1551. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12602 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 6:24 pm

...Cliff Richard believes in God, and has had more than a dozen No. 1 hits in a pop career that has lasted nearly half a century.
_______

Hmmm, god botherers believe in Mephistopheles also--did Richard make a Faustian pact?

Very funny satire!

1552. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12598 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:35 pm

He is the un-Whitehead, a man who will never (barring divine intervention) appreciate this sublime comment by my philosophical mentor: "In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feeling, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."
______

Dastardly Dawkins, abominably 'un-Whitehead', keeps on insisting being himself--a man who uses all of his being, his energy, his time so we do not have to grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions. Wait a minute, does that mean Dawkins is more Whiteheadish then Whitehead himself?

1553. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12596 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:15 pm

...including numerous quotes from that popular author, atheist, and graduate student, Sam Harris.
_____

A graduate student of what discipline and from what university and at what level?

Per Harris' bio at his site: He is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University and has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. Mr. Harris is now completing a doctorate in neuroscience.

1554. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12593 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:07 pm

(The depth of Dawkins' political thought is shown by his failure to ponder for one second the implications of a government that can tell parents what beliefs they can and cannot transmit to their offspring.)
______

Again, science and critical thinking are not beliefs, based on faith. One of Dawkin's commandments is to encourage your child to disagree with you.

I once said this to an elderly lady with 4 grown children, and she said, well, in that case I would not have had any children.

Children are not parental property, they are full fledged human beings, and their marvelous mental capacities need to be encouraged and nourished by their caretakers, and not stifled.

1555. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12592 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:00 pm

how religious beliefs are given undue social deference, why Einstein's references to God aren't religious, why eastern religions aren't religions, why religion developed (socio-biologically), how the Bible is a jumble of historical trash, how religion promotes intolerance and undermines science, how Hitler may have been Catholic, why Stalin's atheism doesn't matter, why society doesn't need religion to be moral, why Jefferson was probably an atheist (the non-mentioned God-statements on the Jefferson Memorial to the contrary notwithstanding), why studying religion to understand literary references is okay, and why parents indoctrinating their children with religious beliefs are guilty of child abuse.
_______

Such fluff Dawkins concerns himself with--did he actually fill up an entire book with these unimportant points?

1556. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12591 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:55 pm

To simplify, both the Reformation and modern science arose out of a "movement of thought" that, in the case of science, rebelled against final causes. Yet, ironically, the confidence that modern science displays in its intellectual project rests upon an unconscious faith in the universe's detailed rationality that was derived from medieval theology.

Don't look for anything like this kind of subtle analysis in The God Delusion.
______

Wonder if Kirk could also appreciate the 'subtle' irony of evolution giving us brains so we can imagine and increase our understanding of the natural world, and then we just go along and diss the importance of evolution anyway?

_______

1557. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12589 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:48 pm

I do not think...that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope.... My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivation from medieval theology.
________

Since Kirk has been so intellectually dishonest concerning the focus of TGD, and since I have not read any original writings of Alfred North Whitehead, I cannot know at this point if Kirk has taken his words out of context also.

But as the quote in itself reads, this what I can make out: human curiousity--that evolution has shaped so we can survive by asking questions and solving problems--is not the reason why science has advanced. It has advanced because of 'faith' in the possibility of science which has been given to us 'unconsciously' from medieval theology. If it is unconscious then how can Whitehead know about it?

1558. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12583 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:23 pm

15. Comment #12579 by prelevent on December 12, 2006 at 3:56 pm

Just a little clear up. When I say, "I see relatively little substantial difference between the two quotes" I mean to say that they are several hundred years removed from each other, but that the central "awe" is found in both. One comes with several hundred years of refinement though... and this means that the other lacks the new framework with which to approach that awe.
_________

Unlike Pascal, Kirk in living at present, so what is his excuse to choose to blind himself to a few centuries of scientific achievment that has occurred since Pascal died?

