't find the journal name. That same study has been mentioned elsewhere on this site:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1136,Scientists-Draw-Link-Between-Morality-And-Brains-Wiring,Robert-Lee-Hotz-WSJcom

EDIT: I think the reference is Damasio, A., & Parvizi, J. (2006) "Neural connections of the posteromedial cortex in the macaque: Implications for the understanding of the neural basis of consciousness" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , pp.vol. 103, no. 5, 1563-1568 from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (for anyone interested).

144. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45904 by Fedler on May 29, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Bonzai and scottishgeologist,

I agree with your posts. I would go far as to say the 'wishy-washyness' is something theists enjoy. I believe they take comfort in the fact that religion for them is something that can mean whatever they want it to mean. We would all enjoy a life system like that. How could we ever be wrong!

However, I also think that when theists are questioned about their beliefs, they become very dogmatic and strap on the old fundamentalist robe. This is just my experience, though. Generally, they can't describe their wishy-washy feelings, so they resort to the old biblical standards. But then they realize they can't reconcile the standards with common sense and what they themselves know about the world. The result is a very nebulous and discombobulated description of their beliefs.

That's just my pop psychology version of things.

145. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45179 by Fedler on May 26, 2007 at 5:21 pm

devolved-

With all due respect, your talking origin of life, which is different from evolution of life. Evolution speaks to the development of pre-existing biological life, but says nothing about how that life started. The actual origins of biological life is an entirely separate matter. Even David Robertson (your apparent idol) knows that. To repeat, abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution.

146. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #44776 by Fedler on May 25, 2007 at 9:20 am

Wow. A new low in academia.

Even giving it the benefit of the doubt, is there really a market for this type of degree? Are there hordes of people lining up to get this degree which fills a void in society? In keeping with the economics of supply and demand, where's the demand? I can't fathom this being a useful degree and one that will pay the bills.

147. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44334 by Fedler on May 24, 2007 at 11:23 am

This is a favorite tactic of most of my friends that I debate. Hijack the religious terminology, dilute it until all you are really defining is humanity, and then say "a ha!".....it DOES exist!

Very good point, FreeThink25.

148. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44326 by Fedler on May 24, 2007 at 11:12 am

God is a human concept. God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world's chaos, randomness and cruelty...God is that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions...God is perhaps best understood as our ultimate concern...

So God is a human belief that is responsible for only good things, is a mysterious force and is our ultimate concern. So which is it?

In Exodus God says, by way of identification, "I am that I am."...

So this belief/force/concern can talk now?

God is better understood as verb rather than a noun. God is not an asserted existence but a process accomplishing itself.

Now he's a figure of speech and a process??? WTF!

And God is inescapable. It is the life force...

Which means what exactly?...

Typical doubletalk. The god of Harris is not MY god. What a horribly wishy washy god this god is alleged to be. Oh, wait, that means god can be anything you want it to be? Even - gee I don't know - MADE UP!!

I stopped reading after that bit. Sorry, couldn't tolerate it.

149. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44098 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 10:13 am

From your post 223. Comment #43947 by chbg21808:

"I will say it again... and I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, till it sinks in. I am not an AGW denier... I am Skeptical, the reason I am skeptical is because no scientist has been able to produce a definite causal link between man and global warming." [emphasis added]

Yes, I've been reading your posts. Apparently I've misunderstood.

150. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44092 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 10:00 am

chbg21808-

You do not deny AGW. Neither does Brian. In that way, you're the same.

You disagree to what extent AGW effects the overall climate change issue. In that way, you're different.

That's all. Or have I totally misunderstood this whole thread?

(BTW, I have very much appreciated your comments and links, too, that you have presented. I've learned all sorts of stuff that I didn't otherwise know and I thank you [and Brian] for that.)