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

Comment #73310 by NormanDoering on September 24, 2007 at 5:01 pm

CHeard wrote:

I have a friend, a Christian (well, a heretical outlier, like me) psychologist, who is really impressed with something he calls "the hard problem of consciousness." I need to learn more about that.

The first hard problem is defining what you mean by "consciousness." You think the word "omnipotent" is fuzzy? Try defining consciousness.

If you're interested in the atheistic side of that question a good place to start might be with Marvin Minsky describing consciousness as a "suitcase term." Like intelligence, it's not a singular thing, it's a collection of introspective abilities:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/index.html

His book, "The Emotion Machine" is partially on his website:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky

The truth is that human beings are not as conscious as they like to think. People can't stop themselves from making up post-hoc explanations for whatever it was they had just done for unconscious reasons. Look into Michael Gazzaniga's research on split brains.

Consciousness is more the wagging tail, rather than the dog.

152. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73006 by NormanDoering on September 23, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Off topic -- Anyone who's able to organize research and interested in getting $700 from Jonathan Haidt? If so, click this link:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/who-wants-700-dollars-from-jonathan.html

I have 5 new moral categories.

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

Comment #72780 by NormanDoering on September 23, 2007 at 12:02 am

ergaster wrote:

...it wouldn't take that much of a nudge to let go of that "inspired" stuff.

Oh, yes it would. Revcort has to look death and hell in the eye and overcome his fear before he can even begin to think clearly about his religion.

As long as he fears hell, he's trapped within the prison of his own imagined fears.

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

Comment #72547 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm

walk wrote:

revcort said: "the only way to prove the Bible's reliability would [be] to study whether or not its claims are actually true".
Are you talking about the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, that kind of thing?

Flat Earth, mustard seed faith moving mountains, handling snakes and drinking poison, and so much more:

Joshua said that God would drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).

Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

Ezekiel chapter 26 predicts that during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar (Ez 26:7) that the city of Tyre will be UTTERLY DESTROYED, become a BARE ROCK (Ez 26:4; 26:14) and NEVER BE REBUILT (Ez 26:14; 26:21). The city was defeated in battle in 587 BC, during King Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but was NOT "utterly" destroyed and it was rebuilt. Today it has more than 20,000 inhabitants at the core of a metropolitan area of more than 100,000 people.

The original ruins were not even scraped clean and ancient ruins from all eras are preserved on both island and mainland portions and are popular tourist destinations. So the prophecy fails.

Even within Bible times, long after the battle described by Ezekiel, Tyre had already been rebuilt and, in New Testament times it is still portrayed as a CITY (Mark 3:8) and as a harbor where ships could unload (Acts 21:3,7).

In Matt 24:34 Jesus reportedly predicts that the end of the world and all the fantastic "signs" he describes will occur within the lifetimes of the "current generation" or those currently living at the time Jesus spoke those words. If there is any doubt, it is clarified with far greater specificity in I Thessalonians 4:15-17, that this refers to those contemporaneously living. Yet that generation died off and the second coming and all the signs and wonders of the end times have not been fulfilled and, like all previous generations, is still being waited for by our current generation.

Note: This isn't my research, it was hobbled to together from some other websites that I can't credit because I don't remember where I got it from. Try talkorigins and infidels for more.

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

Comment #72512 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 11:03 am

Robert Maynard wrote:

Who is they? Fish? revcort said humans are like fish (which are described as moving in a medium of 'sin') who have to become birds (which move in a medium of 'virtue').

At this point in an analogy so bizarre I think it's clear we are not talking about the actual animal kingdom. :P

Dude, take a chill pill. It was just a silly visual joke.

Dr Benway wrote: "Swimming fish turning into flying birds. I'd like to see that." Well, I can't really show that -- but I can show you something that looks like that.

Of course, revcort is not talking about the actual animal kingdom. He's just making arrogant claims to having more 'virtue' than normal, un-Christian people. Everything we do is sin, everything he does is virtue -- even if we're doing exactly the same thing as him.

I'm not crediting his analogy with anything more than that.

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

Comment #72507 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 10:35 am

Is a flying fish a bird, Norman?

No, not technically. But why would it need to be if it can fly without becoming a bird? revcort said they had to become birds -- obviously, they don't.