1559. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12580 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:57 pm

In short, it is the greatest sensible mark of the almighty power of God that imagination loses itself in that thought.
________

Though I agree with prevlevent's post, about how this pascal quote actually does show an affinity with Dawkin's and Sagan's awe of the beauty and immenseness of the natural world, Kirk is using that viewpoint in his unrigorous way to say that one cannot question this sublimeness, and certainly not in a tendentious manner, by pointing out evidence supporting the improbability of a God just because of this immenseness that we must all just worship.

1560. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12576 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:47 pm

As trite and useless as this kind of writing is, I do think it is important to include this type here. In researching Jung on the net, I came across a reference to this article on a blog called repaired reason--just check out that blog to see how much bile against Dawkins is being released because of this spineless mush.

1561. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12571 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:39 pm

I, too, my dear Kirk, am bemused why Dawkins did not fill every page in his TGD with more writings by Pascal. Does Dawkins think that he can write what he decides to in his own words in his own book? What a charlatan Dawkins is! Why does he not become besotted with Pascal and write much more about him? I mean after all, one can never get enough of Pascal, since his original writings were so meagre.

(yes, I am being sarcastic, of course)

1562. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12569 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:34 pm

In Pascal's words, "The whole visible world is only an imperceptible atom in the ample bosom of nature. No idea approaches it. We may enlarge our conceptions beyond all imaginable space; we only produce atoms in comparison with the reality of things. It is an infinite sphere, the center of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere. In short, it is the greatest sensible mark of the almighty power of God that imagination loses itself in that thought."
______

Oh right Kirk, that is so much stronger than Pascal's wager.

1563. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12566 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:28 pm

"Dawkins' treatment of that mathematical genius and 17th century philosopher, Blaise Pascal, is typical of his general approach. Dawkins seizes on Pascal's weakest argument, the wager, and ridicules its obvious flaws."
_____

Despite that arguement of Pascal's being weak, it is still commonly presented as a reason that one may just as well believe as not to (speaking of lack of rigor). Is it Dawkin's fault that such weak arguements are embraced and used with sickening repetition? Should he then not focus on dismantling the weakness of that wager just because it is weak?

1564. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12556 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:00 pm

"This lameness, I should add, comports nicely with the pleasure-based ethical system to which Dawkins appeals with no particular rigor."
________

Dawkins respects other individuals to decide what gives them pleasure, he does not tell others what is ethical or not regarding that subject other than listing his four commandments (p 264):

1) Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

2) Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.

3) Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.

4) Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.

Though Dawkins has thoughtfully compiled a useful guideline to which we can all refer, the 'rigor' in which we apply these principles are our own business and our own choice.

1565. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12548 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Re: comment 12266 by seals

"but would it necessarily follow that, having lived a full lifespan, we should still see death as being "not right"
_________

I had read awhile back that grandparents significantly increase the chances that their grandchildren will not only survive but thrive if they are alive and can contribute to their grandchildren's upbringing and care.

1566. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12496 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:40 am

Also, thanks, Josh, for the editing/delete feature for our posts after we publish them that was started awhile back.

1567. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12495 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:38 am

BTW, Yorker, have you notice the clever addition of the troll,spam, and offensive flags at the bottom of our posts? I had a delirously delightful time this morning 'detrollizing' the thread for the Dawkins debate with Casey on Kenny's show from last night. For a belly laugh, just read that segregated troll list of comments at that thread (just above the beginning of the thread of comments you will see 'view the troll comment thread').

We'll see how it works out, but this may be the ticket to providing a supportive environment for decent discussion and not be elitist or divisive. I think it is just brilliant.

Thanks, Josh, for this great feature!

1568. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12492 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:19 am

Yorker, I lived and worked in Great Britain for around four years, and I did enjoy shows starring Fry very much at that time. I have lived in Europe for around the last 15 years, in France at present. I enjoy The Guignols here in France very much--great satire.

1569. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12475 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:39 am

During the light-hearted banter, RD was able to elaborate some very important points, especially regarding labeling children as being members of various faiths as constituting child abuse. The power of humor when it relaxes and gives pleasure must not be underestimated in its prowess as an educating tool. Why can't we have fun while we are learning?

