101. Blind Faiths

Comment #108868 by KRKBAB on January 7, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Goldy says- "And it is always Israels fault..." meaning what? Israel can do no wrong? Or how-about the USA can do no wrong? The USA, Israel and Palestine can all do wrong (and right). Let's not prop up a single country as being the leader of correct behavior.

102. Blind Faiths

Comment #108826 by KRKBAB on January 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm

al-rawandi- I read the "other comments by al-rawandi" and I'm satisfied you are not an islamic apologist. Rather, you seem to be able to stand back and take a rational look the Islamic fundamentalist problem that could easily cause irrational reaqctions due to obvious reasons.
However, you wrote , in comment #38- "You cannot apply your general understanding of what religion is to the cognitive functions of everyone who claims to act out of a religious motivation". Why not? Does it really matter how religion is accurately defined, or by it's affect on human reaction?

103. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58331 by KRKBAB on July 24, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Okay folks, the crux of the problem is becoming clearer and clearer. I once told a Jehovah's Witness about my disbelief of anything supernatural. She said there's nothing supernatural about the Jehovah's Witness religion!!!! And she was serious! Obviously the definition of the word "god" is being constantly re-defined to accomodate the gaps. Now, it's very clear that Ed Doerr's only defense of his useless argument is that people define "religion" to fit what ever their a-la-carte philosopy is! It's true that Ed Doerr probably agrees with about 99% of Hitchens, but in the end, he's "enabling" people of faith to define religion how ever they want. We need to hold on to definitions- other wise everything will turn to JELLO!!!!!

104. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55987 by KRKBAB on July 13, 2007 at 5:17 am

Hey Old Atheist-
Again, expanding the definition of the word "religion" to trivialize someone's point? Also, can't we stop picking apart every word some one says in excitement, like Sane1 has above?
Maybe you should write about something more interesting, or simply "get out".
Sane1- I really like the expression "Rock-on Dawkins. It's Superficial and a little jerky/American sounding (I'm an American), but I've quite often wanted to use it myself! Maybe make a bumper sticker with it! We do love our bumper stickers in America. The one I have on my car has a symbol of earth on it and it reads "United We Stand"

105. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55443 by KRKBAB on July 11, 2007 at 5:27 am

RICEY,
There are a lot of people in my country (USA) that need to "come out" to counteract the anti-science- "the earth is a temporary stop on the way to heaven" people. We've (American atheists) really and truly have been squashed by the "faithful" and the negative consequences of the whole of what has happened in this extraordinary country since it's inception. I think a problem that is just as big in this country, is the "junk food" style appeal of the pseudo-sciences which people cling to. So many people in this country can't seem to go strait to atheism from religious faith. They get caught up in things like astrology or new-age philosophy, or try to hang on to the "badge of faith" that seems so prevalent here. It is so frustrating in this country to have a great beginning of a conversation with someone, only to find out that they've adopted an equally non-reasoned form of some pseudo-science or post modern foggy reasoning. Any other Americans share this frustration with me? Back to the article, though- E.O Wilson calls himself a Secular Humanist! Coming from the deep south (E.O.Wilson), he really deserves lots of accolades and respect. I'd be real happy to see even a start of the online cataloging of information of all the life on earth. That would be phenomenal!

106. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53602 by KRKBAB on July 2, 2007 at 7:41 am

Look, we're talking about the American media here. It's not so much about dumbing down as it is about speaking to the audience, although I admit it's a fine line. Again, as far as the atheism/theism debate is concerned, why do we have to speak in such extreme, black or white concepts of moral absolutism and moral relativism. It really stinks of extreme armchair intellectualism (hey, that sounds like a great monty python meets junky reality t.v. program- "Extreme Armchair Intellectualism"!). The moral zeitgeist suggests moral relativism slightly (to me), and the idea of having possible innate altruism (via utilitarian evolutionary explanation) suggests a type of moral absolutism. This black or white stance seems to be more about stubborness than about seeking real answers to me, anyhow. Obviously though, I'm NOT an intellectual or well read at all. I'm an average American (don't persecute me, please), but I don't think one needs a superior intellect to ask the right questions. After all, I came to my atheistic views with-out either an ultra high I.Q. or haveing read a zillion books. I'm not bragging or being arrogant about my averageness (as some Americans actually do) but rather am just trying to state the value of my moderate kind of intellect. I'm happy to be commenting in the middle of some genuinely impressive intelligence, but sometimes some simplicity is refreshing.

107. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53579 by KRKBAB on July 2, 2007 at 5:25 am

Hitchens missed a great opportunity! He often does, but I still like him a lot . A question was, do you believe in absolute morality. No!- of course not. The ever changing moral zeitgeist! Religious people ACTUALLY think they're tripping up we atheists when they ask this question. Just slam the stupid issue back at them! Why were woman and minorities treated differently in the past? Because of the ever changing moral zeitgeist! Why didn't Hitchens present this to them? I really LOVE Hitchens' style, but often in his razor sharp concentration AND stubborness, he misses golden opportunies.

108. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53160 by KRKBAB on June 29, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Kind of nice to hear R.D.s 29 minute lecture on sex ratio and evolution. However, I'm finding the majority of the questionner's comments to be pretty superficial. The first question is about the possible effects of global warming and temperature on the sex ratio?! Maybe a topically interesting subject, but it really had nothing to do with what R.D. had been talking about. Wasn't he getting the gist of what the lecture was about. I guess the main thing is to get to see R.D. speaking on Darwinism/Evolution (to our benefit) and to pretty much ignore the Q & A afterwards. Another of R.D.s talents seems to be to follow a lame question or comment with a very interesting and informative response. Science lectures are a much needed break from hearing R.D. take on the theists. Rock-on Dawkins!

109. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #53055 by KRKBAB on June 29, 2007 at 6:11 am

regarding Downunders comment #52995- it reads like good critical human analysing at first, but then ends up reading like postmodernist drivel. The "we're such a small and insignificant species that all of our reasoning amounts to nothing more than musing and folly" attitude is kind of dismissive and even arrogant. If all we can think about is all we can think about, then my response is- so what? Downunder's commentary sounds a little too self deprecating to me.

110. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52789 by KRKBAB on June 28, 2007 at 4:53 am

At the end of the article, Dr Miller says- " As a scientist, I have nothing to say about the soul. It's not a scientific idea". No shit? That's the trouble with scientists who are also people of faith. That's always their pitiful reasoning. When people use the "You can't argue religion in a scientific context" bullshit, that's when I present them with my all time favourite C. Sagan quote: " Science is not perfect, but it's the best we have" (I hope I got it right). Amen. Until the faith-heads come up with a VIABLE better method than the scientific one, all their arguments are, at best, postulation, and at worst (which is usually the case) nothing but vain fiction. The logic that faith-heads use to counter new evidence by science to continue to justify their preposterous claims are not only ridiculous, but also very PREDICTABLE and often very humorous! It's sad to see so very often in my country (USA) perfectly intelligent, rational people stubbornly coming up with their defences whenever science renders their views as false.

111. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52788 by KRKBAB on June 28, 2007 at 4:53 am

At the end of the article, Dr Miller says- " As a scientist, I have nothing to say about the soul. It's not a scientific idea". No shit? That's the trouble with scientists who are also people of faith. That's always their pitiful reasoning. When people use the "You can't argue religion in a scientific context" bullshit, that's when I present them with my all time favourite C. Sagan quote: " Science is not perfect, but it's the best we have" (I hope I got it right). Amen. Until the faith-heads come up with a VIABLE better method than the scientific one, all their arguments are, at best, postulation, and at worst (which is usually the case) nothing but vain fiction. The logic that faith-heads use to counter new evidence by science to continue to justify their preposterous claims are not only ridiculous, but also very PREDICTABLE and often very humorous! It's sad to see so very often in my country (USA) perfectly intelligent, rational people stubbornly coming up with their defences whenever science renders their views as false.

112. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52595 by KRKBAB on June 27, 2007 at 11:57 am

Wow, just how many mis-spellings can I actually produce at one time? I preview my responses several times, and then I noticed I've still mis-spelled! I just turned 50 so maybe thats why. No, wait a minute, I guess I'm just careless. Since I've name dropped already, I've also tuned Keith Richards Piano, Martha Stewarts piano (pre-jail) and lately- the piano at the "Bush Compound" in Maine. I saw several pics of father and son in the house. kinda made me proud- err- wait a minute...

113. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52594 by KRKBAB on June 27, 2007 at 11:46 am

BT Murtagh- as long as I don't get the "you can tune a piano, but you can't tune-a-fish" line, we'll be okay. You'd be surprised at how many times I hear that lame comment. I'd love to tune Hitchens' piano, but since he's in the D.C area, and I'm now thouroughly entrenced in the Portland, Maine area, I don't see that happening. Do you think he's a piano player?

114. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52561 by KRKBAB on June 27, 2007 at 9:34 am

Well SummerSeal, using the ugly American dumbed down expression of "bad guys" isn't exactly endearing to your ideas. I agree that islamic fundies have to be fought, and fought hard, but Iraq was not the place to go. We should be more deliberate in USA about the fight being against all religious fund. and not just islamic fund. though. BT Murtagh- maybe you don't get a party leaflet, but your intelligently over wordy responses make you sound like a "lefty" version of William Buckley (who, btw, I actually tuned his piano in Greenwich, CT. When he met me as I was leaving, while in his pajamas, gave me a huge tip! God bless his capitalist wallet!)

115. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52470 by KRKBAB on June 27, 2007 at 4:56 am

I can just hear them now:"and he frequently mis- spells words!"

116. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52468 by KRKBAB on June 27, 2007 at 4:50 am

I'm a pretty strong American leftist (and atheist), but not a "blind faith" leftist! I have finally come to the conclusion that as an atheist, I want to see the world as it really is- FILLED with extremely awe inspiring, beauty, and EXTREMELY horribly vile things. So; the wishy washy "can't we all just hold hands and sing" leftist ideal is no more correct than the moronic vision of the theists rosey clored glasses. I've got to agree with Hitchens (and SummerSeal) on the war. I HATE my current "commander in chief" and most of the entire administration. I don't even like the pretense of why we went into Iraq- BUT- whether we stay or pull out of Irag, it seems to be a wise move on par with the vision of reality we ateists are SUPPOSED TO HAVE, to fight fundamentalism (and yes, especially islamic fundies) with real life warfare (which should BY ALL MEANS also include non combative solutions). I'm getting tired of the apparent double standard of the "party line" leftist atheists: life is beautiful AND cruel, yet we need to be pacifists?!?!

117. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50819 by KRKBAB on June 20, 2007 at 4:48 am

goddidit-god of the gaps-goddidit-god of the gaps-goddidit-god of the gaps-goddi...That's mainly what I keep hearing from people interviewing the new atheists. They always think there asking such a profound question that's ACTUALLY going to trip up Dawkins! What happenned BEFORE the big bang smart guy? HUH? Well? What about THAT?!?! Sheesh, is this as far as we're going to get in the dialogue? Can't we have some even SLIGHTLY more challenging questions? A caller then states that it takes MORE faith to believe that god DOESN'T exist! WTF! Really! What kind of statement is that?

118. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47340 by KRKBAB on June 4, 2007 at 6:02 am

It seems to me that religion MAY be in it's death throes (perhaps wishology- hopeology). The STRONG resurgence in my country, the USA (can't you tell by all the miss-spellings!) seems to indicate that to me. Also, the gaining popularity of Buddhism in the west seems to me to be about people who have reduced the god of the gaps so much, yet they can't totally let go. The form of Buddhism in the USA seems like a minimalist form of it. Also, the profusion of all the new age wishy washy ambiguous thinking also seems to indicate a desire in society to shed the embarassments of old school dogmas with harder to dispute pseudo scientific crapola. (well, actually not that hard to dipute)

119. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46708 by KRKBAB on June 1, 2007 at 8:15 am

Spiritual truths?!?!?!? WTF?!?!?!? There are no "Spiritual Truths"! There are fictitious spiritual truths. I'ts sad to hear people spout so much rubbbish

120. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42722 by KRKBAB on May 19, 2007 at 7:09 am

Incidentally, I never got too far in my wicca searching, 'cause it seemed to get rediculous very fast from the outset. I was just pointing out how powerfully alluring the mystical aspects could be for some people (like myself), but DR BENWAY'S comment #42623 cuts right to the chase.
BTW, sorry about the typo, Dr Benway in my previous post (sats-says).

121. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42721 by KRKBAB on May 19, 2007 at 6:59 am

TUIBGUY- Yeah, that's right. Witches, not warlocks. I do remember something like that. I guess I'm trying to forget, though. Great sex?; great brain candy?- it just seemed liked GAMES for adults. Not at all what I was searching for. I wanted (and still want) truth. Solopsism, as DR BENWAY sats.
comment #42647 TURIEL hits the nail right on the head.

122. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42598 by KRKBAB on May 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm

About 12 years ago, I looked into wicca because I was very interested. I was still afraid to make the total dis-connect with the "majick" concept. The more I learned , the more it sounded like just another flavor of what I really wanted to leave in the first place on my way to becoming an Atheist. Also, being male, I would have had to call myself a "warlock". That's when the bullshit meter started smoking. Let's face it; the idea that majik, or the supernatural might exist is a VERY alluring prospect. I still to this day feel almost "dis-appointed" that I came to the obvious conclusion of there really being no chance of anything supernatural even being remotely possible. Being very environmentally concerned, the wicca/paganinism thing had been attractive to me. But after the smoke cleared, it seems like "believing in belief. Now, I'm really irritated when pagans or wiccans want to call themselves atheists. Maybe there technically right, but I think most people (at least on this site) want to also consider themselves full fledged sceptics (I do) when they use the term atheist. Also, it's kind of funny that you'll get all different spellings, complete with "real important sounding reasons" why the word magic, majik, majick should be spelled a certain way. It's basically like FANTASY-ITIS!

123. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41651 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 1:37 pm

CJ22- point WELL taken. Asking him to preach to his choir would leave us preaching to our choir. Not good. America should have a dialoge with Iran: atheists should communicate with theists. (related only in concept)I really don't like when theists cloak there messages in OVERLY wordy and intellectual emails designed to engage us in a wild goose chase. To engage in his comments is to validate his theist presumptions, unless I read into it too much. On another note- all the talk about whether R.D, S.H. or C.H. has the best style for the atheist argument: variety is a wonderful thing for getting out information to all segments of society. I happen to like all three, even though they all have their strong and weak points. Daniel Dennett's writings are not for me, but apparently a lot of people do take to his approach. The fact is, the more angles at which the pitfalls of faith can be brought into the public forum, the better. It clearly shows that atheism is finally becoming an engaging topic. I must be careful not to alienate the theists- especially the ones that speak with-out demonizing atheists.

124. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41589 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 11:18 am

DIANELOS GEORGOUDIS- We (atheists) don't give a flying *uck what "Christianity's official dogma" states, and as far as we're concerned, there is no "creator" of the world. By the way, Danielos, me thinks there is more than one world. Be gone and go preach to your choir. Since it appears you have lots of book knowledge and a decent vocabulary, your "choir" will be quite proud of you.

125. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41581 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 11:01 am

PHASMAGIGAS- I'm the only one in my "hood" to use a non-motorized "reel" style push lawnmower. I'm probably the only atheist in my neighborhood, too. Is there a connection?! maybe.
My neighbors are Jehovah's Wintnesses. There actually very nice neighbors. However, they once commented that they noticed how environmentally aware my wife and I were. Then they said they were "concerned" also, but that god ultimately was calling the shots or something to that effect. Yuk! What a horrible attitude. Nothing like passing the resposibility to a fictional entity. Plus, if the world is going to end- why bother taking care of it!?!?

126. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41450 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 6:17 am

Oh, phasmagigas- you make my blood boil- because you're RIGHT about American's bad habits- all of which I painfully witness every day (I'm an American). The irony of being an American is we mindlessly keep shouting the mantra:"Freedom, Freedom, Freedom...", yet most of us are like brainwashed robots all excercising the same bad habits. Of course the connection of this rant with the R.D. website is it seems to me to be the exact same way about American's over the top religiousness. A learned, un-questioned stamp on our logic centers! Why can we (Americans) so EASILY think out of the box on inventions yet not FAITH?!?!? Real Freedom to me means freedom of thinking, not freedom of gluttony!

127. Ape gestures 'show human links'

Comment #37335 by KRKBAB on May 4, 2007 at 5:50 am

Anybody thinking what I am with this article? I'm picturing that kooky Comfort guy in the now infamous "banana video" going thru all of his remarkable shenanigans with the atheists nightmare which I gather from another video which mocks the original that the banana Comfort "used" was a modern version of a wild banana cultivated by man. hmmm, cultivated by man...so perhaps man is god!?!?

128. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37183 by KRKBAB on May 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Thanks Fishpeddler. Did I write: "I don't type too fast"? ouch. that's pretty horrible grammer. guess I'm really exposed now as an American. Concerning the "debate",- fodder. But no press is bad press. Atheism is definately becoming "a" topic. No matter what type of coverage, it's still in the news and growing, how could it not! People are finally seeing the rediculousness (shit, no spell check) of faith.

129. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37171 by KRKBAB on May 3, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Hey Folks, this is my very first posting! I don't type too fast and I'm not totally up on computor lingo.
I read this site (site?) daily and I love it- solidarity, so to speak (even though a group of atheists is like "herding cats"). I've lived all of my 49 years, and 357 days in the USA. If I were a LITTLE younger and had better means, I'd become an ex-patriate and move to Canada or Northern Europe to feel a lttle more at home with like-minded people, but I think I'm going to tough it out here. The good news is, I "might" get to retire in France where my wfe is a native of. This is just an introductory posting, More from me later! Happy Universe