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

Comment #72493 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 9:25 am

Dr Benway wrote:

Swimming fish turning into flying birds. I'd like to see that. Wonder why I never have.

Obviously that's because you never googled flying fish and found a page like this:

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/flying-fish.html

or this:
http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/Images/flying_fish.gif

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

Comment #72485 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 8:57 am

revcort wrote:

...but my experience tells me something completely different.

What experience? You haven't described much personal experience -- you've mostly talked dogma. For example, this is dogma:

Regarding conversion to other religions... Well, from my viewpoint, these are false religions, so the question is moot. However, theoretically, the answer should be that genuine faith can't result from force. I mean, seriously, just because a muslim holds a gun to your head and says, "Say that Allah is god!" would saying that truly indicate that you believe in Allah? Absolutely not. Faith can't be forced. Of course, in my view, these other religions are worshiping demons, masquerading as gods.

Well, those Muslims believe enough to fly planes into buildings and become suicide bombers.

You've swallowed your religion whole from childhood on, just like the Muslim. How can you be sure you're not the one worshiping demons? Your God is pretty vain, murderous, insane and f#@ked-up from our perspective.

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

Comment #72457 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 6:54 am

revcort wrote:

It's all a part of God's plan- and His plan has to do with His glory.

And what do you know of God's plan? Just what you read in a flawed and contradictory old book?

And God is doing all this all for his own vanity (is there a difference between vanity and glory?)

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

Comment #72455 by NormanDoering on September 21, 2007 at 6:43 am

revcort wrote:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convert someone to Christianity by any human force that could be exerted.

So, you don't buy my explanation, that you're suckered in by hope and trapped by fear in world of emotionally loaded fantasy?

Would it also be impossible to convert someone to Islam by any human force that could be exerted? How about Buddhism? Hinduism? African tribal religions? Sikhism? Sufi? Jainism? Shinto? Zoroastrianism? Unitarian-Universalism? Scientology?

How do you explain all the other belief systems that are so similar to yours -- full of promise and threat. How did people get to believe them?

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

Comment #72334 by NormanDoering on September 20, 2007 at 6:55 pm

revcort wrote:

Love the title of that blog, by the way. It's sure to draw in all the people that you want to read it. You know, the ones who could really be "helped" by understanding how their minds are f'd. Seriously, you need to change your tactics if you truly want to help "christians" become freed from the way they're being deceived. :D

You're being deceived and you read it.

What do you think, the word hell and a cartoonish skull will scare them off? You're going to have walk into more fear than that before you're free. You believe in hell and your imagination has been loaded with imagining its horror.


Hope is only the bait. Fear is the Trap.

God has literally had to drag me away from these things. Early in my Christian life, there was much emotion and mysticism involved. I would go to a conference or get hyped up at some meeting where there was some worldly, emotion-packed music, and I would get all emotional and pumped. Yet, the high wouldn't last.

Your conviction lasted. Your fear of hell lasted. Your belief in God lasted.

However, over the last few years, since I truly believe that God has been changing me, there has been much less emotion, more reflection, more thinking, and MUCH less mysticism involved in it. There haven't been these emotional roller coasters than I once road with regularity. Now, I'm not saying there is nothing supernatural involved here. On the contrary, the change that God has brought forth in my life is truly astounding! Before, I always looked at sin as something that I would "prefer" to do but simply had to make myself avoid. Now, I'm beginning to truly see it for what it is and hate it. It's a completely different experience.

The quality of the experience isn't the issue. The issue is if you can imagine, comfortably, a world view without your faith. Or does that scare you? The emotion attached to your religious ideas doesn't have to be a roller coaster ride, it just has to be stronger than the emotion attached to the concepts and ideas in a more rational mind.

You do believe in demons. And I assume angels too.
You do believe that God is working changes in you (and you've always wanted him to).
You do believe miracles are possible.
You do not believe in evolution and you wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the ass.

But you don't think that what I have said: "You want to believe in a supernatural realm where your deepest desires might be fulfilled" applies to you.

Here's a test. Without quoting the Bible, is there really any good, rational, evidence in your own life that God is changing you and you're not just dreaming that up? Is there any good evidence that there are demons, angels and/or miracles? Or is your life, in spite of all your beliefs, just as mundane and normal as every other life around you?