It was interesting to hear the audience's reaction to certain of his comments, as if they were shocked to hear such honesty and forthrightness regarding the sacred cow of religion--the cow that says it is beyond rational criticism. The initial shock quickly wore off and was replaced with appreciative applause.

It was a treat seeing young people enjoying themselves, and also a very special treat seeing RD not only adding to the merriment but having fun himself.

I appreciated that charming, young man on the extreme right saying that evolution has been good to us, and despite that, we deny its existence!

The Irish can be so witty and charming.

1570. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12449 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:05 am

I thank god that Noah and his folks had terrible head colds with pronounced nasal congestion and could not smell, else Noah would have passed out from the pervasive aromatic richness of the ark's interior during those long days and nights, and not been able to do god's will and I would not be here!

1571. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12445 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 2:51 am

84. Comment #12372 by BandonD on December 11, 2006 at 3:54 pm

This website is similar to the video. It took me months to realise it was a joke.

http://objectiveministries.org/

_______

Thank you so much for that link, it is now duly bookmarked. Wow! hysterically and brilliantly satirical.

1572. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12426 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 1:18 am

188. Comment #12422 by Niels Thorsen on December 11, 2006 at 10:52 pm

It's agonizingly obvious that the message must be simplified by several orders of magnitude if it is ever going to get through to the masses.
_________

I do agree with you that the atheistic presentation needs to be powerfully penetrating in its clarity, and that this challenge increases tremendously when the atheistic viewpoint is presented in certain venues. However, I do not think that in such presentations the atheist should ever stoop to the level of her/his opposition and take the easy way out.

Educating is never easy to do as brainwashing is because brainwashing is involved in the lazy business of spreading existing and very potent memes. Obviously, atheistic presentations will be nitpicked over and over and over again, simply because the substance of it cannot be. This approach is used here at this site during discussion threads. Various and ineffective tricks are used like being silly, focusing on misspellings, introducing discord by dwelling on nationality differences, and even more pathetically slowing down the discussion by having a poster on your god team to sow miscontent with our 'God' Dawkins because he has not deconverted millions in a blink of an eye.

Faith is not far simpler and therefore easy to understand. It is impossible to understand for it has nothing related to understanding as it stridently asks you to suspend understanding. Critically thinking is not impossible for the masses to do. We, as a species have been doing it for ages, and all of us, including the god botherers, do at least a little bit of it each and every day. Regardless of IQ--whatever that does measure--most of us can be taught how to think critically and to hone continually such mental skills. Our public school systems do not focus on developing and sustaining critical thinking. Why?

I agree wholeheartedly with RD in TGD when he wrote that he finds it condescending and patronizing when god apologists say and I am paraphasing here, give the poor deluded creatures a bone to chew on as they are not capable of doing anything else.

As evolution slowly climbed Mount Improbable, and gave our world diversity and complexity out of simplicity, atheists armed with critical thinking and compassion for their fellow humans will slowly and surely--as they are ably doing at present--climb a similar Mount Improbable in the god botherers' realm and achieve our goal via the gradual and steady attrition from blind belief to rational thinking. The scientific advances in neuroscience, brain fitness, and evolutionary psychology which are increasing our understanding of cognitive thinking and how to improve it will help in this regard also.

The tide has turned, and this tide is powerful and effective.

1573. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12403 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Oh my, Vardu, godisshabby, I really like that one! Cutesy and all. Thanks.

My comment No. 110 responded to your musing about the connection of our fear of death and the invention of an afterlife--it is somewhat buried in the slush of posts on this thread, and I really would like your feedback on it.

Time for beddie bye, good night.

1574. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12398 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:48 pm

Vardu, TGD was/is a joy to read from start to finish.