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

Comment #72303 by NormanDoering on September 20, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Shaun, what you just said does not refute the possibility that people are healed. All it does, if I accept it all as true that is, is prove that medicine can often heal many of those same things. I have not denied that.

Yet, in the example I gave, no treatment had yet been given. The doctor offered only astonishment, and said he had no medical explanation. Call it what you will.

Let's call it your "god of the gaps theory."

A quote from my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html
For some people, once the Biblical seed of unreal hope and uncertain fear has been sown, a process of desire, expectation, and imagination begins in the hidden workings of the unconscious mind, in a secret world of mystical ideas, a world of ignorance and enormous possibility. The Bible reader begins to develop a murky image of his supernatural expectations and he seeks to clarify that image with further study. Instead of having his murky ideas clarified he is instead drawn further and further in to the trap. In time those things merely imagined, but still either feared or desired, may become part of our potential believer's reality map. The ideas are no longer just possibilities and speculations he entertains in his mind but are now 'real' to him. But 'real' only in the sense that they are emotionally loaded concepts that influence his desire and aversion behavior. The believer can no longer imagine, comfortably, a world view without his faith, his illusions. The emotion attached to these religious ideas is stronger than the emotion attached to the concepts and ideas in a more rational mind.

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

Comment #72275 by NormanDoering on September 20, 2007 at 3:56 pm

I asked revcort:

You think that if you have enough faith you can move a mountain or walk on water?

revcort answered:

Yes, but my faith is so small that I am not certain that would be possible for me- certainly not yet.

Why would your faith be so small?

What do you think faith is?

Is it like will power? Is it imagination? Is it trust?

Oh, and I can't think of any reason why God would want ME to walk on water,...

Maybe you just can't think.

I assume that when you say: "Anything is possible with God" that this would include things more practical than moving mountains or walking on water. It would include things like finding Osama bin Laden, curing cancer and maybe even talking with atheists and not sounding like a completely delusional nut-job while doing so.

I have a lot of "faith" in the fact that when we do find Osama it'll involve a lot of science, satellite imagery, spy-detectives in Pakistan and Afghanistan planting listening devices and all sorts of intelligence work. Same with cancer -- no faith caused miracles, just a lot of science that you'll never bother to understand.

How do you think we'll cure all the various forms of cancer - if we ever do?

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

Comment #72220 by NormanDoering on September 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm

revcort,

You seriously believe the whole Bible?

You think there are demons and Jesus can cast them into pigs and they'll drown themselves?

You think that if you have enough faith you can move a mountain or walk on water?

165. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71752 by NormanDoering on September 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm

marshall1 wrote:

Atheism, from what I can tell claims that there is NO GOD. Am I wrong about that?

Yes. You are very wrong. We don't say there is no god(s), no one can know that, we say we don't believe in god(s).

You probably don't understand how the human brain works. Read this:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

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

Comment #71403 by NormanDoering on September 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Most of you, as far as I can tell, seem to get how belief works -- but perhaps some of you might get some helpful insights from my new blog post:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

Here's a taste:

Another example, I once let my brother's young kids watch a horror movie marathon one Halloween night. Early on during the films they were cracking jokes about how improbable werewolves, demons and zombies were but by the time the films were over they were so terrified of the simplest things I could make them jump just by shouting "Boo!" I eventually found them hiding under the bed with trembling flashlights in their hands. It didn't matter how skeptical they were, the movies had loaded their imaginations with all sorts of frightening possibilities and those imagined possibilities trumped their skepticism. Loading your imagination is exactly what religious proselytizers are doing. Have you ever had one accuse you of lacking imagination? I have and I'm a professional artist working in fantasy and science fiction who relies on my imagination.

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

Comment #71356 by NormanDoering on September 18, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Well, John 1:18 has 496 syllables and John 21:1-23 has 496 words.

And 496 is a triangular number, and also a perfect number (like 6 and 28 are also perfect numbers)

Oh my God! Do you realize that 666, the number of the beast, is also a triangular number?

John is the beast!

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

Comment #71072 by NormanDoering on September 17, 2007 at 6:46 pm

revcort wrote:

God deserves our worship because He is God. He is not only Creator, He is Holy- transcendent, He is perfect, He is omnipotent, He is omniscient, and He has offered Christ on our behalf. That is why.