1575. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12395 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:36 pm

137. Comment #12352 by Algebratheist on December 11, 2006 at 3:38 pm

logicel, in the God Delusion he calls it Einsteinian Pantheism (p.19) and says "pantheism is sexed-up atheism" (p.18)
_____

Thanks, Algebratheist. Here's the excerpt that includes deism also: Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

1576. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12376 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:02 pm

126. Comment #12340 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 3:20 pm/Logicel: I have often wondered to what extent man's deep psychological need for security and self-preservation has played in the invention of God and the notion of life after death.
_________

Pascal Boyer, the anthropologist, when he was interviewed by J. Miller on one those tapes on youtube, said that primitive religions do not have a focus on afterlife. If I remember correctly, those religions focused more about tribal power and control of the tribal members.

Why do the world's 3 'great' religions have this focus on an afterlife? Perhaps, the degree of civilization is the link. In highly structured societies comprising of people that are not just your kin, in order to control these masses, you need a bigger wallop to pack, like the burning pit of hell to control their behavior.

If we were able to provide death with dignity, and aid our fellow humans in dying without pain, I think that much of the fear would be removed. Not surprisingly, the supporters of religious superstitions certainly are frightened of this possibility and are doing their best to prevent it from becoming a reality for us all in our time of need, when our death approaches.

As RD said in TGD, humans refuse this decency to only their own species, while they shower 'the milk of kindness' upon other species, like dogs, horses, cats, etc.

RD in TGD quoted some clever person--whose name I cannot remember--as saying, since he did not feel anything prior to his birth and did not have a craving to be born, then once he is dead, he will not miss life, and there is no pain. It is the dying that needs to be addressed much better than it has been in human history.

1577. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12357 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 3:41 pm

I read a long time ago, that the dissection of Einstein's brain revealed a pronounced and strikingly uncommon development of the corpus callosum, the connecting fibers between the two hemispheres. So Einstein's formidable brain was firing on two cylinders.

1578. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12349 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 3:32 pm

Algebratheist, Dawkins referred to that as deism, an appreciation and awe of the wonder of the natural universe. If you check out Jonathan Miller's "In a Shadow of a Doubt" on youtube, you will see a very interesting history of atheism, with a nice focus on deism. It is suspected that deists were often atheists, but had to avoid that label, as being atheist until rather recently was not appreciated.

I also recommend seeing the other Miller's tapes, Noughts and Crosses and The Atheist tapes--all excellent.

1579. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12332 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 2:58 pm

60. Comment #12266 by seals on December 11, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Having said that, although the afterlife sounds an interesting idea, if it doesn't exist, there is nothing to regret. It's dying, not death, which is the problem!

___________

RD says in TGD the religious minions are the ones that seem to postpone dying as long as they can. They are against hastening death in terminally ill patients. Dawkins wondered if this reluctance meant that they were really frightened of what was waiting for them after death. While atheists champion dying with dignity. As RD said in TGD, these so-called compassionate supporters of religious superstitions support suffering and pain.

1580. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12293 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:57 pm

I agree, Frans. Thanks.

1581. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12288 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:52 pm

good stuff, thanks Vardu.

1582. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12280 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:40 pm

Vardu, unlike godisawhitethinwafer (though I do like your godismyshoddy), I am reading your posts with interest.

1583. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12274 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:37 pm

No.63. Your making me laugh so hard hence my saying that you must love atheists--you are giving one great joy and pleasure. If my posts are giving you as much joy and laughter, then I am per my definition a lover of a supporter of religious superstitions but not a lover of Jesus.

1584. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12268 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:30 pm

hotandspicymeltdown loves atheists.

1585. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12259 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:21 pm

No. 53/He's slipping a bit I think, it annoys me when he's slack and allows people to pics obvious holes. He needs to be water-tight.
__________

Thanks for the belly laugh. I would adore to be slack as you regard RD as being!!!!!!!!!

All RD needs to do is to continue the excellent work that he does.

If it annoys you that he is not water-tight then why don't you stick a pin in yourself and let out some of the putrid pool of nonesense in which you have been drowning per your last several posts. I think the stagnate water is pressing on your nerves and causing the annoyance.

"pics?" In your case use a 'icepic' in bursting your sac of putrid nonsense

1586. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12251 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 12:45 pm

No. 43/Doesn't one have a right to be wrong?
_________

Huh?