As a real, true Christian and Scott's man, revcort, can we please see you drink some hydrochloric acid and handle a cobra so we can be sure? According to Mark 16:17-18 believers will be given these signs of power: ...if they pick up snakes or drink any poison, they will not be harmed. You can put the video up on YouTube.

Also, when you burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, because it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9, do your neighbors ever complain? Do you smite them when they do?

Surely you must obey these things since they are the words of your perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God.

169. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70298 by NormanDoering on September 14, 2007 at 7:20 pm

...after all, how DOES a drug addict capture the "glimpse of transcendence" bestowed by a healthy dose of crack?

The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley is about his experiences with mescaline. And there's more than a "glimpse of transcendence."

Crack is just not a good psychedelic. If you want a religious experience, try LSD

170. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69985 by NormanDoering on September 13, 2007 at 1:57 pm

cryinryan wrote:

People, don't get your hopes up too much about her as an "out" atheist.

I've got two links at the end of my blog post that source Kathy saying: "My parents sent me to Catholic school, which only made me the vehement militant atheist that I am today."

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/kathy-griffin-we-love-ya.html

Was that just a joke?

171. Bible Belter

Comment #69749 by NormanDoering on September 12, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Lord Asriel asked Northern Bright:

was it this one?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1139,Hitchens-on-Falwell-Part-2,Hannity-and-Colmes-Fox-News

Hannity would probably turn me into a screaming asshole -- I cannot stand the guy. I'd forgive Hitch for going postal on Hannity.

172. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69699 by NormanDoering on September 12, 2007 at 8:56 am

Does anyone really believe that this kind of childish, petulant behaviour convinces anyone to be more rational?

Not all by itself. But what Kathy can do now is not buckle in to the Leagues intimidation. By standing up to them and in fact mocking them for trying to intimidate her she will show others they don't have to give in either.

And some comedians have done a lot to promote rational thought -- George Carlin for one.

173. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69690 by NormanDoering on September 12, 2007 at 8:04 am

Suck it, NormanDoering!

I read that, CJ22. Are you happy now?

174. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69615 by NormanDoering on September 11, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Yorker wrote:

Try some old-fashioned RBP Norman.

Read Before Posting sounds like good advice -- except generally only a few people here are worth reading, so I'll hit those first and maybe come back for more if I have time. If Robert Maynard and Celestial Teapot think Kathy Griffin is a waste of time then what is reading all this?

175. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69609 by NormanDoering on September 11, 2007 at 10:36 pm

js5535 asked:

Wasn't the Catholic League a military alliance from the 30 Years War?

Yes, it was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(German)

Certainly not to be confused with the Justice League where Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Batman and the Green Lantern used to hang out.

176. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69569 by NormanDoering on September 11, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Russell Blackford wrote:

I sent a supportive note to Griffin's agent.

Her agent? All I could find is her website and her blog.

And I too sent a note and posted a bit on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/kathy-griffin-we-love-ya.html

177. Bible Belter

Comment #69462 by NormanDoering on September 11, 2007 at 10:29 am

North Bright wrote:

...he was invited onto a TV programme with an opponent, not for a full-scale debate but for an interview led by the anchorman. Hitchens refused to shut up, refused to let the other side be heard, refused to stop even when specifically requested to do by the anchorman, basically heckled everything the other guy was trying to say and, because he was talking over both his opponent and the anchorman for extended periods of time, made it absolutely impossible for anyone to make out what was actually being said by anyone. When the anchorman asked him to stop, Hitchens replied "You can't invite me to be interviewed and then expect me not to talk." ....

I've never seen Hitch behave that badly. In fact sometimes I find him too polite and agreeing with things he shouldn't agree with.

In fact, the two times I've criticized Hitch on my blog it was for letting the theist get away with things that Hitch should not have let the theist get away with.

Hitch let David Allen White define "high art" in religious terms:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-great-art-in-our-brave-new.html

Hitch let Al Sharpton weasle out of defending the Bible:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/al-sharpton-admits-bible-is-bunch-of.html

178. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69452 by NormanDoering on September 11, 2007 at 9:41 am

Corylus wrote:

The analogy is between religion and fascism not god and fascism.

Right, the analogy to god would be Hitler or Benito Mussolini then.

Still the reason people can get away with the kind of bad arguments that are mocked in "Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'" is because we're being stuck with a bad frame.

I think we need to fight the frame that religionists are trying foist on us.