A scientist who is wrong does not practice correct science.

A medical doctor who is wrong and causes harm is liable--his defense is not that he has a right to be wrong.

1587. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12248 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 12:38 pm

No. 43/I think there's a real problem with atheism today (and this forum stinks of it) - we are arrogant. A bit of humility goes a long way and Dawkins lacks it.
________

I want to see less of humility in the atheistic camp. The theistic side is welcome to wallow in it. Not everyone sees humility as virtuous and not certainly the false humility that the supporters of religious superstitions carry with such overweening pride.

1588. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12218 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 9:57 am

Billy Sands comment #75

I appreciate your adding the 'burnt offering' of George Clooney for us ladies.

1589. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12211 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 9:27 am

Yorker, your comment no. 70 was deeply moving, thank you so much for that truly human reply.

My response to that idiotic question (what would I do if the personal God that so many sheeple worship based on faith and under so many varied flavors and guises in this world confronts me with his pathetic existence after I die), is:

I would insist that I burn in Hell for eternity. I and others, like Yorker, would figure out a way to cope with the atrocious global(?) warming down in hell, continue to solve various problems, and have a fulfilling existence in hell, just like we have had here on earth. Most of my loved ones would be in hell with me, and I would meet many more wonderful and interesting ghouls down there--I don't know what word to use, I mean, I will be cremated also so God need not worry about burning me to a crisp again!

I think it is very positive that there are threads that deal with what atheists think about dying, funerals, memorials, and disposal of remains.

1590. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12172 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:19 am

22. Comment #12167 by Seti on December 11, 2006 at 3:53 am

@ point 4 (above) I suspect atheists are perceived as "condescending" because somewhere in the brains of theists is the recognition that they are talking utter codswallop, and atheists call them on this. The cognitive disonnance between what their reason tells them and what they insist on trying to beleive must be quite painful, hence their panic and anger at anyone who increases the disonnance by attempting to add to the rational side.
_________

Thanks for such a thoughtful post. I would imagine that increasingly popular cognitive imagery exercises which increase the strength and focus of our cognitive function, would cause a splitting migraine in those infected with the religious virus.

And thanks for posting the videos. I would suggest that when posters to this site have an extra 10 minutes here and there, check out both google and youtube for videos to watch concering the challenging of religious superstitions. Just key in atheism or other relevant keywords. Some very hardworking atheists are downloading wonderful stuff.

1591. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12164 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 3:09 am

17. Comment #12161 by mundi luminar on December 11, 2006 at 1:59 am

Truly embarrassing, frustrating and disappointing non-debate. Apologies from an Irish person to all rational thinkers.
_________

Believers of religious superstitions are everywhere, in every country on earth.

Dawkins has repeatedly focused on how it is the so-called moderate segment of supporters of religious superstitions that are the problem, in the sense that they encourage the suspension of critical thinking in favor of faith. That red, long-haired guy in the audience, to me, puts that danger in the flesh: just watch how that moderate and tolerate guy's anger flashpoint was feverishly rising towards the end of his boorish rant.

Believers of religious superstitions will and can --I have no need or desire to make them not believe--continue to believe, but no longer can they do it in front of a silent and acquiescent me. No longer can they bath in the light of their virtuous--and virtual--ignorance, and expect me to agree that their faith, and lack of critical thinking, is admirable or virtuous. Now, these very same supporters of religious superstitions may very well have other admirable qualities, but their insistence that since science cannot answer all questions, and may never be able to at least in their lifetimes, and that since they need to believe in religious superstitions to find purpose, deal with death, and be good, does not make religious superstitions anything else then what they are--very unadmirable bunk.

1592. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12162 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 2:43 am

16. Comment #12160 by kinvara on December 11, 2006 at 1:42 am/"Pat Kenny maybe be wooden, but he seemed to be one of the few in the studio who could (or wanted to) understand Richards points rationally."
__________

I was also satisfied with how Kenny hosted--pretty impressive to manage fielding live audience questions and statements while interviewing two guests of opposing viewpoints within scheduled time limits.