I wrote about it here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/thank-you-mother-teresa-youve-shown-me.html

179. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68976 by NormanDoering on September 9, 2007 at 11:18 am

PZ Myers posted this flea link on his blog:
http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/more_on_dawkins/#When:10:42:00Z

Here's a taste:

Only Dawkins, or perhaps his psychiatrist, can say why this subject seems to make him so angry; but he should be advised that the intemperate hostility he exhibits towards his subject is counterproductive. I'll eat my shiny peaked cap if this book persuades even the most hesitant half-Fascist to renounce his beliefs.

180. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68604 by NormanDoering on September 7, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Excuse me for going off topic, but would any readers here care to help answer some questions about what makes great art from an atheist point of view?

If so, go here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-great-art-in-our-brave-new.html

The context of the question is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White where I thought Hitchens agreed with too much of what White was saying. Mr. White said that great art needs a "higher vision," whatever that means (I think it's just code for great art should be religious/Christian). Hitch said, I think, that it should be transcendent (whatever that means).

I think the best art today is fairly realistic. And if these guys think it should be transcendent, then why aren't they reading a lot more science fiction?

181. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #67419 by NormanDoering on September 3, 2007 at 11:34 am

Well, this thread has drifted off topic...

If anyone is interested here are my thoughts on Mother T.:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/thank-you-mother-teresa-youve-shown-me.html

A sample:

...if Mother Teresa really doubted God's existence she would have necessarily started by doubting those people who were telling her about God. You can't get to atheism while still believing in people who send you to an exorcist. You might trust them to be honest about their own beliefs and experiences, but you can't think they got the interpretation right, you can't believe that they know anything about a God you don't believe in. You might experimentally try things like prayer and exorcism, but not the same people over and over when nothing is working. The great tragedy of Mother T. is that if she really doubted she might have sought help from a psychologist and found out she was clinically depressed and then have gotten real help.

The Time magazine article I read had said that only a couple of the letters can be interpreted as expressing doubt about God's existence. They really seem to be indicating a hunger for some experience within her.

182. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63255 by NormanDoering on August 13, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Cartomancer wrote:

Actually you do get vastly varied interpretations of Greek myth. Their flexibility is a big part of their enduring success.

You've got a good point there, but are the varied interpretations of Greek myth comparable to the great variety of Biblical interpretations we've got now?

For the last couple thousand years you've had Martin Luther, Calvin, Meister Eckhart, the modern Last Dayers, Thomas Aquinas, not to mention those named already by Tafarella: Harold Bloom, Northrop Frye, Frank Kermode, and Robert Alter.

They weren't doing it to make plays like Euripides did, the Christian believers are not suppose to have the same artistic license Euripides had and shouldn't take it -- but they do.

Maybe all I can say is that no one is seriously re-interpreting Greek myth to make it say what they want any more?

183. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63235 by NormanDoering on August 13, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Santi Tafarella wrote:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the above article. Like any piece of difficult literature, the Bible must be worked with and deciphered to be appreciated. ...

That's a fair point, but the people who work with the Bible are more often creating their own meaning rather than finding what was intended by the original writers. The motive for such biblical interpretation is to get people to think your thoughts are god endorsed. You won't see Greek mythology having so many different interpretations even though Greek myths are probably more deserving of them.

Superficially, the Bible seems rather unliterary, and a quick reading of a story or poem may leave one shrugging. But prominent literary critics (Harold Bloom, Northrop Frye, Frank Kermode, and Robert Alter among them) have all taken rewarding stabs at reading the Bible as literature.

There are still only a few biblical books they work with - Job, Psalms, etc.. Have any of them given the book of Numbers a rewarding interpretation?

184. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60604 by NormanDoering on August 2, 2007 at 11:56 am

I've already dealt with Vox Day:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/religions-war-on-science-part-1.html

He doesn't need to be read any more.

185. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60149 by NormanDoering on August 1, 2007 at 6:20 am

PZ Myers linked this article:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--vandalismquran0727jul27,0,6882662.story

It seems that the Koran in the toilet incidents were just part of a larger campaign to make Muslim students feel threatened. Only two sentences clue me in: "The incidents came amid a spate of vandalism cases with religious or racial overtones at the school... someone scrawled racial slurs on a student's car at the Westchester County satellite campus and on a bathroom wall at the campus in lower Manhattan."