Alien life has been given a bum rap because of all the irrationality associated with it--abductions, abundantly outrageous anthromorphic depictions of such aliens, fear of the bogie man, the subsitution of alien life for the communistic threat prevalent during the fifties and early sixties, etc.

As usual Dawkins, has cemented his committment to being open minded and dealing with statistical probability by emphasizing since we now know that there are countless galaxies that the probability of alien life is higher than the probability of our lowly imaginary sky buddy. Kudos, Richard!

I was unable to make out Casey's points, except perhaps that he thought Dawkins was silly in thinking that the highly misrepresented 'alien' life was more probable than the earthling's sky buddy, and that his reconversion back to theism is some kind of evidence that atheism is wrong. His style was odd--staccato and thoughtless, like an infocommercial's sound bites.

1593. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12158 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:29 am

Nardo, and to others whose messages have disappeared, this may be the login timeout problem that Yorker has discussed in a prior thread: you can use the go back feature on your browser to get back to your original entry window, copy the text, re-login to this site, and paste that text in a new message window.

1594. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12156 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:02 am

John Phillips, Yorker, and Billy, the login timeout just happened to me when I tried to post the above quote. I simply use my browser back function and got to the entry window, copied it, and then logged in to this site, and then pasted it.

1595. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12155 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 12:59 am

Yorker, I did some research, and did find one online source that agrees with you about James Oberg as the author of the open mind/brain falls out quote. However, when I noted that Wikiquote (Wikipedia where I am an editor) has it unattributed, I decided to do more research, and I came up with this one:

Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or may be found a little draughty.
Samuel Butler

Sure looks like that this meme has several variations and several editors! My research also came up with attributions of versions of this quote to Sulzberger and Camille Cracciola.

So at the moment I am in quandary on how to edit the Wikiquote entry for this--I would certainly like to attribute it to someone!

1596. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12110 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 3:56 pm

I really appreciated RD saying in TGD that there is only good and bad medicine--medicine that either works or do not (and not mainstream versus alternative).

Also in the Beyond Belief videos (check them out on youtube) someone mentioned that medical doctors have a lower proportion of atheists than other sciences, because they have to deal with death so intimately, and have to inform relatives and loved ones of the death of their patient. Belief in afterlife is used to soften the pain of losing a loved one.

1597. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12108 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 3:51 pm

55. Comment #12101 by Jared on December 10, 2006 at 3:27 pm/"People who believe in Chopra...well, that's all down to choice! Scary indeed."
_________

Critical thinking is not taught in grammar and even in high schools. So when these students become adults, they replace the religious superstitions that their parents foisted on them with others of their 'choice.'

1598. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12104 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 3:34 pm

51. Comment #12087 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 12:03 pm/I think that the number of Jesus freaks in your country has caused another group of fundamentalists to arise as a counter force."
_____________

Many countries besides the U.S. contain fundamentalists of varying religious superstitions, and not just Xian religious superstitions. Atheists are concerned about all religious superstitions. RD made the point in TGD that moderate believers of religious superstitions provide a safe haven for the radical and truly rabid forms, allowing them to sprout and flourish.

1599. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12094 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 2:19 pm

51. Comment #12087 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 12:03 pm/Both of these groups exaggerate what they know and they need to be reminded of Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum". The real point of Descartes' statement isn't that it's a fact, but that it's the ONLY fact.
__________

Jonathan Miller's Shadow of a Doubt and The Atheist tapes and Nought and Crosses are all now downloaded on Youtube. Many hardworking atheists are making available great videos presenting the atheistic view--just go to youtube and search for atheism.

In Miller's Shadow of a doubt, he discusses how thinking and believing are not equivalent.

I think therefore I am is not equivalent to I believe therefore I am.

1600. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12091 by Logicel on December 10, 2006 at 1:59 pm

51. Comment #12087 by ei muista on December 10, 2006 at 12:03 pm/"...there is little intellectual open-mindedness.
_____________

Paraphasing some clever person--can't recall the name at the moment--who once said open-mindedness is fine unless your mind is so open your brain falls out.