Granting that Muslims viewing treatment of the Koran as a sensitive issue, viewing their "holy" book as a sacred object and seeing the mistreating of it as an offense against God boarders on being psychotic, but arresting someone for doing it in this instance is more akin to keeping people from throwing things at Gorillas in the zoo than enforcing thought crimes.

You shouldn't be blaming or provoking American Muslims for the action of a few nuts from a crazier than normal sect. That invites violence that doesn't have to be.

186. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56627 by NormanDoering on July 16, 2007 at 4:07 pm

fin wrote:

If you believe in god, you do not need to have absolute moral rules yourself because you can always ask god and s/he personally tells what to do.

Are you serious or joking? Are you talking from personal experience? God actually answers your questions?

If God told you to go kill children, would you do it?
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html

Or gay men?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4968717.html

Or your own son?
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030903.htm

187. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #56436 by NormanDoering on July 15, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Logicel wrote:

Wilson's last response was full-blown Christian preaching at its worse.

At its worst? Obviously you've not yet been introduced to Tristan J. Shuddery. Enlighten yourself here:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/blogospheres-most-pathetic-excuse-for.html

188. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56247 by NormanDoering on July 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

That sick joke is one that we can cease to find impressive, that belongs in the infancy of our species, and gives a false picture of reality that we would do well to outgrow.

Speaking of sick jokes we'd like to see outgrown by humanity... I'm having a little contest over at my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

Can you find a blogger that is more of an ignorant twit, more delusional, more lied to, more of pathetic excuse for a thinking human being than Tristan J. Shuddery?

Enter contest here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/blogospheres-most-pathetic-excuse-for.html

189. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55818 by NormanDoering on July 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm

SteveN wrote:

Sorry, but I think you might have misunderstood me.

That's quite possible. However, I'm wondering if you understand yourself. My conception of group selection started with an unorthodox source: "The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History" by Howard Bloom.

Here are two sample chapters:
http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/excerpt1.html
http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/excerpt2.html

190. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55808 by NormanDoering on July 12, 2007 at 12:27 pm

SteveN wrote:

My own opinion is that unless data from some real observations or experiments can be better explained by group selection than by 'selfish genes', the hypothesis just adds an unnecessary layer of complication.

Whoa... genes can't explain something like the difference between Christianity and Jainism -- that's memetic, not genetic. You don't genetically inherit your religion (I assume - maybe that should be tested).

Genes could be entirely selfish (but they're probably not, just mostly selfish) and you could still get group selection with "memes."

The conflict is artificial.

191. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55607 by NormanDoering on July 11, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I've got a blog post on it here: http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/atheist-vs-atheist.html

A little taste:

Mr. Wilson is also taking money from the Templeton Foundation. This fact might distort Mr. Wilson's conclusions. Just because religion is adaptive doesn't mean it is good for us. If it really is putting blinders on delusional believers then they'll suffer too for their lack of contact with, and understanding of, the real world. Truth matters and the Templeton Foundation is committed to finding some kind of metaphysical truth in religion. Remember what kind of world we are adapting to, a world of continual war and predation.

192. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54650 by NormanDoering on July 8, 2007 at 11:08 am

darwin2 wrote:

If consciousness survives death, ... I do not ignore neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Both fit perfectly with my belief in the existence, survival and growth of our eternal souls.

If you think neuroscience and artificial intelligence fit with a belief that consciousness survives death, then you've been seriously lied to about neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

193. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54353 by NormanDoering on July 6, 2007 at 1:22 pm

darwin2 wrote:

The god of the Bible is anthropomorphic and is an insult to the One true God who is infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just. I find the supernatural dogmas of organized religion to be pathetic, superstitious, evil and illogical.

Are not "knowing" "loving," "merciful" and "perfectly just" also anthropomorphic terms? They're mentally anthropomorphic.

One of the sciences you seem to be ignoring is neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

194. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54147 by NormanDoering on July 5, 2007 at 4:03 pm

"Sir, you have equivocated the meaning of the term as I used it with the way you wish to use it, and that is devious and fallacious. As I intended the title, it was to be a clear statement about the god people profess to believe in (hence the uncapitalization). So if you think the book was about disproving the existence of "God" independently of its believers, you're wrong... it is simply about showing that the so-called "God" of believers is not great at all."

No, it's not just you imagining things. I would agree, well said.

However, if you want to say it more simply and provocatively, in a way that more people can understand, click this link:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/al-sharpton-admits-bible-is-bunch-of.html

195. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53828 by NormanDoering on July 3, 2007 at 12:34 pm

darwin2 wrote:

Science has helped me acquire a greater appreciation of God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists.

Oh really? Sounds like a load of BS to me (just like it did when Sharpton said it).

Would you care to elaborate on how science has given you more of an "appreciation of God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists"?

196. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53643 by NormanDoering on July 2, 2007 at 11:38 am

If you would like to see a search for the name "Al Sharpton" turn up the phrase: "Al Sharpton admits the Bible is a bunch of crap" on Google, then the next time you use the name "Al Sharpton" make it a link to my blog post here:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/al-sharpton-admits-bible-is-bunch-of.html

Or, write your own Sharpton blog with a similar title and I'll link you.

197. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53413 by NormanDoering on July 1, 2007 at 10:52 am

keith wrote:

... reason Sharpton keeps accusing Hitchens of attacking religion rather than god is that Hitchens' book is Called God is not Great so he should give reasons for saying so. Yet since Hitchens doesn't believe in god, it is clear to anyone with a little wit that he is really criticising religion, not god.

Yes, Hitchens was really criticising religion, not god. He was anti-Bible (recall his take on the ten commandments) and Sharpton backed off into a deist position and did not defend the Bible. I wonder why Hitch didn't point that out and ask Sharpton, "are you a deist or a Christian?" If Sharpton isn't going to defend the Bible, then where does he get his vision of what God is?

I'm somewhat agnostic about some kind of "intelligence" underlying creation. But any assertion beyond "maybe there was an intelligence that designed the universe" requires evidence, and that's where all religions goes awry.

I would reject the "God is the force that created the universe," as a proper definition of God. It doesn't define God. It could be Einstein's God. That definition is too minimal to mean anything religious and can't be argued with, we can only argue against the mentally anthropic projections people put on the cause of the universe, those assumptions that some entity "desired," "planned," "wanted," "willed," and "designed" this universe.

Hitch should just say "yes, I'm arguing against religion not God. Are you or are you not religious? What is religion to you any way?"

198. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52612 by NormanDoering on June 27, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Tumara Baap wrote:

A refrain from The Times to The New Yorker has been that [skeptics] fail to mention any good that ever flowed from [witchcraft]. It is an odd point to take given the burden of proof expected by any reasonable person. Given how entwined [witchcraft] has been with culture and the passage of history, according goodness to [witchcraft] is as forceful as linking goodness to language: not undeniable but risibly weak. For a purportedly frighteningly powerful force that pretends to aspire to at least some good, it should have consistently ranked at the apex of benevolence. Yet [witchcraft's] track record has been wantonly shameful. What should be of interest to us is whether [witchcraft] affords an exclusive province to serving a thinking society with both honesty and sublime guidance, beyond what it plausibly may have in asserting marginal social order over a medieval people.

What you seem to be talking about is "social capital." That is one thing Christians will claim to have provided with their supposed "honesty and sublime guidance." We don't really get the witch's viewpoint because the church controlled the reports. Witchcraft for those who thought of themselves as witches, was what was left of the older pagan religions which certainly did provide ancient communities with social capital. By the time of their burning and hanging they had become socially disengaged loners.

In some ways they suffered the fate of anyone outside the community's belief standards -- just like atheists today:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/numbers-ive-got-good-news-and-bad.html

199. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50570 by NormanDoering on June 18, 2007 at 8:01 pm

If anyone is interested:

The debate over here, between Hedges and Harris fans, is a bit more heated and aside from me, who isn't giving it much time and I'm feeling overwhelmed, the atheist representation is minor and poor -- some kid who just insults and doesn't read other's posts:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070523_chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/

And I've got a blog post here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/chris-hedges-new-face-of-anti-atheism.html

Sample:
"...with enemies like Chris Hedges you don't need friends."

200. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49582 by NormanDoering on June 12, 2007 at 12:43 pm

domini1018 wrote:
"I forget what a beautiful piece of human literature the Bible really is."

I prefer William S. Burroughs "Naked Lunch" when I'm in the mood for getting into the heads of the delusional.